I think it's hilarious when pundits like those at Trailhead hollar
doom and damnation for our country should Barack Obama receive the
nomination (which looks almost certain). Here is a point for point
rebuttal of Clinton's talking points:
1) Speaking ability doesn't matter
I
give you the 43rd President of the United States. Never has a man older
than the age of 12 been able to so completely deflate a room with such
highly paid speechwriters ripping out their hair in frustration and
hate. As a former coach of a middle school debate team, I have oft
suggested that Bush '43 hire a trained eleven year old to speak for
him. That way, everyone would understand what his administration was
trying to communicate. Senator Clinton needs to up her game, not
disparage the superlative eloquence of her opponent.
2) Obama has no experience
Aside
from upwards of 20 years working on streets and organizing to
accomplish civil rights goals (which Clinton hasn't done since
Goldwater), he has risen up from a difficult childhood and young
adulthood, been a state senator in Illinois, been in the US Senate,
written two bestsellers and essentially decapitated the second most
powerful political machine in the country (the first being the supreme
court).
3) He has no substance
O Ye of the rictus, rage
barely held behind smiling teeth, suspicious blue eyes piercing to find
whatever terrible plots lie beneath her enemie's every twitch:
'Substance' is exactly what he has that you do not. It fills every word
and every gesture and every smile. He could read the phone book and it
would have more substance than your entire platform, because it would
be authentically the phone book.
4) He will be powerless in Washington
I
would suggest that all those 'elected' officials realize they need to
be 're-elected' if they want to keep their job. Then they should take a
look at the coalition Obama is building.
It is astonishing the
kind of pliancy you can get from moderates when you can legitimately
threaten to get them fired. Just watch.
