Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Obama Shows His True Colors

The 2008 presidential campaign is heating up intensely, with the two Democratic rivals, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, at each others' throats in a fight for political survival. And it ain't pretty. In the past week the issues of gender and race entered the fray in a way that would make Karl Rove proud. But it's not as two-sided as some are saying. The culprit, in my opinion, is Obama and his surrogates, who have ratcheted up the incendiary rhetoric to a reckless, embarrassing level. For Obama, it's not about black or white, but gray. He's become quite adept at saying one thing and doing another. Of presenting himself as the candidate of change; one who'll bring civility and honorability back to the campaign trail. Of staying "above the fray," but then fraying with the best of 'em. Of blurring the racial lines in this hotly contested race and using race in both an inspirational manner and a devious, calculating one. And that's what we saw this past week. The real Barack Obama.

It all started with the now infamous comments by both Hillary and Bill Clinton, which were taken so way out of context, and blown so way out of proportion, that many in Washington and in the media should be ashamed of themselves. In short, during a recent speech, the former president, while characterizing Obama's positions on Iraq (on purportedly being so different than Hillary's), frustratingly said "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." Somehow Clinton, who was affectionately dubbed "the first black president" by Toni Morrison back in the 90's, got entwined in a game of verbal Twister not seen since his "what 'is' is" days. The comment was interpreted as "Obama's candidacy is a fairy tale," with Bubba accused of racial insensitivity. Give us a break. All anyone needs to do is listen to the entire speech and Bill's point becomes quite clear. But that didn't stop NBC's Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, from playing just the short comment clip during his Hillary interview Sunday and asking her about Bill's racial insensitivity. And it didn't stop South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn from piling on about this supposed racial insensitivity. And it didn't stop the NY Times columnist Bob Herbert from totally distorting the facts either. Nor did it stop countless others from spewing this nonsense.

And then, as Murphy's Law would have it, Hillary fanned the flames with her own alleged racial insensitivity. Commenting last week on the civil rights movement, Hillary suggested that Obama's inspirational speeches are not enough to truly effect change. Of the comparisons Obama has drawn for himself to John Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Clinton said "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964...It took a president to get it done." Ruh-ro. More wild accusations. More distortions. Say what you will, but Clinton's comment is dead-on. A grass-roots movement alone cannot move a nation towards real change without legislators heeding the will of the people and passing legislation ensuring lasting change. Back in the 60's the system worked. The people, led by Dr. King, brought the civil rights crisis to a boil. And Johnson used his position of power to make it law. That was and is Clinton's point.

Let's be sure about one thing: it is utterly irresponsible and reprehensible to portray the Clintons as racists or of being racially insensitive. What they have done over the years for minorities is well documented and respected. They have been champions of, and within, the Black community. The events of the past week are nothing more than shameful attempts by the Obama camp to play the race card for pure political gain.


Anonymous said...

Just remember to keep your eyes on the prize: November 2008

Winning Ticket: Clinton/Obama

Let's not eat our own.

Having said that, I live in Michigan and am considering crossing over to vote today for Romney. He needs a Michigan win to stay in the race. He is the only Repub with ads against the other Repubs. Also by him winning here, it will just continue to mess with the Republican nomination. Any thoughts?

Unknown said...

Hi Andy, haven't seen you on here for a while. Glad you're back.
Now I have to disagree with you about Obama. First, let me say out front I strongly support Obama. I feel we really need some new blood in our leadership and I think he is poised to provide it.
I feel the Clintons are getting back into the old parsing thing, you know, what "the definition of is is!"
I also feel Bill Clinton is the one who turned this into the ugly scene it has become.
I don't think it is a good idea for Democrats to turn to such vicious infighting, it wont help who ever emerges with the nomination.

Anonymous said...

Screw both of them. They are the same. Corporate feeding hacks.

Anonymous said...

What did Obama say in reaction to the Clintons' remarks? I know what the press and some of his supporters said, but what did Obama say to make you come down on him so hard? -jhc

Anonymous said...

Okay you folks above: What about voing for Romney in the Michigan primary?

Help me out here.

Anonymous said...

Ah, c'mon Andy...!

The Clinton campaign and its surrogates (including those that act independently) have resorted to every tactic they could find to torpedo Obama's campaign! Remember Bill Shaheen? Remember the chain emails claiming that Obama schooled at Muslim fundamentalist schools as a child?

And even the direct attacks by Hillary are at best... questionable. She has continuously railed against his "inexperience" when in fact he's held elected-office for a longer total period than she has. Moreover, even if she does have more "experience", it still didn't keep her from exercising the proper judgment to NOT vote for Gulf War2 in Autumn2002, which was the most bonehead move by the Senate in years.

The attacks by the Obama campaign have been legitimate. They've attacked her votes as regards foreign policy and her willingness to take large amounts of money from the healthcare lobby, which brings her reputation as a healthcare crusader into question.

That said... it wasn't the Obama campaign that criticized Clinton's remark that LBJ ought be given greater credit than MLK for civil rights... IT WAS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY INCLUDING ME!

Martin Luther King was the finest person we've ever had in America. Granted, yes, LBJ was an outstanding president... but compared to the what MLK as a private citizen accomplished... a BLACK private citizen in the 1960s... virtually any negative remarks about MLK are despicable.


C'mon, Andy...

Anonymous said...

C'mon Folks,

Are you political junkies or not?

What is your take on the Michigan Primary?

Should I cross lines (since very few Dems are on the ballot) and vote for Romney? He is the only Repub putting on ads that attacks the other Repubs. He must win here to keep going on. If he does win, it will make more of a mess of the Republican presidential race.

If you folks won't help me, I'll move on to another blog. To be honest, I thought I'd get some feedback from you folks.

See ya!

Anonymous said...

Andy, welcome back on line, I missed you. I totally agree on this one. The media and the Obama camp have fueled the fire of race and hate. Last evening Keith Obermann and Dan Abrams both talked about what a sham this is and how it has been blown out of proportion, which it has. I watched and recorded Meet the Press and Tim thought he'd trap Hillary but to his surprise she would have NOTHING to do with it, she cleared the air on every comment Tim made. You could see where Tim was trying his very best to get her pissed but she showed him.

Bill Clinton's comment was right on the mark, Obama flip flopped on his stance on the war and if any of the media had any balls they would check it out. Bill was right. Hillary was also correct, MLK got the ball rolling, but LBJ signed it into law and finished it. So it DID take a President to get the job done, and Hillary was correct. The problem is the media and I believe the Obama camp wanted this to continue.

It has been said by a number of people that Obama is not well known, what do we really know about him. All he talks about is CHANGE and fluff stuff but we all know very little about his voting record, personal life and how he will make good his promises. I personally don't trust him, it's just a gut feeling for me.

I was a Gore fan and then liked Edward's but after hearing Hillary give these MEN a run for their money I'm in her camp. She already has 8 years White House experience and when she is elected she has an ex-president right at her side 24/7. I want experience now, none of this on the job training crap like we've had with the Bush Crime Family.

Anonymous said...

I was for Edwards and liked Obama as the next choice until Hillary suggested we ask him about his voting concerning Iraq. She said if he were so against the war he could have voted to stop the funding which he did not do. Then, I wonder, as I listen to him, exactly what "WE" are going to do to change things. I don't see how "we" are going to fix the economy, fix the Middle East and fix the healyhcare system, when I'll be lucky if my vote is counted. He sounds like a football coach talking to players who really do have power. We, the people, have only the power we exert when we elect someone to "do it for us." He's not been specific about anything. And, his debates are pitiful -- Does he need his speech writers? And why was his Harvard graduated wife doing talking street talk in his latest commercial. Talk about "racism,: Blacks should have been insulted.

And the media have shown their disregard for women as a class. They do not want a female president.

However, it's all probably moot since neither a black nor a woman can ever get elected in this country.

Jay Allbritton said...

I am amazed that she can criticize him for funding the war when she funded it herself.

Steve said...

I read through your entire post but failed to see how Obama is "showing his true colors" whatever the heck that means.

Anonymous said...

well I think Hillary Clinton is getting what she deserves with her comments being purposely taken out of context. Remember that she was roght there alongside the republicans in slandering John Kerry over his "Bush gets us stuck in Iraq" comments

Anonymous said...

Mr. Station Agent, Hillary was not criticizing Obama for his voting record. She was merely pointing out his hypocrisy in claiming he wanted the troops out immediately because he so opposed the war, YET, he voted to fund it everytime which meant the troops would remain. SHe did too but didn't lie about it.

In the debate last night Obama echoed every idea Hillary and Edwards announced they were going to do. Soon after each outlined his plans, Obabma suddenly spoke up and repeated their plans in his own words. I did not hear one original idea from him except he'd hire people who knew more than he does to do the job. Well, that's not orginal either since Bush promised to do that and he did.

Christopher said...

The events of the past week are nothing more than shameful attempts by the Obama camp to play the race card for pure political gain.

I'm disappointed to read such a statement here.

Barack Obama didn't play the race card -- it was the Hillary Clinton campaign who played the race card for pure political gain.

To his credit, Obama simply responded by saying he thought Hillary had made an unfortunate statement and he moved on.

It's a shame when white Manhattanites make statements such as those posted here.

Anonymous said...

"Obama shows his true colors." ?????

"And that's what we saw this past week. The real Barack Obama." ?????

Andy, you didn't even support the above claims in your piece! Show us the evidence that Obama had anything at all to do with this! It is the Clinton's own "fairy-tale", coming back to bite them. Good.

What is "irresponsible" and "reprehensible" is for a former Democratic president of the U.S. to be out trashing one of his own potential nominees.

Swiftboat 101. Republican Ad in general election against Obama shows Bill Clinton saying (in an incredibly denigrating tone) this about Barack Obama:

"Give me a break! This whole thing is nothing but a fairy-tale."

If it were anybody but Hillary and Bill, we'd expect actual loyalty to the party. And honesty.

But when you think about it, if Hillary can't be the nominee, it wouldn't be in Bill and Hillary's interest for a Democrat to win the election, would it?

I guess that might be why John Kerry supports Obama.

Christopher said...

Hillary Clinton owns the plantation called Manhattan. This is the only place in the country where she has any cred.

Hillary Clinton played the race card when she said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have happened were it not for President Lyndon Johnson.

To many African Americans (and quite a few whites), what she was saying was the efforts of every civil rights leader -- including Dr. Martin Luther King, didn't matter. She managed to marginalize an entire movement.

It's no accident that Hillary Clinton said this just days after Barack Obama gave a speech where he referred to Dr. Martin Luther King as a pioneer and said his campaign for president was also groundbreaking. Like King's role in the civil rights movement.

I'm glad Hillary's cynical exercise in race-baiting came back to bit her in the ass. But it's a shame that residents of that plantation called Manhattan see things differently.

The Ostroy Report said...

Sorry to left facts get in the way of your fairy tale....but both Clinton speeches speak for themselves. That is of course if you bother to listen to them in their entirety and not pick and choose your out-of-context quotes. Lastly, if you really think Obama himself--or any presidential candidate for that matter--is not pulling the lever on what to say and what not to say, then you're a bit naive, my friend. If, as you say, he is not behind any of this race-baiting personally, then all he had to to is come right out and condemn them the second they occurred. He did not. I'm sorry, but this raging Lib is not going to fawn all over Obama, as many Democrats are tripping over themselves to do, simply because he is Black. I expect the same ethics, experience and overall substance from him as I do any other. And when it ain't there, I'm not gonna pretend it is because it's PC to be behind him, nor am I going to treat him with kid gloves--again as so many do--because of race.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Andy for coming back in and repeating the facts. I do hope the bloggers whom you answered are not simply making their dumb anti-Clinton observations because they are misogynists. People like that will even have trouble voting for a black man, so the Democrats may be in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

No one is asking you to fawn... over any candidate... and I am aware of the context of Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" remark, so no need to insult me on that score.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with his point, I think it is highly inappropriate for our former president to be trashing one of our top two contenders for the nomination. Donna Brazile apparently agrees.

Do you really think what Bill Clinton is doing is OK? Don't you think he should at least consider the consequences of his actions in case Hillary is not the nominee?

If Hillary is prepared to be president and is "ready to lead on day one" then I say, let her take care of herself. Bill shouldn't be down in the gutter giving the Republicans material for their attack ads.

Some of what the Clinton's and their surrogates have done during this campaign has been dishonest, like the fliers in NH accusing Obama of not supporting a woman's right to choose. Bill Clinton's implication that Obama's position on the war has been the same as Hillary's is not accurate, either.

We all know that most of the Democrats are voting for funding now that we are in this war. Once in, it isn't easy to get out. But who got us into this war? All you have to do to compare the decision-making process of Clinton and Obama is to read the speeches each of them gave on the war, BEFORE we got in. Check it out.

Obama's speech was short, concise, demonstrated real clarity of thinking, and unequivocal opposition. Clinton's a long convoluted thought process listing the pros and cons, ending by supporting giving Bush the authority, and trusting that he would do the right thing.

Both Clintons have tried to mislead the public about her vote, which resolution she was actually voting on, and the reason for it. We can guess why she really voted "yes".

On race, the Clintons know that any discussion on this topic hurts Obama, and he knows it, too... so I don't blame him much for staying out of that discussion.

The Clintons had Bob Kerrey repeat the words "Muslim" and "madrassa" over and over again in association with Obama. Do you think the Clintons weren't "pulling the levers" with that one?

Once upon a time, Bill Clinton had my support, but I'm not voting to send the Clinton's back to the White House.

Anonymous said...

I don't get your point jc. Read Ostroy. Obama voted exactly as Hillary voted on the Iraq war since he has been a senator. His one speech before the war was not while he was in the senate and it had no political consequences or threat for him at that time. Now though he exploits itfor gain. As a senator he has voted the same way Hillary has voted on the war issue, which was Bill's point. And what does Donna Brazille know? She's lost every campaigm she's worked on.

It seems we're getting down to "who would you want to have a beer with." I like Obama -- what's not to like. But I don't know what his policies are. I only know that Krugman says his healthcare plan is less comprehensive than those of Edwards and Clinton and that he often uses Republican arguments to defend his stand. I don't want to have a beer with either one of them. I just want to know what they're going to do as president and how they're going to do it. I don't care if Bill rants and raves or not. That's not the point. I'm not pleased that Obama was pleased to compare himself to Reagan. And, how did you like his little jab at Clinton while he was praising Reagan? I was better off in every way when Clinton was president than I was when Reagan was president. Our economy could use Bill now. Obamas lean to the Republicans sounds like Lieberman. And, Obama's saying he'll hire good people to do the job sounds like Bush. We simply cannot afford another mistake.

Anonymous said...

The truth is that Democrats were on the side of slavery during the Civil War. Democrats were on the side of hosing down blacks on the streets during the civil rights era. Democrats are racists. Democrats see people by color, the categorize people by color, and they pretend to care about people of 'other color' .

There is only 1 race - the human race - and everything else is just meaningless attributes of a person's physical characteristics. This is bad for Democrats because they need to divide and conquer.

On another note, does anyone on this blog know that the top 1% makes 17% of all income and pays 38% of all taxes ? You want them to pay more so you can pander to the 'less fortunate' which is politically correct terminology for 'lazy people who make bad decision after bad decision'.

What would Democrats do without spreading racism and redistributing income from successful people that create jobs to people that can't even hold jobs?

The answer is NOTHING

Anonymous said...

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm prone to ranting.

Point #1.
Andy blames Obama for the Clinton's problems on race, if there ever were any. I'm saying that it was never in Obama's interest to bring up race. It has mostly been done by Clinton surrogates... Obama was raised in a Muslim country and was educated in a madrassa, he used drugs (he's a black guy, maybe he was a dealer) he was "doin' something in the neighborhood, etc. etc. The Clintons were trying to "provoke" Obama on race, and the minute he gets into that conversation, he loses the south. So when Obama stays quiet...the WHOLE damn thing is his fault. According to Andy, this is Obama showing his true colors. What I say, is that these kind of (Clinton) campaign tactics are so Karl Rove. No matter what the other guy does, you can convince everyone its all his fault.

Point #2.
Bill Clinton is acting like an ass. Even though his wife is running, he should have a little party loyalty, and show a little class. He should not lie. He should not damage a candidate that may end up our nominee. Obama and Edwards have been pretty careful not provide fodder for the Republican Ads, seems to me. It is a hundred times worse for our former president to do so. If Obama becomes the nominee, you will see that "give me a break" and "fairy tale" remark in the Republican ads, and some other things Bill has said.

Point #3
The war. Once you are in a war, congress is going to fund it, so of course their votes are the same. The Democrats cut funding for Vietnam, and have been smeared as the weak, pacifist party ever since. If you read Obama's pre-war speech, he boiled the situation down to some very simple, bluntly-stated truths. Want to see plain, simple truth on a complex issue. Read the speech:


You can not dismiss this because Obama wasn't in the senate. He was planning to run for senate. If WMD had been found, and most people thought they would be, all of those who spoke against the war would have been hurt politically. Hillary obviously wanted to be seen as a hawk, given the choice, and so did Edwards.

This is already too long, and you brought up the Reagan thing (see PM Carpenter's blog if desired) and healthcare... the plans aren't that different, and will be the same once they filter through congress no matter who is elected. The real question is who can get a plan passed.

I can handle Obama or Edwards... I think we Democrats are making a huge mistake if we nominate the Clintons. It is Bill who is ready on day one, not Hillary, and many folks who support her, are really Bill fans. Time to move away from the whole Clinton scene IMHO. It never works to try to go back, and Bill is already showing HIS true colors.

Something interesting... since so many are longing to have the Clinton good times back; a lot of advisors from the former Clinton administration are now with Obama. It would be interesting to see who went with who.

Anonymous said...

Since the country seems to be looking at personality instead of solutions to issues, doesn't it bother anybody that Obama's wife babied him and treated him like a teenager until the campagin intervened? Remember - he could run for president if he quit smoking. Doesn't anybody mind that he admittedly isn't hands on and loses papers which a toady must be nearby to sort and hand him? And does anybody remember his hands were empty while a young woman was stooped from carrying his luggage? Little things mean a lot.

However, in truth it doesn't matter in this election. Neither Obama or Hillary would be the choice for a "real man" to have a beer with. The white men want to keep thier position of power. McCain will be their guy, party affiliations will not matter.

Anonymous said...

Ostroy and most of the liberals on this blog are racists that would never vote for a black man.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Andy, come on now! No mention of Bill Shaheen, Mark Penn or Robert Johnson? You can't in good conscience make a post about these past two weeks and the injection of race into the campaign without making any reference to the constant "accidental" statements made by Clinton's surrogates about Obama's teenage drug years.

HRC and Bill are playing by the Rove, Nixon, Atwater playbook. Don't vote for the black guy, b/c he's probably a crack dealer.

Being a Clinton loyalist as you are, I do not know why I expect objectivity from you. The Clintons only know how to parse, fabricate, shade the truth. (Like how Billy tried to paint a vastly different picture of his own Iraq record recently).

The Clintons are the past. Their divisive personalities and tactics should be left for the dustbin of history. To paraphrase Lincoln, the quiet dogmas of the quiet past are not enough to meet the conditions of the stormy present. The Clintons do not have the integrity, candor, and inclusiveness to unite the country.

The only reason they won Nevada was because latinos tend to have more problems with a black person than a redneck hillbilly...Clinton is the candidate of fear, can't you see? She cannot unite this country...That is why the Bushes and their co-horts actually are big fans of HRC. She's one of their own, and will likely bring us to war w/ Iran to show that a woman can be just as tough, and stupid, as a man.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Also, Andy you say that you won't "fawn" over Obama merely b/c he's black. Well, he certainly has other credentials, doesn't he? He has the capacity to inspire with his words. Surely that's a good point in his favor after the last 8 years with Captain Malapropism. He also has a keen, cool intellectualism and he is unquestionably liberal, although conservative in temperment.

But you haven't questioned yourself about why you fawn over Bill Clinton.

Bill Clinton: one of the most overrated democratic politicians of the 20th century...He was elected with 43% of the vote and re-elected with a whopping 49%...He was a centrist on policy, but failed to cobble together a new left-center majority based in part on his inability to reign in his dangerous personal appetites. He always had a very casual relationship with the truth, which will forever be a part of his legacy (and now his wife's as well.) Despite abundant charisma, he did not accomplish much beyond the co-opting of various Republican proposals (welfare reform, crime bill) and third-party proposals (Perot's emphasis on deficit reduction as co-opted in his '93 stimulus package which appeased the bond markets). His personal conduct led directly to Gore's defeat in 2000...I am no longer so enamored of Billy the kid, and less so his wife. They are both surely have their strengths, but it is time for our country to bind its wounds and move beyond the political characters who are so firmly ensconced in fighting old battles.

Also, let's not forget that he signed into law H.R. 4655 in '98 which advocated "regime change" in Iraq. That law wholly comports with the Clinton's long-standing pro-Iraq war position. Hillary is a pro-war candidate, despite her recent howls. Let's not take the bait. She is also, I believe, more likely to take us to war w/ Iran (to prove that a woman president can be just as tough as a man), as evidenced by her vote for Kyl-Lieberman, than either of her chief competitors. Billy, like Hilly, supported military action in the run-up to the war, despite his most recent, jaw-dropping, fabrications on the issue.

A vote for Hillary is a doomed vote either which way you slice it.
a) she's more vulnerable against the republicans due to the solid, high negatives
b) her nomination would imperil possible down-ticket gains in a year made for a Democratic sweep in national and state elections
c) even if elected, we'd have 4-8 more years of pro-Clinton and anti-Clinton bullshit...I know the Repubs will try to destroy Obama too, but hell, at least we'll get a new storyline with new actors....I'm not game for watching yet another season of the political version of The Sopranos...Let's change the channel and watch something new.
d) if elected, we wouldnt have a substantial majority to effecuate great policy changes...We'd be back to incremental gains...

And, what about Bill Clinton's record? How can any progressive really get excited about the following anti-progressive bills were signed into law by President Clinton:
1) Crime bill (federal death penalty expanded to more than 60 different offenses)...more cops on the street, but nothing done about mandatory minimum sentences, crack vs. coke sentences, treatment vs. imprisonment for non-violent drug offenses
2) the Communications Decency Act (surprise, it was in an election year...pusillanimity at its worst)
3) Telecom Reform Act (set the stage for media consolidation..."An FCC study found that the Act had led to a drastic decline in the number of radio station owners, even as the actual number of commercial stations in the United States had increased.")
4) Welfare Reform act
5) Defense of Marriage Act (God knows why a gay person would support HRC)
6) Iraq Liberation Act (which I already noted)
7) Extraordinary rendition was first approved by the Clinton administration....Clinton approved sending these suspects to Egypt for "interrogation"
8) The BS "don't ask, don't tell" policy...a monumental failure and a human rights travesty...
9) "I didn't inhale"....WTF? Be a man, own up and move on...

Anonymous said...

Hi All,
This is the ever-so-hated "Larry" that likes to question everything including the Democrat agenda. I'm hated on this blog for questioning everything and encouraging Americans to vote for third party candidates so we can get out of the 2 party system rut which causes us to vote against candidates instead of for candidates.

I predicted long ago that Ostroy the idiot would be fawning over Hillary in the 'future'.

It amazes me that Democrats would put another Clinton in position to be President:

Bush -> Clinton -> Bush -> Clinton

Haven't you idiots had enough of corruption in Washington? Voting for another clinton is not going to change anything for the better.

If you vote for a clinton you should lose your right to complain about corruption in Washington for the rest of your life. Clintons are proven liars and Bill Clinton lost his law license as proof of his poor ethics.

Anonymous said...

I agree with all the good things said about Obama. He does inspire. So does Tony Robbins, but I've learned that being inspired does not guarantee different results. An article in the NY TIMES published before the campaign started identified Obama's ability to achieve compromise, but unforunately compromise is his primary interest and goal, rather than a firm point of view about the disagreement. We have no guarantee he won't forfeit the priciples of the Democrats just to get agreement and everybody working together.

Anonymous said...

"...priciples of the Democrats..."

Do the Corrupt Clintons represent the principles of the Democrats ?

- government interference in the free market
- income redistribution
- successful murder of 1.2 babies in 2007
- phony claims for 'right to vote for President'

Anonymous said...


- successful murder of 1.2 million babies in 2007

Anonymous said...

Let's be fair and mentally balanced.

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

THe tax law should be fair and not slanted for the benefit of the few.

And, let's mention the thousands killed by this Administration in anillegal war that was based on lies and greed.

Anonymous said...

ok, lets be mentally fair and mentally balanced:

The top 1% makes 18% of ALL income yet pays 40% of ALL taxes

The bottom 50% of ALL TAXPAYERS pays less than 4% of ALL taxes

The bottom 50% of ALL INCOME EARNERS pay 0% of ALL taxes.

Democrats want to make people who are successful because they make sound decisions pay more than their fair share (they already are) and buy votes by giving it to people who want the Nanny state to take care of them.

Why are you so jealous of people that make more money than you? Do you ever look into the mirror and blame yourself for the situation you put yourself into ?

Democrat leaders want 2 classes - them and everyone else.

Ask John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and any of the other Democrat elites how it feels to live in a country where anyone can become rich (even if it means marrying into money twice)

Anonymous said...


with all due respect, why did bill bring up jessie jackson when asked why it took two clinton's to beat obama?

are the clinton's racists? nope

but neither is above using race to win

and im sorry, but i want neither back in the wh

Cethirien said...

Your commentary is so ridiculous Andy. You basically throw what Obama has been subjected to back in his face for having the gall to speak back against the Clinton slime game. I know the Clintons and their enablers have perfected this, after years of having to deal with the Right wing, but they've learned all the wrong lessons, and are now subjecting their own party people to this Rove treatment. Quite disgusting really.

The people who have been defending the Clintons through thick and thin since the 1990s should be sick of this garbage. They are irredeemable in many minds now. And while Obama is not the perfect clean candidate, the Clintons are far worse -- willing and able to sell out the Democratic Party and the Democratic cause for their own outsized egos.

Mike Gravel is right. Hillary is the most dangerous candidate on the democratic side.