But I think I'm gonna have to go ahead and let off some steam here, because some of Clinton's more prominent supporters, even after the announcement that she'd be formally "suspending" her campaign this weekend, are continuing to go out of their way to be out-and-out Costco economy-sized douchebags. Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Bill Clinton and frequent TV surrogate for the Clinton campaign, brutally sodomized the meanings of words such as "fact," "undisputed," and "compromise" throughout the primary season, and then this past week took it upon himself to call upon Obama to choose Clinton as his running mate. A short time later, BET founder Robert Johnson -- who went so far as to drop a coy little allusion to Obama's drug use as a teenager on the campaign trail -- joined in and wrote a letter to Obama endorser Rep. James Clyburn telling him to get Obama to put Clinton on the ticket.
Then today, another vocal Obama opponent stepped up with a demand: Geraldine Ferraro, who did her best Rush Limbaugh impersonation back in March by claiming that Obama was only doing so well in the primaries because he was black, now thinks Obama should pay off Clinton's substantial campaign debts.
After a long primary season, the Clinton campaign’s expenditures have far exceeded the amount of donations it has received so far, and the campaign has accumulated debt of more than $19 million, according to campaign finance reports. Much of that debt consists of unpaid salaries and bills to vendors.
When questioned about Clinton fundraisers being asked to join the Obama campaign, Ferraro told The Hill, “These are the people raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. I would hope that [Obama] would do the same thing with his fundraisers to pay off Hillary’s debt.”
Boy, that's some kind of nerve, ain't it? It's basically like they're saying, "Hey, druggie! Black man! Yeah, you, Captain Affirmative Action! You better pick our candidate as your VP -- oh, and pony up some cash while you're at it."
I guess it's a good thing for the Democratic Party that Obama is too classy a person to respond to these people with the contempt and snark that they deserve -- if it were me in his position, I'd be tempted to respond in a manner similar to Jesse Jackson in a certain episode of "South Park":
It was never a question of her getting out. It was always a question of her conduct. This (via Andrew Sullivan) kind of sums the whole thing up:
"Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing," - Clinton supporter, Congressman Rob Andrews.
My celebratory Obama post.
As a Clinton supporter who will happily vote for Obama, I will say that the only thing that matters to me right now is that we do something to change our current direction. In all honesty, I don't see how things could be much worse. I like John McCain well enough, but he has done nothing and said nothing that would indicate that he has any change of direction in mind, much less the capability of making it happen even if he did. So, in my mind, it is really, really important to get a Democrat elected. If Obama - and his supporters - can keep from acting like Jesse on Southpark it would be a good thing and an actual demonstration of the sort of leadership that is spoken of often in campaign speeches.
my only problem with Obama is his ability and willingness to drop all association with a church that he has been a part of for years because a negative comment of theirs is bad publicity for his campaign. Sorry, but I dont consider that class and it makes me doubt these illusions of grandeur that the media continues to paint of Sen. Obama.
Also, i ask this as a serious question, what are the differences between Obama's fiscal policies and socialism? He, as president, is basically wanting to solve the problems of the lower class for them. I find no problem at all in our government helping the lower class, but as it stands right now that is an exception based on circumstance of the individual. Obama seeks to make it a rule. Socialism
That whole situation for BO was a sticky one; either way, he was screwed. Looks like he chose 'hypocrite' over 'racist'.
Will: There is no difference between Barack Obama's vision of this country and socialism. None.
And now it's up to John McCain to reveal that to the rest of the country.
Will: Josh has no idea what socialism is. None.
And that's not a bad thing.
Alright DC, in your infinite wisdom, list the differences between Obama's policies and socialism.
(This is from a different DC themed posting name)
Josh - so you're saying you don't know what socialism is then? I mean seriously. Are you proposing that Obama is indistinguishable from the British Labor Party circa 1968?
Will - your premise is faulty. The minimum wage increases for the end of July make a year's worth of work (2080 hours) worth $15,080. The poverty line for an individual is $10,400. If you are single and have 2 kids, it's $17,600. Can you see a structural disconnect? Addressing that is not socialist, per se, unless you think that all economic policies applied across the board are socialist. By that logic, mortgage tax deductions are socialist - not everyone needs one, after all.
Josh, getting back to you: Obama's proposed health care plan is not socialist. It involves competition between public and private insurance, it allows an opt-out for those individuals who want one, it focuses on cost control via administrative simplification, and there is no discussion of expanding the role of government as a health care provider, far less nationalizing health care.
Similarly, economic policy focuses on trade management, worker skills development, and expansions on the Earned Income Tax credit, which you can only get for working. The first of these is a tool used by pretty much any government; Republican presidents (and Bill Clinton) tend to pretend that bilateral trade agreements increase free trade (they don't) but the policy mechanisms are the same.
So there's two, for a start.
You bring up the "Earned Income Tax Credit" as a defense? One of the country's most transparent income redistribution scams? Really?
Obama, just this week: "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."
How in the hell did it become the government's responsibility to take the money of stockholders - this is who the "windfall profits" go to - to pay the bills of other citizens? To STEAL from people who had the audacity to plan their finances, and hand that money to others who can't pay their heating bill because their cell phone and satellite bills are too much?
So great, money is taken from the job providers, less jobs are created, and your "less fortunate" (gag) are once again conditioned to just wait for the All Mighty Gov'mint to save the day.
It absolutely frightens me how economically incompetent and obtuse Democrats are.
Josh, your deep insights into the world of the lower- and lower-middle-class never cease to amaze me. I'd be interested in hearing more about the research methodology you used to determine that these people don't plan their finances and are spending their heating money on satellite dishes.
Seriously, a spot-on Eric Cartman impression is not a substitute for actual public policy. Not that I have any particular affinity for a windfall-profits tax -- history has shown us it's very hard to implement -- but if the choice is between that and the "do nothing, fuck the lower class" plan that you (and, evidently, McCain) espouse, I'm willing to give it a try.
My methodology was a number of years spent teaching elementary school to poor students of all colors - students that were on "free lunch" (75% of mine) and other handouts, but I would bust them with cell phones, they'd wear designer clothes, etc. And this wasn't rare at all - this was the majority.
Look, you can say I'm for fucking the lower class, but I'm the one that wants them to learn independence and how to achieve for themselves. Today's Democrat wants to coddle them like babies, thus ensuring they never make strides toward self-reliance.
And for the record, Eric Cartman is a misunderstood genius.
I must have missed the wealth redistribution clause in our Constitution. Or the healthcare clause. Or the babysitting clause. And when was the lower class's right to my money established?
Post a Comment