Audacious Hope Delivers A Thumpin’

It’s all over but the shouting in South Carolina. Obama has beaten Hillary and Edwards like a pair of baby seals.

He did this by amassing over fifty percent of the vote. The demographic sweep he engineered is beyond impressive. South Carolina is over sixty seven percent white and the home state of John Edwards, who finished a distant third. It was a record turnout.

More than double Hillary’s pot and obviously, more than both Edwards and Hillary combined.

He speaks like a summer thunderstorm. A cloudburst on a sweltering afternoon. Substance and style. Grace and conviction. Thunder and lightning. His admonition of Hillary, subtlety and gravity.

It’s kind of ironic that while I was thinking that even if Obama succeeded at elevating only minorities and the poor, America would be a far better place. It’s ironic, because it was the same moment he segued into passionate discourse about unity and the fractures that exist between us, that either aren’t there or don’t need to be. All of us.


I am smiling. Were it not for the breathtaking ineptness, avarice and arrogance of the current administration and the Republican party, America would never grant audience to this first ever contest between a black man and a woman for President of The United States.

Forgive me, but hope doesn’t appear so audacious any more. It’s been a long time coming. We have endured too many years of cruelty and apathy at the hands of Republican rulers. Maybe now, instead of the lesser of two evils, America will choose the better of the best.

Oh boy.

Eighty percent of African Americans in SC voted for Obama. I still really like Edwards, but I fear it may be time for him to walk. Seventy three percent of Democrats who cast a vote tonight, did so against Hillary. This, in one of only three states with a greater than twenty percent population of black voters. Do the math, Obama desperately needs white Democrats on February Five.

Edwards says he’s still got lotsa fight left. We’ll see.

Obama and Edwards? I’d like that a lot.

Bill Bennett, asshat that he is, just compared Obama’s speech to Ronald Reagan. What a fucking retard. It occurs to me that Martin Luther King is a far more appropriate and accurate analog. Or, can you say JFK?

Amy Holmes, conservative whackjob that she is, is hotter than Georgia asphalt. I’d do her. She was on Bill Maher last night and I had an identical thought. Michelle O. has hips and a booty.

Meanwhile, on the darkside, Skeletor sports a giant mudhole in his ass that will be kicked dry by Guy Smiley and John McCain in Florida. Time to start looking for a rock with a vacancy underneath, Mr. Julie Rudyiani. Douchebag.

Up next, Super Tuesday. The road, still long indeed.

Drinks for my friends.

4 Responses to “Audacious Hope Delivers A Thumpin’”

  • admin:

    So the DVR choked again and I found myself staring open mouthed at a kinda cool show with like, the best commercials or something.

    Save for CNN and HBO, I’m not much for the glass teat.

    Maybe that’s why I maintain that despite choreographed obfuscation, I still believe that the character and identity of any candidate is available to those who would look.

  • ihaveanicenose:

    People tend to forget about Mr. John Edwards because if he were elected, he would not make history the way a woman or an almost black man would. I wish Edwards were a black female. Then we would actually get the best democratic candidate into office.

  • ihaveanicenose:

    True dat but the masses are still sidetracked by the frill. Not everyone digs deep, they only follow what is popular. While I am watching Aquateen Hungerforce and you are watching a late night nasty on HBO (you know you do), others are watching reality shows and forgetting that there is another serious candidate out there because they are not reminded of his existence every 15 seconds. That airtime is taken up with talk of the chick and the black guy.

  • . I agree 100%. But there’s a snag here. And mind you, I mean what I’m about to say to get the wheels cosvtructinely turning and thinking.While you blast (rightfully) the dangerous role of basic economic ignorance and the silly expectations therefrom in the voters’ minds in the realm of democratic elections, the hard fact remains that there are many PhD economists, some with popular blogs and web-influence, who are not only partisan Democrats but also ideologically liberal. Krugman is a notable one. Others with popular blogs are DeLong and Thoma. There are others still. Visit Angry Bear and peruse the links on the right column.IOW, despite their sound grasp of basic economics and markets and beyond, the end result is that these professional economists generally support the same candidates and buy into the same rhetoric as many of the very voters you criticize. I think it’s all fine and good for you, or Caplan in his book (which I’ve read), to make this case about economic biases and ignorance and its effects on democracy and voter mentality. I think it’s great to recommend a book like Hazlitt’s. But this doesn’t tackle the larger problem that needs to be addressed:What does this talk about understanding basic econ and markets mean when many PhD economists who have studied well beyond the basic and fundamental tenets of economic thought support the unkeepable promises of candidates and buy into the unrealistic rhetoric that seduces laymen voters?What would a Krugman-like economist say about Bastiat or Hazlitt and the iron clad notions they put forth that they seemingly ignore through their actions? and WHY?In summary, economists who share your view need to start addressing the conflicts with economists who disagree with you before bemoaning the average voter. The average voter is an easy target. Blasting Joe Six Pack for silly views is easy. What to you say to Krugman? or DeLong? or any number economists who agree with them?That’s a book I would buy.

Leave a Reply