Clinton to O'Reilly: "Rich people, God bless us."

Run time: 00:32 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N64fDLplBfQ   Posted on YouTube: May 01, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: May 01, 2008 By DU Member: jedreport Views on DU: 7021

 
Plus a surprise bonus clip!

Let's continue to empower them by rushing out to hand them our votes!

And they do tend to be GREEN, GOLD and SILVER :puke:

She is waiting for OBAMA to self destruct but she keeps reminding people that she is a lying sack of shit.

to the next generation, who did nothing to earn it except win the parental lottery, then how exactly do Americans define elitism? Eating arugala? Buying quality organic food for your children? Oy vey!!

That the motto of The Family?

oh, but obama is elitist. i know he is because she said so.

:puke:

That is horrifying.

Julie

with that coffee machine she has my sympathy! Lol

n/t.

so much for Obama being the elite one in the crowd.

Been trying to convince us she is "one of us"? Heck she couldn't even figure out how to use the coffee machine!

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. -- Matthew 19:23-24,


But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. -- Luke 6:24


Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. -- James 5:1

what's up with that Prayer Group she attends? do they just pray and forget about the readings?

to provide more to society and as such they can afford the higher taxes they would pay under her administration. I actually thought she did really well in most of that interview. It is the fact that she went on there at all that I have a problem with. She validates them as a news organization and even neglects to call them a propaganda machine when directly asked.

Obama supporter here.

I agree with you, she's getting a bum rap here. In context, this was not what it appears. And I hope it isn't played up, because I'm tired of harping on out-of-context statements, regardless of who is doing it. Yes, Hillary's campaign seems to have done it a lot, and like you, I am an Obama supporter, but I have no desire to see his campaign respond in kind, not when there are so many *legitimate* issues to raise.

And I don't mind that she went on that show...I don't blame her for trying to reach a large, interested audience for free. Fox watchers vote too, and of course, some of the primaries allow voters to even cross party lines for primaries. Overall, she did well, and who knows, maybe picked herself up some votes, which is the point.

To me, though, there was a real issue coming out of that interview... she appeared to backpedal on what she was going to do in terms of healthcare. I won't get into it here, but I did write a whole post about it, so check it out if you're interested:

"Hillary Changes Health Care Plan, Obama's closer to Edwards. Seriously!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5766882

She isn't getting a bum rap, she's getting exactly what she wants. The full context is her campaign appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show, pure and simple. Of course she wants this played up for all it's worth! That's why she went on his very popular show - to show us how she can appear to "survive" O'Reilly's softballs while reaching out to his (and Limbaugh's, and Coulter's) hard-core fans to vote for her. Maybe she did do well, which would mean that she does succeed in adding to the number who have already crossed party lines in recent primaries, in answer to that pack of right-wing extremists.

I couldn't watch past the first couple minutes where they passed Wright back and forth, tut tutting. They were in agreement right down to the cockles of their entwined hearts, and I turned it off.

and B), she's right. Most of the wealthy in this country did not start off with a lot of money, and after twenty seven years of republican revolution - and Hillary's husband - it's harder for outsiders to get a foothold at all, much less become financially secure. I want a good Democrat, like FDR, who will stop welfare for the Establishment and let the rest of us have a crack at it and quit stacking the deck against so many Americans.

I want to hear THAT question.

:evilgrin:

it would be good for at least three days media scrutiny

We need to stop taking everything out of context. I really think she was trying to say the rich need to do something with their blessings.

For the record I for Obama right now.

they still would have used it out of context if Obama had said it

She was arguing against raising the cap on the FICA taxes, which is one of the most regressive taxes out there. He notion of doing something sounds an awful lot like "trickle-down" economics.

She's losing a little more and more of that sheep's clothing everyday.

Trickle-down economics, Gas Tax Holiday, Greenspan leading a foreclosure group.

She still loves her some good ol' Republican values.

Granted the "God bless us" is a bit over the top, but what she's saying under Bill's babbling is exactly what groups such as Responsible Wealth and United for a Fair Economy have been saying since they were founded in 1995. It's pretty much a basic that runs through the core of the Democratic party's beliefs. There will always be the owners of the "methods of production" and the society that enables those owners to exist by providing not only a workforce, but a political and social environment for them to operate and thrive...they owe a huge debt to that society for the wealth they have. Many know it and want to give back. Others know damned well that a wide wealth gap will destroy this society - sort of the golden goose scenario - more self-serving than some sort of moral obligation or debt of gratitude.

While I have my personal doubts that Senator Clinton embraces the debt ot society ideology, I do believe that the damage inflicted on society by a huge wealth gap is what she was trying to get across to counter the idiot's "I got mine, go get your own" mentality.


http://www.faireconomy.org/news/challenging_our_faith_in_wealth

Now you know how it feels to be

MISUNDERSTOOD

huh?

You think it won't be fair to trumpet this all over the world?

Karma's a bitch isn't it?

absolutely hate what they've done to Obama, actually what they've done to the democratic process overall. The money spent is obscene, the "discussions" are at the level of sound bites caught on the school's playground and we've become the laughing stock of the world.

and about time we gave some time air time to Clinton for a faux pas.

Tex Shelters

is to not be one of them.
Can't give someone a hand up unless you are in a position to do so.

Some folks on the left will *NEVER* get it that 'class warfare' just doesn't sell in America; most of us believe we could be rich if if mattered enough to us ( the three 'rich' people I know all made their own money and all of them did it working incredibly long hours and taking many risks; now this is merely anecdotal but I bet it's a pretty common anecdote), so political strategies based on envy of the well off fail, nearly always.

Enforcement of existing laws that targets liars, cheats and scofflaws and a reasonable tax system is more practical and effective than wide-ranging wealth redistribution aspirations based on envy, IMHO.

"'Taint no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be"
Artemus Ward

ETA - it's much less to do with class warfare than corporate welfare.

is that letting a corporation have the 'rights' of an individual is the real problem. If every officer and stockholder could be held 'jointly and severally' liable for any actions of the corporation and we actually enforced the laws we have on the books it would go a lot farther than trying to directly regulate multinationals that more resemble nation-states than companies.
But my point is still not disproved; 'class warfare' does not work well for winning elections in the United States. Envy of the rich wins few votes; what is sorely lacking is getting people to realize how powerful and evil CORPORATIONS are.

I tend to forget how DU suffers from tunnel vision during election time and probably shouldn't have replied. I've managed to avoid the campaign trail threads pretty well until now. I was more interested in a dialog of what was behind her statement.

As far as corporate personhood goes, you are preaching to the choir here.

what was really behind her statement. I, like several here, got the fact that she was satirizing the asshole interviewing her, who is part of the problem and completely on the side of our corporate masters.

But if you can't win elections nothing else matters.

And, although solidly middle class I have nothing against most of the 'rich' folks I've met. I think the 'envy' card nearly always backfires; not just in elections but in the building and maintaining of coalitions and ability to make the country a better place. Envy, or any judgment of people based only on economic criteria, is entirely counter-productive regardless of the goal.

lost some of that functionality of my brain and it's especially hard to have a "written discussion" for me these days. When I said I was interested "in a dialog of what was behind her statement", it wasn't in reference to her exact words at that exact moment but rather the ideology behind the thoughts as I orginally brought up here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=126048&mesg_id=126100

I can now see that without that context, given the current tunnel vision mentality I mentioned earlier, it could be taken the way you have. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm playing or promoting some sort of "envy" card. Guess you could maybe come up to that if you skimmed my prior posts with a preset agenda in your mind and never bothered to give more than a glance to the link I posted there.

:sigh:

I read your other comment in this thread. It's a familiar analysis, and something that a lot of academics have posited.

The main argument is
"There will always be the owners of the "methods of production" and the society that enables those owners to exist by providing not only a workforce, but a political and social environment for them to operate and thrive...they owe a huge debt to that society for the wealth they have."

-I would like your definition of "(to) owe a huge debt", please (both terms individually if you would be so kind), as that seems to be the core discrepancy between a Republican and Democratic party line approach.

-The Republicans posit that the rich already pay far and away most of the taxes, the stasis point is what kind of tinkering with the progressive taxation scale is necessary to reach the "right" proportions.

-Another possibly legitimate refutation is that in creating, owning and managing these 'methods of production' the people doing so are creating and/or keeping in existence jobs, and that is of itself a benefit to society.

-Their third argument is that the greatest benefit to society comes from creating an environment that facilitates anyone with sufficient wherewithal, gumption and hard work joining the 'ownership of production' class. that the greatest good for the greatest number comes from allowing people to get rich rather than being concerned about those who are not (of course the 'holy grail' is a political and economic system that both allows people to get rich *AND* provides a safety net for others)

The secondary argument, one that makes some sense prima facie but never seems to be supported, is that a 'wealth gap' is inherently bad.

-For the sake of argument say I make $40k. Bill Gates makes $100M. If my income goes up $20k and Bill's goes up $200M, he has gained far more not only in absolute terms but proportionally. The question, and where this ties into my initial post, is why should I care? What actual "harm" is being done?

-And if someone proclaims that I *should* care, on what basis do they make that claim? If I am not envious (and having several friends who truly ARE self-made after decades of 100 hour weeks and risking everything, sometimes losing it and starting all over again should I be envious of their third house and second Hummer?)

Now, not saying I agree with the above arguments, but did I do a better job this morning of continuing a respectful (and interesting) dialog regarding understanding the cultural context of the particular demographic from which *BOTH* parties and 'the media' seem to draw their luminaries and leaders? played a gig last night and still a little toasted plus dealing with a family loss, plus having the election on my mind, so apologies if I started picking things apart outside of the electoral context.
:toast:

I'm no Hillary fan, but she's mocking O'Reilly's and rich people's selfishness in this clip. She's being sarcastic. This shows Clinton being a dick to O'Reilly, which is AOK in my book.

She's trying to make an ass out of him in this clip (not so hard to do). She gets points from me for that.

objective.

It's a long way past objectivity what going on now. Makes you wonder what exactly this race hath born.

I wonder where I saw that before. Yes, she was being ironic, but she said "God bless" about the rich and she said "Obliterate Iran", so deal with it. It's BS, sure, but I'm tired of the double standard on both sides.

Tex Shelters

It's that they have a, uh, difficult relationship with the truth.

There is plenty of substance to base disapproval of her. This is not one of them. I think her words are being taken out of context here.

She's being sarcastic.

You're absolutely right. I think the folks here who are saying she needs to drop out of the race now are just having a bit of fun. There's no doubt that she's saying that BECAUSE they are rich, they have more of a responsibility to help others.

:wow:

same as it always was.

WTF ...is she saying she agrees with trickle down Regonomics? :mad:

God bless rich people who waste natural resources, abuse the working class, and buy their power. Maybe the military soldier ought to stop representing rich Americans and defend those who are more equal to their social class. Your gold bar bears no value to my loaf of bread. So take your 4 car garage and move to your island.

Good point.

Can people not see that, or is this a "fake outrage" thing? O'Reilly sets himself up as a working-class fighting Irishman, spokesperson for the common man. But here he is, whining about how a tax hike will affect millionaires like himself. When HRC talks about how it helps the middle-class, he says he doesn't care, he's a rich guy. She's pointing out to the audience O'Reilly's hypocrisy. I loved how she basically made fun of O'Reilly to his face - thumbs up!

Good for her.

But I think that she has the same issue that we have on DU sometimes. When you are going to mock someone or use sarcasm, you cannot try to be subtle. If your audience can't detect it (and I think she did a POOR job of this), then SOMEONEs going to misinterpret it.

Life doesn't come with a :sarcasm: tag.

If she had said GOD BLESS YOU, I wouldve have known it was sarcasm. But she loves knowing that she is rich. And god bless her.

If you watch the whole clip, O'Reilly started out saying that she's rich, Bill Clinton's rich, O'Reilly is rich - and so why does she want to tax the rich? He was whining about her plan to rescind the Bush tax cuts on the rich by phrasing it in purely selfish terms - Why should you want to pay more taxes? That's the typical Republican "I've got mine, who cares about you" mentality. Clinton mocked his stance, and then turned it around to say that the wealthy have a responsibility to support and enrich this country as well. That's a Dem standpoint, "we're all in this together." She was refuting the free-market Rep. principles w/a typically Democratic, collectivist sentiment.

And yet now Obama supporters are trying to cut & paste & spin to make it sound like she was supporting breaks for the rich when she was saying the exact opposite. That's pretty low. Even most people on this thread seem to acknowledge that that wasn't what she meant, but that it's worth twisting to gain some points.

It eliminates the context that these words were part of.

She was basically saying that the rich should be doing their duty in helping make this country a great place to live.

I think she deserves to feel what being "taken out of context" is like in 2008.

Wait for this to be #10 with a Bullet on YouTube.

BUT she sure as hell can cozy up to Bill Orally.

Rich people, God Bless us????
We deserve....

We deserve???!!!!!????

Wow... stick her with a fork, 'cuz she is SOOOOOO DONE!

(and she rode in a truck yesterday... poor little rich girl HC... shots of Crown Royal with the guys... fabulous duck hunting stories.... all for NOTHING...who the heck will buy this shit now?)

:wow:

...to ask her what she "meant" by that. Clearly there is more to this as you can see by Mr. Falafel's reaction. Look, I'm an Obama supporter myself, but this is just a quote out of context.

C'mon, we're better than this.

Lets take Obama's lead and take the high road on this one guys. Remember how the whole Wright and Bitter BS made people who screamed about it look? I don't want to be one of those people.

Poorly done though. Bleh :puke:

Is taking her comments out of context, and it's totally unfair.

What she said was:

"Rich people, God bless us, we deserve all the opportunities to make sure that our country, and our blessings, continue to the next generation."

That's it in context. Just so we're being fair.

But you know what?

You're wrong, Senator. You don't "deserve an opportunity" to do that.

You have a RESPONSIBILITY to do that. As an elected official, you have a RESPONSIBILITY. As someone who's reaped the benefits of the opportunities that America gives to some and denies (perhaps not actively, but through indifference) to others, you have a RESPONSIBILITY.

And you've failed.

When you walked away from healthcare reform in 1993 because it couldn't pass and it was hurting Bill's presidency - YOU FAILED US.
When you were supposedly opposed to NAFTA and trade de-regulation as First Lady, but couldn't convince your husband not to let it pass - YOU FAILED US.
When you voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, but made sure that you "strongly recommended" military action only as a "last resort" - YOU FAILED US.

You're a fighter, all right - you just lose all the fights. The Gerry Cooney of politics, ladies and gentlemen!

then I have to say...to Hell with 'that' God 'they' are always talking about.

That's what Hiwwawy says!

especially super delegates and campaign contributors like big pharma!

Spread the love! They are both elitists and both elite, Clinton more so. So shut up about Obama being elite everyone and note that they both are and one of them will be president and deal with it.

Tex Shelters

If the former, it's simply a manifestation of "new politics" wherein one gets to take the high road whilst lying and smearing your candidate. Granted, it seems very little different from the low road.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353759,00.html

O'REILLY: So you're kind of waffling here, right?

CLINTON: No, I'm not waffling. I'm saying I'm not going to impose additional burdens on middle-class families. And there are a lot of people...

O'REILLY: But I'm not a middle-class family. I'm a rich guy.

CLINTON: Well, and you know what? Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities...

O'REILLY: All right.

CLINTON: ...to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation.

O'REILLY: I'm going to assume — because I'm a saver and I'm prudent — I'm assuming that I'm going to get a 14 percent hit.

CLINTON: Don't assume that. You can't assume that from me.

O'REILLY: All right. Now...

CLINTON: I've not said anything like that.

O'REILLY: OK. You're going to raise taxes on the wealthy, and that's income redistribution. You know what that is. And income redistribution is why some conservatives don't like you, all right? It's because you take from the wealthy and you give to the less affluent. That's socialism. That has a socialist component.

CLINTON: No it isn't.

O'REILLY: Sure it is.

CLINTON: Teddy Roosevelt — was Teddy Roosevelt a socialist?

O'REILLY: Somewhat.

CLINTON: Oh, I think that Teddy Roosevelt was a great American...

O'REILLY: So do I.

CLINTON: ...who understood that our country works better when we're all in it together. Now...

O'REILLY: But you're taking and giving. Robin Hood, taking and giving.

CLINTON: ...90 percent of the benefits of income in the last decade have gone to people like us. Income distribution was much broadly dispersed. You were growing up on Long Island. I was growing up outside of Chicago. You know, my dad got up every day. He was a small business man. He worked his head off, but he didn't feel like the deck was stacked against him.

The wealthy need to pay higher taxes... to make sure that their blessings (and not a huge national debt) are passed on to the next generation.

Go Hillary. Tell it like it is!

Obama supporters,(but not all) who's perception of Obama's kid-glove treatment by the msm, as compared to HRC, is one that sees him being treated unfairly. They believe Obama was treated unfairly over the Wright issue. That's their perception, ignoring the fact, that when Wright first uttered the "Goddamn America" sermon, Obama refused to disassociate himself from Wright. Naturally, Obama fans defended both men. Then came the follow-up speeches by Wright. Of course the threads were full of admiration for Wright, with such words as "spellbinding", and the Obama people here were showering him with kudos. Then, oops, Obama comes out publicly, and condemns Wright's words, and declares, "he does not speak for this campaign". Following the natural bent for most O supporters, the next words out of their mouths, was an immediate defense of Obama's decision. Instead of taking him to task for rejecting such a powerful, and "spellbinding" individual, they have, using logic only found in his supporters, decided that it's ok to defend both, and condemn one while singing his praises, and all at the same time. That's some wonky shit. Now, we have Obama supporters, who now know that this out of context thread is horse-shit, use the excuse, "well, if it had been Obama". What Obama supporters are saying is, that because they believe Obama "would" have been victimized by HRC supporters, and the msm, it's ok to bring themselves down to the the same level they percieve their opposition to be on. Sounds like an admission by some that they fight dirty, and they're ok with it. Kudos to the few O supporters that actually understood, and rejected the spin. You are few and far between, not that you'll appreciate it. I doubt I would either, given your situation. Thanks.
quickesst

With no repercussions... Obama, on the other hand, isn't allowed to even come close to going there, lest he be described as "too uppity."

She was talking about how the rich should be paying their fair share of taxes. I agree completely.

This is so lame, it causes embarrassment to lame people.

But by all means, play the O'Reilly clip. She did wonderfully against him.

Morons. Go read the transcript.

Here is the original video without the flaming subject line

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x125927

She teed him up and kicked his ass over the fence.

your thoughts?

Please lets discuss this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I got no problem with it.

give. God is clearly not blessing the rich folk unless they give it away. Money is like manure put it in one place it stinks spread it around it grows.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Obviously this blog doesn't have a site monitor. The comments using the "N" word are offensive to all races. Like many taboos the Obamabrats think it's OK as long as it supports their cause. They have continually played the race card throughout this campaign. So much for taking the high road and bringing people together. Pie in the sky B.S.

Calm down and stop sounding like an idiot.

game just like they fell for Bush

I'm an Obama supporter, but gotta say this one is not bad. She's actually jamming it to O'LIEly telling him rich folks have been "blessed" with good fortune so should be willing to share it to help extend opportunity to others. However, her not being able to use the coffee dispenser?? And who's the elitist? Is she used for others getting her coffee? Been a while since she's been in a convenience store. What hokey, staged nonsense this stuff is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and puts you in the intellectual sewer.... bashing Hillary when she vowed to drastically increase taxes on rich people (those making $200,000 or more).

anyone believing what this thread says are either stupid, or playing dumb, cherrypicked the line where she told O'reilly "god bless rich people", pretending not to know this phrase came in the middle of a heated argument where O'reilly protested her pledge to raise taxes on him and all rich people, and called her a Socialist.

This rich bi+ch has lost it...

No one here is McCainiac who wants to hurt Hillary. a month ago I thought she should be president first and Obama eight years later when she heals America as the dutiful mom-president, healing us from the polarizing psycho-injurues inflicted on the American soul by Bush-Rove and evil Cheney. But first Bill, then she, acted as if anything goes to smuther Obama and then Bill moved to race batting and she followed by exploting the Revered Wright statement, never recognizing that Wright served his country as a marine while Bill draft-dodged and demonstrated against America and for the Viet Cong in Moscow Square. It is utter hypocricy to make Obama's association with Wright reason not to let him be president while allowing Bill's anti-American actions to go unnoted. SHE REALLY SHOULD HAVE JUST LET IT GO as an American, a Democrat and a decent woman. But since Bill race-bated before the Wright issue came up, being Bill's puppet, Hillary couldn't avoid exploiting the Wright statements.

And still, for the racist fat middle aged scum who can't see a "nigger in the *White House* as the REAL REASON for their phony outrage with Wright, I recommend Douglas Blackmon's (a white conservative Wall Street Journal reporter from Missisippi) book SLAVERY BY ANOTHER name on the enslavement of American blacks AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation in the South with the complicity of Norther White corporation RIGHT INTO THE 20th CENTURY. America's crimes against blacks are enormous; yet, the military service of blacks to this nation is heroic. Before any fat slob hits at Wright, remember that he gave his all while you white trash stayed home getting fat and flabby. Now all you care about is the economy and you don't want the American moms and dads in Iraq safe at home...SHAME ON YOU SCUM!

All this is besides the point. Wright's speeches should never get in the way of debate of facts. But Americans have learned to accept the dying of our heroic sons in Iraq by voting for idiot Bush in 2004 just because he would end the fags kissing eachother on TV news. This is outrageous and explains why America is so disrespected all over the world. Forgive my tone, but as an American by choice who came here as a refugee believing in this land and its people, not by chance of birth, I would hate to have to become a refugee once more now because what was once my Republican Party has been turned over to scumbags who pretend that they love Jesus and wave the flag. Bill and Hillary would rather see President McCain with maniac Reverend Hagee at his shoulder than allow Obama to win. That's not what I get from what she sais but FROM WHAT SHE DOES. If you support Hillary, you should ask her to account for her victory-at-any-cost tactics. WE owe America better than this and our kids deserve a better president as of Jan 2009 than the idiots my ex-party keeps copming up with. If you don't know why I don't trust McCain ask any of the many Republicans that will sit on their hands on election day. Hillary's preference for McCain in 2008 so she can go for it in 2012 is irresponsible and dirty, like her kissy-kissy interview with that sub-human primate O'Reilly on FOX ZOO TV!

I now know how blacks felt in america for a century. My post was removed, presumably for lack of civility, while one calling Hillary "a fucken pig" was let stand. I labored long to ring the alarm as to how race has become THE issue in the Democratic Party-- a magic bullet in behalf of the dirtiest of Republican Party I have ever seen. And Bill clinton fired the first shot while Hillary is letting loose the whole magazine of racial jabs on automatic, spraying in all direction. THIS VIEW WAS CENSORED< proving that so-called progressives are as oppressive as Commies and like the facists in the Bush Administration. Without hope I am finally getting a valuable lesson: LEARNING WHY SO MANY BLACKS LOST ALL HOPE IN THE SYSTEM....It is opportunist and partisan. And that's why the so called liberals will gang up for Hillary against Obama. And then she will lose and America will come closer to the end of the Great Dream.

and this is a clip of Billdo reeling her in and whacking her head against the side of the boat. He's starting to set her up with the plight of the poor little rich man and how the naughty, thieving Democrats don't care about or respect those who contribute the most to society. And you can see Hillary's warning lights all go off at once as he's talking and she's thinking about her campaign's bottom line and how ill she can afford to start getting painted as a class warrior by the Bill O'Reilly War-Against-Whatever Propaganda Theatre -- better reassure those poor little rich folks that Mama's still looking out for you -- and so she swallows the whole hook, line, and sinker. It's nothing but a setup, and while a smarter or more confident candidate might not have fallen for it, I don't really see an underlying malevolence there. Like most of Hillary's career after she got elected, it's all one big mistake of "triangulating" with the right by trying to represent them instead of her own constituents. Well, I say "mistake" because while it might still work in the sense of getting her elected this time, it will not be to protect the interests of most of the people who supported her for so long.

Yeah, I got good and angry with her self-righteous head wagging and mealy-mouthed spins about Wright and "Bitter-gate," but to be honest I'm starting to glaze over and not care anymore. The longer this plays out, the more I think it really is just the media trying to attack and bring down whichever Democrat looks to have the strongest showing at the moment. When it comes to the Time, I'll probably still show up and vote whichever way I have to, but I would really much rather go get plastered and forget the whole thing.

And I'm sure the media would be just fine with that too. Ratfuckers.

EDIT: And that's just looking at it out of context. In context it's probably even less of what it looks like.

So she believes in an aristocracy? (I am paraphrasing here...we deserve to pass it down to the next generation). Is it surprising that she and her husband are so close with the Bush family? Heck they share the same politics (NAFTA, GATT, war, obliterating Iran, welfare reform for people but not for dependent corporations).

I loath this woman each time she opens her mouth. The BEST ad Barack Obama could make is one that morphs her face into that of John McCain and George W Bush.

GO-BAMA!!!