Democrats: Racists or Sexists?

What a delicious dilemma for the liberal Democrats. If they nominate Barack Hussein Obama then they are sexists for dissing Hillary (“Lurleen”) Rodham Clinton - or they are racists for selecting her and rejecting him. Political correctness and “right thinking” are so hard, aren’t they? Especially when there are competing claims by “victim” groups.

Poor John Edwards, stuck in his middle-aged maleness and whiteness; a reformed red neck trying all the old southern populist themes, but without the racism (loses something there, doesn’t it?). Some people have NO Luck. In 2004 he gets beaten by a privileged white guy, a supercilious twit, the epitomey of the white liberal establishment, who looked down on his reformed red neck running mate. And now - THIS. All the liberal chickens coming home to roost - all at once. Poor guy is the only true, old fashioned, big labor, New Deal Democrat left in the race and HE is being dissed by everyone. Big Labor used to be the backbone of the Democratic Party, but they’ve lost out to the more glamorous “other” in the affections of liberals. Edwards needs to seriously investigate his South Carolina roots; if he is lucky, he may discover that he is related by blood to Al Sharpton. After all, if Strom Thurmond can find some redemption that way, so can Edwards. With all that inter-marrying down South, he might hit the daily double and turn out to be related to both, thus gaining national liberal sympathy and also get an in with the red neck rear guard.

All three Democratic candidates have glommed on to the theme of “change”. But, of course, in economic policy, change for them all is “back to the future”; back to the glory days to complete the unfinished agendas of the New Deal and the Great Society. Their signature domestic issue is government mandated health care (in one form or another) which has been on the liberals’ plate since at least the Truman administration. As for their foreign policy ideas, think Wallace, Stevenson, McGovern; updates of Roosevelt and Truman, perhaps, but certainly not improvement on them. It is so outrageous that no interviewer, in the all the hours and hours of blather that have been dumped on the American public, has asked specifically what NEW THINKING any of these three are proposing to implement for this country. Perhaps if they were made to be more explicit in how they envision “changing” American society, especially on social issues, the public may begin to comprehend the liberal social rubbish that they (especially Obama and Clinton) would espouse. Someone really needs to ask all three of them: “where’s the beef?”

The “Battle of the Giant Victims” will be great entertainment for the conservatives (and hopefully the rest of the country), but whoever of the two is nominated could have horrendous consequences for this country, IF they are elected President.

Keeping both of them out of the White House (will it still be called that if Hussein is elected?) is THE crucial task for conservatives over the next eleven months.