Obama Supporters VS Obama Supporters
When I digest my daily dose of hatemail, I often find myself wondering, “Do Obama supporters talk to each other, ever?” Whenever I criticize Obama (or his supporters), half of his supporters will defend him with one position, and the other half defend him with an entirely opposite position. They are often such polar opposites that I suspect they have more in common with me than with each other. I’ll give some examples:
Whenever I point out Obama’s socialism,
Half of Obama supporters accuse me of dishonestly smearing Obama with socialism.
Half accuse me of smearing socialism, and defend socialism, Obama’s brand in particular.
Whenever I note the incredible propensity to scream “RACISM!” by his supporters,
Half of his supporters will accuse me of being racist.
Half will accuse me of imagining being accused racist.
In fact, you can view this exact sort of exchange in the comments of this blog. Here is an example:
Whenever I reiterate Obama’s intellectual failings,
Half of Obama supporters will acknowledge they are bad, but “not as bad as Bush”.
Half deny any errors on the part of Obama and accuse me of being too dumb to see his master plan. Apparently he was “hinting” at something with his statement that there are 57 states.
Whenever I talk about Obama’s resume (or lack thereof),
Half of his supporters acknowledge that resumes are very important. They then deny that Obama has a short one, often going so far to argue that Obama is actually MORE qualified than the other candidates.
Half will acknowledge that that his resume is as short as can be, but deny that it is important. To them, Obama is essentially GOD so it doesn’t matter, and when he becomes the new president we can put his resume on the new penny where Lincoln’s eye used to be.
You will find contradictions such as these on any of Obama’s positions. You come to expect it eventually. It’s really not surprising though, considering the candidate they support. He calls for change, yet offers up an old, outdated form of socialism which has already been shown to be ineffective as something “new”. He rails against “guilt by association” but attempts to link McCain to Bush in almost every speech. He vehemently attacks division and disunity, then, anyone who happens to have different ideas, often in the same sentence. The man is almost nothing but contradictions.
Perhaps the strategy for ’08 should be to get them to talk to eachother. Get them to discuss Obama’s policy so they can realize how different their views of it are. That would be the antidote to “hope and change”. When a candidate speaks in completely empty platitudes, the populace which falls into the trap is apt to “fill in the blanks” themselves with whatever positions they admire. The solution to this is to get them thinking about those positions, and to question wether or not their candidate really does espouse them. Thinking coupled with information is always the best cure for Obamitis.
We must get them to talk to eachother.