Misogynistic Hate Speech at Barack Obama’s Official Web Site
This site is under Obama’s editorial control.
Let’s consider for the sake of argument our two choices and examine their meaning.The Dog in the Manger is a fable attributed to Aesop, concerning a dog who one afternoon lay down to sleep in the manger. On being awoken, he ferociously kept the cattle in the farm from eating the hay on which he chose to sleep, even though he was unable to eat it himself, leading an ox to mutter the moral of the fable:
People often begrudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves.
The phrase is proverbial, referring to people who prevent others from having something that they themselves have no use for. A typical example is the child who discards a toy — until a sibling tries to play with it. Then the first child becomes possessive about something they no longer wanted.
…Is Hillary the “dog” or the egotist ? Certainly she isn’t “this dog”, ( Me ), let me assure you that I am not Hillary – I would not aspire to the heights she has strived for – nore would I sink to the depths she seems so willingly to go to, at least I think I woudn’t ….but enough about me for the moment, we’re talking about Bill’s wife and not Wendy’s husband here.
The “dog in the manger” . A fable of a cur who kept others from getting their fair due. Certainly the assorted “bovines” deserved their food, they had worked for it and the farmer had willingly provided it for their consumption. The “dog” too had a use for this fodder, but he, ( or in this case she ), wasn’t intended to recieve this bounty, infact, the dog was “stealing” the manger for her own personal shelfish desires.
Theft is what it is, it is a denial of ownership from those who deserve their rewards by one who with guile and greed means to take what is justly theirs and to put it to their own use. Does this analogy work with Hillary as the dog ? Perhaps so, but does it best describe her between the two offered choices here ? Let’s now consider the second choice, egotism.
Is it ego itself that drives Hillary to do what she does ? Is this ego of her’s so strong as to deny reality and for her to atempt to override the will of the majority of those she professes to call her associates and friends ? Is this ego of hers willfully driving her to lie, cheat, and steal her way to some victory goal which by all rights she has lost in a fair and open discourse? Is her “ego” driving her into some sort of meglomainac fit, and if so, if she succeeds in her quest, is this the sort of person anyone would want as “Commander in cheif” of this country ?
Haven’t we had enough egotistical zellots in the oval office lately ? Can we afford another round of them for the next 4 years ? Is Hillary so blinded by reality that she will stop at nothing to bury us all in her vanity quest for something she does not deserve? Is her “egotism” that huge ?
Frankly, I think it is. And that bothers me a great deal. Now let’s consider our chouces again. Let’s call it the “dog vs ego” argument, and choose between the two which describes her present emotional and psycological state best. I can see where both analogies can apply to her, but I’m curious as to which one you might think is the better one.
To me she both, a “bitch” in the manger and an egotistical fool who whould wreck all for her vain glories. And frankly, I would be hard pressed to vote for her if she ever did swindle herself into the position of presidential canadate for the democratic party.
People who command media attention allow a wider audience, some who possibly would not be engaged in the process if not for the opportunity to see one of their “Idols”. So it is a legitimate manuever. Hilary Clinton is also in the hunt for Hollywodd types. Recently she received the support of British pop icon, “Elton John”. Elton John wil erform in a “Special concert” for Sen. Hillary R. Clinton. I wonder if he will perform his 1974 hit song, “The Bitch Is Back”? (Some would argue that it would be appropriate)