Why Bill Clinton Hates Barack Obama AND Hillary

Political Night Train has been tracking Bill Clinton’s activities for months now, and has reached an opinion on why he has been so ……….. erratic, making outrageous statements that seem to make Hillary’s lies pale in comparison. 

 

Much has been written about Bill Clinton’s character, and they essentially all paint a picture of an overinflated ego, narcissism (matched only by Hillary’s), fits of purple rage, self-loathing, and now, outright hatred for some.  There are currently no reasonable restraints on Bill.  He can do and say as he pleases.  But what more can be done to Bill?  He’s been Impeached by a vote of the US House of Representatives.  He’s lost law suits.  He’s been disbarred and lost his law license.  He’s apparently lost the love and respect of the black community (except perhaps for black women over 55).

 

To explain it all, understand that Bill Clinton, much like Jimmy Carter, is an ex-President in search of a positive legacy.  Carter sought his through the Carter Center in Atlanta and spent years seeking the one thing that would give him a lasting positive legacy – the Nobel Peace Prize.  But in winning the Nobel Peace Prize Carter had to share it.  And it was common knowledge that Carter only receive the prize as a political slap at George Bush.  So even the one thing that Carter wanted more than all else, like his Presidency, is tainted.  Compare Carter’s “shared Nobel” with some of the outright winners: Theodore Roosevelt, Jane Addams, Cordell Hull, Albert Schweitzer, George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, Begin & Sadat, Mother Teresa.

 

Now, is Bill Clinton really in the same league (Jimmy Carter excepted)?  And this is what Bill seeks to secure his place in history.  Oh, and Al Gore has a Nobel, just to put salt into Bill’s wounds.

 

So, what makes Bill hate?  First, to Hillary.  Bill may not exactly hate Hillary (although he has lots of reasons), but he does seem to hate the idea that she may get elected President.  Why?  A successful Hillary Presidency would greatly diminish Bill’s Presidency.  He would be reduced to a footnote in history, the spouse, former President to the more successful President Hillary Rodham Clinton.  So, deep inside, Bill wants Hillary to fail, and this in part explains may of his statements.  Simple enough, but what about Barack Obama?

 

Barack Obama is everything Bill is not (Jeremiah Wright excepted).  Obama is beloved by the press; is adored by his fans (Bill has always sought the “Elvis factor”); is a good orator; smooth; has not had any bimbo outbreaks; a nice wife and family; successful author; has 98% support from blacks, and most important, Obama IS black.  If elected, Obama WOULD be the first black President.  Bill would be just the first black President in name only.

 

Advertisements

Shedding Light On Barack Obama’s Values & Beliefs In Liberation Theology

The following article sheds much light on the basis of Barack Obama’s core values and beliefs, which Political Night Train now believes are rooted in “Liberation Theology” and the writings of James Cone, a person who greatly influenced Jeremiah Wright.  If elected and allowed to govern, Barack Obama would govern not just from the liberal left, but from the “neoliberal” left, with a heavy dose of liberation theology thrown in.  The last time we had a President who tried to govern from a set of theological beliefs, we had four years of Jimmy Carter.   The gospel according to Cone revolves around a single dimension of the Christian faith and necessarily interprets the very nature of “oppression” as solely material and of this world.  In effect, black liberation theology reduces the entire Gospel down to a Marxist people’s struggle and hijacks the Christ for political purpose. “What else can the crucifixion mean except that God, the Holy One of Israel, became identified with the victims of oppression?  What else can the resurrection mean except that God’s victory in Christ is the poor person’s victory over poverty?”  (Speaking the Truth; p. 6) This certainly puts an altogether different light on the crucifixion than any to which I’ve ever been exposed. According to this theology, we are not individually saved by grace.  God hasn’t anything at all to do with salvation or sanctification. “…sanctification is liberation.  To be sanctified is to be liberated – that is, politically engaged in the struggle of freedom.  When sanctification is defined as a commitment to the historical struggle for political liberation, then it is possible to connect it with socialism and Marxism the reconstruction of society on the basis of freedom and justice for all.”
(Speaking the Truth; p. 33; emphases mine)
 March 15, 2008The Great ObamaAmerica, and especially the America of our imagination, is the land of self-making and the self-made. Our presidential politics are far from the exclusive domain of the self-made, but our most interesting presidents (e.g., Johnson, Nixon, Clinton) tend to come from that category.Barack Obama is the quintessential self-made man. He hails from the periphery, not just of our society but of our geographic boundaries. Lacking any relevant connections, he created his own — with the Ivy League, with the legal elite, with community activists in a town where he was stranger, with black nationalists in that same town, and with rich backers there.In literature, the connections the self-made man creates always come back to haunt him, and so it may now be with Obama. When this happens the question becomes: what lies at the core of the self-made man? In literature, the answer often is, nothing other than the compulsion of self-making and the sum total of the connections and deals that this compulsion yielded. Who, at root, was Jay Gatsby?But Obama is not a fictional character, nor does he seem superficial. Most of his connections may say nothing specific about his core, and in theory this could even be true about his church affiliation and his spiritual adviser. However, Obama’s own writing suggests that his relationship with the Trinity Church and with Jeremiah Wright has been a deep one. He says he attended church regularly, except during specific periods such as after his first child was born. He says Rev. Wright had a significant influence on him and, in fact, played a major role in bringing him to Jesus. If we take Obama at his word, his relationship with Wright was not pure opportunism. Rather there was an affinity. What was the nature of that affinity?I think we should stipulate that it was not Wright’s most extreme racist and anti-American pronouncements. But it also seems clear that it was not traditional Christian belief either. Obama was not looking for that — indeed, he had rejected traditional Christianity before encountering Wright. As just noted, Wright brought him to Jesus. More precisely, Wright’s brand of Christianity accomplished this.What is that brand? According to Wright (for example, during his contentious interview with Sean Hannity last year), the brand is liberation theology. Liberation theology sees the Christian mission as bringing justice to oppressed people through political activism. In effect, it is a merger of Christianity with radical left-wing ideology. Black liberation theology, as articulated for example by James Cone who inspired Wright, emphasizes the racial aspect oppression. It’s easy to see why this brand of Christianity, and probably only this brand, could bring a left-wing political activist like Obama to Jesus.How would the statements of Wright that have recently come to light be viewed in the context of liberation theology? In particular, employing the various terms Obama has used to describe Wright’s statements, which ones would be “not particularly controversial,” which would be “controversial” or “provocative,” and which would be deplorable?Comments about crimes against Palestinians would, I submit, fall within the mainstream of liberation theology, just as they do for most hard-leftists who don’t put Christianity into the mix. Palestinians make the “A List” of oppressed victims of virtually every ideology that sees the world as divided into oppressors and the oppressed.Comments about the U.S. treating some of its citizens as less than human, or bringing 9/11 on itself, or inflicting AIDs on black people would, I take it, be controversial and provocative even within the world of black liberation theology. One can believe that oppression is rampant and that the U.S. is heavily implicated, without going as far as Wright did in these remarks. But Wright’s remarks seem no worse than controversial and provocative within this framework. An oppressor will go to great lengths to oppress, and it is an open question just how far that imperative extends. Wright offers one possible answer to that question: there are virtually no limits. If that answer were beyond the pale of the black liberation theology of his congregation, Wright would not have survived and prospered there. Moreover, certain comments of Michelle Obama are surely uncontroversial in the world of black liberation theology. It would, in fact, be most difficult to reconcile pride in America with that theology. The open question for its adherents is how low their estimation of America should be, and how low they think America would stoop. Pride in America would seem out of the question.In sum, Barack Obama’s close and longstanding affiliation with Wright and his church probably does tell us something important about the man. It doesn’t tell us that he agrees with Wright’s most extreme ravings, but it suggests that Obama is enough of a leftist to be attracted to, and comfortable at, a place where Wright’s most extreme views, though controversial and provocative, are not outrageous. Obama’s current attempts to escape that inference likely have more to do self-making than with historical fact.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/020045.php

 

Why Are Liberals So Afraid of Baby Jesus?

By John RidleyHe was America’s first born again president. He was deacon of a Baptist church that — during his bid for presidency — he had to sever his membership with because they would not allow blacks to become members.Shades of Huckabee.Shades of Romney.But I’m talking about Jimmy Carter who was then, as he remains now, a hero of the liberal fringe. The far left has no problem with Carter’s faith, and never feared that he would be more of a theologian than politician.And yet…Huckabee runs a Christmas-themed ad. The liberals see a floating cross, and believe that alone make the man unfit to be president. Instead, I think that makes some on the far left too paranoid to trust with a vote.The floating cross as subliminal imagery of Christ? How about that huge Christ – mas(s) tree sitting over Hukabee’s shoulder as actual imagery of Christ? You know, just like the tree that sits at the White House in Washington where all the government offices are shut down on Dec. 25 — the day we celebrate as the birth of baby Jesus.And yet, despite the fact the majority of us acknowledge Christmas in some way, in typically liberal fashion the fringe uses the censorship of political correctness to turn “Merry Christmas” in a verboten phrase.What’s particularly galling is the left’s selective prosecution of religiosity. There is, as first mentioned, Jimmy Carter and his faith which causes no liberal ripples. And few liberals batted an eye when Barack Obama launched his Embrace the Change tour with black ministers — despite the fact one was (and still is) a homophobe. When Harold Ford Jr. ran a political ad filmed in a church there wasn’t a word of derision spoken from the left as they knew such an ad would pull votes for Mr. Ford in Tennessee. And during their presidential runs no one on the left accused the reverends Jackson or Sharpton of being too tied to the cloth.As a cohost of MSNBC’s Morning Joe I’ve had the opportunity to talk to Governor Huckabee on a couple of occasions. He’s no zealot. I don’t agree with Huckabee on every issue. But, then, I don’t agree with any candidate on every issue. Huckabee does agree that Jimi Hendrix was probably the greatest guitarist ever which is not a reason to vote for him, but certainly a reason to at least give a listen to what he has to say. And during his tenure as Governor Huckabee didn’t exactly turn Arkansas into a theocracy.If I could give the Governor one tip to quiet his critics, it would be to run an ad somewhere acknowledging the start of Kwanzaa on Dec. 26th.By the way, how many of you liberals even knew on what day Kwanzaa began?If the far left were smart, instead of continuing to make religion a wedge issue, they would — as Obama has smartly tried to do — take religion off the table by displaying their faith. The majority of this quadrennial’s Republican candidates have already proven what an empty phrase “family values” is. By taking away religion, it leaves the Republicans the battlefield of the economy, Iraq and foreign policy on which to fight for the presidency.
And that’s a field on which the Democrats could certainly win.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/why-are-liberals-so-afrai_b_78182.html