Posted by
rycK on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:18:19 AM
The New York Time’s ‘Dump Obama Train’ Leaves the Station. Raise the Banners and Honk the Kazoos! Marxism Needs Your Help!
Always sifting through the candidates for a personality who best fits the acclaimed norms and wild successes of Marxism, a lesser being, who only encroaches on the fringes of accepted Communism, needs to be gently pushed aside. The far-leftist world community led by the peace-loving Swedes, Fidel Castro [if he is still alive, or perhaps that does not matter], Kim of North Korea, have strongly endorsed the Communist-approved Clintons for almost two decades.
It is the political duty of the New York Times to ‘f0rm opinion’ for the unenlightened masses and gently demonstrate that Hillary is The Chosen One, even if she has visible and hairy warts and behaves like the infamous Colonel Klebb, and must lead the country back to the ways of progressive socialism. Bill Clinton has bought into this message, being indoctrinated into hard-core Marxism at Oxford and Moscow in the 60s, and is doing his best to get the Colonel elevated in the polls in the Iowa and New Hampshire. The NYT has always picked and endorsed and encouraged candidates in proportion to their propensity to embrace Communism. Apart from the ailing Fidel Castro, Hill and Bill are the two top Commies in the Western Hemisphere.
Senator Barack Obama only skirts the fringes of Hillary Clinton’s hard-core political experience, Saul Alinsky Marxist indoctrination and the fast-and-ready assistance and advice from her Marxist-mole companion. He has not learned. Thus, dutifully, The Old Gray Lady turns the crank on with propaganda machine with today’s article: The Obama-Clinton Issue. Here, bluntly ignoring the usual foreplay, they thrust forth with an attack on Obama: “Hillary Clinton has been a much better senator than Barack Obama. She has been a serious, substantive lawmaker who has worked effectively across party lines.” This is false, a trend used incessantly in political positioning pieces. Actually, Hillary has no legislative history, has backed only failures in her bills, sponsored essentially nothing and antagonized both the far left and far right on the War on Terrorism issue and is a carpet bagger Senator in the historical sense.
We learn that “Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones.” We must translate this to mean that Obama’s political training is not narrow enough and he does not have the socialist credentials to compete on the brightly-lit stages of liberal politics. We wonder about the term insecurity as we watch Hillary grow sour, wrinkled and haggard and rising into occasional volcanic rages as her staff scurries in all directions to escape her cruelty. She has fired one star from New Hampshire. More heads will tend toward the wicker basket as the intensity of the war soars. We also wonder if the NYT’s characterization of Senator Obama’s “inner direction” is a result of his skin color.
To summarize, we read from this column:
“What Bill Clinton said on “The Charlie Rose Show” is right: picking Obama is a roll of the dice. Sometimes he seems more concerned with process than results. But for Democrats, there’s a roll of the dice either way. The presidency is a bacterium. It finds the open wounds in the people who hold it. It infects them, and the resulting scandals infect the presidency and the country. The person with the fewest wounds usually does best in the White House, and is best for the country. “
This is an astonishing redaction of the future, the past and the present. We seem to be reading a passage written in the future past perfect present tense. Couched in the lingo of infectious diseases, David Brooks tells us that elected presidents enter the office with open wounds and will be ‘infected’ by the inevitable scandals awaiting them. That, indeed, is historical as we reflect on the Clintons. Now, Hillary and Bill are known crooked lawyers from the veritable Sanjac of Arkansas with many of their best friends freshly out of jail for fraud, conspiracy and worse. That much fits history. But, where is the parallel on Barack here? What are the other Senator’s wounds?
What advice is this? The histrionics and scope of this piece reflect hysteria. The New York Times needs to invoke the existence of Phantasms of Political Bacteria that bar the gates of the Oval Office to those who have not been inoculated by near-fatal infections?
To suggest that this is a pedestrian-grade polemic with the customary stretch of the facts is not unusual for the Times; it is their common stock and trade and dwells well within the boundaries of their grunt and grab mentality and their long history of sausage machine brat productions, but here we can detect a wild flight from reason.
On the contrary, Senator Obama is honest and a fresh breeze in the fetid arena of politics that the New York Times is use to swimming in. The stark contrast between an honest person and a hack political cadre is obvious and instructive here.
Barack Obama soars beyond the documented lies, sleaze, corruption, perjury and crimes of Clintoonery. The NYT is properly hysterical about the possibility of an undesirable potential outcome if the most honest candidate wins the nomination. Soon they will signal that a black person cannot be elected.
Stoke the furnaces! The ‘Dump Obama Train’ is now the Red Ball Express of the frenetic left.
Marxism denies honesty; The Dice have been loaded by the New York Times.
rycK
The Obama-Clinton Issue By DAVID BROOKS. Published: December 18, 2007