Hillary's IED offensive

This presidential contest is about race, primarily; gender, secondly, with issues of state coming in a distant third. (Only trotted out on occasion if the other two lose steam.  Hot steam is released frequently to assure they will not--lose steam.) And most pundits, bloggers, journalistic wannabes want in on the act.  Increases readership, heightens our group-think sensibilities.

Of course, those things have nothing to do with governing, only a sidebar to the media's thurst for topical, water-cooler debate.  Important questions are conpressed to a few one-liners: Hillary was for war; Obama was against war from the start.  Hillary exaggerates her roles in sorting out international conflicts; Obama is a steady, mature spokesman for American interests.

And so it goes, day upon day in the chatfest we have come to accept as meaningful discourse.  It isn't. But don't tell voters; we, as a bloc, like it that way.  We can quietly slip our cares on to another's shoulders somewhat as we take it to the Lord in prayer.  I am not playing down the possibility of an omnipotent being who will answer pleas.  But it is no wonder that Barack Obama is being heralded as more than a mere politician.  We need an assurance some mystical, bigger-than-life force will save us from ourselves.

Geraldine Ferraro is correct.  There is a racial element injected when a black person enters into higher politics because it is rare.  To deny it is both disingenuous and faulty. Pointing out the obvious is not racist, though it may be impolitic in an environment fraught with unresolved racial overtones. 

Can we stick to vetting a candidate's qualifications for the next few days or however long the Democratic primaries play out?  With the media micromanaging news, the Republicans dealing from under the table, our elections in question, seems we have enough real dilemmas to examine. Obama is a black man.  Get used to it.  We don't have to engage in Rovan roulette to settle the nominations. We could start thinking for ourselves;  Karl's time has come and gone.  Please!

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 10:06:11 AM
 

Can we stick to vetting candidates?

Clearly Barack Obama thinks so. He spent a considerable portion of last week sitting before editorial boards answering their freely asked questions on subjects of their own choosing. The judgment from those sessions seems to be that he answered openly and truthfully, putting to rest many of the controversies that were manufactured as stumbling blocks for him.

At the same time the candidate who seems to be the only one who believes that she has been vetted still refuses to release any income tax returns before 2007, as they won't be available until April. She will not publish a list of earmarks that she has attached to legislation as Obama has. She seems to prefer that we take her answers on faith, I suppose, because she believes herself to have forthcoming so far.

No sale.

by John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1266 comments) on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 1:43:56 PM
 

Hillary's income docus and earmarks

Have no idea what Hillary's finances are, or who she is, as they say, in bed with moneywise.  But I have a hunch it is no more nefarious than is Barack's cozy relationship with Penny Pritzer (billionaire who is head of his national financial campaign and implicated in the sub-prime debacle) or Robert Wolf (well-known for his "bundling" of corporate donations for Obama's political aspirations, which he euphemistically calls his "movement") or his ongoing mentoring by Auatan Goolsbee (from the Chicago's school of economics advertised as the school which authored the disasterous "free trade" philosophy on how to fleece the public, which one of its founding fathers, Milton Friedman, repudiated--before his death a couple years ago.--as veering too far right, etc., etc., etc.)  Did you know that another of his economic advisers from Harvard is falling in step to privatize social security?  If that is what is bothering you about Hillary Clinton's financial backers.

However, if you want to know about Sen. Clinton's earmarks, it was covered on Bill Moyers PBS show last month.  Clinton was about second or third on the list of totals earmarked for her constituents.  The breakdown is hard to come by--Congress keeps it under wraps.  My guess would be Hillary put a lot of money in play to help 9/11 victims and first responders.  First on the earmark list was a Repub from Mississippi, who took  Sen. Trent Lott's seat when he stepped down--just in time to beat the new law making it illegal for an ex-pol to lobby before two years after leaving office.

Obama, only being in office for a year before he started collecting endorsements for his run-up to the 2008 election (and promises of donations, no doubt), would not have as many earmarks, if I were guessing.  After all, he is more interested in being president than fulfilling his obligations as a U.S. Senator.  That's how I see it; but then I am thoroughly biased.  I like Hillary.  She is more qualified and all things being equal (if you want to open up that can of worms),  is voted most likely to succeed by thinking voters. 

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 3:58:25 PM
 

My, my...

I have to assume from your reference to Penny Pritzker (with a "k") and your inference to her association with Superior Bank that you would know that her brother Jay Robert "J.B." Pritzker is the National Chairman of Citizens for Hillary.

The Pritzker family with their real estate fortune have been a fixture of Chicago for many decades including the years 1989 to 1994 when Penny Pritzker chaired Superior Bank. The bank failed in July 2001 while Penny was a board member, as Hillary was with Walmart. In any event, Superior Bank paid a government mandated $460 million settlement, which I'll wager is more than we'll get out of Bear Stearns on Wall Street in Hillary's home turf.

Obama's advisors being academics from the University of Chicago should come as no surprise to you either, as he taught Constitutioal Law there and his wife Michele worked as a lawyer in the legal department of the University of Chicago Hospitals. U of C is sort of Obama's neighborhood world class mega university.

Regarding earmarks, I asked why she hadn't released the information on them as Obama did, and I have to thank you for making my point. I wasn't all that interested in her place in the gimme yer dough derby, but third is quite a finish for a competitive gal. As far as I know, the Republican from Mississippi in first place is not running for President. I'll take your word for it that Congress holds the particulars of that information closely, but that is why Hillary must release the information herself, as Barack Obama has done. click here He requested $740 million of which $220 million was approved by Congress, and I don't have to guess at what it went for, as a good level of detail shows up if you click on or look up the link above.

At last I arrive at your claim that "thinking" voters are for Hillary. It brings to mind a story about Adlai Stevenson who, while he was running for president was approached by a woman who said to him,"Mr. Stevenson, all thinking Americans support you." Stevenson replied, "Thank you, Madam, but I need a majority."

In the case of your reference, however, I have to assume that you are referring to voters who "think" Hillary is thoroughly vetted, or who "think" that she can wallow up to her neck in K Street and get away owing nothing. Perhaps you meant those who "think" that Hillary's K Street Kampaign Korps of Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson (or as I refer to the duo, Penn and Yeller), have not been blowing B.S. all over the body politic. Maybe it was those who "think" that Hillary has not been playing them like a second rate Karl Rove. That being the case, "credulous" would be a more accurate term than "thinking".

by John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1266 comments) on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 7:08:23 PM
 

Oh, come, come John

You want to continue to split hairs? Ms. Pitzker (with a 'k'-thank you) is up to her eyeballs in the sub-prime scandal (see Huffington Post's Earl ofAri Hutchinson--correct sp) re Ms. PitzKer's many claims to felonious fame.  Now the 'Post' is a board whose namesake is in love (or so she claims, but with Arianna, no one knows where her whims will take her) with Obama.  She has jumped on his barackwagon along with Oprah and Ted and Caroline.  So inspiring...I'd have to do some research on Penny's bro, but it isn't too off-center to think the family hedges bets and plays both sides of the ledger.  After all, when you have money to burn, power politics must be a very heady diversion.  Obama brought Penny on board (or maybe she brought him on board) to ramp up funding; that is her area of expertise.

My major point, in case you missed it, is that there isn't a thickness of a piece of paper that separates Hill and Barack, either in political theory or political conduct.  They are both "players" but one is more qualified to lead and has a trackable record; one is unqualified with less than a remarkable resume.  In a perfect world, perhaps Dennis Kucinich would be winning.  My original pick was John Edwards. But John also, has spent time with the dreaded CFR and was invited to Bilderberger outings...now there is fodder for beaucoup speculation.  Bilderbergers are the target of endless conspiracy theories and countless out-of-the-mainstream blog narratives. I myself indulge in those on occasion.  It would explain a lot of the nonsense surrounding our pointless exercises in presidential politics. 

Ah, but one issue I can get my brain around is the Chicago school of "free trade" economics. (As opposed to FAIR trade.)  Milton Freidman was instrumental in proffering that philosophy way back when but as he was passing on to his reward, was heard to disclaim their new approach as excessive.  But let me further explain: the Chicago school's pundits are allergic to governmental regulations and that meant deregulation of American commercial interests.  (See the book by Thom Hartmann, "Screwed," with a subtitle I can't remember.)

Under Ronald Reagan, Paul Volker invoked that philosophy and Ron began his reign of terror, first attacking the air traffic controllers on strike and succeeding in breaking their PATCO union.  Lane Kirkland, leader of PATCO's parent union spoke of the event with tears in his eyes.  Because he knew "something wicked this way comes." (Shakespear) That was the opening salvo of the far-right's conservative assault on middle America.  Since then, they have succeeded in deregulating many institutions from banks to the FCC, instrumental in the downfall of our way of life.

You see it all around you.  Hillary did not hold any power of vote as First Lady.  It is evident what they did to Bill; read, "The Hunting of the President: The Ten Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton," by Gene Lyons and Joe Conason--both journalists with unimpeachable integrity.  How can anyone stand up to that sort of frontal assault?

I admire them for their staying power, warts and all.  As politics go, they are fairly stable and though not saints, certainly a step up from any Republican in my line of vision.  I admire Hillary more than Bill for obvious reasons.  Too bad we are being thrown another curve ball by the miscreants who run the show.  They want Obama because he will lie down supine and assume the position of surrender...watch--observe.

by Marilyn Frith (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 191 comments) on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 8:37:16 PM
 

Assume the position of surrender?

Would that be anything like campaigning as a progressive (twice) then taking his lecture to heart from Rubin and Greenspan; going on to implement NAFTA and the WTO, deregulating communications outlets and enacting Welfare "Reform"?

Nah, someone already did all of that. I believe his name was Clinton, as I recall. I hear his old lady is more ambitious and pliable than he is, if that were at all possible.

Let the Mark Penn talking points go. They were B.S. when he talked Hillary into pronouncing them and they remain so to this day.

by John Sanchez Jr. (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1266 comments) on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM