Betting on Lite

Just when you thought that we might have reached the point where we might have a day or two of “Clinton-less” news, the Associated Press tells of former President Clinton’s visit to Philadelphia. Bilious Clinton was speaking before the National Governors Association, so with a room full of old gubernatorial goats, the chances for Bill to “grab” anything other than a headline or two was probably pretty infinitesimal, so Rodham gave her approval for his field trip..

Clinton said that the “achievement” of the Democratic primary season is being “overshadowed by a growing distance between Americans.” What “achievement”? Is he possibly referring to probably THE greatest presidential choke job (No Lewinsky blue dress jokes here people, lets keep it clean.) EVER by his insufferable wife and her “Keystone Cops” campaign staff? Did he forget to mention that this “growing distance” has been encouraged not only by his wife’s ridiculously “suspended” campaign, but also the policies and procedures of racial recognition and separatism created, enacted and encouraged by the liberal Democrats for the last half century? He also forgot to mention his two Democratic contemporaries, $harpton and Jack$on (who and who??), both of whom specialize in intentionally separating and enflaming the races in order to secure their own slimy place within the dystrophic liberal pantheon of so called “leaders.”

He continued on with, “Underneath this apparent accommodation to our diversity, we are in fact hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness, and it affects our ability to manage difference..” Wow. Where to begin… Strap yourself in and lets try to break that howler down for the sake of sanity..

“Apparent accommodation to our diversity..” Through out time immemorial, when the progressives have hatched an “idea”, they have always believed that its implementation would miraculously transform America into “Kumbaya Korner”, and so it is with their vehement demands for “diversity”.

Diversity with the left, is a one way street where they assume the mantle of moral righteousness while they ignore other “un-diversities”, many of them of their own making. For example, there are 110 “Historically Black Colleges and Universities” in the United States. Does that suggest “diversity” to you? There are a number of schools that have all black fraternities and sororities. I can remember fevered requests/demands for “black only” dormitories and “black only” coronations and graduations at some schools as well. Not too much “diverse” about any of that, but you won’t hear anything but crickets from the left about these unusual expressions of “diversity”.

..”hunkering down in communities of like-mindedness..” The liberal beacon of “diversity” has to be the city by the gay, San Francisco. “Diversity” reigns supreme in this twisted metropolis, but does it really? Where was San Francisco’s “diversity” of thought when Board of Supervisors member Ed Jew voted in opposition to the psychotic ravings of fellow Board member Gerardo Sandoval, who attempted to overrule the first amendment specifically against those who disagreed with him? Where was their “diversity” and “tolerance” for the United States Marine Corps who were not allowed to film a commercial on the Golden Gate Bridge? “Like-mindedness”?? Does anyone remember the warm reception Joseph Lieberman received from his fellow Democrats after he had the audacity to vote for, and speak out on behalf of, the war in Iraq? There has never been a more “like-minded” and exclusionary group of bottom feeders than the liberal left. If you would like to see how “tolerant” the liberals really are, just disagree with one..

“..affects our ability to manage difference.” With the liberals, it is all about control. In order to choreograph the outcome of any and all situations, they have to be in control of all of its elements. “Diversity” with the left becomes a series of sterile charts and graphs that must be implemented “for your own good.” Just ask a liberal, they know what is best for you. Liberally unapproved individual volition is written off (or prosecuted) as “hateful” and “exclusionary.” Actually, it is just “some” people’s volition that is in need of the appropriate attention and adjustment.

Bill seemed surprised that people are “sorting themselves out by choosing to live with people that we (they) agree with.” Just because Bill lives with someone that he doesn’t agree with (I’ll bet their house looks like the set of a Jackie Chan movie..) doesn’t mean that the rest of us should follow suit. Not all of us have the singular lust for power that compels us to stay together for the sake of “appearances” like the Clintons..

Clinton thought that it was a good idea to tell the governors that they are dealing with the same issues that Teddy Roosevelt “grappled with a century ago.” It is good to know that even Clinton can’t find a Democrat worth mentioning when it comes to “problem solving.” Teddy, as a Republican, “grappled” with these issues quite differently from today’s elitists Democrats of the far left. Bill’s lachrymose laundry list included, “the inequality among rich and poor, immigration and energy policy..” With Democrats as unquestionably brilliant and insightful as Clinton and Cornpone Carter spending time in the White House, you have to ask yourself how it was that these burning issues, and a whole bushel basket of others, all managed to magnify so appreciably under their tutelage.

Clinton claims that if these issues are dealt with, we will see the “most exciting period in our history.” It is all about “excitement” with the Obama zombies and as well, we all know that Bill knows a thing or two about what to do or who to call when he gets “excited.” In order to “deal” with the “issues”, the Democratic candidate needs to actually address the issues, not avoid them. “Hope and Change” and “Change and Hope” may hypnotize the infantile green haired pimply Socialists, but they aren’t anything remotely resembling an answer to the compelling issues of the day.

The most revealing of all of the quotes from Clinton had to be, “If we don’t, in the words of President Roosevelt, dark will be the future,” Clinton then added, “I’m betting on light..”

I believe that Bill Clinton just predicted that McCain would win the election. He said, “I’m betting on light..”!! I believe that he meant “lite” as in John “Obama lite” McCain. Or was Clinton poking fun at McCain’s very fair complexion, trying to take a page out of Jack$on’s or Bernie Mac’s recent crude joke books? (Precisely the same kind of stuff that had Imus dangling from the MSNBC gallows..) Or was he playing the Jack$on/Bernie Mac crude angle with a prediction of an Obama victory by saying, “dark will be the future”? With an amazing intellectual verbal wizard like Bill Clinton, a man who wanted to know “what the definition of ‘is’ is”, I suppose that we will probably never know exactly what he meant by that..

My prediction is that if Obama wins come November, “dark will be the future” in more ways than one, so just like Bill, “I’m betting on lite”..