Money, It's a Crime/Share it Fairly but Don't Take a Slice of My Pie

That was then.

This is now.

"Why don't we hold these Wall Street money-grubbers responsible for their role in this recession?" Clinton asked at an Indiana Democratic Party dinner in Indianapolis tonight.

There's a question of fairness here: Are Clinton's panders any worse than the average politician's panders? Is Hillary's discovery of Huey Long, I-wanna-live-like-common-people, hold-an-event-on-a-flatbed-truck (seriously) any more offensive than, say, John Edwards's embrace of the same aesthetic? I think so. Edwards didn't count Robert Rubin as one of his advisers, whereas Clinton does, and as recently as 6 weeks ago was promoting him as a fix-it-man in her administration. Part of Clinton's pitch in the first place, part of her appeal, was that she and her husband had spent eight years running the country. She knows a tactical strike on "money-grubbers' won't happen. (If it did, what would happen to Chelsea's company?)

Related news: Clinton comes out against economists!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Elemenope||

    The quote re: economists was truly precious.

  • Neil||

    Keep laughing but shes about to win Indiana and NC.

  • Episiarch||

    There's a question of fairness here: Are Clinton's panders any worse than the average politician's panders?

    No. But they do tend to be more shameless.

  • Elemenope||

    No. But they do tend to be more shameless.

    Doesn't that make them worse?

    Which is worse: being a compulsive liar, or being a compulsive, convincing, unrepentant liar?

  • ||

    Is this one of those things where the business community who expects her to be their gal are supposed to just look the other way and recognize that it's necessary for her to say these things to win the nomination?

  • Episiarch||

    Which is worse: being a compulsive liar, or being a compulsive, convincing, unrepentant liar?

    Being a compulsive, unrepentant, unconvincing liar.

  • ||

    If there is one thing on which libertarians of all stripes can agree, it is that there is no way Hillary should become president. Unless someone wants to make the libertarian case for her?

  • Elemenope||

    My larger point is, if she is willing to lie about the color of the sky if she thought it would get her elected, isn't that just a bit worse than someone who, say, only restricts their lies to political matters?

  • Episiarch||

    if she is willing to lie about the color of the sky if she thought it would get her elected, isn't that just a bit worse than someone who, say, only restricts their lies to political matters?

    No. Obvious liars are better than slick ones, because they're not good at it and can only pull a fast one on really stupid people.

    A really subtle liar, who restricts their lies to only political matters, is more likely to convince people that they are telling the truth.

    I'd much rather have an obvious liar; they're less dangerous.

  • ||

    HRC is lying scum. Is she scummier than other politicians? Maybe, but not because of this particular lie. In this case she's pandering to the "Tey dook ar yobs!" crowd, while (we hope) she will actually govern more sensibly once in office.

    I'm more concerned about what she's actually going to do with all her ships, planes, tanks, and little soldiers once she's the CIC.

  • Elemenope||

    No. Obvious liars are better than slick ones, because they're not good at it and can only pull a fast one on really stupid people.

    A really subtle liar, who restricts their lies to only political matters, is more likely to convince people that they are telling the truth.


    I wish that were true. However, historical experience indicates that inveterate liars upon every matter can have an effect akin to a Steve Jobs "reality distortion field", causing people to dissonantly believe, well, pretty much anything.

    (See how slickly I Godwinned this thread?) :)

  • ||

    The quote re: economists was truly precious.

    She's pissed off because they all panned the gas tax holiday.

  • Elemenope||

    She's pissed off because they all panned the gas tax holiday.

    Thus demonstrating how she handles expert criticism.

    At least she doesn't shove them out an airlock.

  • Episiarch||

    (See how slickly I Godwinned this thread?)

    Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Adolf. :-)

    Some inveterate liars (who shall not be named) had a hypnotic quality about them. Hillary does not.

  • Taktix®||

    Obvious liars are better than slick ones, because they're not good at it and can only pull a fast one on really stupid people 90% of voters.

    There, fixed...

  • Taktix®||

    At least she doesn't "shove them out an airlock." = The new "throw them under the bus" replacement?

    I think it should be...

  • Episiarch||

    At least she doesn't shove them out an airlock.

    She doesn't have an airlock. Had she one, who knows?

  • tarran||

    She also endorsed Eight Belles' run in the Derby over the weekend. She told her supporters to bet on the poor horse...

    2000 years ago, what happened to the horse would be considered an omen. If I were PETA I wouldn't be going after the poor jockey.

  • ||

    Joe Scarborough had the classic Republican pander formulation this morning:

    "If you get a bunch of economists and elites from Harvard in a room, 99% of them would say the gas tax holiday is a bad idea. If you get a bunch of working class people from Indiana, 99% of them would support it. Why are you so opposed to helping regular people, Myra?"

    The truth has not only a liberal bias, but an elitist one as well.

  • ||

    The follow up to the swipe at economists was even worse:

    "When the federal government through the Fed and Treasury gave a $30 billion bailout to Bear Stearns, I didn't hear anybody jump in and say 'That's not going according to the market, that's rewarding irresponsible behavior.'"

    Uh, Hill, a whole lot of us economists were saying it. If you didn't hear it it's because you weren't listening.

    Or you're a totally, utterly, disingenuous lying sack of shit.

    I vote the second.

  • Elemenope||

    If you get a bunch of working class people from Indiana, 99% of them would support it.

    They probably would also support you giving them $10,000 apiece and wouldn't care from where you got it. Just because "folks" support something, it doesn't mean it's good.

    99% of 14th century English peasants were in favor of burning witches...

  • Mad Max||

    "At least she doesn't shove them out an airlock."

    Like she did with Vince Foster?

    (kidding!)

  • ||

    Whoops, I left out the best part:

    As Scarborough was using his media gig to tell us how the common folk feel, the scroll at the bottom of the screen read: "New York Times Poll: 49% are opposed to a Gas Tax Holidy, 45% in favor. 70% consider it a political ploy, 25% consider it a serious proposal."

    You tell 'em, Joe! You've got your finger on the pulse of the common man!

  • Elemenope||

    Some inveterate liars (who shall not be named) had a hypnotic quality about them. Hillary does not.

    I think this is oversold. I was watching a documentary on the Rise of Nazism (netflix instant-watching is a wonderful thing) and they were interviewing some unrepentant/sort-of-repentant Nazis about what it was like to hear Hitler speak. Many said that he was fairly goofy looking, and his voice was sort of whiny. But what he *did* do was lie about everything in a way that his lies made things seem more like what they wanted to believe. It was that synthetic vision that his lies wove that drove people to become fanatic followers.

  • ||

    I'll be the first to be consistent about my lack of faith in "teh experts," so not trusting "teh economists" to tell her what's best for the economy is pretty responsible. Afterall, the economists who are loudest, like other loud folk, are not always the economists you want to be listening to.

    But I don't think that's what she meant by that statement.

  • Elemenope||

    Reinmoose -

    Often a good time to pay attention to experts is when their opinion cuts across ideological lines in its unanimity, such as in this case. When liberal and conservative economists are telling you the same thing, it's time to at least review your plan.

  • kinnath||

    She also endorsed Eight Belles' run in the Derby over the weekend.

  • ||

    Speaking as an inveterate money-grubber, I resent that remark. Despite any government urgings otherwise, I only lend money at usurious rates to people who can pay it back.

  • ||

    It must be obvious by now that HRC cares about two things: Power and Money. Those who look for something deeper in her will ultimately be disappointed.

  • kinnath||

    Second try ;-)

    She also endorsed Eight Belles' run in the Derby over the weekend.

    It must be an omen, so Hillary finishes second at the convention and is euthanized.

  • Mad Max||

    "finger on the pulse of the common man!"

    COP: Can you tell me where Hillary touched you?

    TAXPAYER: She . . . she said she was feeling for my political pulse, but instead she touched my . . . touched my . . .

    COP: Yes?

    TAXPAYER: Can I just whip it out and show you?

    COP: Uh . . .

    TAXPAYER: [whipping out wallet] There! That's where she touched me!

  • ||

    If Eight Belles' ankles had been as thick as Hillary's, she'd be alive today.

    Sorry...

  • ||

    At least she doesn't "shove them out an airlock."

    Hillary is the 12th cylon?

    Would explain a lot.

  • Episiarch||

    Hillary is the 12th cylon?

    We already covered this and she's Laura Roslin.

    Now, whether Roslin is possibly the 12th Cylon is open for discussion.

  • ||

    If the churches were doin their part to help the less energetic, instead of building multimillion dollar palaces and pastoral residences, then it wouldn't be necessary for HRC to have her hands in the pants of those willing to make good decisions.

  • ||

    Little known fact: Hillary is already assembling a team of scientists to begin a secret Manhattan Project -style assault on airlock technology. Just in case.

  • Jorgen||

    The best thing about this is imagining her howls of dismay if anyone else made a similar statement:

    on evolution: "I don't put my lot in with the biologists. For 50 years we've been following the elite opinion on this, but 50% of the country knows better."

    on global warming: "I don't put my lot in with the climatologists. Maybe the elites in Southern California don't want the temperature to increase 6 degrees, but real, hardworking folk in Indiana know better."

    I guess you only get to disagree with the unanimous opinion of people who study the question you're asking for a living if some of those people have friends who make a lot of money.

  • Neil||

    I think Joe should ask President Adlai Stevenson and President Paul Tsongas how well calling popular ideas "political pandering" worked out for them.

    That 49% was the population total, not just working class people.

  • Elemenope||

    If the churches were doin their part to help the less energetic, instead of building multimillion dollar palaces and pastoral residences, then it wouldn't be necessary for HRC to have her hands in the pants of those willing to make good decisions.

    As Nietzsche said: the Church has sold Christ to Caesar and become the chief accomplice of the state in compelling uniformity.

  • ||

    Face it, Neil.

    Working class people just aren't as stupid as you depend on them being.

    If you speak to the as if they are capable of understanding adult-level ideas, you discover that they are.

  • Neil||

    Well see how you feel tomorrow when Obama goes down to defeat.

    If working people in the heartland trust elites so much, why didn't Stevenson and Tsongas win in landslides? People don't like elite, intellectual politicians.

  • ||

    I still won't feel that working class people are stupid, Neil.

    People don't like elite, intellectual politicians.

    To the Republican shill, only Bush voters are "people," I guess.

  • Guy Montag||

    How about paying for the gas tax holiday through a reduction in public transportation funding?

    [caring for the regular folks libertarian voice]

    1. The profits from selling gas should go to the firms that made the gas. Nobody here could argue against that.

    2. Many of the people who own the energy companies are, in fact, widows and endowments for orphanages.

    3. The people buying the gas are also giving urbanites a free ride on their tax dollars. The people of Indiana and North Carolina (along with many others) are paying for elitist snobs in Manhattand and DC to ride around in fancy urban rail palaces while the poor folks in the country, who use their SUVs for real work, have to starve to keep the puppetmasters happy.

    So, the argument against the tax holiday is one of starving widows and orphans while enriching the wealthy on the backs of the regular folks.

    Not that any of this matters, we saw what happens when you don't win for Mrs. Clinton.

  • ||

    Well see how you feel tomorrow when Obama goes down to defeat.

    First, you need either a comma or an apostrophe for that "Well."

    Second, winning the bigger state and losing the smaller one is nobody's definition of "defeat."

  • ||

    People don't like elite, intellectual politicians.

    Boy, ain't that the truth!

  • Neil||

    Joe your side is the side that has spent the last eight years bitching about how "stupid" Republican voters are. Remember all the moaning abut "stupid rednecks" after 2004, the "fuck the south" stuff, the "Jesusland" map etc. You're the ones who think the American people are stupid, as evidenced in Obama's "bitter" comment. Go to any far left liberal blogs and there are endless screeds against the south and mid-west.

  • ||

    How long before Hillary starts campaigning alongside a dwarf with a broom.

    That and some ole' timey music and she'll be able to sweep away Pappy O'Daniel.

  • Neil||

    BTW I don't consider Bill or Hillary Clinton "intellectuals" or "elites" like the Stevenson/Tsongas/Bradley/Obama wing of the Democrat Party. Which is why they actually win elections, they can at least pretend to be like regular people.

  • ||

    Yes, Republican voters are stupid.

    But we were talking about working class people.

    You can rightfully call people stupid for their ideas, just not for their economic conditions.

  • Neil||

    So 52% of America in 2004 was stupid, Joe?

  • ||

    BTW I don't consider Bill or Hillary Clinton "intellectuals" or "elites"

    Her: Wellesley, Yale Law, Capitol Hill, wife of Governor, First Lady of the United States, Wal Mart Director, Senator.

    Him: Georgetown, Oxford, Yale Law, Governor, President.

    Annual income over the past ten years: $10.9 million.

    You're a sucker, Neil.

  • Neil||

    I only said they could PRETEND and RELATE to working class voters in the heartland. Not that they themselves really were like them.

  • ||

    So 52% of America in 2004 was stupid, Joe?

    They did a stupid thing, yes, but sometimes smart people do stupid things.

    Let's put it this way: the 70% of Bush voters who walked into the voting booth in November 2004 believing that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks probably didn't ace AP Physics in high school.

  • ||

    You also said you don't consider them intellectuals, or elites.

    Sucker.

  • Neil||

    Bill Clinton grew up with a single mother in a trailer park in one of the poorest states in America so no Joe, I don't consider that background to be "elite".

  • Neil||

    OTOH, Barack Obama's parents held PhDs from Harvard and he was sent to foreign and elite private schools in exotic locations. THAT is elite.

  • ||

    A lot of people are pretty damned stupid. They can't think critically, they use phrases that they hear on CNN in arguments, they can't make financial decisions, they buy into conventional wisdom like it's a religion, they allow their actual religion to determine how they perceive people who are different from them, they don't know about the law of unintended consequences (even subconsiously), and they go on fad diets.

    Both the Democrats and the Republicans have extremely high percentages of stupid people voting for them. So do the Greens, and Libertarians, and whatever other party you want to come up with.

  • ||

    "Why don't we hold these Wall Street money-grubbers responsible for their role in this recession?" Clinton asked at an Indiana Democratic Party dinner in Indianapolis tonight.

    "Except for the money-grubbers in the cattle futures markets," she added hastily.

  • ||

    It must be an omen, so Hillary finishes second at the convention and is euthanized.

    Were that fortuitous turn of events occur, I'd be forced to reconsider theism as a personal belief.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "How about paying for the gas tax holiday through a reduction in public transportation funding?"

    That's a good start but we also need to get rid of the Davis-Bacon Act, a giveaway to labor unions that has been inflating the cost of government construction projects for over 70 years. The taxpayers are getting nothing of extra value for their money by being forced to subsidize, high cost union labor on road projects (or any other type construction projects either).

  • Neu Mejican||

    We already covered this and she's Laura Roslin.

    We've covered it, but come up with the conclusion that the analogy between Roslin and Clinton doesn't work and is simply based on the "female politician" angle.

    Roslin is much closer to McCain in her beliefs and behavior than she is to Clinton...and her presidency is a better analogy to GWB than anything Clinton would bring.

    A better Clinton analogy would be, perhaps, Brother Cavil's lobotomization of the Cylon raiders...Clinton would like a more pliable electorate that would recognize her destiny for leadership.

  • ||

    Ah, I see, Neil.

    You're just waging class warfare.

    See, when you started out, it looked like you were talking about their ideas.

    Don't worry, buddy. No one is going to accuse you of being part of an intellectual elite.

  • ||

    People who commute in Ford Expeditions shouldn't have to support those elitists in Gary, Indiana, who ride the bus to work.

  • kinnath||

    Neil, you need to take lessons from Juanita. She is at least a little bit entertaining from time to time.

  • Neil||

    The only pepole who wage class warfare are on the far left with their ideas of socialistic taxation and wealth re-distribution, Joe.

    I already give 50% of my income to the government when you count federal, state, and local taxes. With the way gas and food prices are heading why should I have t give OVER half?

  • ||

    Keep dodging, Neil.

    Do you know why you have to change the subject every time you post a new comment?

    Because you don't actually have any coherent ideas you can defend.

  • Colin Clout||

    kinnath,

    Well at least this election can't go on forever.

  • Neu Mejican||

    The only pepole who wage class warfare are on the far left with their ideas of socialistic taxation and wealth re-distribution, Joe.

    "Teh pepole who wage class warfair" would have a better "wring" to it.

  • Neil||

    Im not dodging anything. I think culture matters and Obama has a cultural background regular Americans just can't relate to. Does he really look like the kind of guy who enjoys hunting and NASCAR?

  • Guy Montag||

    Gilbert Martin,

    Yes, that too. I was concentrating on things that can be don a little quicker, like defunding a line in the transportation bill.

  • ||

    LOL, Neil.

  • Guy Montag||

    Good thing Dale Jr. was not being endorsed by Mrs. Clinton. The wall would have won another clash with that family.

  • ||

    Does he really look like...

    I don't think he looks like the sort of person you would vote for, Neil.

    Not at all.

    LOL!

  • Neil||

    Keep laughing Joe, I'll be the one LOLing tomorrow, during Denver, and in November.

    You Democrats just didn't learn from Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis did you?

  • Mike Laursen||

    Off topic: Just want to wish LoneWacko a Happy Cinco de Mayo!

  • ||

    LOL, Neil!

  • ||

    You Democrats just didn't learn from Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis did you?

    You mean, "Make sure you nominate the more charismatic candidate?"

    Ummmm...yeah. Silly Democrats.

  • Neil||

    No, don't nominate a far-left liberal who can't relate to the culture of America outside a few big cities and deep-blue states.

  • ||

    Ah, yes.

    That must be why he's beating McCain in the national polls.

    I guess he just can't relate to normal folks the way the son and grandson of Admirals, who grew up overseas, can.

    LOL, Neil.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "People who commute in Ford Expeditions shouldn't have to support those elitists in Gary, Indiana, who ride the bus to work."

    That's right, they shouldn't.

    In fact, no one should have to "support" anyone else in any way, shape, form or fashion.

  • Guy Montag||

    GM,

    Excellent point. Not sure why some people can't get it. Should really have to go unstated.

  • Neil||

    Hes not leading McCain in any poll except the pro-Democrat NYT/CBS poll that is way out there from all the others because they don't weight the way the other polls do.

    Hes also COLLAPSING in NC.

  • ||

    Maybe it's his background that explains why he has so little tolerance for dissent or disagreement (the famous "temper").

    He spent his whole life subject to military discipline, with a military view of authority, and now that he's the Old Man, he expects everyone to act like he's their C.O.

    You know, before it came to mean something about the region you were born in and the hobbies you enjoy, the word "elitist" meant "believing in the rightful authority of an elite."

  • ||

    Hes not leading McCain in any poll except the pro-Democrat NYT/CBS poll that is way out there from all the others because they don't weight the way the other polls do.

    Actually, he's back up in the RCP average, which incorporates all available polls.

    Hes also COLLAPSING in NC.

    ACtually,he's ticking back up.

    LOL, Neil!

  • Neil||

    Way to denigrate his service to our country, Joe.

    Plenty of great Presidents had bad tempers (George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, Dweight Eisenhower).

  • Colin Clout||

    Neil,

    While Obama's lead has narrowed some in North Carolina, it has stabilized over the past few days at around 7% to 10%.

  • Neil||

    If he can't win by double digits in a state where hes widely favored he has REAL trouble closing the deal.

  • ||

    I was unaware that being the son of an admiral counted as service.

    Typical chickenhawk: he tries to hind behind "the troops," but thinks "the troops" are the guys with stars on their shoulders.

  • ||

    If he can't win by double digits in a state where hes widely favored he has REAL trouble closing the deal.

    You mean like Hillary winning Pennsylvania by 9?

  • Neil||

    Joe did you just call McCain a "chickenhawk"? He was TORTURED AS A POW. But I'm sure Moveon.org will try to run an ad saying otherwise.

  • ||

    This thread is reminding me strangely of something I read on this blog last week. I believe it was a comment by Episiarch

  • Michael Ejercito||

    99% of 14th century English peasants were in favor of burning witches...


    But they said that the witches caused the Black Death.

  • ||

    Joe did you just call McCain a "chickenhawk"?

    No, Neil.

    You.

  • Guy Montag||

    Reinmoose,

    joe exceeded it by ignoring Captain (Retired) John McCain's uniformed service and implying he was only the child of a service member. And calling him a "chickenhawk".

    Maybe he will throw in grandson of an Admiral next time.

  • Neil||

    McCain wasn't a guy with "stars on his shoulder" when he served in Vietnam. But again, way to denigrate the military. Why don't you talk about "General Betrayus" next? I'm sure that will go over well in the fall.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Joe did you just call McCain a "chickenhawk"? He was TORTURED AS A POW. But I'm sure Moveon.org will try to run an ad saying otherwise.


    Joe does not seem to have much credibility in these parts.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Let see, we are having an argument about which of the three major political candidates is "an elite" instead of just "elite?"

    Does that about sum it up?

    Or, maybe it is about which kind of elite the American people identifies with more...

    Does he really look like the kind of guy who enjoys hunting and NASCAR?

    Do a majority of Americans fit into the category that enjoys both of these activities?

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19115896

    Even if we take NASCAR's own numbers as legitimate (75 Million fans), we are not talking about the majority of the country. A big number, sure, but not the majority.

    Reno 911 had a great episode about the excitement of NASCAR.

  • ||

    If Guy and Neil were smart enough to read, they wouldn't be right-wingers.

    Uh, yeah, "next time" I'll mention that McCain was the grandson of an admiral. That's it, Guy. "Next time." I'll have to remember that.

  • Neu Mejican||

    And are NASCAR fans really voting based on their candidates shared fandom? Really. I think Neil just insulted about 75 Million Americans.

  • ||

    joe | May 5, 2008, 11:40am | #

    Maybe it's his background that explains why he has so little tolerance for dissent or disagreement (the famous "temper").

    He spent his whole life subject to military discipline, with a military view of authority, and now that he's the Old Man, he expects everyone to act like he's their C.O.

    Neil | May 5, 2008, 11:42am | #

    Way to denigrate his service to our country, Joe.


    joe | May 5, 2008, 11:45am | #

    I was unaware that being the son of an admiral counted as service.


    Guy Montag | May 5, 2008, 11:54am | #

    Reinmoose,

    joe exceeded it by ignoring Captain (Retired) John McCain's uniformed service and implying he was only the child of a service member. And calling him a "chickenhawk".

    Neil | May 5, 2008, 11:55am | #

    McCain wasn't a guy with "stars on his shoulder" when he served in Vietnam




    It's one of life's great pleasures to have enemies who are morons.

  • Neu Mejican||

    McCain ain't no NASCAR elite, of course.

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/03/mccains.money.politics.ap/

  • Neu Mejican||

    joe,

    To be fair, in the context of Neil's response, the Gricean implicature of your statement could easily have been taken to mean that John McCain should be defined in terms of his lineage, and not his service.

  • ||

    Hey, now, John McCain knows lots of regular folks.

    He spent twenty years ordering them around on pain of imprisonment, and then became a Senator.

  • Neil||

    Keep digging, Joe. Keep telling us how horrible it is that McCain served our country in war.

    I notice you don't share this concern when veterans run on YOUR side.

  • Pez Tres||

    But they said that the witches caused the Black Death.

    No, but she turned me into a newt!
    ...
    I got better.

  • ||

    Keep digging, Joe. Keep telling us how horrible it is that McCain served our country in war.

    I'd make shit up, too, if I was trying to argue your side.

    I notice you don't share this concern when veterans run on YOUR side.

    So, troll, what fake name were you using back then?

  • Neil||

    You=Democrats, not you personally genius.

  • ||

    I notice you don't share this concern when veterans run on YOUR side.

    I don't hold out the life experiences of multi-millionaires born into, literally, the Officers Club as proof of their average-joe bona fides.

  • Neu Mejican||

    So back to the topic of "elite."

    There was a time when the Republicans would have been the party who would have pointed to the elite status of their candidate as a good thing.

    Demonstration that they were one of the best and brightest would be a good thing.

    Republicans would have pointed to their candidates rise to riches as a sign they were smart and understood capitalism, and earned the right to lead the country.

    While it is true that Obama is the son of an intellectual elite, he rose from a solid middle class background to become quite wealthy himself.

    This is somehow bad?

  • Neil||

    Isn't there an admiral in Congress who is a Democrat Joe?

    Lets hear about how hes just an elite with stars on his shoulder who doesn't care about the troops.

  • Neu Mejican||

    So do most Americans really want a leader who is just like them?

    They want a guy like their buddy who they go to NASCAR with?

    Really?

  • ||

    Isn't there an admiral in Congress who is a Democrat Joe?

    Yes, there is. Congressman Joe Sestak. Like virtually all veterans who have won federal office recently, he is indeed a Democrat.

    And his campaign supporters never made the claim that he was, somehow, less "elite" than the multi-millionaire businessman he defeated.

  • Neu Mejican||

    So does the fact that McCain's millions come from his choice of a wife put him in the same class as John Kerry...

    Ex-military politician who married into money?

    I mean, if we are gonna chose a candidate based on class status, shouldn't it matter how they got there.

    Born elite, had to marry elite to stay elite = man of the people?

    What a silly game this is.

  • ||

    Lets hear about how hes just an elite with stars on his shoulder who doesn't care about the troops.

    You'll have to find someone who's expressed a thought about who "cares about the troops" for that.

    Because, you see, "caring about" somebody is not the same that "being able to relate to them as equals."

    How telling that you don't know the difference. It's very typical of elitists to think that having warm feelings towards a group you don't belong to is the same thing as being in solidarity with them.

  • Neil||

    I just don't think you can call some one who endured horrible torture for years on end (after refusing early release he was offered BECAUSE of who his father was) an "elite".

  • ||

    guys? Stop wasting electrons on Neil.

    KTHXBAI.

  • Calidore||

    FYI (by a pedant)

    Most witch burning (in Europe) happened during the Renaissance and the early part of the Enlightenment.

  • ||

    So does the fact that McCain's millions come from his choice of a wife put him in the same class as John Kerry...

    I'd say that the big difference is, as I was saying earlier, that McCain grew up in the Officers Club, the son and grandson of Admirals.

    While Kerry grew up in a middle-class household, doing stuff like unloading trucks to earn money during vacation.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Anecdotal tale of McCain's connection to the average ex-military joe...

    My father in-law, Korean and Vietnam vet and staunch Republican just a few years older than McCain is voting for Nader rather than support McCain. He certainly recognizes McCain's military service and honor it, but doesn't think it has much to do with how good a president he would be.

    Now he's a football fan, not NASCAR which puts him in a bigger group than the NASCAR fans. If McCain can't get the support of ex-military football fans how can he possibly win with "the people" ?

  • ||

    I just don't think you can call some one who endured horrible torture for years on end (after refusing early release he was offered BECAUSE of who his father was) an "elite".

    I guess we're making up our own definitions of words now, because none of that has anything to do with what the word "elite" means in the English language.

  • Guy Montag||

    There was an elite, with stars on his shoulders, who doesn't care about the troops, running for the Democrat nomination just a few years ago. He was fired, as a General, by Mr. Clinton and now works for FOX news.

    Between being a General and being a candidate he was a CNN guy.

    While he was a candidate he spent a lot of time quoting the Communist Manifesto and claiming it to be values our country was founded on.

  • Elemenope||

    While it is true that Obama is the son of an intellectual elite, he rose from a solid middle class background to become quite wealthy himself.

    This is somehow bad?


    Yeah, but he doesn't look and sound like Neil's "real American folks" so apparently none of that matters.

    Seriously, when was the last time a party put up an "aw shucks" regular guy for president? 1820's?

  • Neu Mejican||

    joe,

    Kerry's dad, however, might be considered elite in the same way that Obama's mom is elite.

    Again, do people really care about this shit when they vote? I doubt the veracity of Neil's claim that they do.

  • ||

    McCain grew up in the Officers Club, the son and grandson of Admirals.

    While Kerry grew up in a middle-class household, doing stuff like unloading trucks to earn money during vacation.


    not to sound cavalier here, but who cares?

    SRSLY.

  • Neil||

    Elemenope you could say that Reagan (and as much as I hate to admit it, Bill Clinton) fit that category.

  • ||

    Anecdotal tale of McCain's connection to the average ex-military joe...

    Of course people have reasons beyond this silliness Neil brings up to explain their support for candidates.

    I just like to engage Neil on his own ground, because that's the most fun place to pwn him.

  • Neu Mejican||

    LMNOP,

    Jimmy Carter, perhaps?

    Or was he too educated and successful to count?

  • Neu Mejican||

    I believe that Neil just called a Hollywood actor a "regular joe."

    Sean Penn for president.

  • ||

    NM,

    Kerry's dad, however, might be considered elite in the same way that Obama's mom is elite.

    I think you phrased it just right: "might be considered...in the same that..."

    As used by Neil, the word "elite" has an ever-changing meaning, depending on who he wants and doesn't want to describe that way.

  • ||

    Ayn_Randian,

    Neil cares. Deeply. That's why this is so much fun.

  • ||

    Elemenope you could say that Reagan (and as much as I hate to admit it, Bill Clinton) fit that category.

    Did Reagan grow up poor, like Clinton and Obama?

    Honest question.

  • Elemenope||

    Elemenope you could say that Reagan (and as much as I hate to admit it, Bill Clinton) fit that category.

    You could. If you were a retard. Both had a college education (which is far more than the "average American" gets), one of whom had an *elite* college education. Then one was a movie star, and the other a lawyer in a high-priced law firm.

    Jimmy Carter, perhaps?

    Or was he too educated and successful to count?


    Too educated and successful. Anyone who has gone to college, anyone who makes more than $60,000 in today's dollars a year, anyone with notable fame prior to nomination: automatically excluded from being a part of Neil's "average American" club. Because, um, they aren't average.

  • Elemenope||

    joe, he was "middle class" for most of his early life.

  • ||

    See, this is where we get into the slipperiness of Republicans' use of the term "elite."

    Is an elite someone whose background is different from how most Americans live?

    Someone whose current situation is different from that of most Americans?

    Obama and his mother were quite poor, by American standards, when they lived in Indonesia - yet it's a different country, and she was doing academic research (and paying the bills with some translation gigs for the embassy). Is that an elitist background because of the cultural angle, or the opposite, because of the economic angle?

    The answer, of course, is "Whatever describes the Democrat and not the Republican, that's elitist."

  • ||

    [Does] someone wants to make the libertarian case for her?

    Let me make a grab at the straw...there is a school of thought that HRC, for all her pandering and lefty rhetoric, doesn't really stand for anything, except, well, HRC. In other words, power for the Hilldebummer is an end in itself - she's only interested in enjoying the trappings of the position.

    So far, I'm stating the obvious, but take it one step further.

    Consider what happened with her husband (in this sense they're cut from the same cloth): once in office he jettisoned his hard-left supporters and did little to upset the apple cart. The one time he did come out fighting tooth and toenail was when his access to the throne was threatened by impeachment.

    Ever the pragmatist (and seeker of power as an end in itself), Hillary, like Bill before her, will do what she needs to do to stay in office, no more.

    Ergo...a "do nothing" president, and far safer choice than a young idealogue like, say, Barack Obama.

    Comments?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "there is a school of thought that HRC, for all her pandering and lefty rhetoric, doesn't really stand for anything, except, well, HRC. In other words, power for the Hilldebummer is an end in itself - she's only interested in enjoying the trappings of the position."

    No I don't think that's quite right.

    She really is ideologically driven and determined to inflict socialized medicine on the country. She was plenty determined to fight
    "tooth and toenail" for that last time around, it's just that she was too autocratic and managerially inept in the way she went about trying to do it.

    She most certainly would not be a "do nothing" president in that regard. That alone is plenty of reason to oppose her regardless of whether she would "do nothing" about anything else or not.

  • ||

    So then, Neil, have you actually placed any monetary bets on Clinton getting the nomination? Because the odds are 3-1 Obama - you could clean up. Right?

  • ||

    Well at least this election can't go on forever.

    Not for a lack of trying ...

  • ||

    Well at least this election can't go on forever.

    Or so you think ...

  • ||

    I see a potential market in "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Ron Paul" bumper stickers in the near future.

    And much merriment as joe proclaims how wonderfully libertarian our new Democratic overlords really are.

  • Kolohe||

    Seriously, when was the last time a party put up an "aw shucks" regular guy for president? 1820's?

    Harry Truman.
    If one thinks he cheated by being VP first, then of course, there's Abe Lincoln, but I'm sure there's someone in between that I'm missing. (Cleveland? Arthur?)

  • Guy Montag||

    I see a potential market in "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Ron Paul Fred" bumper stickers in the near future.

    Fixed :)

  • Guy Montag||

    Seriously, when was the last time a party put up an "aw shucks" regular guy for president? 1820's?

    Don't Carter and Johnson count for that description? Not that any of the others who got that description were truly that way, of course.

  • Kolohe||

    And to strike the 8 bells, everyone running for prez until the 1820's was emphatically. by their own self-selection, not an ah shucks regular guy.

  • ||

    MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)

    If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

    You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

    Best regards

    jacksmith... Working Class :-)

    p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)

    If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...

    You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)

    Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don't die from. And I could go on, and on...

    OBAMA AIDE: "WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS" :o

  • ||

    HILLARY CLINTON CAN BEST WIN IN NOVEMBER:

    It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

    Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her Pennsylvania victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources.

    But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

    Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

    Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

    If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

    Sen. Hillary Clinton: "You know, more people have now voted for me than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination. And it's also clear that we've got nine more important contests to go."

    Sincerely

    Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

  • Gilbert Martin||

    jacksmith, you not only might be an idiot - you definitely are one if you think you are going to convince anybody here of anything by posting the same crap over and over every day in every thread.

  • Guy Montag||

    Gilbert Martin,

    Doesn't stop joe either.

  • Neu Mejican||

    jacksmith,

    If you think that Hillary Clinton gets to take credit for the experience of her husband, then you might be an idiot.

    Does Nancy Reagan get to take credit for what her husband did...

    Does George Bush senior get to take credit for Barbara's accomplishments?

    ;^)

  • ||

    My brother forwarded to me a very amusing little essay, a few months ago; the basic premise was Brett Favre's wife would be a sure bet to win a super bowl ring as quarterback for the Packers.

    Based on her "experience."

  • Mad Max||

    "As Nietzsche said: the Church has sold Christ to Caesar and become the chief accomplice of the state in compelling uniformity."

    Nietzsche also contended that the Church taught the powerful to feel guilty about lording it over the weak. He thought that was a major social problem - the drain on the self-esteem of nature's aristocracy. You see, a true aristocrat only helps the weak to the extent that it makes him, the aristocrat, look good, not because the Church brainwashed you into thinking that the weak were fellow passengers to the grave to whom you owed peculiar duties.

  • Lezident||

    The quote is wrong. Did you hear her say this or did you just read it on the Internet?

    She said "money brokers."

    We would appreciate it if you would do actual reporting, not just reading rumors and reporting them as facts.

  • Mike Laursen||

    You see, a true aristocrat only helps the weak to the extent that it makes him, the aristocrat, look good, not because the Church brainwashed you into thinking that the weak were fellow passengers to the grave to whom you owed peculiar duties.

    Wow, can't agree with either of those views. Lording it over the weak is cruel. And elevating helping the weak to making it a duty that you owe them is a too much of a blank check for letting one's life be overwhelmed and stifled by dealing with everybody else's problems. What about just being simply generous, but also living one's own fulfilling, creative life without guilt.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement