Just saw Barack Obama on the 5:00 news. It seems that Hillary Clinton compared herself in Philadelphia to Rocky, saying she’ll fight for the working people. Ahhh, I so love it when the Democrats remember they have to pretend like they really give a damn about those who earn less than the median income in this country. It’s adorable. It really is.
The closest Hillary Clinton will get to being Rocky is making Bullwinkle her running mate.
That said, I ask you join me in peeping the irony in Obama’s response. “Rocky was a movie. And so is the idea that somebody can fight for working people and, at the same time, embrace a broken system in Washington.”
Uhhh, Barack…I don’t really believe you either. Don’t get me wrong–after his speech a couple weeks ago, I’m a fan. He’s the most impressive politician of my lifetime, and when I’m forced to vote, I won’t even look at voting for him like it’s a default decision. That would be a new thing.
But here’s why I don’t believe him. It’s that good Lester Freamon–follow the money.
Check out Hillary’s top donor list. Now, Obama’s.
Go ahead and tell me who on either list has ever given a flying fuck about the working class. Take your time. I’ll wait.
(whistling)
(cleaned the kitchen)
(took a shower)
I’m back. Did you come up with anything?
Neither of them is fooling me on this front. I firmly believe that Obama’s heart is in the right place, but his money isn’t. But you know what? You won’t get the money selling a good heart.
Politicians, once they reach office, are little more than extensions of their money. That’s the game. Hopefully, Obama can find a way to work with these people and still accomplish his lofty, progressive goals (some that even approach populism).
I just know that no one’s ever pulled that off from that high a level.
So no, I don’t believe Barack, either, about being the advocate of the working class. I think he wants to be. I’ll still vote for him. But I’m not gonna trick myself into believing all those things are going to happen.
So why vote for Obama over Hillary, even though I don’t think either will be able to deliver much of what they’re selling once in office? Because I don’t think Obama’s lying to me. I think he believes he’s gonna find a way to get it done. I think he’s wrong, but I appreciate the effort. He’s a good man.
Hillary’s trying to piss on my head in the guise of rain. I ain’t too keen on that.
14 Comments
by Chrichelle
I’ve been pondering the feasibility and efficacy of Barack as president given the state that we’re in. I think the trick is to keep the participation up and hopefully with his past as a community organizer he can keep the citizenry engaged. We all know that the President can’t do anything without the cooperation of Congress, so if those that are excited about Obama, stay up on their shit and read the news and follow their representatives’ votes and hold their representatives accountable, we stand a chance. However, if we all go back to sleep after November then he has half the chance Hillary does of being effective and they’ll start gunning to run him out of town by the midterm election in 2010.
by Kirk
To get to the level that these two are at, you can’t be dumb, naive, or blind. If Hillary is pissing on your head and calling it rain, then Obama is doing the same and just giving it a better name. If it were any different, then the donor list wouldn’t look quite so similar. The people donating the money are no dumber than the people accpeting it.
The only significant difference between the two is charisma. Obama has it, Hillary doesn’t. Being a woman is no more distasteful to the electorate than being black, so charisma wins.
Neither of them is lying to you any more than the other. One is just doing a better job of selling the lies. If he’s better at selling the lies to you, then he’s probably better at selling the lies to everyone else, including Congress. That’s what makes him the better choice of the two.
by Nate Wesley
I don’t necessarily think Hillary is outright lying when making campaign promises anymore than Barack is (although, we’ve certainly caught Hilary in some outtright lies). I still agree with your sentiment that Obama comes with better credibility in making his. While Clinton comes off as someone who simply wants to be in charge, Obama seems to actually want to do something while he’s in the White House.
by Farmdog
What’s funny is that 1. Hillary got money out of Bear Stearns, and 2. I think the dollar amount of the CitiGroup’s donoations is just a tad bit more than what i owe on my credit card
by Justin Sands
I dunno, FDR did it… so you can’t say nobody ever did. (tho he wasn’t a saint)
Not throwing around comparisons, just saying hey… it can be done.
by Terry
You’re glib. Makes sense that you’d vote for Obama then, since you both make a living spouting bullshit.
Your logic seems to be this: both will be useless, but Obama is too naive to realize it, and this makes him the better candidate. Theres no way you actually believe in that rationale, so its bullshit.
You probably learned everything you know about politics (and life) by watching The Wire. It seems wrong to say that even the president is beholden to the financiers. They only have one election left, and as incumbents they’ll have a tremendous advantage. You’d have to be a real pussy to worry about Goldman Sachs and their pissy $500,000.
Additionally, the Obama camp is full of shit because they talk about this “new way of doing politics”, a “politics of unity”, yet they can’t even make it through the primary without demonizing their fellow democrats. Then you also have all this talk about how Obama represents hope, yet how many democrats are voting for him simply because they think he’ll do better in the general? Every Obama person I know has cited electability as their main rationale, most of them saying they thought hilary would be better at governing. Thats a vote of fear, not hope.
Obama differentiates himself from other politicians by promising abstractions rather than actions. This allows him to fail to live up to those promises before even being elected. He’s created a whole new way of being.
by Terry
Ok, i forgot this part…
Obama calls himself the candidate of change. Why do people want change? Maybe because we’re living through the worst president in human memory. From a policy standpoint, any democrat would be a radical change from this retarded pawn.
Bush’s camp won the elections by manipulating people’s emotions with glib horseshit and rhetoric. They were so effective in these manipulations that they were able to turn the executive branch into a fascist dicatatorship. Meanwhile, Obama’s greatest asset is his ability to manipulate people’s emotions. This is acknowledged by all of his supporters, although they’d probably say that Obama apeals to emotions. If you really want a change from Bush, the country needs to use its fucking noggin, not its heartpiece. The freerider problem exposes Obama’s heart before head approach. That said, I’m going to end up voting for him by default.
by Terry
how is this a bogus email?
by Terry
ok i reactivated it, my bad
by Kirk
“It seems wrong to say that even the president is beholden to the financiers. They only have one election left, and as incumbents they’ll have a tremendous advantage. You’d have to be a real pussy to worry about Goldman Sachs and their pissy $500,000.”
$500K in donations is not the problem. Millions that roll in after their Presidency in the form of board appointments, speaking fees, and Presidential Library donations are the problem.
“Obama differentiates himself from other politicians by promising abstractions rather than actions. This allows him to fail to live up to those promises before even being elected. He’s created a whole new way of being.”
If that’s new, then you haven’t paid attention to any election, Presidential or otherwise, in the last 50+ years. If abstractions didn’t win elections, the name Clinton would have been forgotten long ago as “the guy who lost after Dukakis lost”. Unless of course, you’re suggesting that Bill’s record as Gov. of Arkansas won him the election. No, probably not.
“Obama calls himself the candidate of change. Why do people want change? Maybe because we’re living through the worst president in human memory. From a policy standpoint, any democrat would be a radical change from this retarded pawn.”
There’s a big difference between change and radical change. Which is it that people want? If it’s just change, rather than radical change, then McCain would fit the bill as well. In fact, they might even be better off with McCain because he wouldn’t be RADICAL change – just change.
“ok i reactivated it, my bad”
And we’re supposed to listen to a political diatribe from a guy (assuming here – “Terry” is gender neutral) who hasn’t mastered the intricacies of an email account? Besides, if the account was deactivated, it means you never use it, so the choice of accounts for the post suggests you’re still a chicken shit.
This is why we should outlaw Poli. Sci. courses in community colleges and adult night schools.
by Jamaal
To echo what has already been said. All politicians are beholden to funding and special interests because no one, especially the president, can singlehandedly measure, decide, and execute policy. This is why they have armies of advisors and an entire industry devoted to manipulating and selling policy points. To say that that presidents act independently because they would run as incumbents and only have one election left is a blindness and ignorance I can’t fathom. The reason why Bush has pushed and signed off on so many backward ass policies is not only because he’s a hard core ideologue, but because there are very powerful interests who directly influence those who advise him. To deny that is beyond foolishness.
by Lisa
Thank you so much for speaking truth to power!
Keep on blogging so that ears may hear and eyes may be opened! THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW!
Lisa
http://blackwomenblowthetrumpet.blogspot.com
by amphibian
I added up the numbers from both lists provided: Clinton’s comes to slightly under 5 million and Obama’s about 5.2 million. Both candidates have raised well over 160 million. Obama may be over 215 million by now.
I don’t know what exactly you’re trying to say with the links you provided. A better picture would come into focus if you dug up some average contribution numbers, what states the donations are being made from and that kind of stuff.