It is hard to blame John McCain for mocking Barack Obama as an “elitist” following that silly remark about bitter folks who cling to guns and religion. Rarely does the Arizona senator — one of the wealthiest members of Washington’s most exclusive club — encounter such a tempting chance to masquerade as a populist.
Making the most of that opportunity, elder statesman McCain delivered a brief history lecture to the young upstart from Illinois. “During the Great Depression,” he said in a statement released by his campaign, “with many millions of Americans out of work and the country suffering the worst economic crisis in our history, there rose from small towns, rural communities, inner cities, a generation of Americans who fought to save the world from despotism and mass murder, and came home to build the wealthiest, strongest and most generous nation on earth.
“They suffered the worst during the Depression, but it did not shake their faith in, and fidelity to, America. They did not turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue prosperity. On the contrary, their faith had given generations of their families purpose and meaning, as it does today.”
Now this is all standard-issue rhetoric, designed to insinuate that Obama disdains traditional American culture and religious piety (although he probably attends church at least as often as McCain). Harking back to the era of the Depression and World War II, the Republican may have unintentionally emphasized both his own advanced age and the perilous condition in which his party and president have left the country and the world.
The inspiring story of the “greatest generation,” in which he seems to be claiming honorary membership, is not only a narrative of faith and patriotism. The brave men and women who rose from America’s towns and cities to defeat fascism had a stake in a democratic society “worth the fighting for,” to borrow the title of McCain’s last best-seller. Despite the terrible rigors of the Depression, they remained confident in democracy’s future because a progressive government acted vigorously on behalf of them and their families-and acknowledged their service when they returned from war.
When those soldiers came home to build the nation that dominated the 20th century, they achieved unprecedented prosperity and security, thanks not only to their own work and faith, but also to liberal policy that guaranteed their education, health care and access to credit. The original 1944 GI Bill ranks among the greatest legislative works in American history, with beneficial effects on the U.S. economy that repaid its cost many times over. (Incidentally, the benefits of the original bill included low-interest mortgages with no down payment-not so different from the “subprime” loans that working-class homeowners are now criticized for signing.)
Of course, McCain knows all this history, too, which raises the tough question of why he refuses to support Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans with commensurate benefits. Having built his own career on his service and suffering in Vietnam, he surely must be aware that the new generation of vets receives nothing like the assistance made available to those who served with him-because the landmark bill has not been updated for so many years. The current level of benefits doesn’t cover even half the cost of state college tuition for most soldiers.
That is why Sens. James Webb of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wrote the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, whose cost is estimated at less than $4 billion, or approximately one-tenth of 1 percent in the total expense of the current war. They have gathered 53 co-sponsors, including nine Republicans and three of the four other Vietnam veterans in the Senate, but they need 60 to defeat a likely filibuster by conservatives who’ve never served.
Incredibly, McCain has so far refused to add his name to the sponsors. His startling excuse is he has not had any time to read the bill during the past year or so. He has time to barbecue sausages for journalists. He has time to take a bus tour glorifying his own service. And he has time to hold fundraisers in Atlanta, New Orleans, Phoenix, St. Louis, New York, Boston, Chicago, Las Vegas and even London.
But, he has no time for today’s soldiers. If that isn’t the worst kind of elitism, what is?
Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer.
© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
A couple of Hillary Clinton comments from James Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, from his blog
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/
“As I mull over all this, I begin to think that Hillary is exactly what the USA deserves and, that should she manage to winkle away the nomination and get elected president, the outcome would be instructive and salutary. For one thing, she will be buried under an avalanche of political woe, beginning with the basic financial insolvency of everything in the nation except the Clinton family. Then she would proceed straight into an oil-and-gas clusterfuck that could take this society back to the eighteenth century economically.. .
“A President Hillary will also go a long way to defeating the popular delusion that a world ruled by female humans would be heaven-on-earth. (It would be more like one of those chaotic single-parent households in Section-8 housing, ruled by a harried and distracted mom, with a shadowy man in the background molesting the little ones while she was off working at the WalMart.”
As Conason briefly mentions, the obvious problem with McCain’s response, from just the propagandist gamesmanship point of view, is that the people of the Depression era had hope at least in part because of a left-of-center government, while today people have much less hope in large part because of a far-right government, which McCain hopes to continue.
Paranoid Pessimist__Quite an uplifting post you have there. You note that Hillary will be buried under an avalanche of political woe, which will also be true of both other candidates. When you look at the way the Clinton years got the country moving in the right direction, as opposed to the disaster we now have, she may be the best hope we have to turn things around. Cheers, from an optimist.
Ah, the 1.1 party system and the corporate media have presented us with three wonderful candidates on the road to Oz - an empty suit, an empty head, and an empty soul. Just ignore the figure behind the curtain and vote for our choice; we’re off to see The Wizard!
Kernel, from the way Hillary has run her campaign, she appears to be divisive, disorganized and disingenuous. A Clinton Presidency would be a lot of spinning wheels, a lot of dust stirred up (high drama), and little forward motion. And likely bombing Iran (to prove she really does have balls). This was the candidacy that expected to sail to a nomination with no plan B, ran out of budget after Super Tuesday, endured top level infighting and turmoil, and upon falling behind in the polls reverted to a negative attack campaign on her opponent regardless of party damage. She has also lied, refused to admit to a mistake and never apologized until it was extorted out of her in the last debate. It was an unconvincing performance.
The Clinton years facilitated many of the policies that Bush has so disastrously exploited. You could safely say the Clintons set us up for the fall. Just look at the bills Bill signed. No one held a gun to his head.
kathyodat
The original 1944 GI Bill ranks among the greatest legislative works in American history, with beneficial effects on the U.S. economy that repaid its cost many times over.
It is said that the almost miraculous economic growth in China and India is due to the fact their universities are turning out engineers by the tens of millions. Compare that to our stagnant or declining economy and the massive efforts of the Bush administration to prevent children from learning anything in school and raising the cost of college tuition to the tens of thousands of dollars in our public universities. The reality is that if we invested in education of our children, it would repay us at least a 5 fold repayment, probably vastly, vastly more. That is, if we also graduated tens of millions of engineers, scientists and tens of millions of liberal arts graduates, the benefits to our economy would be that we would keep up with China and India, possibly even surpass them, if we surpassed their graduation rates.
BeForKids,
And do not forget that with well over a majority of the voting public convinced that Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy, her prospects of winning the general are slim and none. If Clinton and her supporters are really concerned about Obama’s electability and really want to do anything they can to save the Democratic Party, they need to immediately begin to convince all her delegates and the superdelegates to vote for Edwards, who was always the most electable of the last three remaining Democrats.
Kernel (11:56) — it’s already clear that your chatter is backed up by zero knowledge of history. But for anyone else who may be reading, the Bill Clinton admin did NOT “get the country moving in the right direction.”
Poorly informed liberals never tire of pointing to the fact that the federal govt had a surplus at the end of Clinton’s second term. This means almost nothing, particularly when one looks at how this surplus was achieved. It would have been admirable, had it been achieved by cutting defense spending, or by taxing the hell out of the rich.
But that’s not how they did it. They did it through one simple device: the stock market boom. This fed billions of capital gains taxes into the federal coffers, making the “surplus” magically appear. And the market boom grew directly from some special bits of Clinton corruption: they let Wall St insiders like Greenspan & Rubin control policy, while Wall St prostitutes like Lieberman & Schumer pushed to further deregulate the financial industry.
In other words, take away the stock market boom (itself a product of big-business corruption & deregulation), and there was no “surplus.”
And apart from the surplus, you’d be hard pressed to find a single thing Clinton did, that deserves any credit. He slyly passed the 1996 Telecom Act, which directly strengthened the media conglomerates. (Back in 1996, there was no coverage of this at all. It was literally passed behind the backs of the public — and Clinton never said a word to the public, by way of warning.) Clinton also presided over punitive cuts to welfare benefits in ‘96 — something that any good Republican would have happily done. He FAILED to cut military spending, even though the USSR had disintegrated just before he came to office. He bombed Kosovo, in a move quite similar to bombing Iraq. (Admittedly, he did this in a way that was a lot slicker than GW Bush’s clumsier but basically similar aggression). He passed NAFTA. And as independent investigative journalist Robert Parry (www.consortiumnews.com) thoroughly documents, Clinton failed to pursue investigations of several major Republican crimes — Iraqgate, Iran-Contra, Passport-gate, & the “October Surprise.” Instead, he just let the Republicans off the hook, giving them time to regroup.
Basically, Bill Clinton stood to the right of Richard Nixon. As he was just leaving office, Bush was busy stealing the presidency — and Bill didn’t say a word against it. In the years that followed, he failed to criticize the invasion of Iraq, as he was busy making millions in speaking fees, & gallivanting around the world being best buddies with Bush’s daddy.
I’m hoping that we citizens will “get it” that John McCain is not running for office to serve soldiers. He is running because he has a “need” for them to serve under him. He was a POW, but not a top officer like his ancestors and he is still trying to catch up on that by skipping the upper ranks and ascending directly to Commander in Chief.
If you want somebody to actually respect the troops and work for their real benefits and the welfare of military families, get Obama. Precisely because he has not served in uniform, and knows he has not served in uniform, he will seek to make that personal resume deficit up to those who have served by making quality Oval Office decisions concerning military matters.
Not relevant.
The fix is in. McCrazy ‘08.
Big Corporate Media has it’s marching orders.
Savings + Loan scandal, lobbyists scandals a plenty, unprecedented flip-flopping and ass-kissing, a mountain or two of lies, long history of insane behavior, the promise to be the Medvedev of the Cheney/Bush dictatorship…
The BCM has been ordered to insist that’s a winning combo over and over and over again until the election is stolen again.
So let it be written, so let it be done. Right, Karl?
McCain is just like Hillary, all for themselves. Let’s get Obama in the White House. He’s the only candidate that has the people at interest.
frank1569,
Though I certainly would agree that the corporate media, Madman McCain, Bush and Cheney, and the Republican Party have, as always, the most malevolent of intentions, the world is too unpredictable and uncontrollable for events to unfold as they plan. I know that such parties have made the best they could have of Iraq, with fantastic profits for Halliburton and the oil giants, but what has transpired there is not what was planned, as the hoped-for one-sided Production Sharing Agreements for Iraq’s oil remain nothing more than a fantasy in Cheney’s fevered mind.
This US empire IS falling apart, one way or another, and I do not believe any of us can predict how it will play out, though I solemnly believe that some possible outcomes are many orders of magnitude preferable to some other possible outcomes.
If you would take your head out of your ass, you would realize that Senator Obama’s “bitter” comment was not at all silly.
If you look in Roget’s Thesaurus, you will find that bitter is described as: (1) causing sharp, often prolonged discomfort, (2) distasteful, painful, (3) difficult to accept, (4) Re-
sentful.
Yes, the Depression was worse than what is happening today; for those who had to go through it. Today is no less serious for those losing their jobs, their homes, not having enough money for health care, etc.
People DO turn to their religion in times of trouble. They have to grab on to what they know and what gives them comfort.
Read Senator Obama’s comment again. Try real hard to figure out what he is saying. It isn’t difficult.
I should know. I am one of the “bitter” ones.
It’s no secret that when there is no leaderhship and people feel insecure, they will cling to what they know, even if all they know is guns and booze. Hell I’m bitter too. That’s why I support Obama. He’s the only politician who makes me feel less bitter.
marjane, yes, the Great Depression was worse than what is happening today, but we’re just at the leading edge of this economic disaster.
RichM, thanks for your comment. I agree with you completely. So many clueless people out there.
kivals, originally I was for Edwards and I agree, he was the most electable. I thought so back in 2004 as well. But he is poison to the corporations. So they disappeared him. Predictable. And at first I was unimpressed with Obama, but I started looking deeper into his past, and liked what I was learning about him. I want to give him a chance. I want Hillary to crawl back into her hole.
kathyodat
RichM___You must be a radical right wing Repug to pretend that our mess today can be tracked back to the Clinton years. For one thing, if it was as bad as you claim, our country, led by Repug rascals would not have wasted two years doing little of anything but trying to get Bill Clinton out of office for a fling. We are in such a disaster now, thanks to the great bunch that replaced him, no one would care what our great leaders were doing in their spare time.
As for the stock market saving us, that may have helped individuals, but the government was spending less than they took in, thanks to the fact the rich folks were helping out. If you remember, and from your post I seriously doubt it, we were discussing paying off the national debt as we were running quite a good surplus by the end of Bill`s term.
People seem to have short memories, but in Clintons term in office, most people were getting along well, no endless war, no ten trillion debt for the kids, and no trampling on the Constitution, so do not try to say Clinton set us up for this mess the Repugs made all by themselves.
Kernel (4:19) — I’m wonderfully entertained by your calling me a “radical right wing Repug.” Empty-headed liberals often assume that anyone who criticizes Democrats must be a “right-wing Repug” — but actually, serious left-wingers despise Democrats, too. The Clintons are a perfect illustration of why.
Your 2nd paragraph is flatly incorrect. Many who have studied the distribution of wealth (including Kevin Phillips, Jared Bernstein, Edward Wolff, & others) have clearly shown that US wealth & income inequality rose sharply during the Clinton years. This means that the “rich folks” did not really “help out,” as you so stupidly assert. Rather, for the most part, Clinton let the rich folks continue to make the rules, and to reap the lion’s share of benefits. There was a mostly symbolic & very slight tax increase on the top bracket in the summer of Clinton’s first term — then after that, the rich resumed their usual position of directing the whole agenda.
You go on to claim that during Clinton’s term, “most people were getting along well, no endless war, no ten trillion debt for the kids, and no trampling on the Constitution…:
- In a sense this is true. However, it’s equally true of the Reagan-Bush Sr years. There was no endless war then either — merely a few dirty little wars here & there (all consented to by the Democrats, naturally). The same pattern held during the Clinton years. During Reagan-Bush Sr, we waged a proxy-CIA war in Nicaragua & El Salvador, quickie wars in Grenada & Panama, & a 6-wk war in the Persian Gulf. During Clinton the US pulled off a coup in Haiti, ran scores of bombing raids in Iraq, launched missile attacks in Africa & Afghanistan, enforced economic sanctions that killed a half million kids in Iraq, did a quickie war in Kosovo, etc. The pattern was no different. And during both periods, “most people were getting along well.” Except for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, most Americans largely ignored all these murderous aggressions, directed by their own govt.
In both these administrations, however, the US was still living off its past glories, coming from its historic position of being the dominant postwar power. In both administrations, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, corporate domination of society increased, & US militarism was fairly constant. Underneath the surface of apparent “peace and prosperity,” however, both administrations helped lay the groundwork for the Bush II disaster, by undermining important political & economic checks & balances. When Clinton agreed to repeal Glass-Steagall, for example (you’re such a bumpkin that you probably don’t know what that is, but you can look it up), he very definitely helped set the stage for Enron, & the “sub-prime” fiasco. // So yes, in many ways, Bill Clinton did indeed “set us up for this mess.”
RichM__ I get a good laugh out of your interpretation of what went on in the Clinton eight years, in comparison to the last seven. There are many reports out on how the richest 1% to 5% of people in this country have made out like bandits since the Bush gang arrived.
The first thing Bush did was to ram through his tax cuts, which cut the top rates for the rich drastically, also raised the estate tax exemption as high as $3,500,000 to protect their winnings, and in addition cut their caoital gains tax to 15% to add even more goodies to their pile of wealth. Then he got us into this ruinous war-occupation to give his buddies even more profits and who cares about a million dead people.
The Bushites never intended to end this war or pay for it either, and McWar thinks that is just swell.
Clinton had a few small involvements militarily but got them stopped before he ruined our own country as many presidents have done with exception of Johnson, who drug us into Vietnam.
Bill Clinton also raised taxes some on the rich which is why they hated him, but the country stayed solvent at that time.
Apparently you were not living in thr US when Clinton was in office or you could not state that he set us up for Bush. The truth is that the great Reagan set us up for the Bush mess and Clinton slowed the slide towards going off the cliff. There have been no presidents yet that have done everything right but we have one that has done nearly all of it wrong now.
Well, gotta slop the hogs, gather eggs, and milk bossy.
Bumpkin
Kernal, before you go on raving about how wonderful the Clinton years have been for the middle class, you might want to check out the Gini coefficient below. I understand that as a Bumpkin you might not appreciate the significance of those numbers, so I’ve included a link to the Wikipedia site explaining them.
PS: The bigger the jump in numbers over a ten year period, the wider the disparity in income equality has occurred (hint: the biggest jump is from 1990 to 2000). Translation: Clinton has been no friend of the working class. Not with NAFTA, not with income distribution. By the way, are you related to him or something?
US income Gini coefficients over time
Gini coefficients for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:
* 1967: 0.397 (first year reported)
* 1968: 0.386 (lowest coefficient reported)
* 1970: 0.394
* 1980: 0.403
* 1990: 0.428
* 2000: 0.462
* 2005: 0.469
* 2006: 0.470 (most recent year reported; highest coefficient reported
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
kathyodat
It hasn’t seemed to occur to many progressives that it’s not so much a matter of people in rural areas “voting against their interests” when they cast a ballot for a Republican, but of prioritizing their interests. Many may feel that preserving traditional values and being on the “right” side of God is more important than their own economic well-being. They’re willing, figuratively speaking, to destroy the village in order to “save” it. I saw this when I was a journalist in a small town. There were always people who were opposed to any efforts to reverse the town’s economic decline by luring artists or creative people because it would also bring “other things,” which I took to mean gays, diversity, etc. If they couldn’t have the values or way of life they were used to, well by golly they wouldn’t have any at all. Of course, there were other residents who thought these people were short-sighted wackjobs. It was a constant debate with no real solution, except that the town continued its decline. Incidentally, this was at the end of the Clinton years, so the economic “boom” he oversaw never trickled down to these folks.
Interesting info on the Gini coefficient, kathyodat, thanks for the link. It would be real interesting to know if there’s a correlation between income distribution and economic growth rate.
Lord Trigo,
Those of us who argue that the working class votes against their interests recognize that they do have interests in maintaining traditional values, and, if the Republicans were sincere in doing that and committed to those goals, then I would agree with you. But, the Republicans clearly have no real interest in “family values” and only use such demagoguery to fool the most gullible and vulnerable part of the voting public into voting against their own economic interests.
The corporate media parrots the Republican spin that fascist judges like Alito and Roberts are chosen because of their stand on abortion, so as to keep the gullible convinced that their votes have not been wasted. But has Roe been overturned, even with a Republican majority on the court? No, and it won’t be. The fascists are put there to protect corporate interests and the interests of the economic elites, and the social issues are only a cover. Without the help of the corporate media who always frame it as the Republicans wish, the Republicans could never pull off the scam.
The same goes with gay marriage. Considering Bush’s real boss, Cheney, had a lesbian daughter, no one with any sense whatsoever ever believed Bush was serious about banning gay marriage. Since he never expended any political capital on the issue and never tried to find a compromise, it was obvious that again he was just giving lip service to the issues of the gullible Christians.
And we all know the Republicans have opposed any measures that would actually have aided families in staying together, such as the Family Medical Leave Act.
But you can’t fool all the people all of the time, and there were rumblings with the Christian Right that they had been had, so then Rove did advise Bush to prohibit partial-birth abortions and push the ban on stem cell research, to give the hard right Christians something of substance. These meager victories were not what the “values voters” had in mind when they decided to put their energy and votes into the Republican Party, though they were just enough to convince the gullible to keep on believing.
BeForKids__I guess you must be a city dude that never gets out of your cubicle to see what is going on. I do not remember in the Clinton years of people being frantic because they had lost their jobs, homes, kids to war, no health insurance,etc. Apparently most were doing quite well as the main worry was Bills antics with the women, which did not have much effect on peoples living and working conditions.
The income disparity started with the Reagan years of greed and tax cutting for the rich and got much worse with Bush`s last cuts and more greed. It is nice to know you were so happy with the Reagan and Bush years–are you related somehow?
Kernel, you’re not a good guesser. I’ve been an organic farmer in Minnesota, a Registered Nurse in New York, I’ve had many different kinds of work in my life. I’ve almost never had health insurance (only as a nurse and during my marriage to my first husband when I was young).
What you’re talking about is relativism. The Clinton years were not good years, but the Bush years are so disastrous they even make the Reagan years look good by comparison. The Clintons are just as anti-union as any Republicans. They never fought for union rights. I challenge you to give me one example where either Clinton actually protected labor rather than just flappeing their mouths about supporting labor. I give you the following:
“Before Penn scrubbed his firm’s Web site, it advertised this specialty and noted the firm’s capacity to confront ‘Organized Labor’s coordinated campaigns’” (unions) on behalf of management. Although Hillary pulled Mark Penn off as top strategist (which has been disastrous for her campaign) he is still an adviser and her top pollster. Reference: Joe Conason, Salon.com
In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing congressional ratification of the free trade agreement, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.
Kernal, I read that if you want to know the real intentions of a campaign, look closely at the advisers of the candidate. I’ve done that. Hillary’s campaign is loaded with pro-corporate and pro-war advisers. Obama’s campaign has standard economic advisers similar to Hillary’s, and not one of his foreign policy advisers supported the invasion of Iraq. They are working on a policy of engagement instead of confrontation and bomb dropping.
I noticed that the debate post mortem didn’t talk about the social security question. Hillary wants another blue ribbon commission and Obama said Bill already did that and implemented their solution, extending the retirement age and increasing the FICA tax rate. Obama opposes both and wants to increase the cap (which I’ve always favored - why shouldn’t the rich pay social security taxes like the rest of us?). Hillary said she wanted to find a more “progressive” solution, but I can’t imagine what that could be and she wasn’t saying. I noticed that exchange got no press.
kathyodat
BeForKids__ I have no problem with Obama and if he is nominated , will support him. I just believe the Obama people are doing their cause a disservice to constantly try to dig up dirt about both Clintons and do it with disgusting words.
We need to try to respect each others views and unite to take out McCain this fall.
Kernel, considering how Hillary has been savaging Obama, I’m not feeling charitable toward her. She is trying to destroy Obama even at the risk of costing the Democrats the election, and I consider that reprehensible. She is running a scorched earth campaign and her behavior is one of the reasons I haven’t been a Democrat for most of my life. My highest standard for politicians is integrity and although Obama doesn’t rank with Nader or Kucinich, he is head and shoulders above the usual crowd. On policy alone, I would not vote for him, but the fact that he is exciting the young people and bringing them into politics mitigates that for me. I like him. And I believe he really might listen to the people like he says politicians must do. As far as I’m concerned, Hillary is another political worm and an amoral opportunist. My words may be disgusting to you but I consider Hillary Clinton disgusting.
kathyodat
kivals: I agree that the Republicans manipulate “values” voters, but I don’t think those voters are necessarily going to vote for Democrats because they’re disappointed with Republicans, even if it is in their economic self-interest. My argument is that Democrats and/or progressives shouldn’t view a platform built solely on economic issues as a “silver bullet” when it comes to attracting rural, more conservative voters (I’m NOT arguing, however, that Democrats should move further to the right on social issues to attract these voters, either). Even though I disagreed with many of the positions held by those in the small town I worked in, there was something perversely admirable, and somewhat frightening, about people who were willing to accept economic ruin rather than give up what they felt were more important values. They were going to go down with the ship, and no amount of material inducement was going to change their opinion.
Lord Trigo, having lived in rural Minnesota, I agree with you. There were things I didn’t like, such as living in Tornado Alley (a tornado took the roof off our house while we were in it, passing six feet from the bed we were in - I didn’t know what was happening, but I thought the world was ending; mine almost did), living in a Bible Belt, and an extremely male chauvinist culture. But there was much I respected and admired about my neighbors. I still admire a lot about Midwest values. When I was a nurse in New York, a patient died during surgery from an unacceptable mistake that shouldn’t have happened. Of the three doctors present two were from New York and wanted to lie to the family about the death, the third was from the Midwest and he marched out and told the family what happened. So what I’m talking about is integrity.
No values voters will vote for a Democrat anyway. They will hold their noses and vote for McCain because at least he’s anti-abortion and most likely a Supreme Court pick will be turning up. But I agree with Obama that not all values voters are hard core values voters, they have just given up on being listened to, and that is the fault of the DLC - are you listening, Hillary?
I would like nothing better than to see the Democratic party return to it’s traditional base, unions, the middle class, the poor, and add in another constituency, small businesses. I believe they could create a tent big enough for all that. And wipe out corporate welfare.
kathyodat
how many countries did the former occupant drop ordinance on? the current occupant can’t win at anything. yet i doubt either has been a benefit overall. right on b4kids, nice perspective.