Is the Middle Class Angry & Bitter?
Submitted by Nick D on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 2:58pm.
Modern's complete fabrication of Obama's now infamous "bitter" comments inspired me to post this excerpt from the book Journey to Nowhere: The Saga of the New Underclass. This book chronicles the travels of workers victimized by deindustrialization, traveling the country in search of work in the early 1980's and finding none. Then, in the mid-90's, the authors retraced their steps and tracked down some of the same people for an afterward. This book inspired Bruce Springsteen's ballad Youngstown because the beginning of the book examines in detail the Mahoning Valley's loss of steel jobs in the late 70s and early 80s. Here is the excerpt from the afterward:
Anger remains, deep and bitter. Someone slips us one of the steelworker's pipe bombs. The bomb is the workers' expression of outrage at the loss of the middle class social fabric. Leveraged buyouts and downsizing are very good to the few who make millions of dollars and live in luxury at the expense of thousands of workers. Such decisions were increasingly made in the 1990s without regard for places like the Mahoning Valley. So, men and some women turn to rocks, guns, and bombs, ready to kill and die.
But can this anger be channeled away from violence into a new kind of politics? John Russo, professor of labor studies at Youngstown State University, looks at history and sees a dire lesson.
"There's a lot of anger in working people," John says. "It's not unlike the anger in prewar Germany and prewar Italy. In the 1930's, America could have gone in either direction," he says, meaning towards the reforms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt or towards extreme ultranationalism. During the Great Depression, Father Charles Coughlin and his radio hate ministry thrived and had some nine million listeners; a number of Americans supported Adolf Hitler. But Roosevelt came along and stopped it all. Russo points out that initially both the communists and the capitalists hated Roosevelt. But, the capitalists allowed themselves to be saved by Roosevelt, because communism was at that time a credible threat. "There had been the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia 15 years earlier," Russo notes. Now, there's no threat from the left. Capitalism has nothing to worry about.
"That's why history does not replay itself. The current debate is narrow, because the possibilities have been reduced." Russo fears the anger will instead be channeled into right-wing hate.
Gosh, Modern. Sounds to me like Obama had it right.
Not God
Submitted by Nick D on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 4:03pm.
Modern, when you blame the country's ills on immigrants and gay people, I don't call that turning to God. I call it right-wing hatred and bigotry, just as Prof. Russo predicted in that excerpt I posted.
Also, you keep forgetting to mention that Obama said working people had become angry and bitter due to the factory jobs that left and were replaced with nothing, also as stated in the excerpt.
I encourage you to read Journey to Nowhere. It's a great explanation of how we got into this mess in the first place. I found mine on Amazon.com
Whitewashing...
Submitted by modernesquire on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 4:27pm.
For a guy with the handle "Dr. Truth", you sure aren't fitting the billing. Now, you're trying to pretend that Obama didn't specifically mention religion in his comments?
"they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I don't call gay bashing or immigrant bashing turning to God, either. But Obama called people who cling to religion as bitter.
Quit trying to defend the indefensible by denying the undeniable.
The writing is on the wall...
Submitted by andro on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 6:05pm.
On New Hampshire primary night when the Obama forces thought they had the nomination wrapped and were stunned with this defeat, they knew they had to go for their knock-out blow in South Carolina, where most candidates are able to wrap up the nomination. Eugene Robinson, after the results had come in NH election night, immediately played the race card on MSNBC in blaming Obama's defeat on so-called closet racists of NH. Fittingly, no one dared to place blame of his defeat in neighboring Massachusetts, a Democratic base, as being because of closet racism--yet the results were much bigger than in NH. From there the pundits jumped on President Clinton's statements about Obama's war position and turned it into some sort of racial comment although to most people there was nothing racist at all about what he said. Bob Johnson mentioned Obama's wasted youth in the 'hood, and again the pundits united in condemning this so-called racism, although their was nothing racist about it. South Carolina Democrats, in all the thinking they allowed the media to do for them, overwhelmingly went Obama. That shortsighted strategy by the Obama camp saw an African-American vote that was heavily Clinton immediately turn toward Obama and the rest is history. The divide was created.
Democrats had better be prepared for a race driven election if Obama wins. McCain surrogates and operatives know this is the only way they can win, and they will. The writing is on the wall. The Republicans are fielding an historic bigot in John McCain, who has all the record to unite small area America with any so called racists lurking in the urban areas. He has consistently voted against Martin Luther King, Jr. holidays, while repeatedly making racial slurs throughout his career.
2004 it was supposedly the gay issue, which by all political science available it wasn't as more voters voted against gay marriage than voted for George Bush. But it got galvanized voters to get to the polls. 2008 will be the race issue--and McCain has never disparaged Latinos and stands for amnesty. Latino's are not a monolithic voting bunch and McCain has a good chance of restoring strong Latino support in the GOP ranks. This could serve devastating in the West, where some inner city Latinos feud with African Americans. By all mathematical deductions, it appears it could pit Everyone v. the Jeremiah Wright crowd. That doesn't bode well for Obama.
Decades of steam have been building and unleashed unfairly on undocumented immigrants. This was the first prong of breaking down racial political correctness as it became acceptable and political correct racism. As you have seen that subside, it is slowly being redirected in another direction with the rise of Barack Obama. The second prong in breaking this down could be going after issues deemed important to African-Americans as it is slowly becoming politically correct to do so. This year 5 states I believe will have affirmative action on the ballot. AA was defeated a couple years ago in Michigan. But with McCain, amnesty for Latinos will be on the ballot. Couple that with new urban crime issues, you have all the pickings for a racial election dividing up along lines of who gets what coupled with old rivalries being given the chance to compete which will tilt the election toward those rivalries and away from the issues, if Obama becomes the nomination. Obama and his supporters will have gone from everything supposedly right in America to everything wrong in America. But those following the blog media have already known they're everything that is wrong with America as we've seen their true nature.
If the campaign was to ever be about the issues, it would have been by now. The fact is America wallows in the hate perpetrated by all spectrums of the political aisle, and this election will once again feed on that hate as illustrated so far and previous elections. We know what Willy Horton did to Michael Dukasis. I hope Obama supporters know what they're getting the Democratic party into. McCain was the only mainstream bigot of the GOP candidates and they quickly rebuilt his candidacy as Obama surged. A Rudy Giuliani vice presidential campaign will boldened this agenda as he has a supposedly a subtle racist record as mayor but will be able to reach into the urban areas. Al Sharpton will get on the horn as he has always been a vocal critic of Giuliani's alleged racism and throw fuel on the flames. Only a Senator Clinton nomination will take the race card off the table for 2008 and keep this election about the issues. I hope that I am wrong.
This is just plain sad...
Submitted by andro on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 4:27pm.
These comments by are Obama are nothing but divisive comments pitting some urban Democrats against small area Democrats. This is a strategy right of the Karl Rove playbook. I've held back with Obama supporter after Obama supporter trashing Democrats, those who don't support them, suburbs, small towns, older people, blue collar people, and successful Democratic leadership. That hate spewed by some of these Obama supporters makes it impossible to hold back anymore.
The gloves are off in Pennsylvania and the brush fire is spreading nationally. It's time to have the real debate that the Obama supporters have shielded Democrats from having for months as a strategy that has usurped the Democratic process and put him on top. Look at these statistics from this website. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/14/obama-missed-the-nineties/ This is what the Clinton administration left the state of Pennsylvania, all of the Pennsylvania, not just small area Pennsylvania or urban Pennsylvania. This is why Clinton has the support of the Philadelphia mayors and governors, because they know what they're getting.
Who is the divisive one here criticizing the best Democratic administration in history? It's obvious Obama is bitter and he's pouting about it. The one thing missing in all this debate about his comments are the empirical facts to support such an argument. Household income, home values, quality of schools, economic growth, crime rates, and overall quality of living standards are much better in these smaller areas of Pennsylvania and the Midwest that he bashes. He doesn't take pot-shots at small towns in southern America because he has been able to win there. He doesn't point out that Mississippi is the poorest state in the country, but voted overwhelmingly for him. He doesn't point that Cincinnati is one of the poorest cities in the country, and voted heavily for him. He doesn't point out that the very urban areas he has been able to carry are statistically inclined to be more bitter.
Sociological evidence tends to suggest that all things considered, the more bitter people in this country inhabit parts of urban America. As their neighborhoods have been ransacked and jobs chased away, they cling to sex, drugs, violence, crime, and music for their salvation, and as a way to explain their frustrations, carry antipathy toward those of a higher quality of living standard which tend to be in smaller areas of America. It's sad this is the road Senator Obama wanted to take, but it's a road that's being traveled.
I hope he remembers the urban renewal that took place under the previous Clinton administration because they aren't bitter and pouting about repeatedly losing that vote. Goto the American Research Group website and check out the latest polls. Clinton is leading by 20% and is winning the majority of the younger vote, one of her weaknesses. This is evidence the blinders the Obama campaign has put on them with a meaningless theme of hope and change are being removed for a more meaningful theme, peace and prosperity.
http://www.americanresearchgroup.com
Have a good day. 
Poll: Dems want Obama nom by 10-points
Submitted by mvirenicus on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 10:18am.
These comments by are Obama are nothing but divisive comments
Read it and weep. New Washington Post-ABC News poll.
"While a quarter of Democrats who see the campaign as generally negative blame both sides, more than three times as many blame Clinton's team as Obama's."
"Divisive comments"
Submitted by JeanLR on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 10:15am.
"Divisive" is when someone takes someone else's words and tries to contort them into an "attack" on "small town" people, then posture's themselves as the "defender" of "small town" people, as if those people are so fragile and stupid that they need someone to pander and condescend to them by saying in baby talk how they are "good" and "optimistic" people- awwww, aren't they cute? It's as if Hillary wants to pat us on the head.
Is the woman who was first lady and jointly earned $109 MILLION in 7 years trying to tell me that Obama is "out of touch"? Are you freakin' joking? That insults my intelligence, not telling me that I'm clinging to my guns.
"Small town" people are quite aware of thier situation, and like the rest of us, are surely sick of this manufactured "outrage" at every perceived slight, as if Hillary and McCain think that we are all so weak and vulnerable that we cave at the slightest affront and will flock to thier warm embrace, and again, will fall back asleep...
Barack has it RIGHT and that's why you will continue to see his support growing and the support for the Institutional Candidates waning. Barack Obama doesn't talk to us as if we are stupid and weak.
Hillary says she will "provide solutions" yet doesn't exactly invite the rest of us to participate~ Obama's central message is that we are to not only participate as priviledge but as duty, and that "Yes We Can" means something transformative.
Clinton is shilling for McCain
Submitted by SONGster on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 11:15am.
at this point, with her eye on 2012. Her delusion is that if she torpedoes Barack Obama, she and Bill will still control the Party apparatus, setting her up for a rerun.
Ain't gonna happen. It's time for all Democrats and Independents to rally around Obama and begin the party reformation process.
Fox News Shilling For Obama...
Submitted by andro on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 3:59pm.
FOX News is reporting Hillary Clinton told Bill Clinton supposedly in 1995 concerning working class Whites, "screw 'em." This is pure hearsay. Another Jerry Falwell defamation like accusation that would not even hold up in court. They should stick to what they discovered after $75 million of wasted taxpayer money--Bill Clinton is into women. Of course, the lunatic fringe of FOX News and Barack Obama would have not attempted to use this although it's been available for awhile because it's purely fictional, but they are desperate now.
Even if she did say it, it was directed at Republicans all while she didn't disparage working class culture, and the facts just support who is really on the working class's side. This just reminds us of the 90's, when peace flourished and the economy prospered. The bears have to find something to trash and defame because Clinton stands to capture the popular vote lead in Pennsylvania. Stay tuned for more FOX News shilling for Obama.
Popular vote lead? Are you on drugs?
Submitted by SONGster on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 5:37pm.
1. PPP has Obama ahead by 3 points in Pennsylvania today.
2. Clinton lags by 2% nationally in popular vote. To recapture the lead in Pennsylvania, she'd have to get something like 90% of the vote.
3. Obama is up by about 20 points in North Carolina. Because it's an open primary, more people are expected to vote in NC than in PA. Therefore, after NC, Obama's popular vote lead will have increased.
4. Popular vote is meaningless in the nomination process because caucus state totals are only estimates and are not comparable to the totals in primary states. Superdelegates understand this and will go only by the pledged delegate totals. Anyway, Obama will lead in both at the end.
Get real.
Yes, but is North Carolina a
Submitted by andro on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 2:48pm.
Yes, but is North Carolina a true reflection of the demographic electorate that Obama will need to win in November? North Carolina is composed of a lot of those downscale voters that are voting for Obama in the south, from Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. Are these states expected to go blue? Hardly. I don't think North Carolina is much of an argument. In fact, you take away those states and his delegate lead is only 40+, or you add Michigan and Florida to Sen. Clinton's total and his lead is only 70-80.
Am I on drugs? 
How about commissioning Ken Starr to find that out for ya. I bet you'll find determinations to the contrary. At least the candidate I support hasn't admitted such and doesn't look like she is. Are you on the media?
The Clinton's took us to hell? I thought it was the best decade in America? Is there any connection to where John McCain's money is going and the ongoing DNC primary? I don't know. Maybe the GOP has seen the light and willing to give back their tax cuts, capital gains cuts, and all the like to sing kumbaya with the Hamas loving, Iran sympathizing, Jeremiah Wright clone Obama. I dunno.
<<<<<<<A torrent of secret money is flooding into the leading presidential campaigns, with more than $118 million, or one-quarter of the total raised in this cycle, banked without disclosure of who gave the funds or where the donations originated.
The money is coming from hundreds of thousands of donations of $200 or less, which have been widely praised for democratizing the system for funding White House bids. However, the surge in low-dollar gifts has come at the cost of transparency, since federal law only requires campaigns to itemize donations when a donor gives more than $200.
According to an analysis being released today by a Washington think tank, the Campaign Finance Institute, Senator Obama of Illinois led the pack with such small and secret donations, pulling in about $31 million during 2007.
www2.nysun.com/article/71113>>>>>
Einhorn is Finkel! Finkel is Einhorn!
ROTFLMAO! andro, you're a piece of work
Submitted by BuckeyeNation on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 5:40pm.
Faux News "shilling for Obama?"
THAT is a knee-slapper!
It undermines any credibility you have; assuming you have any.
The problem is...
Submitted by andro on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 12:41pm.
The major problem facing small area America is the price of a gallon of gasoline. Therefore, by not even touching on that, it shows Obama's comments were intended to be divisive, demeaning, condemnable, and out of touch. What do guns, church, and immigrants have to do with the cost of gasoline? Since Obama voted for the Cheney Energy Bill, prices have risen nearly 60% by some estimates. And as touched on in previous posts, why are we not discussing issues of urban America in a larger context, where a lot of Democrats live, also? Small areas in America are not nearly stricken with the problems of urban America. In urban areas there is a crime crisis, housing crisis, and affordability crisis, amongst a plethora of other issues that are more pressing. Senator Clinton has put forth her plans to deal with these issues.
Instead of the Obama camp focusing on issues such as the Senator's visit to a hostile war zone, let's unite around the issues that matter while not alienating anymore Democrats. Simply running a campaign on a speech and words that have proved to be false by action and hoping a told you so campaign wins is not going to get it done in November. All polls indicate this because normally where a Democrat candidate should be winning by double digits, the opponent is winning. Why is this?
Hope and change is ambiguous and leaves a daunting question mark with the Obama campaign. The same ambiguous campaign has produced Jeremiah Wright, ties to terrorist organisations including Hamas, hypocrisy on energy policy and war policy, admitted drug abuse, voting gate in the Illinois Senate, choosing not to protect children from sexual predators, Tony Rezko, and rhetoric gate that has disparaged millions of Americans and has called baby's punishments. This is all while failing to provide any real substance on policy. Surely the list will grow.
It's time the Obama supporters put down the kool-aid and start getting serious about winning back the White House with Senator Clinton. She's winning the big swing states Democrats are going to need in the primary elections and the general election polls, and Massachusetts is not even in play with her as the nomination. She brings the credibility of being close to the leadership that brought America it's finest decade, while having 35 years of experience fighting for children and the American people. She has sat on the Senate Armed Services committee for years. She has been elected twice to the Senate from New York, after living in the White House for the previous 8. She has fought for military families in the Senate, as well as for all families. In Arkansas she helped thousands of people through her initiatives,and her achievements for the American people are numerous. Peace and prosperity is the hope and change America wants with the leadership proven to protect America in times of war, and Senator Clinton brings the credibility to get it done along with future First Husband Clinton who will bring the instant credibility to start repairing our image abroad so we can travel again without being fearful.
In November, people will finally choose to pull that lever for a Democrat because despite all the personal contempt the GOP has used as a wedge, they know what they are getting and what they want, peace and prosperity. The Clinton’s work in the 90’s when they reached across the aisle to get things done will pay off this election because they bring the credibility on the issues that matter most to all Americans. The Obama supporters need to stop giving aid and comfort to the GOP in their attacks on Senator Clinton, which will hurt the party's chances of winning in November when she competes against Senator McCain. If Senator Clinton maintains her lead in Pennsylvania, by most estimates she will come within striking distance of the popular vote lead, regardless of whether Florida or Michigan are officially counted. After the 2000 debacle, I don’t think the Democrat Party will want to do to their own party what the Supreme Court did to this country in robbing them of their choice.
Who's attacking whom?
Submitted by JeanLR on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 3:16pm.
You're trying to say that Obama is "attacking" Clinton with GOP tactics, yet isn't it Hillary who is teaming up with McCain in attacking Obama for being "elitist"?
As for gas prices, it is Obama that is running an ad showing Hillary's comments against him and demostrating that it is he that cares abour talking about gas prices and other important daily issues and it's Hillary and John McCain doing the DEMAGOGUERY, and that's what it is too, plainly said, these attacks are baseless appeals to people's emotions.
Ronald Reagan was presented to the voters as this Wild West Cowboy Regular Gun God Guy, while all the time he was presiding over the beginning of the end of the American Middle Class.
Karl Rove took those lessons and got the cheerleading preppie to buy a Texas ranch and chop wood so the common folk will think that the Bush family, and thier pork rinds and distaste for broccoli, are just like us workin' folks.
They will convince us all that they will be our protectors against the liberals who are trying to ruin everything by letting the gays run loose. Meanwhile they loot the treasury and ship our capital infrastucture to Communist China.
This attack against Obama, this child of a single mother who, against all odds, is standing where he is today, and he didn't MARRY his way to the top, and he didn't earn anything till he wrote 2 books, which he did before he was famous and without an $8 million forward, an attack against him as "elitist" and out-of-touch by Mrs. Clinton and John McCain, who are surrounded with the MarkPenns of the world (nice Colombia trade deal, Mr. Clinton, enjoy the $800,000 payoff), an attack like this is as cynical and insulting to the voters of this country as anything I've ever heard.
Why don't you two just make out already!
blech!
"Thank you for your vote on
Submitted by andro on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 4:06pm.
"Thank you for your vote on the Cheney Energy Bill. We had your back until you got an insurmountable primary delegate lead. Our knowledge of organization and direct mailing paid off in the caucuses. Thanks for taking care of the Clinton's for us."
Guilt by association game
Submitted by JeanLR on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 10:36am.
A Tale of Two Houses: How the Clintons and Bushes Took Us to Hell
...The House of Clinton and the House of Bush are deeply intertwined, in their policies, their philosophies, their politics, even their personal lives: witness the extraordinary "adoption" of Bill Clinton as a surrogate son by the elder George Bush and his wife. This rapprochement is usually attributed to the respect and friendliness that Clinton showed Bush during their goodwill trip to aid the tsunami victims, and perhaps this did spark a more personal affection between the men. But their relationship began much earlier, in a mysterious circumstance that still cries out for further explication: the fact that during their contest for the presidency in 1992, both Clinton and Bush shared the same major Arkansas financier Jackson Stephens. (More on this fascinating éminence grise here.)
After his narrow victory, Clinton then proceeded to shut down the still on-going investigations into the corruption and crimes of his predecessor. Iran-Contra, BCCI, and especially Bush's massive, secret and often illegal efforts to arm Saddam Hussein and supply him with material for chemical weapons – all of these probes were cut off, starved or shunted aside by the Clinton Administration. (For more, see Robert Parry on "The Clintons' Real Trouble With the Truth.")
Also thwarted were probes into the "October Surprise" – the 1980 negotiations between the Reagan campaign camp, including Bush, with the Iranians who were holding American hostages....
http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd62.html
~~~
If the Mr and Mrs Clinton and Howard Wolfson want to make "guilt by association" an acceptable campaign strategy, and even Mccain has renounced these kinds of attacks, the Hillary will have to worry about her and her husbands associations with criminals he has pardoned, like Marc Rich, Chinese fundraisers and convicted felons and mass drug dealers like Jorge Cabrera who have supported them and they returned the favor. Just like with all the corporate money now paying Bills "speaking fees", yes someone's speech alone is worth a $million, there's no quid pro quo, yeah right!
News Flash: Obama is winning the swing states
Submitted by SONGster on Wed, 04/16/2008 - 1:11pm.
ie, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Alaska, Virginia, Iowa. If the California primary were held today, Obama would easily prevail. New Mexico was a tie, but of course, that was before Bill Richardson endorsed Obama. Today the PPP poll has Obama winning Pennsylvania by 3 points, and he's far out in front in North Carolina.
So can it already, the swing state argument for Clinton fails.
Plus, primary wins are no guarantee of general election wins. The electoral college projections based on state-by-state match-up polls all show Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton in the electoral college. In fact, they show Obama winning and Clinton losing.
Case closed.
Every poll, right up to and
Submitted by Magi1 on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 9:01am.
Every poll, right up to and during the election, will always show a Dem beating a Rep. But those who have actually been around for a while know that DEMS POLL BETTER THAN THEY ACTUALLY DO IN THE ELECTIONS - it's a fact ... why this happens could be chalked up to various reason. If a pollster calls me and asks questions this year about who I'm going to vote for I will hang up. Why? Because I crossed party lines and voted for Hillary and I don't want to get caught in some unnannounced, Marc Dann, "Wag the Dog inspired" net to grab "Operation Chaos" primary crossovers. What are the chances of this actually happening? Slim, but I'd rather be safe than sorry as would most Republicans. I really think the polls will show the Democratic candidate in the lead and then on election night the Republicans will somehow steal the victory. A word to the wise ... DON'T TRUST THE POLLS!
"Republicans don't need black voters, but they want them. Democrats don't want black voters, but they need them" - Rev. Jesse Jackson
Polling....
Submitted by Schmennis on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 10:48am.
As an experienced campaign manager I can tell you, polling can say what candidates WANT them to say.
Polls mean so little because PEOPLE LIE to pollsters. I have seen expertly constructed polling questions put before voters showing support for a particular issue, then when the election takes place, BAM! complete and total loss.
People answer questions depending on what they think the right answer SHOULD BE!
Polling is useful but I have seen occasions when polling questions lead the audience into answering the questions to the desired answer.
Hi, I'm Shequanda from the center for African American Fairness in Voting. And I have some questions for you if you have some time.....
In a recent poll 61% of ALL voters are now saying they will vote for Obama in the Pennsylvania primary. Will you be supporting Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama in the upcoming primary ?
1. Who's doing the asking?
2. Who doing the polling?
3. What information do they give to influence my answer?
4. What is the expected answer?
Oh, certainly YOU can count on my vote...then when they go to the polls BAM they vote against how they answered in the poll.
Polling is like weather forecasting.....why is it when meteorologist say 30% chance of rain..IT ALWAYS RAINS?????
Polling is also used to INFLUENCE voters.
I saw a funny cartoon once, it said....Hi, I'm here to tell you what I THINK!
If anyone is interested in polling and influence there is a book called "The AGE of PROPAGANDA The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion."
Gwen ... a worthless
Submitted by Magi1 on Thu, 04/17/2008 - 12:18pm.
Gwen ... a worthless pollster ... you should have fired her ... but once again, it's not what you know, but who you know.
"Republicans don't need black voters, but they want them. Democrats don't want black voters, but they need them" - Rev. Jesse Jackson
Hillary Hammers China Trade, Bill Took $1.25 Mil From Chinese
Submitted by JeanLR on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 3:14pm.
read here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/hillary-hammers-china-tra_n_97385.html
~~~
And Hillary has the nerve to call obama out for being on a board with a guy from an irrelevent, even then, gourp of chic radical posers, of whom Bill pardoned 2 others, yet no one wants to talk about what she was doin on the board of WalMart while that company was forcing Ohio businesses, like Rubbermaid, to compete with Chinese slave labor shops~
Who doesn't love , Low, Low, Prices?
Submitted by Schmennis on Fri, 04/18/2008 - 4:49pm.
I appreciate companies like Rubbermaid, but how do we compete with Chinese manufacturing when they ACCEPT these jobs for low wages.
Slave labor or not, American producers must get smarter with products that we manufacture. Paying people in the U.S. with HIGH standards of living $20 per hour to stamp out plastic tubs MAKES NO SENSE when developing nations can offer cheap labor. I don't agree with slave labor practices.
To the chagrin of liberal democrats, The United States of America is the greatest nation on the planet, in the history of the world, and that's all Rubbermaid in Marysville can manufacture is plastic tubs?
2000plus jobs worth of plastic tubs??????
Companies like Rubber Maid SHOULD move to Mexico or China so we can move on to BETTER MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED JOBS. Oh, like WINDMILL DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE.
Ignorant, mindless, repetitive jobs that can be done by uneducated people need to move OUT of the way, along with the LABOR unions that support them, and the labor unions that seek the destruction of Wal-Mart.
Americans LOVE Wal-Mart...if they didn't they wouldn't shop there.
Who doesn't love , Low, Low, Prices?
Just ANOTHER REASON TO SUPPORT HILLARY. She "gets" me.
Gallup Daily: Clinton 46%, Obama 45%
Submitted by Magi1 on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 2:48pm.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106606/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-46-Obama-45.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows that Hillary Clinton now receives 46% of the support of Democrats nationally, compared to 45% for Barack Obama, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20.
What is going on?
"Republicans don't need black voters, but they want them. Democrats don't want black voters, but they need them" - Rev. Jesse Jackson
Obama a Class Act? Not so Much...
Submitted by DelCo Dem on Sat, 04/19/2008 - 7:21pm.
Maybe the Gallup Daily tracking is taking a snapshot of the reaction to Obama flippin' Hillary off in front of a crowd while discussing his abysmal performance in the PA debate. Or maybe it is just reflective of his sucky debate performance.
Obama's debate perfomance wasn't impressive; his petulent hand gesture to Hillary the next day was embarassingly immature for a presidential candidate.
While we're revising history...