Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Valerie Jarrett and "The burden of being bright"

This is such a typical nose-in-the-air Leftist pose--"we're so much smarter--just get out of the way and let us fix it for you." As Allahpundit writes on HotAir today: these morons who make up ObamaTeam believe that the problem with ObamaCare isn't due to the fact that the majority of the voting population really, really hates this bill; rather, Leftists, including Obama, believe it's because of the failure of The Won to properly explain the bill "the first 8,000 times he talked about it on camera."

Jarrett: "I think probably 'hope and change' were so catchy because it was really very simple, and it was something that everyone understood the definition of."

Really, Valerie? You want to know what I think? The whole concept of "hope and change" was so deliberately vague, it allowed everyone to define it however they wanted. How convenient for ObamaCampaign2008.

Jarrett: That's why "death panels" were so catchy. Everybody didn't necessarily know what it meant but they knew it was really bad.

This woman is a Harvard grad? Huh. I guess they don't teach public speaking at Harvard. They don't seem to teach critical thinking, either. They also don't seem to teach subject/verb agreement. Is that for everyone, or is it just for their affirmative action students? She's not exactly doing Harvard proud here--just sayin'.

Jarrett: So I think part of what our challenge is is to find a very simple way of communicating, and it's hard to even understand what people are talking about. When I first got there, they kept talking about "cloture" and "reconciliation"--people don't know what's that talking about. They know what a preexisting condition is when they've been dropped from their insurance company. . .

Somehow I'm not surprised that the big words "cloture" and "reconciliation" were hard for you, Valerie. Try a dic-tion-ary.

Jarrett: Even if they are in favor of, let's say, a different health care insurance reform, fine. But what's happening is it's an anti-government, I mean, that's the Tea Party. They really are, um, are, uh, trying to rebel against government at all, and I think that that's, again, it's an extreme. . . . And it's always a lot easier to scare people and to get them angry when they're already scared and they're already uncertain, and I think that's what the Tea Party is trying to capture. . . ."

Let me submit, Valerie, that you wouldn't know what the THE TEA PARTY as you call it is trying to capture if it bit you on your big behind. I don't know if her way of speaking indicates she's a fuzzy thinker or if she's just talking down to her audience. However, since she is speaking at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, I can only surmise it's the former. This is the individual who is probably closest of anyone to Barack Obama--she has his ear on a daily basis. If she's this clueless, then it's no wonder The Won is having a hard time figuring out where he's going wrong.

Jarrett: There's nobody more self-critical than President Obama. Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately. . . .

Hahahahahahaha. Oh Valerie, woman, you should do stand-up comedy.

Update: From the commenters at HotAir.

Not lying would go a long way.

Maybe those of us in the Tea Party should try talking to ObamaTeam in ebonics.

And we should be lectured to by a slum lord. . . why?

When I think of Valerie, any number of "simple terms" comes to mind.

Yeah, Obama is so bright he can't get a major bill passed, sans spending $800 billion of other people's money.

Valerie Jarrett is only repeating the new mantra of the left: If their agenda fails, it's because the people are too dumb to understand how wonderful it would be for all of us.

Valerie Jarrett: Queen of the Chicago Slums

No comments: