I'm stealing quite a few photos from the lucianne.com website these days because they are consistently coming up with some hellafied stuff. Today is no different:
This phenomenon is absolutely driving the liberals crazy, crazy, crazy. Every day seems to bring forth new examples. Today's example (at least one of them) demonstrates the incredible inability of commentators from the far left to gaze into the mirror and question their own presumptions and biases. Take it away, Bob Herbert:
Ms. Palin’s problem is not that she was mayor of a small town or has only been in the Alaska governor’s office a short while. Her problem (and now ours) is that she is not well versed on the critical matters confronting the country at one of the most crucial turning points in its history.
The economy is in a tailspin. The financial sector is lurching about on rubbery legs. We’re mired in self-defeating energy policies. We’re at war. And we are still vulnerable to the very real threat of international terrorism.
With all of that and more being the case, how can it be a good idea to set in motion the possibility that Americans might wake up one morning to find that Sarah Palin is president?
Bob, my man. Cheer up, daddy-oh. How can it be a good idea under the same circumstances you've outlined for the country to wake up and find that Barack "Zee-roh" Obama or No-Joe Biden are President?
Talk about dimwitted!?!
If it is true that John McCain or George W. Bush can do what you, Bob Herbert, determine to be the "craziest things imaginable" yet it seems to only serve as a positive for them politically -- doesn't that suggest that perhaps you need to re-define crazy? You know, like define it in a grown-up kind of way rather than merely something your political opponents believe or do?
She is ready, Bob Herbert, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Tod Lindberg has posted a good piece on the outrageous hypocrisy and -- dare I say it, again -- dimwittedness of the Obama campaign in their attack on the phenomenon that is Sarah Palin:
Now, you might think it hypocritical to criticize the inexperience of a vice presidential nominee who has similar experience to your presidential nominee, but that's just a failure of the imagination. Indeed, hypocrisy was the strange charge Democrats decided to make against McCain and Palin: Having run against Obama all summer for his lack of experience and accomplishment, how dare John McCain pick as his running mate someone with (ahem) experience comparable to that of the Democratic candidate for president McCain had been criticizing?
Well, maybe because it is not a sign of the strength of a candidate at the top of a ticket to need the experience of Joe Biden (or Dick Cheney) in order to allay concerns that he's not quite up to some aspects of the job. And, contrariwise, it is a sign of strength at the top when the nominee can look to the future and make a priority of party-building. Does anybody think that if Obama loses, he will have left his party in a stronger position by advancing the prospects of Joe Biden?
No, and there's the real problem they all have with Sarah Palin. She perfectly positions the Republican Party and the cause of conservatism for future growth. They are desperately afraid that Zee-roh is going to lose. They are further afraid that the Clinton's are going to gut the backstabbing Zee-roh, politically killing the Magic Negro in the process, and then where will the cause of far left politics be?
I'll tell you where; back where it belongs. On the fringes.
Obama lacks two things: vision and imagination. His pick of Biden shows a decided lack of imagination. His inability to understand that it's ***not his job to attack Palin*** is a lack of vision.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie | September 13, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Biden is a responible pick as opposed to the Palin pick.
Posted by: Joe | October 02, 2008 at 01:23 PM