Brilliance and glibness

We associate glibness with comedians and some politicians who are more successful at getting elected than at statesmanship.

Some clever phrases may seem devastating but prove to be hollow after a bit of analysis. But by then,the cheering crowd has left the hall or the votes have been counted.

Quite often glibness can be pre-packaged into clever, even moving slogans.

In a contest of slogans between Clinton and Obama, what will really be said? Are there any true differences? Is either one known for any brilliant or courageous deed? Both are grasping and greedy hacks who have a façade of greatness. Hillary’s facade is collapsing but still might survive.


  1. BO so far has shown a lack of Brilliance, or even knowledge. He’s a real Not Ready For Prime Time Player. Not even in Second City acting. So far two major dangerous gaffe’s show his lack of knowledge and being grossly Naive. One, Al-Qaeda was IN Iraq before we invaded it, and Two, he wants out of NAFTA which will cause the USA to lose its number one supplier of oil from Canada. Right now, NAFTA says we get what we want and are first in line compared to the rest of the world. Also, if a shortfall arises in the USA, Canada suffers the same shortfall. And if we pull out of NAFTA, Canada would love to sell its oil to China at a higher price. Not to mention Canada would do a numbe of other things that now help the USA.

    Obama is a Pandering Liberal

  2. If there’s one thing that John Edwards brought to the Democratic primaries, it’s a taste for populism. The notions and slogans are a great way to persuade those who may be middle class but aren’t wealthy, along with those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder that they have somehow been cheated, cheated! by the wealthy elites. The attacks on NAFTA are just part of that ploy.

    But populism depends on the economic ignorance of the masses, and that’s one thing the Democrats will always promote.

Comments are closed.