My only confusion is this: Since Obama is unequivocally unqualified to be president--AND has a looooong record of associating with horrible people--is HE the stupid one, or does that title go to his cult members...er, followers...er, supporters?
As usual, Clinton was poised, articulate, gave intelligent answers, and was unruffled by touchy questions, such as her brain fart on the Bosnia issue (which has been documented elsewhere, correctly, for all to see, so it's not like she was trying to pull a fast one).
Clinton is so VASTLY SUPERIOR to Obama in every possible way, it's shocking to think of how many people have fallen for his empty rhetoric. One thing I was glad to see last night? I can't recall a single instance of Obama saying his usual line when asked a "hard" question: "I agree with Senator Clinton!" I suppose that's because Clinton's not the one who had a 20-year CLOSE (as in mentor, adviser, pastor, friend) relationship with a bigoted, hate-filled, anti-American, anti-gay, anti-Semitic, misogynist, so she wasn't asked about stuff like that. Unfortunately for Obama, that left him unable to spew his usual response! Normally, Clinton gets asked the tough questions first, answers them intelligently and thoughtfully, and then it's Obama's turn, at which point he says, "uh...um...I...uh...I AGREE WITH SENATOR CLINTON!" What a farce.
And just how ironic/funny is it that Obama's cult members are whining and moaning about how "unfair" the debate was last night, when Clinton has been CRUCIFIED for the past year-plus while oBLAHma has (had?) been given a free ride in the media. So what happens when two debate moderators FINALLY have the balls to ask Obama a few tough questions? His followers cry and whine like the ignorant, uninformed, Kool-Aid drinking cult members they are. It's fine with them when Hillary Clinton gets scrutinized for every imaginable thing, and is constantly, consistently asked HARD questions, but when the tables are turned...oh, they're not the least bit happy. What a sorry bunch of losers.
Instead of whining about their cult leader's imaginary unfair treatment in the debate, why aren't they asking themselves WHY they're supporting this idiot? Let's see:
. if you're white, you should be APPALLED at his tacit approval of Jeremiah Wright's anti-white racism
. if you're Jewish, you should be APPALLED at his association with anti-Semites such as Farrakhan and, therefore, his tacit approval of/agreement with those anti-Semitic beliefs
. if you're gay, you should be APPALLED at his anti-gay beliefs
. if you're working-class, you should be INSULTED by his elitist disregard for your financial well being
. if you're female, you should be INSULTED and APPALLED by his misogynistic attitude
. if you're male, you should be EMBARRASSED by the way he represents your gender
. if you're concerned for animals, you should be APPALLED at his and his wife's disregard for the torture fur animals are subjected to
. if you're an American, you should be suspect of someone whose 20-year-long relationship with the anti-America Jeremiah Wright makes quite clear that he, too, is anti-American
and so on.
In other, words, if you're HUMAN--and not anti-America, anti-white, anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-female, pro-animal cruelty, and/or an elitist snob--you should not be supporting this poseur. And shame on those who do...
By the way, there's a special place in hell for women who don't help other women. DOUBLE SHAME to any woman supporting this piece of...well, let's just say this very inexperienced, very hate-filled, very elitist (and, of course, a plagiarist) hollow man. Too bad you're too blinded by all the [unwarranted, undeserved] hype to see the truth, even though it's staring you right in the face. Too bad you won't see the light until, perhaps, it's too late (if oBLAHma wins the general election). And it's especially too bad--and really painful to watch--that you're throwing the FAR MORE QUALIFIED candidate, who happens to be a woman, under the bus in order to support...WHAT? Empty promises of "change" and "hope"?