The Hillobama speechifying
When this whole Democrat battle boiled down to two candidates, I thought Obama was the better speaker. After listening to countless sound bites, interviews, debates and off-the-cuff remarks from both, I have to say, Hillary is much better. Once you get Obama off the no-content message of hope and change, he has nothing else to say and he says even that badly. He's even worse on off-the-cuff remarks than John Edwards, who's really a stammerer with a southern accent. Obama's as clear as John Kerry, who's really murky.Hillary might lie a lot, but at least she's articulate and believes her own lies.
Posts
4 comments:
You make it sound like Hillary's lies are not so bad as long as she believes them. LOL! Unfortunately there seems to be many other people who feel the same way. I just can't understand why sleaze and deception isn't recognized for what it is. I mean, we're not talking about electing a crew chief for some ditch diggers. I wish we were. Then I'd feel better about both of them.
I didn't mean I believe them--I was being sarcastic. But one of the reasons she can be so fluid and charming and not stumble, is she believes her lies. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't seem to believe his, so he stammers and stutters while trying to figure out how to fool us. GWB, on the other hand, stays firm in what he believes, doesn't lie, and still can't string a sentence together.
The abortion question at the college was a good example of 1) unable to respond without the text of a speech, 2) not being prepared. How would he not know this would be asked. She was a little better in that she's anticipated the question, but the honest answer would be, "Yes, life begins at conception, but I believe there are more important values than to allow that life to continue." Then she should list them. I like the part about government not interfering in a citizen's life, but why does she not carry that to it's logical conclusion?
Post a Comment