By: Erik Rush
No, this is not a review of an upcoming Spike Lee film; rather, the title of this offering is a reference to what the town of Unity, N.H. became on Friday June 27, when Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Company descended upon the microscopic New England town in an effort to convince the latter senatorâ€™s supporters to back Obama. Hence the reasoning for choosing a place with the name â€œUnity.â€
Perhaps Clinton supporters and those voters who are on the fence as regards the individual for whom who they might cast their vote saw the event as either an expected political maneuver or an exercise in magnanimity on the part of both Obama and Clinton. Others such as this columnist, who oppose both â€“ and are not yet sufficiently numb to the effluvia of falsehoods and deceit that emanates unremittingly from the two Democrats â€“ viewed the exercise as a transparent, vapid retch fest of the highest order.
It is apparent that the central order of business amongst Clinton and Obama fans â€“ judging from the hoots, clucks and grunts of reaction from the Quest for Fire crowd in the stands outside of Unity Elementary School â€“ is ending the war in Iraq. It is also apparent that they have long since wholly accepted the boilerplate misdirection and obfuscation that marks every oratory and press release coming out of the Clinton and Obama camps: Questions such as what is to be done when Iranian forces and al-Qaeda swarm unchallenged into Iraq and Shiites begin butchering Sunnis go unasked, let alone unanswered.
The wimpification of American foreign policy is a phenomenon that had its genesis in the Democrat Party. Granted that it has taken its toll on Republican administrations, during the time between John F. Kennedyâ€™s presidency and Gerald Fordâ€™s, far Left elements that had insinuated themselves within the Democrat Party implemented their â€œrot from withinâ€ strategies in numerous areas. The next Democrat administration â€“ Jimmy Carterâ€™s â€“ subsequently compromised American credibility, integrity and power in the area of foreign policy to a degree from which it has not yet recovered, and perhaps never will. Inaction with regard to known threats from radical Islam, most notably during Bill Clintonâ€™s presidency, quite literally paved the way for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
Like Richard Nixon, who was painted as the foul Republican creature responsible for the Vietnam War despite the fact that it was started and escalated by Democrat administrations and that Nixon actually removed our forces from that country, George W. Bush has been successfully cast by the far Left as the foul Republican creature responsible for our problems with radical Islam. In the eyes of Democrat voters, our current President cavalierly orders ignorant patriotic youth overseas to be blown into steak tartare while he sits in the Oval Office and giggles. We need to turn tail and run again even if it means emboldening our enemies further, because war is just terrible, horrible and icky, and besides â€“ this one is just a case of military masturbation for the sole purpose of Bushâ€™s entertainment, as was Vietnam for Nixon.
â€œâ€˜This was not a pat on the back for Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton. This was a bear hug,â€™ said Kevin Madden, former spokesman for GOP candidate Mitt Romney.â€
- Fox News, June 27, 2008
Actually, it far more resembled Clinton sticking her tongue down his throat. As Obama sat smiling and relaxed but unmoving, Clinton showered him with accolades peppered with gloom-and-doom prophecies surrounding Republican nominee John McCain. She offered the patently preposterous claim that McCain and Bush are two sides of the same coin, which â€œdoesnâ€™t amount to a whole lotta changeâ€¦â€
Guess she just had to get the â€œchangeâ€ line inâ€¦
Then it was Obamaâ€™s turn. John McCain will keep American troops in Iraq until the next cycle of the cosmos ends, Obama intimated, extend corporate welfare and tax breaks, and so forth; again, one might swap out McCain for Bush and the accusations would be identical, which is of course holds dark irony for dedicated conservatives.
And Hillary? Well, heâ€™s admired her as a leader, learned from her as a candidate, and heâ€™s proud to call her his friend.
- Sen. Obama on Hillary Clinton, June 27, 2008
Like, gag me with a maggotâ€¦ Totally! As far as being a friend goes: Would that be the sort of Clinton â€œfriendâ€ that gets thrown under the bus, winds up in prison, or is found dead of high-velocity lead poisoning in a park with a gun in their hand?
In what is becoming known as typical fashion, at one point Obama slipped verbally, saying they (he and Clinton) â€œneededâ€ the people present. Then, presumably not wanting to appear too â€œneedy,â€ he corrected himself and said that while they did need the people in a practical sense, they really needed them to be unified for the sake of the party, to play nice, â€œjust get alongâ€ â€“ that sort of thing.
Clinton definitely needs some of Obamaâ€™s millions approximately ($200 million at present, with more on the way given that heâ€™s not taking federal funds) to help pay down her campaign debt. Toward the end of the primary race, she infused her campaign with a substantial amount of her own cash. Wherever she winds up, Clinton does not want that lodestone following her. Sen. Obama definitely needs her supporters, a significant portion of those blue-collar white Democrats and Independent voters who it is speculated are wary of Obama due to his errant speech concerning them and his connection to black nationalists and other questionable characters.
A marriage made in hell if there ever was one…
Erik Rush is a Staff Writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org).