"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Statistically Proven: No Republicans Watch CNN!

Well, by now you've heard about Barack Obama calling the small-town people who aren't voting for him firearms-humpin' Jebus-lovin' xenophobes. Even worse than that, protectionists!


"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations...



Most fascinating is CNNPolitics.com's report, with hundreds of comments---but not one from an apparent Republican, just a few Hillaryistas being gobbled up by a swarm of Obamans.

Now, a commenter at the righty blog The Ace of Spades says CNN is censoring his $0.02. Either way, censorship or 100% Democrat readership, CNN is toejam.

Equally fascinating---in over 800 comments at the Daily Kos, scarcely a whisper from the Hillary corner. Since the Obamans descended on them with all their savagery last month, Daily Kos, the jewel of the leftosphere, is a Hillary no-go zone.

I used to think when I got into a scrap with a lefty, it was all in the game. But after seeing how they treat each other, I'm thinking something more pathological is at work, if not downright eerie.

No more Republicans at CNN, no Hillary people left at Kos. The Disappeared. Soon all that'll be left is the Obamans, unified, hopeful, agents of change...

______________________________________

1 comment:

Michael Simpson said...

Well, since *we* are the change we've been waiting for, there obviously shouldn't be anyone else around, right?

I'm thinking this kills Obama in PA and the rest of the primaries, excepting NC. If that happens, the nomination very might well head to the convention. Whoo-hoo!

A bit more substantively, the comment's not really all that surprising, is it? It's pretty standard academic boiler-plate, in my experience. It seems pretty clear that Obama's very much your standard left-liberal academic type. Perhaps more eloquent (though a lot of the even really nutty types know how to deliver a good lecture) and certainly more willing to entertain discussions with those who disagree with him, but in the end, how do any of his positions differ from the ones the majority of law profs, for example, hold? None that I can see....