I’m sure most people reading this have heard of the horribly absurd statement that John McCain vomitted into our collective conscious today’s aptly named “Today” show.   I have some comments about it.  First I’ll transcript it as well as I can.

Interviewer: “A lot of people now say the surge is working-”

McCain: “Anybody who knows the facts on the ground knows that, yes.”

I: “If it’s working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American soldiers can come home from Iraq?”

M: “No, but that’s not too important.  What’s important is the casualties in Iraq.  Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany.  That’s all fine.  American casualties, and the ability to withdraw.  We will be able to withdraw.  General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are.  But the key to it is that we don’t want any more Americans in harm’s way.  And that way they will be safe, and serve our country.  And come home with honor and victory, not in defeat- which is what Senator Obama’s proposal would have done.  And I’m proud of them, and they’re doing a great job, and we are succeeding, and it’s fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn’t realize that.”

(video here)

Yes, all that is important is American casualties. Not the fact that those that, thankfully, do not become casualties have to leave their familes and homes to police a foreign nation. Not the fact that we are, as a country, policing a foreign and soverign nation. Not the Iraqi or other casualties. Not the financial costs of the occupation. My friends, the only factor to consider in deciding whether to leave Iraq or not is American casualties. My friends, the surge is working. The only thing holding America back from victory is the liberals.

It’s not even about a strategy for exit at this point. It’s about recognizing the need for exit, whether we are so-called “winning” or not. It’s about understanding the fundamental wrongness with our even being there. The necessity of an exit strategy shouldn’t even be a question. But that’s the absurdity of American politics.

I’m not saying we don’t need an exit strategy. I’m saying the fact that not having one, at this point, is acceptable is totally absurd. I’m saying our whole presence there has been immoral and based on horrible logic from the start, and the idea that because American casualties are “down”, we don’t have to worry about leaving just yet is absolutely absurd.

It’s hard not to use “absurd” every other word while talking about the war. I will consult a thesaurus from here on out.

The idea that getting violence levels down is our ultimate goal in itself is based on the idea that we have to get the population to approve of an American occupation and an American installed and approved government. That we should have, in some way, a measure of control in what a foreign nation does.  Which is flat out imperialistic and abs… stupid. 

Which brings me to the democrats, who appear to be okay with the premise that this war would be okay if no Americans die. 

 

John Kerry: “It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistent with the needs and concerns of Americans”

 

Howard Dean: “Senator McCain stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that the American people do not want our brave troops in Iraq for 100 years under any circumstances.”

 

Harry Reid: “Osama bin Laden is freely plotting attacks, our efforts in Afghanistan are undermanned, and our military readiness has been dangerously diminished. We need a smart change in strategy to make America more secure, not a commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war.”

All valid points for why we should leave Iraq.  It is killing our people, it is inconsistent with Americans’ needs.  But missing the broader point. 

My problem is this.  The quote that we shouldn’t make a “commitment to indefinitely keep our troops in an intractable civil war” exposes a terrible line of reasoning.  If the war was tractable, should we stay in it?  Not to mention this “outrage” is being used as a political tool.  This is why I am not a democrat and probably never will be, although I tend to agree with what they say much more than I do Republicans.  When it comes down to it, they are really all the same thing.

 

The debate on BOTH sides in this country is framed in a way that assumes that America is justified in imposing it’s hegemony on whoever we wish.  The only reason we would not be justified, according to most Democrats, is if it costs too much or our boys die.  If we could get cheap robots to fight for us, we would have every right to control the entire Earth.  The neo-cons and the PNAC have done their jobs.

 

Blargh.

 

Ps. “Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. ” … it’s not the same, “my friend”.

Read this article by Gary Kamiya at Slate.

It’s about how incredibly moronic and blind the patriotism of this country has become, very much how I would put it.

And it’s a lot better written than I could ever hope to do.

Here’s a little excerpt:

Maybe we really are doomed to elect John McCain, remain in Iraq forever and nuke Iran. Nations that forget history may not be doomed to repeat it, but those that never even recognize reality in the first place definitely are. Last week’s ridiculous uproar over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s sermons proves yet again that America has still not come to terms with the most rudimentary facts about race, 9/11 — or itself.

The great shock so many people claim to be feeling over Wright’s sermons is preposterous. Anyone who is surprised and horrified that some black people feel anger at white people, and America, is living in a racial never-never land. Wright has called the U.S. “the United States of White America,” talks about the “oppression” of black people and says, “White America got their wake-up call after 9/11.” Gosh, who could have dreamed that angry racial grievances and left-wing political views are sometimes expressed in black churches?

It’s not surprising that the right is using Wright to paint Barack Obama as a closet Farrakhan, trying to let the air out of his trans-racial balloon by insinuating that he’s a dogmatic race man. But beyond the fake shock and the all-too-familiar racial politics, what the whole episode reveals is how narrow the range of acceptable discourse remains in this country. This is especially true of anything having to do with patriotism or 9/11 — which have become virtually interchangeable. Wright’s unforgivable sin was that he violated our rigid code of national etiquette. Instead of the requisite “God bless America,” he said “God damn America.” He said 9/11 was a case of chickens coming home to roost. Now we must all furrow our brows and agree that such dreadful words are anathema and that no presidential candidate can ever have been within earshot of them. This is absurd. We’re worrying about someone in Row 245 who refuses to stand up for “The Star Spangled Banner,” while the people who are singing loudest and waving the biggest flags are the ones who got us into the mess we’re in today.

Wright isn’t the problem. Stupid patriotism is the problem.

Word.

An IED in Iraq today that killed 4,000 US soldiers has now officially pushed the US military deaths over 4,000, now nearly 5 years after “Mission Accomplished”.

So, this is what victory feels like.

Congratulations, George W Bush.

This is a hypothetical response from a 19th century Ann Coulter (or any right wing talking head) after hearing Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address- taken from samefacts.com and originally posted by Mark Kleiman.

“If Ann Coulter had live-blogged the Gettysburg Address”

Old Abe is approaching the podium, looking even more like a badly-dressed and ill-proportioned scarecrow suffering from a depressive disorder than he usually does. I mean, if you’re going to be an empty suit, couldn’t you at least find a suit that fits?

And as usual, he’s not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Too good for it, I suppose. Probably thinks it’s tacky, and that “real patriotism” doesn’t have to be displayed. Typical intellectual arrogance.

Unfortunately, duty has required me to get a seat up close, so I’m likely to be able to hear his annoyingly high, faint voice.

Of course, it’s going to be hard to take anything he says seriously, since he’s obviously just angling for votes in Pennsylvania. Notice that he didn’t bother to give a speech at Antietam.

Okay, here we go. More “eloquence,” no doubt.

Four score and seven years ago

“Fourscore and seven”? Puh-leeze! Couldn’t you make it just a little more pompous? Only a moonbat could regard this guy as an orator.

our fathers brought forth on this continent,

Ummm … didn’t we have mothers, too? Well, maybe Lincoln didn’t; he looks like he came out of a test tube marked “Failure.” But somehow I doubt that the suffragette harpies who swoon over Father Abraham are going to be pleased by the omission.

Anyway, shouldn’t someone as smart as Lincoln is supposed to be know that it’s mothers who “bring forth”? That thing that fathers do is called “begetting.” (I’d always wondered whether Mrs. Lincoln’s brats were any kin to Old Ape.)

a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Ahhh…now he slips it to us! “Fourscore and seven,” indeed! He’s bringing us back to the Marxist rant of 1776, completely ignoring the Constitution of 1787 in rhetoric as he has in practice. I’ll believe we’re all equal when I’m as tall as Lincoln, or as ugly. And the slaves he’s so fond of may be his equals, but I’m damned if they’re mine.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

Right. As if Mr. Lincoln’s victory over his sectional enemies on behalf of his black friends were the same as the survival of the nation. It all comes back to the cult of personality.

We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

Well, no. It would be more “fitting and proper” to leave the dead in peace rather than to use them as a club with which to beat conservatives. But Lincoln, like all liberals, is completely shameless. Joshua is right: they’re basically fascists.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.

“A larger sense”? I defy anyone to find any sense whatever in this sentence, large or small. And does he think that “consecrate” and “hallow” really add anything to “dedicate”? More moonbat “eloquence,” I guess.

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

As if Lincoln had any power to add anything to the bravery of our troops. Really, this is too much to take. And it’s about a battle fought on the Fourth of July, which Lincoln’s buddy Fred Douglass says he and his fellow Africans shouldn’t celebrate. If Lincoln had an ounce of real patriotism in him, he would have disowned a that rabid racist years ago. But of course doing so would have cost him black votes, and he didn’t want to risk that. In Lincoln’s world, courage is for other people.

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here,

At last! Lincoln says something true! Stop the presses!

but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

Uh-oh! I see where this is going. Socialism. We should all be “dedicated” to whatever cause our politicians choose to assign us. Whatever happened to individualism? Or is that too American for Mr. Lincoln?

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain

… that is, that we should continue to throw good lives after bad just to make the left-wing radical abolitionists happy.

– that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Right. Amalgamation of the races. That would be a “new birth” of freedom. A monstrous birth, of course, but definitely new. And to a “progressive,” anything new is good, right?

He’s folding up his notes and starting to walk off the stage. Huh? Is that it? Two minutes? Three hundred words? For thousands of dead soldiers?

Seems that way. The crowd, stunned by the sheer triviality of it all, mostly sits on its hands.

What an insult. Talk about mailing it in! Why did he bother to come all the way from Washington if he didn’t have anything to say?

And there you have it. Perfect Lincoln. Pretty words, as long as you don’t try to find any meaning. No plan. No willingness to work hard. His inexperience continues to show through.

Unlike McClellan, a real fighter with real national-security credentials, this man simply does not pass the Commander-in-Chief threshold. If the Republicans re-nominate this skinny, funny-looking lawyer from Illinois, they’re dead meat.

Thanks to DailyKos commenter Mother Mags for reminding me about the lapel pin. Wouldn’t have wanted to miss that.

http://www.samefacts.com/archives/literature_/2008/03/if_ann_coulter_had_liveblogged_the_gettysburg_address.php

Does that sound familiar to any commentary on a certain recent speech?

I am amazed that so many people can judge someone based on a priest they listened to on Sunday mornings. For crying out loud people! You mean to tell me you’ve never had a Friend, Brother, Sister, Aunt, Uncle, Mother or Father do or say something that you didn’t agree with or that could be offensive to someone else?? Should you be judged by what they did??? Or since we’re on the topic of priests’ should those people that went to a Catholic church be judged because their Catholic priest molested someone??? People are judging a man because of what someone else, emphasis on “someone else”, said… How does that NOT sound childish and hypocritical? Too many people are just waiting to judge someone else so that they can feel better about themselves. Hell, our society has practically made that a past time! Reality Television anyone? People like Bill O’Reily and Nancy Grace make a living off of judging everyone else. I think we need to grow up and stop waiting to throw the first stone…

Something that I’ve taken away from this campaign, which in my opinion has gone on way too long, is that Obama has never changed who he is, has never abandoned those closest to him when they were being ridiculed, and has had the same direction and has spoken the same message from day one. Can anyone realistically say the same thing about Clinton or McCain?

In a society where everyone is judged on the surface without knowing much about them, I’d say he’s shown that he’s a good person who loves his country. Someone who, if anything, deserves a chance for the people of this country to get to know him better. The other option is to reject him because “We don’t know him well enough.” or “We don’t know if he has the political experience.” then years from now we can complain about him being too corrupt and just another Washington figure taking money from lobbyist and not thinking about the people of this country. Just another politician who can’t get anything done.

Take the blinders off and see the world for what it really is. It’s time to step out of  your safe little bubbles and see that maybe things do need to change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Absolutely amazing.

Obama ‘08.

I’ve been reading a lot of blogs today in my massive boredom, and I’ve been seeing a strange theme among the Clinton-supporter blogs. Apparently, they see all of the recent events as Obama “taking a page out of the Republican book” and Obama “playing the race card”. They see the Olbermann thing as “proof of the Obama media-bias” and even more strange, “a LAST attack before the PA primary to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to win”. Is this just a guilty conscience? Did I even spell that word right? The first I swore they just accidently miswrote Clinton instead of Obama, but as I read on I realized they were saying that Obama has this massive Republican-style attack machine and has been doing everything it can to bring Hillary down. Please, someone, am I honestly missing something? Is this what reality is, or are these people ignoring it?As for the bias thing… isn’t almost every discussion in the media lately about “How can Hillary come back?” or “Things Hillary needs to do to win”, when she basically CAN’T win unless some kind of backhanded deal comes down. Every time her campaign says something the media talks about it for hours- everytime she has some baseless attack ad they show it in it’s entirety 8920432734 times, everytime some baseless Muslim or non-patriotic story breaks, the media is all over it talking about it incessantly. Or how they basically take Hillary’s claims against Obama that he has no experience and is all speeches as empirical fact, framing the election as a “Hope vs. Experience” sort of competition. And the idea that they’re basically the same person but she has more experience is absolutely false. Doesn’t she realize that if she’s running on experience, McCain can demolish her in that regard?

And on that note, hasn’t the Clinton campaign said on several occasions that either McCain is more fit to be Commander In Chief or Obama “can’t win in december” (note, not less likely to win or stronger fit for the general election- but CAN’T win).  Yet I’ve seen some say that Obama is trying to bring down the Democratic party- not to mention that he will do anything to win. 

So I would like to ask the Clinton supporters some questions:

1. What page is Obama taking out of the Republican playbook?

2. Defend the Obama media-bias, taking into account how the media is more roller-coaster-like in who it favors.  And the

fact that they write whatever they think will get ratings/sell papers/get web hits.  Also, explain how you can hate the media but when you are explaining why you don’t like Obama you basically run down various media talking points. 

3. Defend the position that Obama has been doing “whatever it takes to win”, compared to Hillary Clinton

4. Explain how Obama has played the race card.

That is all.

Seriously, what is going on? Is today opposite day?

I’m sure the ‘blogosphere’ is all commenting about Mr. Olbermann’s ’special comment’ tonight, and probably absolutely better written than I could ever dream of, but I feel as though I need to share my thoughts.

First of all, I have to say I didn’t expect him to go that far.  I guess I’ve just kind of gotten used to Television news talking heads just scratching the surface- save people like Bill O’Reilly, who get just louder and get angry.

Tonight’s Special Comment has earned him a lot of respect in my book today.  To see someone- not only a journalist, but a pundit on TV- show that much integrity and compassion on the air is extremely admirable.  The fact of the matter is, race IS still an issue in this country.  A huge issue.  This isn’t to say that sexism isn’t, that’s also a huge issue.  But why does this have to come down to some kind of pissing contest to see who’s more oppressed?  Barack Obama has not ‘played the race card’ at all- in fact he’s done as well as can be expected and playing down race in OTHER people’s racist statements vs. him.  The idea that Barack Obama is this far because he is black is such an out-of-touch-with-reality mindfuck it’s not even worth talking about.  But I will.  For a bit. 

Because he is different colored and has a funny name, he has been subject to all this “Is he a Muslim?” scandal that DID cost him voters in places like Texas and Ohio, and DOES cost him votes elsewhere.  Look at the exit polls in Ohio, 1 in 5 voters admitted that race was important to them and an overwhelming majority of those voted for Clinton- and that’s just the so-called ‘progressive’ party of Democrats.  Similiar results were found in Texas. There is a huge chunk of the American population that won’t vote for a black man, especially not one with a foreign-sounding name.  Like I said, this isn’t to say there isn’t a huge population of Americans who won’t vote for a woman- both of these are equally deplorable and both of these are very real.  To try and make it sound like one of the two is worse than the other is just stupid.  And to end, to say that the news media is MORE sexist than it is racist is absurd.  Why has there never, as far as I am aware of, been a black host of a news show?  To end this paragraph I just want to re-iterate that BOTH of these are horrible and embarrassing parts of the American (and even international) psyche; I am just saying that the whole pissing test thing is ridiculous.

Back to Olbermann.  The way he went about this touchy subject was commendable- he spoke plainly and he ignored all the spin and afore mentioned competition of the oppressed.  He just said that the statement, whether intended or not, at the very least could have been considered racist and in a country still bogged down by conscious and subconscious racism is absolutely inappropriate.  His genuine, honest, and impassioned response reminded me a lot of what I’ve seen of Edward R. Murrow during the Red Scare vs. Senator McCarthy (even down to the closing ”good night, and good luck” that he stole haha).  Someone who is willing to risk their job and a huge portion of their fanbase to speak their mind is something you don’t see everyday in our modern infotainment news.  And as a fellow white person who is so ashamed and disgusted by the continuing racism in this world, to see him get so passionate about it was inspiring. 

 Good job, Keith.  Keep it up.

Again, the video is here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329

I was originally going to type a whole rant about Obama’s campaign relying on ‘just a speech’, as Clinton would argue.  But then, I read this article and decided that Mr. Obama can speak for himself.  As Brent Budowsky did on Huffington Post, I will put the entire transcript of Obama’s speech from 2002:

“Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

“The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

“My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

“I don’t oppose all wars.

“After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

“I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

“What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

“That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

“Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

“He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

“So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

“Those are the battles that we need to fight.

“Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

“The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.”

 Those are not “just words”.  That is what Obama likes to call ‘judgement’ to see exactly what would happen in the coming war.

(once again, this transcript taken from  Brent Budowsky’s Huffington Post article)

———————————————————————- 

This, of course, can be contrasted to Hillary Clinton’s 2002 defense of her war vote:

“This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make.  Any vote that might lead to war should be hard.  But I cast it with conviction.  And perhaps my decision is influenced by my 8 years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, in the White House watching my Husband deal with serious challenges to our nation.“

(video here)

I could go on about how experience isn’t an inherently good thing.  Richard Nixon was the most experienced president ever.  Abraham Lincoln was the least experienced president ever.  But I won’t.  I’ll move on without saying that. 

It’s popular to say that Obama is all “words”, but if you actually listen to his words he shows that he has an extremely well formed understanding of the world, foreign policy, the constitution, and the human condition.  Think of it: having a president that actually inspires you to be a better person, to move the country towards something better.  Apparently the media has gotten bored of hope- and that’s a shame.  No sort of progress in this country has ever happened but for hope and social movement. 

In this election, America will get exactly what it deserves.  If it will allow itself to be misled and spun in circles by the media and various attack machines, then it doesn’t deserve the hope it so callously would reject.  I just hope we’re better than that.

Bill Clinton, 1992:

————————

“I believe experience counts, but it’s not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my state also should count for something. I’ve worked hard to create good jobs and to educate people. My state now ranks first in the country in job growth this year, fourth in income growth, fourth in reduction of poverty, third in overall economic performance, according to a major news magazine. That’s because we believe in investing in education and in jobs. And we have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes. I’ve gotten a lot of good experience in dealing with ordinary people over the last year and month. I’ve touched more people’s lives and seen more heartbreak and hope, more pain and more promise, than anybody else who’s run for president this year. I think the American people deserve better than they’re getting. We have gone from first to thirteenth in the world in the last twelve years, since Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan have been in. Personal income has dropped while people have worked harder. In the last four years, there have been twice as many bankruptcies as new jobs created. We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant. We’re living in a new world after the Cold War, and what works in this new world is not trickle down, not government for the benefit of the privileged few, not tax and spend, but a commitment to invest in American jobs and American education, controlling American health care costs, and bringing the American people together. That is what works. And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”

————————

What, does he expect the clouds to open and celestial choirs to sing?

————————

Here’s a debate from that election:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7-W4GWjN2kg

————————

Lastly, another Bill Clinton quote from 2004:

————————

“Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: if one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other candidate is appealing to your hopes- you better vote for the one that’s getting you to think and hope.  That’s the bet”

(video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo)

————————

What a hopemonger.  These Obama supporters are all deluded.  Wait…