[order66.exe]

The top 3 contenders actually remind me a little of the top 3 commiecrat contenders for their ‘08 nomination.

There’s an African-American who has very little political experience, but articulates broad ideas that endear him to the party base. For them, Barack Obama, for us, Herman Cain.

There’s a really smart figure best known for their role in the 1990’s, but who carries a lot of political baggage. For them, Hillary Clinton, for us, Newt Gingrich.

There’s a creepy, plastic guy from a state generally associated with the other party, who insists that he’s the most electable but seems extremely untrustworthy. For them, John Edwards, for us, Mitt Romney.

The commiecrats nominated Obama, but I get the feeling that they wish they would’ve nominated Hillary and are very glad they didn’t nominate Edwards. I wonder what we’ll wind up doing?

[jjsheridan5]

There’s an African-American who has very little political experience, but articulates broad ideas that endear him to the party base. For them, Barack Obama, for us, Herman Cain.

Any notion that Herman Cain is "our" Barack Obama is ludicrous. Herman Cain's resume dwarfs 99.9% of the US population. Barack Obama's resume would fit on a post-it note (with room to spare). Barack Obama has been an affirmative action success story -- given everything by virtue of the color of his skin, and proven himself to be unworthy. Herman Cain, by contrast, has proven himself every step of the way, and been an American success story.

I don't mean to be ornery, but statements implying that they are in any way similar are insulting to anyone who values what America is really all about.