Democrats Offer Electorate Horrific Hobson’s Choice
Politics Joan Swirsky, Featured Writer
May 1, 2008
 

Thomas Hobson, an English stable owner in the 15th century, offered his customers two unappealing choices: either to take the least desirable horse or none at all. Six centuries later, we still refer to no-win (i.e., lose-lose) options as Hobson’s Choice.

 

Welcome to the Hillary-Obama race!

 

It simply boggles the mind that out of over-300-million American citizens, the best that the Democrat Party can offer its leftist followers is the choice between a pathologically lying socialist and a Marxist in liberal clothing.

 

But looking at this near-empty glass in a rosier light, people who love America can be grateful that the longest presidential campaign in history has allowed them to see and hear the real Hillary Clinton and the real Barack Obama, and not the fabricated "packages” that their spinmeisters – including the leftwing media – have so relentlessly tried to conceal.

 

What We’ve Learned About Hillary?

Well, the lying is nothing new. Even before her Arkansas days, Hillary was known for her ugly untruths. In fact, when she was 27 – part of her famous "35-years of experience” – she worked on the Watergate committee investigating Pres. Richard Nixon. After the investigation was over, the man who supervised her work, retired general counsel and Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Zeifman, fired Hillary and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people he had fired in his 17-year career.

According to an article by author Dan Calabrese, Zeifman said he fired Hillary "because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

This comes as no surprise to anyone who survived the scandal-ridden, impeachment-doomed Bill Clinton presidency – during which NY Times columnist William Safire called Hillary "a congenital liar.” Who can forget the red-phone lady’s serial lies concerning:

 

▪ Whitewatergate

 

▪ BillingFilesgate

 

▪ TravelOfficegate

 

▪RightWingConspiracygate

 

▪ CattleFuturesgate

 

▪ Big et al. here!

 

Then she ran for New York senator and added to the above list her lies about:

 

▪ "Always” loving the Yankees

 

▪ Having Jewish relatives

 

▪ Knowing nothing about her husband’s pardons of FALN terrorists (the better to capture the Hispanic vote)

 

▪ Being clueless about her husband’s pardons of the Hasidic community’s crooks (the better to capture the Jewish vote)

 

▪ Creating jobs for upstate New Yorkers

 

▪ Equally big et al. here!

 

All of Hillary’s lying was a preamble to her lifetime ambition of becoming the first female U.S. president. Her run proves that repetition aids learning. After decades of chronic confabulation, she has now raised to a virtual art form the non-truth, the fictional, the exaggerated, and, let us not omit, the bald-faced lie!

 

▪ Having 35 years of "experience”

 

▪ Contributing to the Irish peace process

 

▪ Landing in Kosovo under sniper file

 

▪ Being "misled” into voting for the war in Iraq (mega-whopper here)

 

▪ Too many et als. to count!

 

It’s no wonder that the following joke is now zooming around the Internet;

 

Question: When is Hillary actually lying?

Answer: Only when she opens her mouth to speak.

 

No, lying is nothing new to Hillary. What is frightening is the degree to which her followers accept this glaring character flaw, in essence saying: We know she’s a liar – but she’s our liar! So much for the character and integrity of her liberal acolytes.

 

We didn’t learn that Hillary is ear-piercingly shrill, "the screech on the blackboard,” according to lifetime liberal Tom Hayden: We already knew that. Nor that she and her "team” are mean-spirited: We already knew that. Nor that the woman who wants to run our country is among the most incapable people on the national scene, having run a ruinous, debt-ridden, poorly-planned – and, I predict, losing – campaign: We already knew that.

 

We also know that Hillary the millionaire can’t wait to "take your money away” (her words) from the other wealthy people in our country who manufacture goods, employ our citizenry, donate multimillions to charity, create our new century’s innovations, and – most important to her – contribute not millions but billions to the Clinton Library and Foundation.

 

The one thing that liberals have learned – that the rest of the country has always known – is that Hillary and her husband are racists! It is not only Bill’s splenetic rages and paranoid rants about Obama, but also Hillary and her surrogates who have told the electorate that "Obama (read black man) can’t win.” Strange, isn’t it, coming from a woman behind in the popular and delegate vote count?

 

As African-American columnist Bob Parks has remarked, "the Clintons may be doing more to divide our nation than any macaca moment could ever do [and] doing this on purpose.”

 

The dirty little secret that liberals pretend doesn’t exist is that their decades-long embrace of the welfare system, affirmative action, public-school-and-other unions, diversity and multiculturalism, were (and are) all calculatedly designed to keep society’s "victims” in their assigned and dependent roles, the better to promise them everything and deliver them – as they always have – nothing but more victimhood.

 

Bottom line, we really haven’t learned much about Hillary that we didn’t already know, except that the unprettiness of her dishonesty and ambition is even more egregious than we thought possible.

 

What We’ve Learned About Obama?

Because he’s been prominent on the national scene for less than four years, Obama – with his appealingly even temperament and golden way with words – has not refined the art of lying as Hillary has, although you’d never know this from sites like www.Obamalies.com. He’s getting better, however, perhaps as a result of steeping himself and being steeped in the world of Chicago "machine” politics. But for the sheer length of this numbingly-repetitive, media-orchestrated campaign, Americans would never have known about Obama’s:

 

▪ America-hating wife (America is a "mean country”…Americans have to fix their "broken souls."… "Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.").

 

▪ America-hating, anti-Semitic ("We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians”), racist ("We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority”) "spirtual” inspiration ("And in my personal walk,” Obama said, "I seek daily to imitate his faith”), Afrocentric-Liberation-Theology-spewing Rev. Jeremiah Wright ("God Damn America”) and the candidate’s 20-year relationship, philanthropic largesse, and continued affiliation with Wright’s church.

 

▪ America-hating (and bombing) William Ayers ("I don't regret setting the bombs. I feel we didn't do enough").

 

American-hating Sam Graham-Felsen, the Obama campaign’s official blogger, who chose to hang a Communist Party flag in his Harvard campus apartment.

 

▪ Endorsement by America-hating Hamas.

 

▪ Endorsement by America-hating Black Panther Party.

 

▪Endorsement by America-hating Marxist Daniel Ortega, president of Nicaragua.

 

▪ America-hating Rashid Khalidi, who from 1972 through 1983, was the director in Beirut of the official anti-American, anti-Semitic Palestinian press agency, FAFA.

 

America-hating Marxist-Leninist Che Guevara, Castro’s chief executioner, whose picture was pinned to the wall of one of his headquarters, with his approval.

 

Anti-American revolutionary Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member, and early mentor.

 

Close association with his campaign advisor, Tony McPeak, who has remarked that our foreign policy is unduly influence by "people in Miami and New York.”

 

Close affiliation with big-time crook Tony Rezko, who is now on trial for corruption in Illinois.

 

▪ Suspect association with the radical anti-war group Code Pink, which donated $600,000 to help Iraqi terrorists in Fallujah fight U.S. military forces and harassed, vandalized and impeded U.S. military recruiters across the nation.

 

These uniformly anti-American associations should cause all sane Americans to question Obama’s self-proclaimed "judgment” – just as they should question Hillary’s deep ties to America-loathing terrorists.

 

And what are we to make of the fear and loathing Obama inspires from dozens if not hundreds of prominent black intellectuals from the worlds of politics, academia, and the media?

 

Among them is columnist Ken Blackwell, who comments on Obama’s "vision” for our nation:

 

▪ National security: "Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists – something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s….Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

 

▪ Economic policy: "For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements…have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes "on the rich.”

 

▪ Social Security: "Raise taxes.” Medicare: "Raise taxes.” Obama’s "solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.”

 

▪ Social issues: Mr. Obama said that, "Christian leaders have hijacked – hijacked – Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing.” And, in Illinois, "he refused to vote against a statewide ban on all handguns in the state.”

 

"These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values,” writes Mr. Blackwell of the most liberal of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, "not Middle America values.”

 

Black scholar and writer Thomas Sowell remarks: "Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.”

 

Sowell has also said: "There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president – especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans.”

 

And Shelby Steele, author, writer and filmmaker says: "In the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's…his run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Sharpton and Jackson were `challengers,’ not bargainers. They intimidated whites…Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude…two sides of the same coin. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining) and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.”

 

Respectfully, I disagree with Steele’s last sentence. From Obama’s writing, it is clear which "identity” he has chosen. From his book, "Dreams of My Father,” Obama has the following to say:

 

I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, which I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.

 

I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.

 

It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.

 

And, from "The Audacity of Hope”: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

 

Hobson gave his customers two bad choices. In 2008, Democrats have given us two choices that are potentially disastrous for our country. I hope that keeping both of them far away from the Oval Office will be, for most voters – including Independents – the proverbial "no-brainer!”

Joan Swirsky, is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. A New York-based author and journalist, she was formerly a longtime health-and-science and feature writer for The New York Times Long Island section. She is the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards...

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review