My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://madamab.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Those People, or Some People?

When I read about how Barack Obama had referred to Hillary Clinton's supporters as "those people," with trademark dismissal and contempt, I was reminded of two things:

1) It's On Purpose.

2) Mama Rose.



For those that are unfamiliar with the musical "Gypsy," it is based on the true story of the stripper Gypsy Rose Lee. Her mother, Mama Rose, was the classic narcissistic stage mother, whose insistence on making it in show business (despite her lack of talent) ruined her family and drove her crazy. Mama Rose didn't care about anyone but herself, and forced her children to live a life of lies in order to further her personal ambitions and delusions of grandeur.

Eventually, Mama Rose is finally forced to face the reality that she is washed up, never had it, never will, and that her dreams will never come true. But this reality is too much, and she soon sinks back into her dreamworld.



Sound familiar?

In any rational universe, Barack Obama would not be considered qualified for the office of the Presidency. He has a resume that would shame another State Senator - a record of non-accomplishment that had to be puffed up by his mentor, Emil Jones, at the very end of his undistinguished tenure. As for his current record, it's decent but scanty, since he began running for President the moment his rear end hit that chair.

Obama has never won a strongly contested election - his successful state senate run, thanks to his underhanded tactics, had no opposition, and he won his current seat against that electoral juggernaut, Republican wackadoodle Alan Keyes. Yes, yes, he "won" the primary election, if you weigh votes from red-state caucuses as heavily as you do primary votes from blue states and swing states. But only the Democrats would be moronic enough to do so, since the entire nominating process is meant to select a General Election winner. As we know, but Obamans do not seem to realize, the General Election is not a caucus, and Idaho, Utah and Kansas will not be going Democratic this year. In order to feed Obama's delusions, the DNC enabled him by kneecapping Hillary's strongest, most delegate-rich states in the primaries. Had Michigan and Florida "counted," Hillary would be the nominee right now.

So, why would Obama Rose think he has what it takes to be President? On what basis did he decide that he deserved his shot at the big time? A non-existent resume. A thin voting record. A couple of good speeches. Seemingly-sound policies and positions that he changes or discards at a moment's notice.

Does he really think he's got the right stuff?

The American people don't think so. He didn't win the popular vote. He didn't win any of the big swing states in the primaries, and now the polls show he's losing them to John McCain, or is winning them, but within the margin of error. Moreover, he is massively underperforming generic Democrats on a whole range of issues, including the war in Iraq and the economy. Sorry, folks, that's the electoral kiss of death.

But Obama Rose shoulders on, insisting it's his turn no matter what. He pooh-poohs "those people" who don't understand His Greatness. They don't deserve him. They don't listen to him. They don't understand him. His fingers are in his ears and he's singing as loudly as he can.

Unfortunately, Senator Obama's fate is in our hands. Somewhere, somehow, I believe he knows it, and that we, the "some people," have rejected him as soundly as Mama Rose was rejected by Broadway. Down deep in his narcissistic soul, Obama Rose knows he is going to lose this election. Due to his overweening, unreasonable desire to be President, we are now going to be stuck with four more years of Republican ownership of the Executive Branch. His grasping ambition has ruined his family (the American People) and himself.

But it's not his fault. It's all because of "those people." Right, Obama Rose?

Cross-posted at The Confluence

No comments: