Spanish Pundit (II)

junio 4, 2008

Obama gets the Democratic nomination

An Obama-Hillary ticket??? That’s what they are considering now: Obama as President and Hillary as Vice-President.
Google News.
The Telegraph writes “What went wrong for Hillary in her epic battle with Obama?
The majority chose “She is a woman” – the loyal answer – but there were still some takers for each of “Obama is more charismatic” , “Attacked Obama” and “Cried in public”. Nobody went so far as to opt for “Negative personality”.

(…) Mrs Clinton finally turned to the big question. “A lot of people are asking, ‘What does Hillary want?'” she said. “I want what I have always fought for: I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and heard.”

“Now the question is, where do we go from here? And given how far we’ve come and where we need to go as a party, it’s a question I don’t take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight,” she told delighted supporters.

“In the coming days, I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.”

More in Red State:

So I guess a lot of people didn’t see it coming that Hillary Clinton would refuse to concede tonight and would urge her supporters to go to her website, presumably with the idea of encouraging her to keep on keeping on. Pundits on television who are clearly in the tank for Barack Obama–Jeffrey Toobin, I’m looking at you!–are outraged almost to the point of stark, raving incoherence. And now all of the commentary is raging–what does Hillary want? It seems obvious; she wants power. Either she is hoping that somehow, someway, some sort of scandal will come up that will sink Barack Obama even after he has clinched the nomination for the Democratic Party, or she is positioning for the Vice Presidential nomination. And she thinks that she has enough leverage to force Barack Obama to pay attention to her and to perhaps make some sort of concession to her that will make her happy and leave her satisfied that politically, she has gained more than she may have lost. In any event, while the nomination fight has ended, the Democratic Party’s hostage crisis continues and there is a very real danger that Hillary Clinton will yet be able to make Barack Obama weak enough to lose in the fall, thus opening the way for the Clintons to run again in four years.

You can read: McCain-Obama, two polar opposites @ AP.
Over the next five months, a fragile economy and an ongoing Iraq war, as well as matters of age and race, will shape the monumental contest to succeed President Bush and become the 44th president.
McCain — 71, white and a veteran of Congress who vows never to surrender to al-Qaida — would be the oldest first-term president ever elected.
Obama — 46, black and a Senate newcomer who pledges to end the Iraq war — would be the first minority to achieve the White House.
“No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically,” McCain said Tuesday in New Orleans. “But, the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward.”
Obama countered in St. Paul, Minn.: “There are many words to describe John McCain’s attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush’s policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.”
Among the biggest questions to be answered by Nov. 4:
_Will McCain be able to overcome the country’s intense desire for change by separating himself from the unpopular Bush while sticking close on issues of war and taxes?
_Will Obama be able to overcome the country’s unsavory history of slavery and lingering bigotry that deeply divides the public to be elected the first black president?
Pajamas Media has also written about this:
And part of that decision will certainly be questions surrounding the one man in America who could upstage the presidential candidate. Bill Clinton has angered Obama supporters with his blatant use of the race card as well as his pointed criticisms of the candidate on everything from health insurance to the Iraq war. His outsized personality makes bringing Hillary on board a gamble of immense proportions. In the end, Obama will have to decide if he can win without Hillary Clinton on the ticket. The only reason she would be there is if he felt he had no other choice.

History News Network blogs: If It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over, When It’s Over?
Grumbling from John Edwards’ camp that he should not have quit so soon emphasizes one of the probable legacies from Clinton’s never-say-die campaign: in the future it will be harder to get candidates to give up, and thus harder for parties to rally around one winner early in the process. But with Obama on the verge of sewing up enough delegates, with party leaders starting to beg for unity, the time has come to end the campaign.

An important thing to point out…
Flopping Aces criticizes last night’s McCain’s speech and underlines the Obama’s purposes: he wants to “remake America”.
this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Well, whose ideals are those? Reverend Wright‘s? Or that shame for Catholic Church (and Jesuit’s) Father Pfleger’s?

Hmm, the most critical blogger with Obama is Gateway Pundit (I really understand why…). He points out something of that sort of thing that has made Obama soooo popular: we-are-the-good-ones-not-as-Republican-who-speak-about-religion-and-patriotism:
What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon—that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize.

Hmm, yeah, of course… and soooo, Wright was what??

We will see if finally Obama reconciles with Clinton and what happens afterwards…
Another interesting news are coming from Kazakhstan: Bill Clinton has favoured a friend over some businesses in the country. Has this affair being the final shot on Hillary’s career to be nominated?
*****
Obama obtuvo ayer la nominación demócrata para ser el candidato a la Casa Blanca una vez que ha obtenido la mayoría de los “superdelegados”. Los rumores apuntan ahora a un ticket conjunto Hillary-Obama, con Obama de candidato a la Presidencia y Hillary a la Vicepresidencia, que sería bastante difícil de ganar. El problema estaría en la animadversión entre los seguidores de Hillary y los de Obama. Pero si eso se supera es posible que terminen en una candidatura conjunta, ya que Hillary ya dijo que no le hacía ascos a ir de segunda de Obama.
De todo lo anterior, me quedo con dos cosas que señalan una Flopping Aces y otra Gateway Pundit.
Los primeros resaltan que Obama no quiere un cambio (como él mismo decía en sus carteles electorales..), según él de lo que se trata es de “rehacer” América. Lo cual es particularmente preocupante viniendo de alguien cuyo “mentor” espiritual es el Reverendo Wright que mantiene, entre otras pffffffffias mentales, que dirían los del Informal, que el SIDA fue creado por el Gobierno americano para destruir a los negros. Obama siempre ha negado oírle algo así, lo que es de esas cosas en las que uno no sabe si Obama piensa que el resto del mundo es subnormal profundo o que, simplemente, su sonrisa es capaz de obrar el milagro de que todo el mundo le mire la sonrisa y no piense más. Porque con los discursos del reverendo en Youtube, como que eso de que “uhhh, yo no le he oído nada de eso”, suenan a “estoy silbando el Puente sobre el Río Kwai”. Léase a trola mayúscula.
Pero claro a la gente le suele gustar que le digan lo que quiere oír, no la realidad. Y si lo que quiere oír es “Paz hermanos, el mundo es malo porque somos muy malos los otros. Hablemos con el bueno de Agggggggmi” (que ayer ha vuelto a dar uno de esos discursos en plan “Saving aaaaaaalllllll my hate for Joooooossssssssssssss”, cambiando un poco lo que dice JW), la gente lo comprará, sobre todo cuando la mayoría de los medios les parece que Obama es un personaje “histórico“. Sí, será histórico en cuanto que es el segundo hombre que opta a la Presidencia de un país, después de no manifestar precisamente un gran amor por dicho país y de enfrentar a unos (en este caso blancos) contra otros (en este caso negros). El primero ya sabemos todos quién es… y ganó las elecciones. Es normalmente conocido como Zejas, Zetapeich o, simplemente, Rodríguez. Y ya sabemos: “nos es necesaria la tensión”… y hay-buenos-menos-buenos-y-malos…
La segunda frase la señala Gateway Pundit y aquí tenemos otro paralelismo con su “Magnanimidad Buenista” Zapatero:
“Lo que no encontraréis en esta campaña es a ese partido que usa a la religión como cuña y al patriotismo como una cachiporra -que ve a nuestros competidores no como competidores en un desafío si no como enemigos a demonizar“.

Encantador. Si no fuera por los amiguitos que tiene, hasta me lo creería y todo.
Porque el último en darle su apoyo ha sido Carter… cuya última actuación fue irse a entrevistar con Hamas y Hizbulá por eso de que “voy a lograr la paz en Oriente Medio”… mientras Hamás apoyaba a Obama como candidato a la Presidencia. 
Hmmm… se respira paz y armonía universal… 
Para terminar, podéis leer a Manuel Molares do Val sobre la “teología negra de la Liberación“, otro apasionante episodio de los amiguitos religiosos de Obama. Conclusión: no me extraña que no quiera hablar de religión…
Por cierto, que ahí hace referencia a que Louis Farrakhan (otro de los admiradores de Obama y líder de la organización integrista, racista negra, antisemita e islamista “Nación del Islam”) pudo asesinar a Malcolm X. Lo que ocurre es que hace poco circuló por internet un vídeo en el parecía responsabilizarse Farrakhan del asesinato. Textualmente decía: “Si le tratamos como una nación trata a un traidor, ¿qué tenéis que decir los demás a eso?”. Os dejo aquí el enlace: Bloodthirsty Liberal � Malcolm, Elijah, Louis, and Jeremiah:

“So numbed have I become by the endless replay of the fatuous clerical rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that it has taken me this long to remember the significant antecedent. In 1995, there appeared a documentary titled Brother Minister about the assassination of Malcolm X. It contained a secretly filmed segment showing Louis Farrakhan shouting at the top of his lungs in the Nation of Islam’s temple in Chicago on “Savior’s Day” in 1993. Farrakhan, verging on hysteria, demanded to know of the murdered Malcolm X: “If we dealt with him like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of yours?” His apparent admission of what had long been suspected—that it was the Black Muslim leadership that ordered Malcolm’s slaying—is not understood or remembered (or viewed) as often as it might be.

[W]hy should a thinking black member of the working class want any truck with a Farrakhan fan or with a moral idiot who thinks that the drugs and disease in the black community are imposed by an outside conspiracy? I don’t need any condescending liberal to explain to me why black Americans are inclined to be touchy about the way their forebears were treated any more than I require a patronizing former Harvard law student to guide me through the anxieties of the gun-owning and hunting community. I can quite easily understand these points without pedagogic assistance. What I won’t be told is that Tawana Brawley was right, or that AIDS is the fault of the government, or that Jews were behind the slave trade, or that there is a secret Masonic code in the dollar bill. And the apologist for murder “Minister Farrakhan” and his big-mouth Christian friends flirt with this kind of half-baked garbage every day.”
Aquí el vídeo:
(Thanks to John for the more than interesting tip.)
Hmm, ¿quién dijo que no usaba la religión en su campaña?
Una última nota: Pepiño, dando la ídem. La frase tiene bemoles: “No he manifestado antes mi simpatía por Obama porque no quería interferir en el proceso”… Claro, todos los estadounidenses, estaban ansiosos por saber qué era lo que el “inteletual” secretario de organización del PZOE pensaba de Obama. Seguro que es lo que más les preocupaba durante todo el tiempo que han durado las primarias…

Dejar un comentario »

Aún no hay comentarios.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Responder

Por favor, inicia sesión con uno de estos métodos para publicar tu comentario:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

Crea un blog o un sitio web gratuitos con WordPress.com.

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: