“THE CONUNDRUM CONCERNING CLINTONITES”

Or, Why Do So Many Hillary Supporters Still Seem to Want to Elect McCain?

At one point it was reported that apparently as many as half of the 18 million who voted for Hillary Clinton were saying they won’t vote for Barack Obama. Since most who enthusiastically embraced the concept of a woman in the White House also still presumably embrace the bedrock concepts behind the Democratic Party, the Constitution, not to mention the Biblical Golden Rule, it is hard to understand what they have against Obama or in favor of McCain. Is it petulance, covert racism, or simple misinformation?

Let’s be generous and assume the latter. Misinformation is certainly a possible explanation. After all, a whole herd of gross distortions and deliberate lies thunder in daily to our tvs, radios and computers, loudly trumpeted in the what are known as “swift boat-style” ads and spam. Nevertheless, no matter how many times rumor mongers repeat it, Obama is NOT Muslim, NEVER was, and it shouldn’t matter anyway if freedom of religion actually means anything anymore in America.

There is abundant evidence to conclusively rebut the wild claims and thankfully Hillary herself never suggested otherwise. So, why then do many of her supporters keep mentioning Obama’s supposed Muslim roots or, even if they acknowledge he may “now” be a Christian, cite him for supposedly abandoning his “original” faith? Let us hope the die hard Clintonites recognize such baseless canards for what they are and note where such falsehoods are originating from before they endanger us all by continuing putting another disastrous Republican administration in power.

Other things being recited as reasons to disapprove Obama are not outright slander. They fall in the category of misleading half truths. It is true for instance that Obama, like almost everyone else who ever made it to the Senate, is significantly richer than you and I and has a somewhat more expensive house, which is apparently something that bothers the low and middle class voters who preferred Clinton over Obama. Fair enough, but why switch all the way over to favor McCain? After all, not only is Hillary and her hubby significantly richer than Obama, Obama was not born to privilege as an Admiral’s son like McCain. Anyone who has spent time in the military understands what that sort of privilege usually means in the way of special assistance and perks for family members of high ranking officers.

Moreover, Obama did not abandon an ill first wife like McCain did to trade up to a prettier one with such enormous inherited wealth that he can’t even seem to keep track of how many mansions they own these days outright. Is there any likelihood that you or I would not know instantly how many houses we owned? Better yet, any money Obama has seems to have been earned largely by his own efforts. In other words, Obama’s working class roots are far closer to Clinton’s than McCain’s is. Which is the better role model? Consequently, which candidate, Obama or McCain, would be more likely to better understand the legitimate concerns of the lower and middle class who are having aggressive war waged against them continuously by the uber rich like McCain? Is McCain going to champion the less fortunate? Hah. Surely you jest. McCain may occasionally look and dress like a high school football coach, but given that he proposes enacting a tax cut that would result in a permanent yearly benefit to his family approaching half a million dollars speaks for itself. Obama is proposing a tax cut too, but it is mainly for you and I, not the uber rich.

Look at the voting records. Except for the ineffective campaign finance law passed, McCain is against almost anything that would curtail the current voluminous transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top 1%. While it is theoretically possible to be inheritance rich like Kennedy was and still act as an advocate for the poor, does any Clintonite seriously expect newly rich McCain to act like Kennedy? If not, then why do disgruntled Clintonites keeping naysaying Obama for being somewhat rich? By the way, have the Clintonites check out the bank balance of the Clintons lately?

Speaking of war, it is undeniably true that Obama did not serve in a war zone, although giving up cushy jobs in law firms to serve as a community organizer goes at least part of the distance. Besides, neither Hillary or her husband earned any combat infantry badges dodging bullets (except for that one supposed Bosnian incident). And of course, neither did any of today’s other leading Republicans except McCain.

Moreover, even as to war record, being a fighter jock who managed to get shot down instead of completing the mission is probably not what should recommend someone to run a huge bureaucracy like the federal government. While McCain does deserve some kudos for putting himself in harm’s way (unlike the current fearful leader in the White House who just likes to dress up in flight suits), the best military experienced Presidents tended to be administrators while serving their country in wartime, not those leading charges. Have the die hard Clintonites, who are now neo-McCainiacs, forgotten the greatest leaders of Democratic Party such as Franklin Roosevelt or, for that matter, Bill Clinton did not wear uniforms? Even if McCain has an arguable factual edge over Obama on this single issue of war record, why is that one issue outweighing everything else that once mattered to Clintonites?

The rest of the “complaints” cited by angry Clinton followers are even less viable as genuine reasons to harm Obama by favoring McCain. Take the “pointy headed intellectual” label being bandied about. Smart? Yeah okay. Unquestionably, Obama has more native brainpower than you or I, lots more apparently. Harvard is one of the two or three toughest law schools in the country to even get into. To be selected as editor of the Law Review while there is proof positive that he was one of the two or three brightest students in a class representing the best of the best of that generation. It is recognized that might seem intimidating to anyone who struggled in school. Still, wouldn’t it be nice though to finally have a President again who could speak English and would not embarrass us? To be fair, McCain seems brighter than the current occupant of that office. On the other hand, the comparable academic record between McCain and Obama is not even close. The undisputed fact is McCain was among the bottom of his class. He likely only got in and allowed to graduate because he was an Admiral’s son.

Rock star celebrity-ism? Arrogance for being filmed in front of phenomenally large crowds? Sort of an anti causecleb concept for which Obama should be knocked? Least we forget, nothing is more rock star centered than a carrier based jet pilot as evidenced by their Iceman, Ghost, Maverick monikers and jock demeanors. To be fair with five thousand men and a billion dollar ship there just to support a few dozen macho types like McCain during the Vietnam fighting could hardly produce anything else. So, why is that a reason to demean Obama when he shows some of the same signs. As for arrogance being a disqualification for the job, that would be nice in a perfect world, but it is almost a threshold criteria for running for the job. The job description is entitled these days: LEADER of the ENTIRE FREE WORLD. The latest claim seems to come down to Obama being more successful at it abroad and at home. Good grief. This particular excuse for choosing McCain is so silly, it does not bear further examination.

Similarly, should choice of leafy green veggies be the test for President? Should choice of booze? Should bowling ability? Haven’t we learned that selecting a President by who we would like to have a night out or party with is not a good idea? Besides, you have more chance of being eaten by a shark in Kansas than the possibility that McCain would want to spend anytime with you. And, what have you got against Arugula? They sell it at Safeway. It is a little tart and somewhat like eating weeds to my personal taste. On the other hand, I have never thought my personal taste in food should have any bearing on who deserves to be elected President. I can understand why the Clinton supporters might be disappointed, maybe even angrily and bitterly so. Yet, how can that possibly translate into Obama should not be President if the only other choice is McCain?

Of course, none of those issues just mentioned above, all ones so dear to frivolous Mainstream Media, are really what we should be using to select a President. Hillary fans would do themselves well to look instead at real issues, ones that matter or should matter to even white, beer drinking, bowling night, church going, workers, female or otherwise.

● Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some justices on the courts who believe Rowe v. Wade and female right of choice is the best choice. In light of the recent revelations the Republicans want to allow health workers to refuse even birth control assistance, four more years of any Republican whatsoever in the White House almost guarantees the death of any choice whatsoever, let alone abortion rights.

● Female rights and the distinction between Obama and McCain is not limited to just birth issues. McCain wants to give us glass slipper fairy tales or at least mukluk ones. Obama in contrast seems to worry about glass ceilings in the workplace. Have the Clintonites forgotten how McCain’s favorite Supreme Court Justice, the ones he wants to duplicate if President, just recently torpedoed a woman’s right to sue for equal pay for equal work? They said that if her unequal pay is successfully hidden from her for long enough, she loses the right to complain about it. Expect more of the same with McCain.

● As for saving those jobs in the first place (not to mention the accumulated pensions and bank deposits they earned) and keeping good paying jobs here in this county, Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some restraint on the rapaciousness of Republicans, lobbyists, CEOs and Wall Street by reimposing some regulations and rehiring honest regulators and by putting limits on sending it offshore. Will the Clitonites’ children be able to get any credit? Will they be able to get a home? The financial disasters of the Republican consistently uniform platforms have dumped the burden on Clintonites’ children and grandchildren, the ones who are not and never will be uber rich. Is that fairness? McCain thinks so.

● Doesn’t McCain think about the future generations at all? His campaign’s catchy slogan regarding our eternal oil addiction is a simplistic “Drill, Baby, Drill” which unfortunately translates simply into “Drain America’s Today” and save nothing. So what if consuming our pitiful 3% of the oil reserves we have puts us at the mercy of those with oil tomorrow? So what if burning hydrocarbons increases global warming and drowns some cities? Why bother to stop to think about consequences? Why bother to apply some long term common sense cost/benefit analysis?

● Obama is also the best and only chance we have to recapture some of the respect and trust the world once had in America and its ideals. That has already been shown in the reaction of the world populace, the world press and the world leaders to Obama’s travels. Surely that has value if a future presidency of Hillary is to be worth anything. Electing another old white guy is not going to do it. Why squander the chance and how does it help Hillary to not have a minority elected for the first time ever?

● War? Well, that is a disappointment about Obama, but at least he is not the one saying we must be there for 100 years at whatever cost to our troops, our treasury, our future, our credibility. Maybe Obama will move us out before we are told to leave with our tails between our legs. What an interesting irony that Bush cannot seem to get his force extension agreement signed by the “democratically elected” government he newly put in power.

● Supporting the troops? McCain says he likes the sound of that. It sounds “patriotic,” but despite all the sound and fury, when it comes to adequate equipment for those troops, adequate care for the wounded, living up to the education and other benefits promised as inducements, he is pretty quiet. And the record of his party is abysmal over the past several years on those things. Since Clintonites have sons, daughters, and spouses going into the “danger zone,” we need a loud fighter for those things.

● With the many other wars McCain wants to continue also comes a war on our Constitution. US sponsored torture, abandonment of the Geneva Conventions that protect our own troops as well, abandonment of bed rock principles such as spying without warrants, arrest without counsel or confrontation of supposed witnesses, jail forever without trial, human rights violations galore, both at home and abroad. Is that really what recalcitrant Clintonites really want to support?

● Moreover, death and destruction is not limited to that brought by bullets, bombs and waterboarding, there is death and disabilities from our environmental degradation for profit, our oil addiction, , housing, savings, and most certainly an almost broken health care system.

● Divisiveness has been the central theme of the McCain campaign. Wedge issues as usual. The list is long.

Between the minority voter intimidation, the deliberate voter misinformation being sent, the electronic vote machine hacking, and the Republican Supreme Court standing by to overturn the results again, the nation desperately needs the Hillary supporters to recognize their own future best interests and support the one candidate who believes what she does.

"WHO Really DESTROYED THE ECONOMY?"

Or, It Must Have Been That Evil Clinton Again (Bill, that is)

I have been trying to figure out how the Republicans would finally manage to blame the last thirty years of Republican financial irresponsibility on Bill Clinton. After all, they have blamed everything else on earth on him. At last, the answer.

According to the latest explanations by Republican shills, apparently he “pressured” the poor defenseless Republican CEOs of the Republican owned banks to assist more low income people get into home ownership. Supposedly, they instantly capitulated and made loans to everyone who walked through the door no matter how risky it was in doing so. Yes, they made obscenely huge profits in doing so, but it was practically entrapment. They had no choice except to line their pockets and endanger the nation.

Yes, the Republican dominated stock market seeing the huge profits wanted some of it and made stock and insurance bets disguised by a bunch a phony names, but that only magnifies Clinton’s guilt for putting the idea in their heads. The fact that the Republicans making all the critical decisions were deciding in essence either (a) nothing could ever possibly go wrong or (b) they could stick the Treasury with the bill for the bet. . . . Well, that was irrelevant.

Shame on that nasty old Clinton for tempting them that way. Didn’t he know the Republican CEOs weren’t capable of resisting the greed? Didn’t he know they would over react and take his literally without restriction or restraint? Didn’t he know those heads of the big corps weren’t sufficiently educated or experienced in financial or security matters to see the danger or where it might lead? Didn’t he know they didn’t have the smarts, the tools or the guts to obstruct, let alone effectively resist a man whose guts they so thoroughly hated? Didn’t he know the Republicans had dismantled or controlled any regulatory agencies and laws that might have spotted or prevented the problems? Shame shame shame on Clinton for taking such terrible advantage of the Republicans’ weaknesses and utter ineptitude.

Is it too late to impeach Clinton in absentia for his high crime and misdemeanor of giving those poor innocent Republicans an excuse to rape our economy? If it’s too late, then maybe every Republican CEO, banker, lender, stockbroker, pundit and“regulator” at least ought to start wearing blue dresses to subtlety remind the rest of us how Clinton forced all those thousands of Republicans to their knees in service of his favor for subprime borrowers.

"TRULY TREACHEROUS TRAITORS"

Or, Why Perhaps Some of the Democrats in Power are Traitors Too

It’s an ugly word, not one to be bandied about lightly. But, if “traitor” is defined as those who violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution (which is sworn to by every elected member of Congress and every senior appointed member of the Executive Branch), then (except for maybe Ron Paul) most of those in the White House, Senate and House wearing a scarlet “R” engraved on their solid gold cufflinks are traitors. Certainly so if we go to war with Iran without a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution, if they vote to dismantle the Constitutional protections against warrantless searches, if they have authorized unspeakable atrocities on interrogation victims such simulated drowning or if they enact any of the inanities our Generalisimo in the flight suit seems to come up with almost daily. If those actions are not High Crimes or at least misdemeanors deserving of impeachment, then what are?

The problem is that far too large a number of those sporting a blue “D” painted on their silver platted belt buckles who took the very same oath are committing the very same High Crimes.

The Republican office holders in charge since 2000 might be excused to a certain extent given their rather obvious insanity or at least mental defectiveness. They might even qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Suffering as they apparently do from minimal intelligence, uncurious ignorance, sociopathic arrogance, perceived entitlement and ingrained, untamable aggression, they seem incapable of learning or obeying the law or even acting morally. We can pity them their disfunctionalities while simultaneously still fearing the unimaginable disasters they will no doubt perpetrate if left unguarded and unchecked. In some ways, they are not so different from fanged predators in the wild. Interesting to study, but dangerous when allowed to roam loose in a civilized society.

Not so the Democrats currently calling themselves leaders. They should know better. Consequently, they are not only traitors to their oath of office when they vote for tortures on suspicion, spying on everyone even without suspicion, and wars without declaration, they are the worst kind of traitor. Those who, fully knowing better, do it anyway out of timidity, laziness, personal gain or comfort deserve the universal condemnation of history.

It is not enough to assert as they do that the public allegedly “wants” supposed “security” over the basic freedoms the Constitution insists are necessary to a moral democracy whether the public values it or not. What shred of verifiable proof is there that such incremental surrenders of civil rights actually insure the alleged security? For instance, if the right to torture and spy is so purportedly effective, the proof should be available. I am not talking about the unsupported assertions of those who have been known to lie and stand to benefit from the dictatorial powers being usurped. I am talking about hard, quantifiable, court level proof that it actually works, especially since there is solid empirical evidence to the contrary. How do the Democrats allowing it explain that away. How do they explain away the history of our forefathers who managed to have both freedom and collective security (albeit hard fought) against far, far, far more numerous and worrisome foes? Where is the cost/benefit analysis showing that the short term gains (if any) from such insidious activities are greater than the inevitable long term cost in lives, treasury, good will, trust, and tyranny, not to mention the moral high ground which used to provide so much for us? The Democrats who are letting this happen to us should be required to explain how it is more worth while to do such things when our track record strong suggests the very countries we are now demonizing will likely be favored nation trading partners pampered with state visits and praise in the future as the Republicans have now flip flopped on Vietnam and China and until lately Russia?

Besides, if the Democrats allow the dissipation of the protections granted by the Constitution in order to curry a few votes to remain in office, what makes them think they will remain in office? Either the voters will someday come to their senses or the dictatorial power the Democrats are giving away will someday bite them in the rear. Ask the Roman Senators in the first century. Ask the members of the Russian Duma and the German Reichstag early in the last century. Strongmen with strong tactics are not the way to national security. They are the way to ultimately eliminate both freedom and personal security.

"PEOPLE I WOULD VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN ORDER OF PRIORITY"

Or, the "X"ing out the Choices

a. John Edwards
b. Bill Moyer
c. Tie: Dennis Kuchinichs or possibly his wife
d. Mike Bloomberg
e. Bill Richardson
f. Tie: Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton
g. Tie: John Anderson or Ross Perot if they are still alive
h. Just about any office holder of any party except the Republicans and Neo Nazis
i. Bill Gates so long as we were not required to use his operating system on our computers
j. Warren Buffett so long as he donates all his money to reduce the national debt
k. George Clooney so we can have a better looking class of female interns in the White House (they must not wear blue dresses though)
l. George Lucas so long as he promised not to redo any of his movies any more
m. Someone selected at random out of the phonebook so long as they were not already a convicted felon
n. The guy currently playing James Bond in the movies so long as he agrees he must fight any future Middle Eastern wars by himself
o. Ron Paul
p. A mental retard
q. Lindsay Lohan
r. Me
s. A Republican who actually believed in the words of the Constitution such as understanding freedom of religion includes freedom from religion or a Republican who actually believed in science, law, conservation, and conservatism ( I recognize these are mythical creatures, but if one ever comes into existence, then they could be on the list)
t. Ronald Reagan so long as he agrees to remain completely dead and doesn’t do anything
u. Arnold Schwarzenegger so long as he agrees to go back in time first and insure George Bush senior never meets Barbara Bush
v. Buzz Lightyear
w. The last man on earth

x. Bush, Cheney and anybody they ever nominated to any position of authority