In watching the Democratic side, we find Mrs Bill Clinton, who is clearly in touch with her southern, beer- guzzling good-old-boy masculine side of late. (What say we give Bill the White House again? After all, he’s put up with Hillary all those years… he deserves it…)
We have John Edwards, who responded to Ann Coulter’s “Faggot” remark, with words to the effect that Ann’s style of dress was ‘so last season’… In Edwards we also have someone who is pro-abortion, and yet claims to speak for Jesus Christ.
Speaking of immaculate conceptions, we have Barrack Obama claiming that his parents met at Selma, and he exists because of the march at Selma… even though he’d been born four years before…(Dare we question his parantage based on this conflict? If not, what, then?)… and whose supporters, despite his Slema claims, argue if he’s “really black”, or not.
We have Al Gore, who hasn’t decided if he wants to run yet, any more than he’s decided if he wants to hug a tree or BE one, if he wants to be an environmentalist, or just talk like one. Given the electric consumption at his place, it’s leaning toward the latter.
I commented a while ago, that there was nobody on the Republican side of the isle who excited me. That’s still true.
But in looking at the Democrat side, I’m forced to wonder if being exciting is all it’s cracked up to be.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:39
I don’t put faith in the doctrine of genetic guilt. Why should I? I am white, which means by the doctrine I must be guilty. Yet the doctrine of genetic gulit puts Barack Obama in strange postion. By blood Obama is much more closely related to the side with the water canons than he is to victims in the spray.
I think I need to find take blogging time from bashing the Breck Girl and PIAPS for Mr. Audacity.