The Democrat Party is radicalized as never before. Yet radicals have a sense of mission that provides them with a zeal. We have seen this throughout history and often the zealot, with a total lack of scruples, wins.
Lenin destroyed Kerensky but the more radical Trostky was vanquished (and eventually murdered) by Stalin.
In terms of radicalism, Obama is the New Trotsky and Hillary the Stalin. Yet Hillary does not seem to have strong control over the Party machinery. Obama delivers an amorphous message of change with style and grace.
Before the political season began, the public gaze was fixed on concentrations on irrelevancies. What was the importance of Anna N. Smith or Paris Hilton in our real lives? Bread and circus did work. The political scene even featured a pair of clowns, but only Ron Paul survives. Now we have a glittery candidate who delivers hollow platitudes in way that appear to be convincing. Hillary is unable to match him in style and cannot challenge him in substance.
Both candidates are offering bad medicine to remedy percieved illnesses and the differenceis simply a matter of dosage. Yet the Obama charm has blinded the crowds that once battled to buy cabbage patch dolls and other useless but trendy items that seemed to be the indispensable status symbol du jour.
Obama now commands an inordinate degree of press attention without being subject to any press scrutiny. His record is deemed to be no more a fit topic for publication than JFKs sexual excesses. Hillary may be reduced to a resort to attacks that are more personal than ideological.
The Clintons have never been concerned by ethics or morality but by a desire to win. They have demonstrated the extent of their corruption by an enrichment that cannot be explained by their salaries. This is not something that is common among Presidents, with the exception of LBJ. It is a phenomenon that we expect from big city bosses and names such as Tweed and Daley. Yet as a byproduct of Cook County politics, can Obama’s hands be truly clean?
BO keeps telling us he is the agent of CHANGE. He says he will bring civility and Bi-Partisanship back to Washington. So far he has not introduced a Bill and walked across the aisle to the Republicans and ask for help. Guess he can talk the talk, but sits on his butt.
Meanwhile, the real agent of change looks like McCain. He has introduced legislation, walked (in some cases ran) across the aisle to get the Democrats to help work the legislation. So, it looks like McCain has talked the talk, and walked the walk. Meanwhile, BO keeps telling us what McCain has already accomplished and what BO hopes he might do. So, do we look at a talker, or a doer. One has proven record of Bi-Partisan and the other is still talking and talking, and talking.
The question is: what sort of president would each of these two make? We pretty much know what we’d get with Hillary – a smug, condescending know-it-all. Obama is more of a blank page. His lack of experience could even be an asset, if he had the good sense to seek out wiser counsel when needed, and to not be afraid to appoint people smarter and better experienced than himself. Hillary wouldn’t do that, she’d pick people she knows she could bully into submission.