Raging Cynic

While Barack is off campaigning on the east coast after his Thursday debate with Hillary, his wife Michelle is actively holding the fort and inspiring California voters in his stead.

But tonight’s rally at San Jose State University was more than a fantastic show of energy and support for Barack’s presidential bid. Speaking to hundreds of Santa Clara County residents, Michelle Obama showed that her background has made her and her husband into people who not only know what hardships Americans face today, but understand them first hand. Her call to change is rooted in the belief and hope that change will be on the minds of Americans when her husband is in the Wight House working on the changes we need to get this country back on track.

I’m sure looking forward to having such an impassioned, articulate, thoughtful woman as our First Lady.

It may be the 4am talking, but this editorial from The LA Times almost brings a hopeful glimmer to my eye. If I didn’t have scotch and testis I might cry (okay. . . that might have been sexist, but only if you want to argue with the biological effects of testosterone and think crying when filled with hope and the possibility of national betterment is a bad thing, and I don’t).

The U.S. senator from Illinois distinguishes himself as an inspiring leader who cuts through typical internecine campaign bickering and appeals to Americans long weary of divisive and destructive politics.

In the language of metaphor, Clinton is an essay, solid and reasoned; Obama is a poem, lyric and filled with possibility. Clinton would be a valuable and competent executive, but Obama matches her in substance and adds something that the nation has been missing far too long — a sense of aspiration.

[ please PLEASE read this full article]

Obscene pun intended!

I’ve been saying I would take McCain over Hillary for a while now, but I just may write in Gen. McPeak over both of them. Here’s a quote from the Obama military adviser as printed by Peter Wallsten in the Feb 01, 2008 issue of the Los Angles Times:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York argued that the party’s eventual nominee would need sufficient “gravitas” to persuade American voters that he or she can be a strong leader while arguing for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The advisor, retired Gen. Merrill A. “Tony” McPeak, said in a telephone interview that Obama has “real gravitas, not artificially created, focus-grouped, poll-directed, rehearsed gravitas.”

He also said Obama “doesn’t go on television and have crying fits; he isn’t discovering his voice at the age of 60″ — references to Clinton’s much-publicized show of emotion during the New Hampshire primary campaign and her speech after winning the contest in which she declared that she had “found my voice.”

[ link to full article]

Love this guy! Put him behind a desk on CNN. With all of Hillary’s bullshitting and whoring (this isn’t sexist, check a dictionary, I’m calling her unscrupulous - that’s right, unscrupulous) it’s about time someone called her on it. As quickly as I would let Bill Clinton use me in any way he’d want, I don’t see any difference between Hillary and Romney (scratch that, Romney has more experience) Huckabee except the colors of the flags they wave.

And this is exactly what we need to get away from! This blind flag waving, these games of who can be most crazy, nut job, abandoning reason Democrat or Republican. There are policy differences, fine, we all get it. But when the Legislature has spent so much time in near deadlock, we need a Commander in Chief who will bring people together.

Oh, and Hillary’s campeign’s reaction to McPeak’s later retracted comments?

A Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer, called it “unfortunate” that McPeak’s retraction “was motivated out of concern about the political impact of his words as opposed to the fact that they were simply offensive.”

Please! Those comments weren’t offensive in the slightest. Hillary suggesting she’s her gravitas was better than Obama’s was offensive (by the way, by now you should know that “gravitas” is political jargon for “balls”). Oh, and the following may be offensive (just so readers can build a baseline)

The ONLY thing Hillary Clinton has going for her is that her husband was President (and a great President at that) and the MANY focus groups and advisers who are crafting her more like a Ms. America than a legitimate political candidate with a solid political platform.

My apologies to current Ms. America Kirsten Haglund, I know you don’t sell out to big business like Hillary has done and your singing and commitment toward raising awarness of eating disorders are an inspiration to us all. If you weren’t only 19, I’d vote you Ms. President of America ^_^ .

There’s something that must go over my head about the value of being conservative in this environment. With all the arguing about who can bring change earlier this month, how is it that the boys from the Good ol’ Party are now vying for the title of most conservative? Isn’t this just the same game that the Republicans have been playing for the last decades? Playing up most conservative just to pull voters away from the middle? And isn’t that exactly how we ended up with that warmonger Bush at the helm?

Now, really, this isn’t so surprising from the rest of the red flock, but it’s pretty disappointing to see McCain jump on this bandwagon. McCain’s got about three things that play strongly for him. He’s not a religious idealogue, he knows war better than most American voters, and he’s willing be independent from the party to get good things done. I can see how he can think playing super-conservative will help him get the party’s nomination, but he should be thinking further ahead. Sending the message that it’s he’d rather be a party man than a people’s man now may dissuade Democrat voters who didn’t get their favorite blue candidate on the November ballot.

Until today’s GOP debate, I would have taken McCain over Hillary. Tomorrow? We’ll see.