Friday, April 4, 2008


First off, any Democrat would make a better president than George W. Bush, but that's not saying much. A shoehorn would make a better president. A shoehorn wouldn't lie to us, drag us into war, bankrupt us, whittle away our civil liberties, award no-contest contracts to friends, and continually dick us over while wearing a smug arrogant smirk.

Bush is the worst president I can remember, and that includes Republican crook "Tricky Dick" Nixon. If the Democrats can't win this time, they should cash in their chips and permanently retire to Loserville.

That being said, I'm ticked off with the Hillary camp. We received a group email from a Hillary supporter yesterday filled with the same old talking points warning us against smooth-talking, hope-inspiring Obama. He's all talk, she said, going on to mention that Adolph Hitler was also a powerful orator. Sleazy, eh?

The group email brought up Hillary's usual "concerns" about Obama's lack of experience. True, he was never First Lady. Obama is a first term senator. Hillary is only a second term senator. Even her point man Bill Clinton can't argue that. That is not a huge experience gap. Her USO junket with Sindbad the comic hardly counts, whether she dodged mortar-fire or not. She did not.

Predictably, Hillary hammers away at her talking points. That repetition -- and the occasional dirty trick from the Karl Rove playbook -- has helped her in certain polls. She still lags, but she seems to be casting doubt among the timid.

Is Hillary better qualified than Obama? Is Obama all talk? Who can best beat McCain? What about the roll of the superdelegates? What about the battleground states? Should we count the Florida and Michigan votes? Who should answer the scary phone call in the middle of the night?

Matt Taibbi does a good job answering these questions in the current issue of Rolling Stone. To read his article, "Hillary's Flimsy Case," please click here.

No comments: