-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/thursday-open-thread-let-it-all-hang-out/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
"*** The delegate count: Obama picked up an Oklahoma superdelegate, add-on Reggie Whitten. Clinton now leads in superdelegates 257-235. Since Sunday, Obama has picked up five supers to Clinton’s zero. With his three elected superdelegate pick-ups yesterday, Obama has moved past Clinton among the group (U.S. Senators, Reps and governors): 96-94. In the overall count now, Obama leads by 142 (1,651-1,509). He has a 164 pledged-delegate lead (1,416-1,252)."
Also Harry Thomas Jr superdel and former Clinton supporter will also announce he is backing Obama.
I Hope he upsets in PA but unlikely since PA has similar demographics to OH...but way bigger.
Obama, after he wins IND and NC, should IGNORE hillary and start campaigning for the gen election.
Go after McCain to point out the stark policy differences that voters care about. HRC will continue to go negative, but will look foolish when the narrative and campaign has moved on past her.
Lastly, he should (nor will he have to) NOT accept any more primary debates.
The Democrat party has championed itself as the party of the 'litte guy' of 'fairness', and 'equality.'
They have advanced the issues and the rights of their various factions through a paternalistic white hierarchy.
Barak Obama is a challenge to this white power structure. The nominee, in fact, becomes the leader of the Democrat party.
While Hillary and her supporters struggle to maintain their place at the top of this power structure they are exposing a very deep racial divide within the party.
It is obvious to me that Democrats who wish to maintain the present hierarchy will do whatever it takes to render Obama unelectable, even if it means giving the Republican party the ammunition with which to defeat him.
If Obama is truly going to transcend race, he needs to address it within his own party first. If he doesn't call out the racial divide, cast out racism in the party, how can he ever hope to transcend it and lead the nation?
Does he and his supporters have the courage to identify and call out the racism within?
Obama has been off message for weeks now, and there are more torpedos coming his way. His Ayers and Rezko-Auchi associations, the Hamas endorsement are going to be fed to the media sharks smelling blood. This is what the media does best, build someone up to exorbidant heights only to relish in 'knocking one off their pedestal.'
"The Dumbest Debate in America?"
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/niall_stanage/2008/04/the_dumbest_debate_in_america.html
Estimates of total oil deposits in the Bakken Formation run between 170 billion and 400 billion barrels, or in other words, up to 100 times the size of even the new estimate of what is “technically recoverable.” If, in 13 years, technology has improved enough to multiply the recoverable assets by 25 times, what’s to say that technological advancements won’t make available the rest of these vast reserves in an additional 10 or 20 years?
Yet we can’t get to any of the oil until we start drilling. Policy-makers must not allow to happen with the Bakken Formation what has occurred with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, where 10 billion barrels of oil have gone untouched for a quarter-century because of utterly spurious environmental fears.
Also, huge deposits of oil and natural gas continue to go untapped off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, again due to environmental hysteria. The truth is that leaks and spills from tankers carrying imported oil and gas exceed, by a large margin, the minuscule problems caused by the far safer use of pipelines from offshore drilling.
New discoveries and estimates from places such as the Bakken Formation and from the Marcellus natural gas fields in Pennsylvania continue to show that the United States has the resources and the wherewithal to be almost “energy independent.” What is lacking is not opportunity, but will.
Obama has been careful not to level any racism charges at Clinton..why? it would open a Pandora's box. His surrogates and blogs like this can do it but he cannot and must not, for fear of alienating white independents and the Dem party base.
Yes this is a struggle but I see it from a starkly different perspective. This is about the future of the Dem party. The establishment vs. the new
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
Can we shed some light on how she felt about middle class America then and compare it to how she's attempting to "woo" those shame individuals today?
Sebastian, on April 17th, 2008 at 2:06 am Said:
Uhm, I just saw that Ezzy posted the contact info before. I apologize for double-posting.
However, although I do not know if anyone is interested in my opinion, I will (like so many others) post it anyway. I apologize for the long post.
First, I did not see the debate and I am rather viewing the effects on the general populace. This either gives me a more distorted view or a clearer one.
I want to add that I am European (married to an American) and that I have been politically active in my younger days and that I have some background in sociology and psychology. That should explain some of my points of view.
Here come the shocking news:
The United States of America are on the brink of a major revolution. I am not talking about some fuzzy “internet revolution” or similar hogwash but the real McCoy.
I mean armed uprising, riots, civil war. The full Monty.
I know, I know, you are going to say that this is impossible, no way, I am being pessimistic etc.
Let us look at a few facts:
What are classical harbingers of revolutions?
* Increasing economic divide between lower and upper classes. The bigger and more obscene the divide the bigger the likelihood of a revolution — check
* Shortage and/or massive rise in prices of important goods such as food or gas. If I am not mistaken we are witnessing a massive price increase in *both* and it’s getting worse — check
* A disconnect of the ruling/privileged class from the general populace, i.e. elitist arrogance. In this case both corporate fat cats AND the political class — check
* Increased oppression and slashing of civil rights — check
* A solidarization of the intelligentsia with the “oppressed” or underprivileged classes while propaganda from government/privileged classes increases — uhm, check?
There are a more indicators of course and although one could talk endlessly about every single one of those above I would like to quickly elaborate on the last one.
The gotcha games the MSM used to play were possible in previous elections because there wasn’t really much at stake. Yes, yes, you are going to tell me how important that or the other issue is and so on. But let me tell you from an outsider’s point of view that all this was rather silly.
America was a rich country and as long as you were willing to work you were pretty much ok. Nobody could attack you and it was pretty clear that America is going to bomb/invade some small country every few years to field test a new generation of weapons and/or tactics.
Elections were a popularity contest about who has the better hair and looks more pesidential on TV and the candidates were representatives from different wings of the same party.
Well, this has changed, hasn’t it?
People are struggling. Not struggling to climb the ladder but struggling for their and their children’s livelihood. After the privileged class has first denied them a fair share of their labor’s value (stagnating wages while manager and CEO salaries and bonii skyrocket), looted their savings (internet bubble), looted the last depot of wealth of common people (their houses), and now resorting to extorting money from people for their health and lives with prices for health care and medicine which crossed the border to daylight robbery long time ago, forcing people into debt and bankruptcy. And lest I forget, there has been an absolutely worrying development in the last years regarding SLAVE LABOR. Yes, right, slave labor. Ten thousands of males have been imprisoned due to unfair laws and justice and then forced to provide basically free labor to corporations. Uhm, these practices are not too different from labor camps in dictatorships (where the prisoners were also ‘guilty’ of something and sentenced by a justice system put in place by a law-and-order government under the cheers of the frightened population). Next thing coming up: Harvesting of organs like in China.
This is outrageous but not surprising as the ckickens are coming home to roost and after exploiting pretty much the whole globe and now facing stiff competion of other players like China, India, and Brazil, the US corporations have resorted to the last market they have not sucked dry until recently: the American Homeland.
The people are understandably outraged and demand action (Welcome to the club. Do you now understand why all over the world American flags have been burned?). In previous elections it was easy to distract, you only had to find a big enough gotcha or push enough buttons to distract from a pressing issue. However, this time there are not enough buttons to push and by panically pushing ALL buttons hard and often this tool is being overused and backfires.
Enter the debate: This is exactly what happened. Too many buttons, too hard, and too often.
I would not be surprised if this is going to create a serious backlash for ABC and the MSM in general. Possibly for HRC as well, but not necessarily. But it does not matter because the most important step is for the people to stop believing ruling propaganda.
A quick side-step: In developmental psychology change processes are analyzed into 4 stages: Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta.
Alpha is when everything is ok and fine. Business as usual, no need to change anything.
Beta is when circumstances or parameters have changed and the usual strategies do not work anymore. The individuals or organisations facing this stage always resort to the same strategy: more of the same. Work harder. Hit harder. Invest more resources. The problem is that the results fail to materialize.
Once it is clear that the old ways won’t do it becomes obvious to some parts of the system that there has to be some serious change.
If this change is a more or less peaceful and organized one it is called positive Gamma and can lead to a higher evolved system. A positive Gamma does not have to be peaceful, the American Revolution would be an example of a positive Gamma. However, there is serious danger of having a negative Gamma, which means conflict, drama, chaos and then something new out of that chaos. This can be better but in most cases will not be.
Delta would be the new equillibrium, shaky and requiring some maturing but already pointing in the right direction and leading to a new Alpha.
What we are witnessing in this election is a battle between Beta (Clinton, McCain) and positive Gamma (Obama). The forces of the status quo however do not realize that they can not stop Gamma, they never do.
This election, and the way an Obama administration is going to perform, is the crossroads for the American Nation. Either reform or revolution. The powers to be are not going to cede their powers voluntarily. They never do. If Obama fails, there will be someone else and there is no guarantee that this is not going to be someone like Lenin, or worse, Hitler.
But after so much gloom, cheer up! Here come the good news:
If the nation and people in question were anyone else but America and the Americans I would stick a fork in them.
The Americans however, have proven to be a very special people and to have the incredible ability to do the right thing (after trying all other options to quote Winston C. here). Obama is going to be the next president and you can count yourself lucky. You are probably the luckiest bastards in the universe to have such a leader emerging then when you need him the most.
On the other hand, you should never forget what is at stake and what awaits should you fail.
Cheers,
Sebastian
Whites who want to stay in power at all cost will overlook anything the Clinton's do...that's a given looking at what they have apologized for and overlooked in the past and in this campaign to date. This is a fight for the superdelegates, not the voters writ large. The primaries exist only to provide context and legitimization
to the decision of the superdelegates.
This is about power, not policy and even less about the people.
Sometimes the most obvious answer also tends to be true.
As long as this is 'the answer that shall not be named' it will be allowed to reside in the party and America.
If Obama speaks the truth he will be the leader of a movement. If he keeps quiet he will be just another politician willing to tolerate the most offensive wing of his party for personal political gain.
If racism in the Democrat party is shamed, shunned and cast out, the Republicans will have to choose if they want to embrace the outcasts. And to their political peril.
I see no downside to speaking the truth.
Here is her latest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/opinion/16dowd.html?em&ex;=1208577600&en;=b72e81dc5cc801fb&ei;=5087%0A
I decided to write to her, and I tried not to be emotional--but so be it:
I stopped reading your column months ago. But every once in awhile I pop in and am usually refreshed by what you write.
But then you write something that clearly shows you are of the belief--whether it is unconscious or not--that Senator Obama is arrogant and cocky--aka an "uppity negro."
I for one, am not interested in whether or not the man can bowl, likes coffee, or eats red meat. I think we have seen what America's years of obsession with "non-intellecutallism." has gotten us. 27 years of decline. Our children are now outperformed in Math and Science amongst industrialized nations. Our public education system is still built on the "manufacturing platform" constructed during the height of the American revolution, during 13 years of economic expansion, most people have actually lost money factoring out inflation, and your concern is why he seems so "law professorish"?
His $500 million campaign, has by all machinations, been run like a lean mean inclusive machine. A pure demonstration of how he might run a country. Senator Clinton has had lend her campaign money and has vendors across the nation asking when they are going to get paid, and you obsess over his "eggheaded-ness"?
I'm beginning to wonder if the media is scarred of what my happen if someone actually treats the American public like that might actually be smart enough to know better. We've got bigger fish to fry, and whether or not he seems "around the way" enough, to qoute an urban colloquialism, is the least of my, and a lot other American's worries.
I stopped reading your column months ago. But every once in awhile I pop in and am usually refreshed by what you write.
But then you write something that clearly shows you are of the belief--whether it is unconscious or not--that Senator Obama is arrogant and cocky--aka an "uppity negro."
I for one, am not interested in whether or not the man can bowl, likes coffee, or eats red meat. I think we have seen what America's years of obsession with "non-intellecutallism." has gotten us. 27 years of decline. Our children are now outperformed in Math and Science amongst industrialized nations. Our public education system is still built on the "manufacturing platform" constructed during the height of the Industrial Revolution, and during 13 years of economic expansion, most people have actually lost money factoring out inflation, yet your concern is why he seems so "law professorish"?
His $500 million campaign, has by all machinations, been run like a lean mean inclusive machine. A pure demonstration of how he might run a country. Senator Clinton has had to lend her campaign money and has vendors across the nation asking when they are going to get paid, and you obsess over his "eggheaded-ness"?
I'm beginning to wonder if the media is scarred of what may happen if someone actually treats the American public like they might actually be smart enough to know better. We've got bigger fish to fry, and whether or not he seems "around the way" enough, to qoute an urban colloquialism, is the least of my, and a lot other American's worries.
thanks for that.
for my money, Dowd is ' bitter' in every sense of the word.
that was an amazing post you found. I've never heard it "spoken" out loud like that. I've really only seen posts where people talk about armed revolution..seeming to sense that it was coming. It was clear Americans were angry....but in my communication on message boards I could never see how armed revolution would be possible give military technology and the dependence on infrastructure.
When Barack appeared, I had an epiphany that he was the revolution, or at the very least the "last chance motel" - "50 miles to the next exit" option. These were purely intuitive feelings. As I watch everything unfold...I have a great degree of anxiety as if there is much at stake.
I never trusted the Democratic party. I watch how they sit back and allow Obama to fight alone. I recall their apathy over the last few years.
I see how they allow Hillary to wreak havoc on their best interests. They seem paralyzed by fears and trauma inflicted by Republicans past, constantly obsessing about what the Republicans will say.
They did not defend Obama on the "elitist" tag, nor on the racists attacks. The DNC cannot be expected to do the right thing. But for us - Obama is truly alone.
Al Gore, preoccupied with gluttony, reveling in his wealth and growing fat. Why would he care about party? He is not one of the vulnerable.
I hope Americans prevail. I hope the the ones who are still sane will save those who have gone mad. I hope you all realize how much danger there is and that Barack is right, there is such a thing as being too late.
Who says that White independents aren't applauding Barack's courage already? What I think you're implying is that White independents would applaud Barack even more if he focused more on "race" than pocketbook issues.
And that just doesn't pass the smell test.
Keep trying ...
The more important question for me is...what does this attitude toward people she percieves as not having supported her say about what she is likely to do (or not do) vis-a-vis blacks if she becomes President?
As I said before, I think the biggest revelation to come out of this story is the fact that Bill thinks working-class white Southerners "paid the whole price" (suffered) for black civil rights. I'd like to know exactly what he thinks their "suffering" consisted of.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA
Townhall in NC:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rz6Nh46_4ow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdnljEV7MP4&eurl;=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/unprecedented-number-of-a_n_97267.html
rickyrah, I saw that comment last night and it struck me as really important -- so glad you brought it over here. Thank you!
TruthSeeker, you wrote: When Barack appeared, I had an epiphany that he was the revolution, or at the very least the "last chance motel" - "50 miles to the next exit" option. These were purely intuitive feelings. As I watch everything unfold...I have a great degree of anxiety as if there is much at stake.
I have had similar -- though not exactly the same but very similar -- intuitions as you.
This feels to me for sure as a turning point, a crux point. A very strong strong feeling, that. This person in this role at this time. I don't feel it as revolution, but more as you said, last exit for 50 miles -- that feels really accurate to me.
and you wrote: I hope the the ones who are still sane will save those who have gone mad. I hope you all realize how much danger there is and that Barack is right, there is such a thing as being too late.
What I have been struggling with these last few days is coming face to face with my own very stark lack of faith and trust in this nation's people, collectively. I don't have the kind of trust and faith on this that Barack does. Not at ALL. Though I am naturally inclined to trust, I have had to learn over and over in my life that this is not the way to function in this society. Real and persistent patterns in my own experiences and observations over many years tell me not to trust the way he does.
Of course, I've never ever been able to communicate well in the language that makes the most sense to some (many?) of the groups he is communicating with.
Because of my own experiences and my own proven inability to even dip a toe into the arena he is swimming in ... I am baffled by how he has gotten to the point he is at. I see he is doing what he is doing. I see that collectively people are not rejecting him out of hand. I see how the "power that be" in this society are working to make this impossible and normally I would assume they would win because it seems they always do.
But I see that Barack is making his faith in others real as he moves through this. It baffles me. It may not hold. But I see it right in front of me, so have to acknowledge its reality. But really, I don't understand it one bit.
If Hillary is still contesting the nomination in August, she will most likely be asking them to overturn the will of the primary voters and make her the nominee. They will only take such a risk if they are totally convinced that Obama can't win in Novemeber.
How many times have we heard Clinton and Obama argue endlessly over what amounts to a very minor difference in their health-care plans?
More importantly, McCain is not likely to challenge either Clinton or Obama on issues like the environment, interrogation, and health care in the general election. He will challenge them on issues like gun control, foreign policy, and taxes — the issues ABC covered — while outside groups will ensure that their personal controversies are in the public eye as November draws near.
It concludes, "This was a debate for their (superdelegates) benefit, and ABC did the right thing by testing the candidates on the issues that are bound to take center stage in the fall. On these issues, Obama might have stumbled. But he did not commit the kind of catastrophic blunder Clinton needs if she’s to have any hope of winning the nomination."
This sounds about right to me, and will help to prepare Obama for the general election issues to come.
Breakdown:
Obama:
1. Philadelphia Daily News - 4/17 (the article says: That makes it a sweep for Mr. Obama among Pennsylvania’s major newspapers)
2. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - 4/16
3. Patriot-News in Harrisburg - I can't find the article for the date
4. Times Tribune, based in Scranton - 4/13
Clinton:
1. Daily Pennsylvanian, the student newspaper at the University of Pennsylvania
I particularly liked this part of the Philadelphia Daily News endorsement of Sen. Obama:
THERE IS a way to match Clinton's and Obama's performances on a relatively equal playing field: their campaigns.
A candidate's campaign may be the best indicator of how she or he will govern. If so, an Obama administration would be well-managed, inclusive and astonishingly broad-based. It would make good use of technology and communicate a message of unity and, yes, hope.
It would not be content with eking out slim victories by playing to the narrow interests of the swing voters of the moment while leaving the rest of the country as deeply divided as ever. Instead, an Obama administration would seek to expand the number of Americans who believe that they have a personal stake in our collective future - and that they have the power to change things.
And this line which echoes a discussion that was here at Jack and Jill not long ago:
He would adjust his views to reality rather than trying to adjust reality to his views.
Exactly.
That's what I've come to believe, in part from trying to account for my own massive misjudgment over Iraq and near-disbelief at what has happened to limited government conservatism in the past decade. I think the United States is in deep trouble. In massive debt, bogged down in a $3 trillion war in Iraq with no end in sight, its moral reputation globally in tatters, its Constitution undermined from within, America desperately needs a substantive, honest debate about the future, a root-and-branch review of foreign policy, of tax policy, of environmental policy, of torture and terror policies and of entitlements. And we do not have the luxury of using elections in this climate as a way to fight over cultural conflicts originating in this instance from the boomer civil war stemming from the 1960s. That's why I once so feared a Clinton-Giuliani contest. But it is what the Clintons know; and it is what they have decided to turn their own primary campaign into. From flag-pins to Ayers to Wright - it's all about re-fighting the boomer culture wars.
This is not a question of pieties; it's a question of priorities.
And most Americans not marinated in the professional political culture of Washington have responded to this obvious concern. That's why McCain emerged on the right and Obama on the left. That's why so many millions have engaged in this electoral cycle where they were once utterly detached from it. This is a critical part of the reform needed to right the ship of state.
Last night was not Obama's finest hour. But when you look back and see what he has already accomplished by the manner and content and care of his campaign, he is obviously on the right side. Key elements of the MSM establishment, the political establishment and the ideological right and cynical left know how big a threat he is to them. That's why Hannity can join forces with Stephanopoulos and Clinton can channel Rove. Because in this issue, they are all on the same side.
If you want to keep playing that game while this country nose-dives, go ahead. Vote Clinton. If you understand how important this is, the candidacy of Barack Obama has never been so worth supporting. We need to turn this debacle into a renewed determination to get rid of the forces strangling this country's capacity to right itself.
Yes, we can.
_____________________________________
While supporters may already believe this to be true how can he bring independent voters to his side?
For example, Do you (Obama supporters here at JJP) believe that if General Patraeus and Ambassador Crocker told him in Jan. 2009 that immediate withdrawl would not be his recommended course of action, would he, should he, continue with his plan for withdrawl?
If in Jan. 2009 the rise in food prices could be significantly reduced if the production of biofuels such as corn-based ethanol was lowered, regulated or halted altogether, would he be able alter or withdraw his support for this alternative fuel?
These scenarios are possible. Breaking from 2 major tenets of his campaign that would require him to make decisions that are wildly unpopular with the base of his support.
This would require an ability to be independent. Can he go against the party and be independent if it is required?
That was a great find. I believe McCain also wants to have a substantive debate on issues. He has shown a willingness and an ability to be an independent thinker, hence his reputation as a 'maverick.'
I know that McCain is criticized for 'back tracking' on taxes, torture and immigration in order to rally support from the base. Has not Obama played to his base as well?
But won't Obama need to move to the center, or at least demonstrate that he is capable of breaking with the party on some issues as well?
For example, the capital gains tax has been proven to increase tax revenues. It affects over 40% of Americans who are enjoying the benefits of being part of the investor class. Many of these are black and minority investors who for the first time are able to amass wealth which they can pass on to future generations. Is this a case where the party opinion that raising taxes on the wealthy should be reevaluated?
School choice
Affirmative Action reform
Nuclear Energy
I myself can't answer your questions specifically because they are hypothetical and I have no actual information on what is going on because it is not going on. Not saying others won't have something to say - just that I myself don't do well with hypotheticals.
But, in case it is relevant somehow, here is what I can say on this (sorry it turned out so freaking long):
What I know is what I have already observed of his actions in the campaign -- patterns emerging from that. And also from what I see in reading Dreams from My Father, which underscores for me the strength of those patterns.
There are two different approaches to knowledge and action that I feel as relevant here.
One, deductive, starts with a tightly controlled theory with artificially limited and controlled parameters for "testing" the theory.
While there may be good uses for this approach (and I am sure I over-simplified the description, because it is not how I think), it unfortunately can feed into a much more dangerous way of approach things, that of imperial "reality-creation" as discussed in a previous thread on this site.
In contrast, the other approach to knowing and action, inductive, builds understanding from the ground up -- experience, interaction, noticing what is going on before making concepts and theories about it. This approach defers to experience and ground-up reality if there is a clash between experience/ground-up reality on one hand, and concept/theory/ theory-based plans on the other.
This inductive approach allows for all sorts of complexity and even ambiguity as the process unfolds to reveal patterns and concepts to guide action.
In my experience, the inductive approach is less common in our society than deductive and its sinister cousin, reality-creation. Maybe because inductive does not rely heavily on control and so it can feel scary to people who don't take to it naturally. I don't know. I don't understand why it freaks people out sometimes, but have seen that it can and does.
Anyway. From what I have seen, Senator Obama pretty consistently demonstrates inductive reasoning and action. He is responsive to what is going on and able to take in the full context of it. He has a very high tolerance for the complexity and patches of ambiguity that are part of ground-up understanding and action.
The one place where I don't know if he is inductive is his faith in the nation.
But it is entirely possible that this, too, is inductive in his experience -- my experience is just different so I have no way to comprehend where he's coming from. But I am observing that something other than what my experience tells me should be true is actually happening -- an inductive approach means I have to take that in even though it challenges my understanding of the world.
I don't know what he will do in the future, but after observing how he approaches things, I have a high level of trust in his ability to adjust and re-adjust to what is actually going on in its full context and complexity.
I don't agree with some of his policy stances. But while I may not always agree with where he comes out at a given point in time, I deeply trust the integrity of how he gets there. I also know from what I have already seen that that his is a process of action and understanding that is not rigid or stopped artificially in one place.
Thanks for your response.
It all sounds good and reasonable on paper. And it sounds good in broad terms. I guess I'm too cynical to take anything in politics on 'faith.'
Before you can change the game, you need to be skilled at it. I am the same age as Obama and while I see his great talent as an orator, his intelligence, his charismatic personality, I just don't know if he is experienced enough. There is potential, and he still has until November...
Do you think his 'Bittergate' comments were inductive?
100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected by raising the rate.
He said,“I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Obama states that he wants “businesses to thrive and I want people to be rewarded for their success.” But he also wants to “make sure … that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.” But back to the empirical evidence: when capital-gains taxes are cut, the private economy expands. So if lowering the capital gains tax led to a stronger economy and higher revenues, Obama presumably would still oppose it on grounds of “fairness” (a concept that doesn’t help you determine what the precise tax rate ought to be).
Taxes are a big issue with me, that why I bring it up.
Last night Obama pledged not to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000.
Obama admitted he would raise the cap on the payroll tax, meaning that those making more than $97,000 a year would pay higher payroll taxes. Obama said, “I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.” But of course if he exempts all of those in between, then he’s not going to raise the payroll tax to help save Social Security. And if he doesn’t exempt all of those in between, then he’s raising taxes on those making less than $200,000.
I am in that range where my tax bill will go up.
He needs to clarify this position.
Seems to me you have other standards of assessment that just aren't using the same categories as what I was saying. Mapping your standards onto my words doesn't make any sense to me & won't lead to a useful discussion between us.
So, I am really sorry if I muddied up the discussion you want to have with my response -- and I may have done that.
Hopefully others on the site will be better at engaging your questions on your terms if that is what people see as valuable to do.
There's an interesting story here about the female Superdelegates who support Obama having the sisterhood questioned: (with examples)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080417/ap_on_el_pr/women_superdelegates
good article. The thing is, I've never seen ANY of Obama's White Female Superdelegates disrespect Hillpatine the way that her HHH disrespect Obama ALL THE TIME.
Exactly, you also don't hear much from the media about the Obama Superdelegates and what kind of pressure they must be facing from the Clinton machine aside from Richardson and that quickly turned into a story about James Carville's audacity.
Pretty funny.
Here's my transcription:
Olbermann:There was a very bizarre quality to Mr. Stephanopolous' work last night. And this again,perhaps, not getting the attention it deserved because of this obvious plant thing from Sean Hannity.
Rachel:Yeah, this was an obvious plant from Charles Krauthammer. It seems to me. He's put forth this scenario and this proposal.
Olbermann:And we have to give mad props to our friend Pat Buchanan, who came right out of the gate last night saying, this is...what is this...she's declared...This is AN IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY BEING PROPOSED.
Rachel: This is one of those moments when Pat takes a right turn that takes him so far right it ends up hitting me as I take my left turn, smacking into each other, in terms of being afraid of a Presidential Proposal like this.
***************************
I told y'all. Obama will end The Imperial Presidency. Hillpatine sees nothing wrong with it, as long as SHE is the President.
Check out his connection of Obama to Nazi's via Ted Kennedy. It is brilliant satire against white Catholics who will use Obama's associations as excuse not to vote for him.
Then Obama appears by satellite briefly at the end.
These are redlasso clips, hope there's no problem viewing them:
Colbert p1
Colbert p2
Colbert p3
ha!....when I heard that from Rachel earlier I thought of you!
The pundits are so busy fretting about the salacious questions they didn't pick up on that. The average person wouldn't know this just as I didn't. Why are "celebrity" journalists allowed to moderate debates when they don't have the expertise to pick up on these things? Do they just ask a list of questions but fail to understand the answers they're given?
In a sense, I can see why they stick to the salacious things...that's all they are capable of understanding and rebutting! They are clearly not qualified to moderate a debate for President...no wonder Obama answered testily "Because Charlie, the President sets the mission". Maybe that was the true source of his frustration.
It's like being a surgeon and having a chef question you about medical protocol!