Archive for category Satire
A guy is bored with his girlfriend.
He cheats, first with a really provocative exciting woman, but she’s a bit crazy.
The next one appears beautiful, rugged and near perfect – but turns out to be as dumb as a rock.
The third is vivacious and intriguing, but sleeps around.
The fourth promises the moon but is haunted by the past.
Then after spending time with a prude
he realizes that though boring and predictable, he wants his original girlfriend back. That’s the GOP this year.
This is perhaps the best Jon Stewart segment ever — or at least in a long time:
It demolishes the argument that slightly increasing the tax on the wealthy is class warfare, or the whining that “half the population” doesn’t pay any taxes. (As Stewart points out, the bottom 50% of the population control only 2.5% of the wealth in the country). This is classic, and it has punch. It amazes me how many people are fooled by the argument that somehow the wealthy are being demonized (the Fox line on what asking for slightly higher tax rates is doing). Middle and working class people are being manipulated into defending the wealthy.
I think that’s going to change. The one quibble I have with Stewart is that he uses pre-tax and transfer GINI index numbers. The post-tax and transfer numbers are even more powerful. Enjoy the clip! (And take it seriously — small tax increases on the wealthy are not in contradiction to true conservative principles).
One question that came up at one of the panels today at the Midwest Political Science Association conference here in Chicago is why is it that the left does satire so well (Stewart, Colbert, etc.) while the right does not. Or as one person put it, why is Dennis Miller so lonely? Conversely, why does the right do talk radio so well, while the left does not?
Each of these are forms of political entertainment. Satire, to be sure, is by its nature not only anti-establishment, but disruptive of conventional perspectives. It looks for hypocrisy, contradictions, and absurdities not just from individuals, but within the very fabric of society. That would suggest a progressive bent — by its nature it’s pushing the boundaries, questioning authority, and making fun of what society holds to be proper and true. There is an irreverence there which requires a bit of rebelliousness, something contrary to core values of conservatism, which aims to protect societal norms.
Talk radio, on the other hand, has a more evangelical flair. When Glenn Beck says that God is giving him a plan and tells people that the country as we know it is being transformed into something contrary to American values, there’s an urgency there. This isn’t just politics, this is akin to a crusade, an ideological jihad. You don’t get ironic and funny if you think the country’s core values are under assault, you become committed. Comedy seems frivolous.
To be sure, talk radio can be funny. Beck has his jokes, and Limbaugh often engages in satire, exhibiting a type of bravado (“talent on loan from God”) which has its own wit and humor. Whereas Beck seems certain he’s fighting the fight from God, Limbaugh seems to understand he’s doing a shtick, and despite his claims, doesn’t take himself so seriously. But it’s still cutting political monologue, vicious attacks against Liberals, and assertions of ideological certitude. Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh and the others belittle the left in an often insulting and misleading fashion.
On its face, satire may seem far superior to three hours of radio bombast, but there might be a core similarity at play. Satire works in part by making the audience feel superior. When Jon Stewart rips Fox news from hypocrisy, or juxtaposes Cheney quotes from 2003 and 2006 to show him hypocritical on Iraq, the viewer feels like “their” side is the side of reason and honesty. Republicans look as bad in Stewart/Colbert land as Democrats look in Limbaugh/Hannity world.
And of course conservatives who revel in talk radio are certain that they are on the side of truth, and that Democrats are just driven by emotion or weak thinking. Ironically, talk radio Meisters like Beck and Limbaugh are masters of emotional manipulation. You don’t get audiences by intellectual connections, you get it by getting listeners riled up. You get them mad about Obama, angry about health care, and fearful that they are losing their country. But in both satire and talk radio, the listeners (or viewers) feel superior, their political leanings are vindicated. How on earth can those liberals (or conservatives) not see the obvious failings of their perspective?
Still, back to the question. Why does satire work for the left, and talk radio for the right? Is there something psychologically different about liberals and conservatives? Liberals tend to say that they believe more in reason, rational thought, and improving society. To them, conservatives are fearful (of enemies, change, gays, and whatever) and thus prone to like tough talk and bombast. Conservatives dislike weakness and see the world as fundamentally dangerous, according that argument and thus enjoy the tough style of talk radio appeals.
Conservatives, however, accuse liberals of being out of touch with reality. They believe too much in ‘good will’ and that enemies can be rationally persuaded not to do things like engage in terror attacks. To conservatives, talk radio is a break from the dull indoctrinating din of “meanstream” media. It is real Americana speaking through, standing up against a growing government taking more money and exerting more control over our daily lives. To them liberal satire is cute but petty. Sure, Jon Stewart may cherry pick quotes and incidents, then use funny ways to mock FOX, Jim Cramer, or Republicans, but it’s not serious. Liberals who think such things really speak to the complexities of America’s problems and vulnerabilities are, in conservative eyes, naive.
So perhaps liberal/progressives have a distaste for bombast and talk radio because its style of belittling others and playing to emotion runs against their world view. Perhaps conservatives can’t make satire funny because it seems to trivialize issues in their eyes. Or maybe it’s literally that conservatives so believe they are defending their world from leftist dangers that they have to be serious, while liberals are more willing to break with the past and undertake new policies to reshape the polity. Satire is a way to show absurdities in the way things are done.
Fox tried a Stewart like show (“the Half Hour News Hour”) and it failed. Liberals tried talk radio (Air America) and it failed. So I ask again, why can the left do satire but not talk radio, and why can the right do talk radio but not satire?
A few people have posted that they dislike Washington DC taking their tax dollars for things like social welfare programs or health care. However, the Obama Administration has reached a new level of federal intervention that quite frankly has me angry and alarmed.
Apparently, this administration has figured out how to control weather, and has diverted snow from Maine down to the District of Columbia. This has hurt ski resorts, snow mobilers (and the businesses which serve them), and the entire winter tourism industry. Luckily it’s cold enough that the snow we have is sticking — and our local ski mountain remains in decent condition (icy in spots, but overall good). Still, the total blanket of snow on the ground is on average only a few inches. In the last three years we’ve gotten over 100 of inches of snow each year, with mounds of snow piled high.
Dirty snow in other years would soon be covered with clean snow; now there are huge chunks of ugly dirty snow on the edges of roads and sidewalks. Sledding is very difficult, and if the temperature should climb above freezing, we’d risk a premature spring. Some would welcome that, but most of us love our winter!
The alarming aspect of this is the fact that this shows that the Obama Administration now has control of the weather. It is unclear why it is being diverted to DC. Is it an effort to punish Collins and Snow for their refusal to back health care reform? Or is geopolitics involved?
It could be that since most foreign embassies are located in Washington, this is a way to show the ambassadors and their staff the power at the finger tips of the Administration. Sure, Iraq and Afghanistan have made our military might seem a bit tarnished, but hey — what would Beijing do if buried in snow? Floods to Iran, and perhaps an opium-killing drought to Afghanistan?
I suspect that the technology to create ICWDs (Inter-contintenal Weather Devices) is still under development. Or, perhaps worrying about various international treaties, the Obama Administration hopes that simply demonstrating the power will be enough to get other countries to change their behavior. Look, our economy is shot, our military power appears useless in shaping world events, and our nuclear weapons are defensive. Countries really have no reason to worry about what the US wants. China, in fact, knows that if it dumps dollars and US bonds our currency could collapse — they have us by the economic short hairs. It appeared to all that the US is the second superpower to bite the dust in two decades. Until now. Now that we have weather control.
This would all be well and good if the Obama Administration could be trusted to use it wisely. However, by depriving northern New England of needed snow, it shows a both a lack of judgment and a limit to the efficacy of the device. The lack of judgment is to punish two “blue” states by denying them a good winter. I suspect this was not the intent. The soft bureaucratic pansies on the Potomac probably think nobody likes snow, and believed they were doing us a favor. This is an example of what Friedrich Hayek meant about the danger of centralized planning and the need for diffuse knowledge! And if they meant to punish Collins and Snowe for not supporting health care reform, with this you can forget about Olympia. She takes it personally when Maine is denied its snow(e).
This also demonstrates troubling unintended consequences. To cause a drought in one place, you need to send the rain someplace else. Now, flooding Tehran to dry up opium fields in Afghanistan may be feasible, but what would it do to Mongolia, a country we have good relations with, if we sent their winter to Beijing? A bureaucrat, a member of that effete corps of impudent snobs, may think Thailand won’t miss some of its monsoon rains to flood parts of Burma, but it might actually deny rice to a whole section of the country. A pusillanimous pussyfooter might decide to send Darfur drought to other parts of Sudan to punish the regime, and thereby ignite new civil wars and perhaps an energy crisis if oil production is cut.
So while I appreciate that this might save our superpower status, the implications of its use are dangerous. Washington DC needs to stop stealing our snow, and let us have a winter again! We don’t need ski lifts on Capitol Hill. Fine, develop ICWDs as a deterrent to, say, China causing our currency to collapse and render us the equivalent of a third world state. It would be a bummer if they did that. But tell the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history, those nattering nabobs of negativity, elite pencil pushers who can’t park their bikes to STOP STEALING OUR SNOW! You don’t need it. You’ve had your snow storm. I’ve been in many of them and to some extent I would have to say this; if you’ve seen one snow storm you’ve seen them all.
Wednesday night was an indication of how a satirist and comedian has been able to outflank serious journalists in earning a reputation of integrity. Stewart had two Mideast activists on his show, a Jewish human rights activist Anna Baltzer and a Palestinian pro-democracy advocate Mustafa Barghouti. Their message: the way to peace in Palestine is through diplomacy and non-violent reconciliation. They criticized Israel for creating the problem through its long repression of the Palestinians, and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. They suggested that such conditions certainly can inspire extremist reactions. They spoke of reason and non-violence.
At the time I didn’t realize I was watching something extremely controversial. In fact, I graded papers, thinking the “good” part of the show was over. Only this morning do I read that pro-Israel groups are incensed, angry that Stewart wasn’t “fair and balanced” enough to have a hardline Israel proponent on the show, and calling for a boycott of the Daily Show.
Before taping, the Daily Show and the two guests were pressured to cancel and not go on. It was clear that powerful forces did not want this discussion to air on US television, and if the station involved had been CNN, FOX or MSNBC, it certainly would not have. The mainstream stations would have wilted under pressure and threats from pro-Israeli voices, feeling forced to talk about “Palestinian suicide bombers” and focus on this as a conflict that must be settled by one side “winning.” Such a discussion would not be allowed, it would risk advertising dollars and generate negative publicity.
Yet the myth of “fair and balanced” news is more poisonous to accurate reporting than even the real existence of bias. Consider: if someone is talking about the holocaust, does one need to have a holocaust denier present to have the news be fair and balanced? If one is interviewing a free marketeer does one have to have a Communist present to rebut the points? If you interview survivors of 9-11, are you required to have Islamic extremists present the pro-terrorism viewpoint in order to have balance? No, I’m not saying Israel’s position is akin to any of these, only that the idea of ‘fair and balanced’ is really always a biased and subjective call. The range of ‘acceptible positions’ is relatively narrow, and it is not at all uncommon to leave out many perspectives.
Jon Stewart is Jewish. One of his guests was Jewish, the other Palestinian. Could it be that the Israeli hardliners are really upset about the fact that a perspective friendly to the concerns of the Palestinians is being put forth by Jews? Does that perhaps risk undercutting the myth that there are only two points of view, the Jewish and the Palestinian, and that the question is whether terrorism is worse than Israeli security actions? Is the real threat the reframing of the debate, meaning that the pro-Israel side can’t frame it in a way favorable to themselves?
Perhaps one way to be fair and balanced is to consider different ways of framing a debate. It can be a Jew and a Palestinian discussing ways to peacefully solve the problem, or it can be Jews and Palestinians arguing about who is more to blame. In the former, violence is seen as misguided form both sides, and each are called to take steps to bring a peaceful resolution to the problem. In the latter, you have to choose which side’s violence is legitimate by deciding which kind of violence is worse. In the former, both can work together for mutual benefit. In the latter, one side must win and the other side lose.
If the mainstream media stays “fair and balanced” by going with the latter perspective without taking into account the Barghouti-Baltzer perspective, isn’t Stewart doing the public a service by showing the other perspective, one generally silenced by the mainstream media? Isn’t the courage to do so in the face of massive pressure from those who want to shape the public framing of the debate something we want from our newspeople? Why do they not provide it, why do we rely on our satirists? This isn’t the first time I’ve made this point about Stewart’s contribution, I also brought it up when he had his monumental interview with Jim Cramer.
Yet it may seem odd that an academic whose methodology has involved analyzing media (the subject matter has been German foreign policy) should promote a comedian to the status of the most trusted name in news. Jon Stewart is not truly a journalist nor a newsperson. He should not be the most trusted name in news, and if pushed I’m sure I could find a number of serious journalists who do dig and are unafraid of pressure; indeed, most news anchors are not true journalists but good looking hosts. Still, Stewart does seem to show the hypocrisies and dis-ingenuity of politicians of all stripes in a way most mainstream journalists do not.
He mocks the way the mainstream news media covered a so-called “Obama war on Fox,” and then juxtaposed a Cal Thomas condemnation of Obama for trying to silence the media with un-American pressure with praise he gave a year earlier for the Bush Administration’s similar attack on MSNBC. If only the mainstream media would out hypocrisy so clearly — and Stewart shows no mercy to the Democrats on such things either.
The problem seems to be that the news media is caught in a voyeuristic effort to present different narratives without seriously trying to investigate the internal coherence and evidential support of each one. They bow to pressure prefer a ‘he said, she said’ reporting to ‘what might be wrong with what each of them said.’ The result? People trust a comedian more than their news media for understanding current events. And, as much as I enjoy Jon Stewart, we shouldn’t have to leave it up to our satirists and comedians to help us critically assess world events.
Last night when Jim Cramer was scheduled to appear on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart I expected the typical “conclusion” to a week long rivalry involving Stewart. He’s a comic, he’s nice, he’ll give Cramer a chance to say his piece, get in a few zingers and everyone will end up getting along great. Instead Stewart moved up from mere comic newsguy to actually voicing the frustration and anger that many Americans have for how the financial system works. Cramer, for his part, mixed humility and good humor well, but couldn’t really respond to Stewart’s constant on the mark shots. This was no typical light weight comic interview, this was a masterpiece. WATCH IT: click here for the interview.
Two points stand out. First, in response to Cramer’s statement that he is doing his best to out unfair manipulation of the market, Stewart shows him a number of clips that find Cramer bragging about such manipulation, and saying that all investors should do it — it’s fun and makes money. Cramer avoids directly responding, but the message is clear: Cramer is a hypocrite. And, of course, Stewart’s point is not that it’s just Cramer, but that CNBC and in general the world of business punditry is to blame. They masqueraded as journalists looking out for the average person and their money, but instead were in bed with the big shots, and cheer leading a market that they should have realized was a bubble out of sync with fundamental weaknesses in the economy. In short, popular financial news has been a scam.
Perhaps more impressive was the fact that Stewart nailed Cramer — and most of the world of Wall Street and high finance — with the charge that insiders were making deals and money, manipulating the markets in order to profit from the 401K money that average folk invested. There were two classes of investors — us normal citizens who simply tried to figure out safe and secure investment strategies, and the financial insiders, who could manipulate things for their advantage. Those who should have been warning us were actually in bed with the insiders.
None of this is news, to be sure. I recall back in early 2000 getting an e-mail from someone who knew people “on the inside” informing me that the word was to get out of stocks, a major crash was coming. That was three months before the Nasdaq hit its high of 5011 (with Cramer predicting it would continue on to maybe 8000 by the end of the year) and then crashed to ultimately down around 1000. While average folk were watching CNBC and the now defunct CNN-FN, and hearing of a market that could see the Dow boom to 30,000 or even 100,000 in a few years, the insiders understood what was coming, and most of them probably found safe havens for their money.
Meanwhile, the aftermath of 9-11 led to cheap credit and another boom, this one fed by dual bubbles of higher property values and an again rising stock market. The insiders used this to feed themselves massive bonuses (we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg now). Some, like Bernie Madoff were obviously and consciously scamming average folk, but many — probably Cramer included — thought it was a game with no losers. The market would keep going up, so average investors would still see their 401K values increase and their net worth skyrocket (average household net worth it hit a high in early 2007, but has gone down about 30% since then), and the insiders could continue to skim off the top and use inside information and manipulative strategies to enhance their profits. Everybody wins!
The right wing/libertarian sector of the political class had a role in this too. As long as their mantra of deregulation and “let the markets operate” seemed to be embraced, they had motive to see the ever rising stock market and “wealth effect” as something permanent and natural. It fit their ideology. To be sure, more intelligent libertarians understood what was happening (such as Peter Schiff, who was the subject of a video I linked to earlier this week in another blog post about Stewart, who has had one of his best weeks, in my opinion). He’s a member of the so-called “Austrian school,” which builds on the work of Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek. I have great respect for the Austrian school, even if I do not embrace their approach completely, because they recognize a couple of basic facts: they look at the fundamentals (consumption and production), and understand the reason why markets work better than planned economies (diffuse information). Schiff is currently warning about inflation, which is a warning that should be taken seriously. But most free marketeers of the recent GOP era were not really all that well versed in economics. The Rush Limbaugh crowd and the blogosphere simply thought a few simple ideological tidbits were enough, and read the apparent prosperity of recent years as proof they were right — the Arthur Laffers and Ben Steins of the punditry class.
So how did we get here, to a point where a comedian with what he calls a “fake news show” seems to be in the forefront of calling out the class of pundits and so-called journalists that helped mislead public opinion for years? Why is Jon Stewart the populist hero confronting the Cramers of the world? Why is it that the Cramers, Laffers and Steins continue their punditry with a shrug and an excuse that they can’t get everything right, with the news shows still inviting them and treating them with respect? Is it corporate big media taking care of its own? Is it that the establishment class hasn’t yet come to grips with the reality of how wrong the conventional wisdom had been?
It’s probably the latter, and probably no surprise that it is satire and comedy that first unmasks the outlandishness of how people are thinking and operating. Throughout history satire has had the impact of showing reality for what it is, even going back to Roman satirists like Juvenal, Horace, Lucilius, Ennius, and Perseus, many of whom saw the weakening of Rome at a time when it appeared Rome was at a pinnacle. Comedy and satire are an effort to expose hypocrisy and make fun of both the elite and everyday practices. As such, comedy is perhaps one of the most powerful tools of social criticism. It is less likely to caught up in defending an ideological orthodoxy or fighting a political war. It’s not part of the game, at its best it is outside the game, observing and searching for things to ridicule and mock.
Comedy and satire do not need to protect their own theories and interests. When Joe Scarborough mocked Stewart by saying he was “cherry picking eight years of quotes in order to get laughs,” Stewart could reply, “of course, that’s what we do!” This means they are less inhibited by bias and a stake in the game than most pundits and politicians. Social critics in academia or the world of philosophy (I’d put myself in that class) try to do the same thing, but we’re not every effective. We’re not entertaining. By trying to be academic and explore the various perspectives, we can’t simply cut to the chase the way Stewart can in his interview with Cramer.
To those who are appalled that most Americans get their news from Stewart or Colbert, the good news is that perhaps at this time of crisis Stewart and Colbert are the best observers of our conditions, and serving a real important function during this time of “crisis and transformation.” I’m sure they wouldn’t agree — the fact they don’t want that kind of role is one reason they’re able to fulfill it — but it seems almost undeniable. While the politicians were in ideological fights over Iraq in 2005, Stewart’s “Mess O’Potamia” early on caught the contradictions, hubris, and obvious errors of the White House long before it really became public conventional wisdom.
Satire has throughout history played this kind of role, often under appreciated, ridiculed and disdained by the public and the ruling class. In Russia, for instance, political satire has been essentially banned if it goes after the government, they know how powerful it is. Comedy, like art, plays a profound role in the social and political development of a polity, even if seems on the margins or trivial. But last night Jon Stewart not only engaged in satire, but spoke for the country in confronting Jim Cramer, symbolically a proxy for the financial elites and insiders. In my opinion this was an important and historic episode in how this country is dealing with the financial crisis. It’s not just Stewart that deserves praise, it’s the practice of satire and comedy. Satire is more powerful than punditry, and usually more honest.
Satire Alert: For those who are humor impared, this is a satire of the silly anti-Obama websites put up by so-called Hillary supporters who soldier on, despite failing to stop Obama. The sites being satired: Hillbuzz, The Confluence, Noquarter and Texas Darling. I am, for the record, an Obama supporter. Start satire now:
Well, it had to happen, didn’t it. For Barack Obama, it wasn’t enough to steal the election from first Hillary Clinton and then John McCain, now he has the unmitigated gall to foist the most shameful humiliation onto Hillary Clinton. He must delight in demeaning women and sticking a fork into Hillary Clinton, despite the fact his minions like Howard Dean and Donna Brazile forced her to pretend to support him during the election campaign. Now President Elect Barry Sorterobama wants the most distinguished Senator and should-be President Elect to become nothing but a mere Secretary. Kicked in the shins so often by the party that they built from the ashes left by Obama’s intellectual mentor, Jimmy Carter, the Clintons seem willing to consider it.
Yes, word is that Hillary Clinton is being considered for the position of Secretary of state. Can you believe it! Clearly, Obama knows that his path to power is not complete. There are law suits pending, proving that he was born in either Kenya, Indonesia, or that he renounced his citizenship and thus is not a legal American citizen. That means that there are three other possibilities than his having been born in Hawaii as he claims. That’s a one in four chance, only a 25% probability he’s a native born citizen. That alone should get him disqualified. Perhaps he knows that secret paperwork from Kenya is on its way, and he wants Hillary out of the way.
The electoral college has also not spoken. What will happen when the video that the Obama campaign has paid Fox news millions of dollars not to release — the one showing Michelle Obama screaming “death to f***ing Whitie!” while wearing a T-shirt of Adolf Hitler in black face with the caption “we need one of these!” — finally gets released? Will the electors still vote for this Muslim who worships in a racist Christian church?
Or, perhaps, he simply wants to prove to Hillary that he is dominant, and she is nothing but a Secretary. Instead of chugging down Crowne Royal with the unemployed steelworkers of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, she’ll have to sip fine wine with French President Sarkozy and his model wife. Yup. Hillary will be forced to hobnob with women who defy her spunk and energy and instead simply want to be beautiful and snag a powerful husband. Instead of beer in Columbus, it’ll be tea with the pinky extended with the Queen in Buckingham palace? Can you think of anything more demeaning?
Recently an insightful Georgia Congressman compared Obama to Hitler. Hitler should be the one feeling insulted. Hitler was a courageous courrier in World War I, a job with 80% mortality rates. He was an artist, a soldier and he suffered in prison for his political views. If you doubt Obama is worse than Hitler, can you see Hitler embracing the teachings of Reverend Wright? Obama, on the other hand, is an empty suit. Moreover, he’s an obviously evil empty suit because he’s managed to fake accomplishments like graduating from Harvard Law school, serving as the first Black Harvard Law Review chief editor, working in community action, serving in the Illinois Senate and then moving on to the United States Senate. All these “accomplishments”, as well as his campaign and debates have fooled Americans into not recognizing he’s just an empty suit. Clearly, the media has been in on the scam from day one.
Why? Well, it’s clear Obama is a Marxist. He had classes with Marxist professors in college, and we know how hard you have to look to find a Marxist in academia! He never came clean on his relationship with William Ayres, including the allegations that they have had a homosexual love affair for years, including a sado-masochistic ritual with the safe words “bomb the Pentagon!” Clearly, this is a man bent on destroying America.
But most import to us Hillary Clinton supporters, he wants to destroy the one savior who could unite the country and bring us to a new paradise. Instead of the gritty and determined heroine, we get this guy who people treat as the messiah, “the One,” adoring him and looking over obvious hypocrisies. Hillary is honest and forthright. Yeah, she told us she supported Obama and she campaigned for him, but that was because Howard Dean and Donna Brazile threatened her, and her loyalty to the Democratic party — a trait that shows strength — meant she felt she had to support a man she knows isn’t up for the job. What a woman she is! Can we have Hillary back, PLEASE?
I’m sure Obama is a decent father, his kids seem to like him, and I’m not saying he is himself fundamentally evil. But we don’t know him. We do know that he went to a racist church, likely muttering “Amen” to Rev. Wright’s continual calls to God to damn America. Clearly he was raised on ‘black liberation theology,’ an obscure sixties movement that Rev. Wright was part of. Since he went to the same church, he clearly holds all the views of that movement, from Marxism to anti-white racism. To deny that would be irrational; the fact the media didn’t point this out shows they hate America so much they’d rather have a ‘big story’ then a good President.
And his clear sexism in wanting to make Hillary a Secretary should send up warning signals to women everywhere. The way the Democrats and the media savaged Sarah Palin, that brilliant strong woman who gave us hope after Hillary was denied her destiny by the media-DNC partnership, shows that the elites in journalism and the Democratic party hate women. What other explanation can there be?
Moreover, if Obama hadn’t bussed in tens of thousands of ACORN volunteers to Iowa, Hillary would have won those caucuses and gone on to vicotry. And all the close states — the margins of a few hundred thousand voters easily could have been ACORN fraud. Could have been? Anyone who doubts it has obviously been sipping the koolaid, believing the preposterous claim Obama won fair and square. When people start falling for outlandish things like Obama as a legitimate President, you know they’ve slipped off the deep end.
My friends (and we know that’s the proper way to address a collective mass, most of whom we know nothing about), Hillary Clinton should stand up and say what she really thinks about Barack Obama. She should fight back against the abuse and say “I ain’t gonna be no Secretary!” Because you know, if she accepts, the President of Ecador or somewhere will be visiting, and Barry will ring up the Old Executive Office building and say to Hillary, “Sweetie, I’m meeting with a foreign leader and I think you should be here…could you bake up some of those delicious oatmeal scotchies and bring them over too?…thanks.”
Only those completely out of touch with reality could possibly hold such bizarre views as those being shown in the mainstream media, the world press, public opinion, and especially on college campuses (those young snots don’t know what experience means, after all). We see clearly the truth, that Obama is a false messiah, and Hillary needs to be raised from the dead! Fight on!
(End of Satire)