Rejecting Denunciations

Hillary Clinton is proving one thing - she is no Bill Clinton. When it came to having a way with words, her hubby Bill could make you believe that everything he said made sense. Even if what he had to say was absolute nonsensical gobbledygook.

When he questioned what the meaning of the word "is" was millions swooned as they looked into his eyes thinking what he said actually made some sort of logical point. But on Tuesday night, when Hillary squared off once again with Barack Obama in a debate, she stumbled and stammered trying the same tactic when it came to the issue of an endorsement of her rival by Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan.

Farrakhan, known for his incendiary, racist and often incoherent ramblings and conspiracy theories said of Obama that he was the "hope of the entire world". Of course this comes from someone who has called Judaism a "gutter religion". So you can draw your own conclusions about whether or not he has an opinion worth listening to.

When asked about the endorsement at the debate, Obama had his answer ready and to be honest it was a fairly good one. He said, "I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy," and also, "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements." Fair enough. Yes, while it is true you can indeed tell someone by the company they keep, you cannot necessarily tell them by the flies that keep coming around no matter how many times you shoo them away. Of course sometimes you do have to realize what flies are attracted to and why they keep coming around.

And no, I'm not falling under Barack Obama's spell either. I still find his policies repugnant to our society and to liberty in general. This is the same man after all that thinks we can create a nuclear weapons free world when his fellow travelers have not even mastered their foolish quest to create gun free zones in the United States! So how he actually thinks he can tackle nuclear weapons is a mystery only the great Obama can answer.

But I'm not going to let that get in the way of being consistent. I oppose Obama because of his own views, his own words and his own actions. Yes, the people that hover around him concern me because I know that they hover around him because they share a lot of similar (and bad) ideas. But I don't need them as a reason to oppose him.

Hillary Clinton however didn't like Obama's answer to the question at the debate and she tried to channel the spirit of Slick Willie. The only problem is that Bill is still alive so obviously the attempt failed miserably.

Thus she enters into word games. She said in response, "There's a difference between denouncing and rejecting."

Well, maybe. If you have to determine what the meaning of "is" is, that is.

All right, I admit the words probably don't mean "exactly" the same thing. To denounce something only means to "announce formally the termination of" something and proclaim it as "evil" whereas rejecting something only means "to refuse to accept" it.

So we could play semantics if we really, really wanted to and say they mean different things. But I think it is pretty clear that Hillary failed at her goal. In fact, when Obama responded back saying, "if the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce,' then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce [Farrakhan's support]," and drew applause that promptly put the former first (if you can call being on speed dial below every intern in a skirt "first") lady in her place.

After all these years this is what the left is still discussing? The meaning of the word "is"? We haven't moved one iota forward since former president Clinton got caught trying to deny a woman her constitutionally guaranteed day in court and then wriggle out of it?

Well, actually we have. Because not too long ago Hillary Clinton was the presumptive nominee and it looked like we might very well be in for four (or God forbid eight) years of looking at a woman that reminds every man of either a shrill ex-girlfriend or ex-wife that he just couldn't wait to get away from. We've moved forward in the sense that it finally looks like America is finally both rejecting and denouncing Senator Clinton.

Now all we have to do is find out why after taking that step forward we took two steps back to the point where someone even more liberal is considered a good alternative for the throne she once hoped to occupy.

The issue shouldn't be that Farrakhan endorsed Obama or how Obama claims to distance himself from such a radical. The issue should be that much of what Obama proposes meshes with Farrakhan's own ideas about how America is unfair and that how only by the mighty hand of government can the evil rich be punished, the gumdrop trees come into blossom, the rivers run free with sweet chocolate and the marshmallow peeps roam free without fear of them being hunted for their delicious flesh.

Ah Utopia!