Connect with us
The one time I wish Ralph Nader was there.

archive

Hillary and Obama Spin in Debate

The one time I wish Ralph Nader was there.

Last week’s love fest is over. The polar ice caps are officially secure from any global warming meltdown. The Ohio Democrat Debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was less a debate and more of a cold shouldered hour and a half of non-committal answers about questionable actions by both candidates.

MSNBC would have been better off with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader asking the questions. At least the debate would have sparked a reaction over pork consumption and unconstitutional activity.

So what do we know now that we didn’t already know about two candidates? After this debate, nothing they don’t want people to know.

Hillary still wants to give “enormous help” to “the people of America” whom she wants to “have a chance” in a country where only Democrats are able to offer hope. Barack Obama still feels low-income Americas “just want a little bit of a hand-out.” As opposed to the huge handouts Democrats have been dispensing through welfare and other government programs since about 1933.

On the up side, both candidates still refuse to release their tax returns, nor any campaign finance documents, unless they become the Democratic nominee. In other words, neither candidate intends to release the money trail. For now George Soros is safe from John McCain.

The former First Lady who wants to be the first female president does not like being the first candidate asked questions in debates: she finds it odd that lately she is always asked the first question. Hillary went so far as to compare each debate to the Saturday Night Live rendition of the last debate that looked more like a marriage proposal than a debate between her and Senator Obama.

Since Mrs. Clinton does not like being put on the spot, I say we simply ask her to concede to Senator Obama now with no more questions asked.

Hillary did let America know she is a fighter and will fight for Americans who need healthcare. I can’t help but wonder how many broken lamps it takes to get a healthcare bill passed.

As always, Hillary consistently stated she wants universal healthcare, a plan of mandated, enforced healthcare (presumably along the lines of the Romney plan in Massachusetts which fines people who don’t obtain health insurance. Obama’s plan is a mandate stating every parent must have healthcare for their children. In other words, get healthcare or the Big Government will fine you.

NAFTA, Bill Clinton’s “European-style” free trade union was denounced last night by Hillary as “flawed” and “heavily disadvantaging.” This from the woman who, in 2000, called the North American Free Trade Agreement “good political courage,” and in 2004 described NAFTA as “good for America and good on balancing America.”

Now Hillary thinks it was just her husband’s “flawed” bill. She refused to give a yes or no on whether or not she would tell Canada and Mexico goodbye on NAFTA in six months if elected president. Instead, Hillary said she would renegotiate with the two nations, guaranteeing that the two other nations would fall in line under her stern glare.

Barack Obama was as uncommitted to answering yes or no to pulling out of NAFTA in six months. But he took Hillary’s line, adding he dislikes NAFTA “because it shut down factories in Ohio.” Obama emulated John Kerry, stating NAFTA was good for a lot of factories in Ohio. Obama said he would “use the opt-out plan” for NAFTA and “renegotiate” because “America can’t shy away from globalization.” Apparently Obama was for NAFTA before he was against it, and again afterwards.

At this rate, Democrats might as well attach healthcare to NAFTA. Oh wait, illegal aliens from Mexico already receive free healthcare when entering the U.S. It’s Americans who must beg for medical attention or high tale it to Canada for cheap prescription drugs thanks to Democrat healthcare plans.

One step further and America will join the European Union.

Obama’s zipped lips locked like Fort Knox when asked if he would “reject” Louis Farrakhan’s public support and endorsement of Obama. Obama who consistently referred to the Jew-hating Nation of Islam leader as “Minister Farrakhan,” would only state he felt Farrakhan’s past comments against the Jewish community were “reprehensible.” When pressed to give an answer to the question, or answer why his own minister went to Libya on a questionable trip, Obama answered only that he is supported by many in the Jewish community.

Hillary was quick to rise to the occasion claiming she would “never associate [herself] with people who make inflammatory comments against Jews.” Hillary also told the audience she did not think it was right for Barack Obama to say he would meet with “the worst dictators (referring to Iran) in the world.” Yasser Arafat on the other hand was a misunderstood Jew-hater who was forced to kill those nasty Israelis.

Hillary did however force Obama’s hand, making him use the phrase “reject” versus denounce when asked one more time about Farrakhan; yet she rejected the entire idea that Al Qaeda would ever reemerge and attack if the U.S. pulled out of Iraq. When moderator Tim Russert insisted Al Qaeda could in fact come back and attack Iraq and the U.S., Hillary called the idea “hypothetical.”

This from the wife of Bill Clinton, who thought Osama bin Laden being called a threat by the Saudis five years prior to 9/11, was simply hypothetical. Hypothesis seems to be the motto of the Clinton’s.

If viewers hoped for answers from Obama and Hillary, they would be better off watching a video of the Saturday Night Live debate skit. More questions were answered in a five minute comedy skit than the past 10 months of campaigning.

In Basic English, here is a definition of the entire debate and what Democrats have planned for America: if one of the two Democrat candidates wins the presidency, he or she will usher socialism into the U.S., destroy capitalism by replacing it with collective redistribution of wealth, giving everything hard working Americans own to lazy Americans who refuse to work because Democrats believe their voters should live off the government paid for through taxpayers.

And neither candidate would protect America from terrorists since one wants to meet with terrorists while the other thinks Al Qaeda reemerging is simply hypothetical.

Voters need to make a 2008 Democrat win hypothetical.

Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter

Written By

Lisa Richards is a lifelong Reagan Conservative Republican from Connecticut who believes in America's constitutional founding as a Constitutional Republic. You can read more of her work at www.lisa-richards.com.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Advertisement
Advertisement

TRENDING NOW:

Today a Milkshake, Tomorrow A Brick: Corporate-Backed Political Violence Is Here.

CULTURE

Buzzfeed Bashes 14-Yr-Old Trump Fan, Celebrates Kids in Drag.

TECH

The Lived Experience of Candace Owens.

CULTURE

Al Jazeera: ‘Jews Exploit Holocaust’.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Connect
Newsletter Signup.

Sign up to the Human Events newsletter