A vote for Democrats is a vote for - what?!

As usual I enjoyed reading Ann Coulter's column on human events this evening. It discusses the issue of how Democrat candidates present themselves to the voters as somewhat conservatives only to prove themselves ultra-liberal abortion promoters.

What caught my eye was response #4:

Ho Ho Ho The zionists and neocons agenda gots ta go...

now1st Lt. Frank Liberti, Iraq

Is this the real agenda some liberals try to hide? Zionists "gots to go" (go where? the bottom of the sea?)? I wouldn't be that much surprised given articles in HaffPost about how the Jewish vote shouldn't matter to Obama... or the amount of suspicious anti-semites that surrounded Obama up to this race and suddenly had all quit or were distanced.

Nor can I find solace in Obama's own words. His odd observation of what "plagues" US's foreign policy. His empty mantra of "Hope and Change"... hope for who? It's like someone's lying to your face with evasive words and you are still falling for it. Did he perfect his ambiguous speak while giving complements to his wife for her boring whiny speeches? If your political opponent doesn't give up and quit - is that a form of discrimination?

Ann's column starts with the absurdity of usage of the term racist these days. If you do not support Obama - according to NYT - that's racist. See, Obama and the Democrats aren't playing the race card, the media establishment does it for them - and they are mute on the subject. Care to comment on that Obama? Everyone who opposes you is labeled a racist - would you say a word about it?

Alan Colmes can go on with his backflips trying to spin away what should be plainly obvious: Obama does know because he should have known, being a member of a "church" which spreads racial hate and hate for this country. Is it even possible, being around reverend Wright for a few minutes not to observe his hateful lunacy?

Obama the author... he wrote books - he's a genius, right? Did anyone read it? Ann Coulter did and I linked to her column a while back. I don't think he hates whites, perhaps just his white family, but I do think that for political reasons at the time he tried to emphasize his "blackness" by describing himself as a person full of anti-white rage. Just the content of his books should qualify him as unelectable on a national basis. But of-course, he isn't, because no one had really read it despite the fact that it was a best seller. Did liberals go ahead with their usual tricks and purchased bulks of his book just to promote him?