Cat Fight In S.C.
Posted January 22nd, 2008 by Da King
I have to admit, when liberals fight amongst themselves, it cracks me up. The Hillary/Obama row during last night's South Carolina debate was no exception. Mostly, I get a kick out what passes for an insult among liberals. For example, Obama said he was helping unemployed people in Chicago when "you [Hillary] were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart". Only in liberal la-la-land would being a lawyer for a highly successful corporation like Wal-Mart be reason for an insult. Us folk out here in the real world would call that "a really good job". For most of us, if we landed a job like that, our parents would be calling all the relatives and telling them how well we were doing. Not in la-la-land. In la-la-land, working for a corporation is B-A-D, because corporations are E-V-I-L. Never mind that corporations give millions and millions of americans a J-O-B. In la-la-land, being a lawyer isn't really bad as long as you are a civil rights lawyer or a lawyer that sues doctors or businesses, like John Edwards was, but corporate lawyers are scum. It's in the la-la rule book.
Shortly after Obama's insult, Hillary returned fire, saying that she was fighting against misguided Republican policies "when you [Obama] were practicing law and representing your contributor … in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago". That's proof of what I was saying about la-la attitudes towards lawyers. Hillary was saying Obama was the WRONG kind of lawyer, because one of his clients was a landlord (a corporation). Apparently, la-la's don't think corporations are entitled to legal respresentation. It's part of their respect for the Constitution, I guess.
I have an aside here about that "35 years of experience" that Hillary always claims to have. Wasn't she a student at Yale Law School 35 years ago ? I'm thinking that doesn't count. If I knew we were allowed to claim time being a student as politicial experience, then I have 16 years experience myself. Da King in 2012 !
Obama also claimed Bubba was telling lies about him on the campaign trail, and when Hillary objected to that because Bubba wasn't there to defend himself (as if that matters. Obama isn't there when Bubba slams him either), Obama replied, ""Well, I can't tell who I'm running against sometime". Barack, you are running against the Clinton corporation. There's no difference between them, so that doesn't matter either. This is Team Clinton 2.0.
John Edwards tried to get his two cents in between the battling frontrunners. "Are there three people in this debate, not two?" he asked. Actually, John, there are only two. You are over. Drop out, and try to buddy up to someone for the VP slot.
Edwards continued, "We have got to understand, this is not about us personally. It is about what we are trying to do for [to] this country". The audience applauded this, even though it's inaccurate. There is no difference between Hillary and Obama as far as how they would run the country. They are cookie-cutter big government liberals. They have the same policies on virtually everything. There is no independent thought allowed in the Democratic party. If you vary the least little bit, you are out. That's why the three remaining candidates are all the same. As I said before, the differences are about style, not substance. It IS about them personally. Women are voting for Hillary. Blacks and independents are voting for Obama. Bitter mill workers are voting for Edwards. The rest of the Democratic vote is split between Obama and Hillary. Whoever insults whom the most effectively from here on out will get the Democratic nomination.
One area in which Hillary should have scored big time was when she highlighted Obama's nearly invisible voting record, but the audience actually booed her for making a valid point. Remember, this is la-la land. Logic does not apply. Hillary said "Senator Obama, it is very difficult to have a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote". Edwards teamed up with Hillary on this one, criticizing Obama by saying,
"Why would you over 100 times vote present?…What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really mattered to this country? It would have been safe for me politically. It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do, but I have a responsibility to take a position even when it has political consequences for me." Mr. Edwards, I think you released a cat bag full of truth with that statement. However, Hillary's senate record isn't particularly distinguished either (but at least she commits), and Hillary has never taken responsibility for her Iraq war vote. She lies her butt off about that every time. The real truth is, both of those two had an eye on the presidency from the minute they set foot in the Senate. The Senate is just a means to an end.
In reply to the dual attack from Hillary and Edwards, Obama made up an answer that sounded good, but just isn't true. "Don't question, John, the fact that on issue after issue that is important to the American people, I haven't simply followed, I have led", Obama said. Really, Barack ? Name ONE issue on which you have led. I can't think of one. Name one piece of significant legislation where you have led the way. I can't think of one of those either. However, that false statement by Obama does make THIS one true: "I have been troubled … the degree to which my record is not accurately portrayed."
I'll say.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I think you superficially misread the Wal-mart line. Obama isn't implying that Clinton is evil. He was responding to Clinton's assertion that she had done more to help lower class folk. You could insert "Wal-mart" with any high-paying, private sector job. It's not that she shouldn't have been on the board of a big company, it's that she can't claim to have spent her entire life dedicated to noble causes, or at least not any more than Mr. Obama. Yes, there is added connotation in that he mentioned it was Wal-mart specifically (and yes, that does score points with Dems) but the point wasn't about anti-capitalism.
January 22nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Also, trying to fit the "slum lord" comment into your "la-la anti-corporation" narrative is pretty lazy. Hillary was clearly trying to bring attention to Obama's affiliation with Tony Rezko, who has been indicted for corruption charges.
Swing and a miss.
January 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Hillary is not a liberal. She is a centrist. Note her vote for the Iraq War Resolution that she still backs. She sponsored an uninspiring anti-flag-burning bill and she voted for that dicey Kyl-Lieberman Resolution that almost gave President Cheney the green light to bomb Iran.
As for Wal*Mart, in past decades, they were an earnest, growing corporation. Over Sam Walton's dead body, they stuffed their American flag into a chest and became the leader on offshoring production. The Walton heirs were prime funders of the Bush/Cheney campaigns. There is still a fight in Ohio about Wal*Mart moving in and displacing stores that hire union grocers.
One of the cleverist things that Wal*Mart did was that they gamed the 1990s "welfare to work" law rules and came up with a way to keep employees at limited hours and limited pay, then send them over to the Medicaid office or to private charities to get medical care.
No wonder we hate Wal*Mart.
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Very insightful comments by Brent and Tom.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Brent,
The Dem candidates for president constantly preach anti-corporate anti-capitalism. Their rhetoric generally recognizes two great evils in the world: corporations and conservatives (actually, that might only be one great evil, since liberal Dems see corporations and conservatives as one and the same thing).
But you are correct about Hillary's "slum lord" reference. There was more to it than I brought up.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Tom,
Hillary's Iraq war vote doesn't mean she isn't a liberal. It only means she was in step with her and her husband's previous administration, and in step with the prevailing intelligence and public sentiment. So was Edwards for that matter, and you can't get much more liberal than him. Hillary isn't a centrist. She's a marxist. She's only pretending to be a centrist to get elected. It's nothing but a strategy.
Hillary is for massive tax and spending increases. She's for universal health care. She's for universal government day care. She's for the Fairness Doctrine (censorship). She wants to pull out of Iraq. She's for big government control right down the line. That's a liberal.
January 24th, 2008 at 1:42 am
Tom - "Hillary is not a liberal." Really? That is an awfully tough position to defend.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:56 am
By her own admission, Hillary R. Clinton is a "progressive," which when you study the Progressives, means a fascist.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
"The Dem candidates for president constantly preach anti-corporate anti-capitalism. Their rhetoric generally recognizes two great evils in the world: corporations and conservatives (actually, that might only be one great evil, since liberal Dems see corporations and conservatives as one and the same thing)."
1) This year I've seen the "change" cat skinned about 40,000 more times than the "evil corporations being all corporation-y" lines.
2) Despite some token Bush-bashing, economic populism, and a little squabbling on Reagan, Monday's debate was notable because it was a rare moment during this campaign when some serious policy issues were discussed. It's a shame all you get out of it is another iteration of this easily digestible narrative.
January 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Brent,
Every election I've witnessed in my life is about "change". That's hardly new. It's eternal. It's mainly an evasion used to fool people into believing the next expansion of government power that the pols are advocating will fix the problems caused by the last expansion of government power that the pols advocated.
Sorry I didn't go deeper into the issues discussed in this debate. After about 15 or so of these 30 second sound byte fests, I guess I don't see the point. To help me out, why don't you contrast a few issue differences between Obama and Clinton for me ? I really can't find any. All I hear from both of them is increase taxes, increase spending, boatloads of new government programs, pull out of Iraq, bash corporate america, bash Bush. What is the difference ?
January 25th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
By the way, King, that's a darn cute kit in the photo for this post.
Is he yours?
January 25th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Nope, my cat is a black one. Maybe I'll feature him for the next Dem cat fight.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Liberals this liberals that liberals liberals liberals.
Seems like somebody is a little too insecure to be focusing on things that matter, so they have to mudsling.
Mudslinging isn't a good thing. Notice that "liberals" don't mudsling on conservatives. Hmmm… Who is really the worst?
March 17th, 2008 at 5:27 am
"liberals don't mudsling on conservatives"
Really ? In what country is that ? Not this one.
And btw, it isn't "mudslinging" if it's true.