As tired as I am of Hillary, and as much as I wish she would gracefully bow out, I have to say I really don't see the majority interpretations being floated here. It was quite clear to me when I watched the tape that her point was: Nomination campaigns sometimes last into June, memorable ones being her husband's (memorable because he's her husband), and RFK's (memorable because he was assassinated, in June, prior to anyone securing the nomination).

I think Hillary is quite capable of insidious, specious or veiled commentary, but it's clear to me that in this case that wasn't her intent.

Posted at May 23, 2008 6:06 PM in response to Hillary Invokes RFK Assassination While Describing Why She's Staying In Race

As Sam Seder said:

"Privatize profits, socialize losses."

That's contemporary conservative doctrine. Unfortunately, the posters who point out that the alternative may well be overall financial collapse are probably correct.

The rich get richer and in the process contribute incrementally to the building undercurrent of rage among the less privileged, and we grind on toward ... ? The socio-political convulsions of the 19th and 20th century -- and their concurrent purges, executions and mob justice -- begin to seem less and less unimaginable. That's the thing I've never understood about myopic conservative opposition to social spending and wealth distribution: History teaches grim lessons about the alternative.

Posted at April 21, 2008 2:23 PM in response to George Will Moves to the Left of the Democrats

"Bill and Hillary have risen to the top of a very competitive profession and staid there for a long time."

Yup. That sort of sums up the entire problem, and it's not Hillary. It's not Bill. It's the fact that being a political leader in this country is actually just another "competitive profession" in which success is measured in revenue. Fact is, I'm not sure we want the best leadership money can buy.

I have the same queasy feeling about Obama going from community activist (= very low income) to state legislator (= mediocre income) to senator (suddenly multimillionaire).

I know, I know ... speaking fees, boards of directors, books, blah blah blah. It still makes you wonder whether they're in it to lead for leadership's sake, or in it to lead for the payout.

Posted at April 4, 2008 8:48 PM in response to Clintons Release 2000-2006 Returns: Earned $110 Million, Paid $33 Million In Taxes

I LOVE the athlete comparison! So great! I mean, after all, shouldn't any well known public figure's compensation be comparable to ... professional athletes or movie stars?

But let's break it down: Athletes get paid for ... what? Putting butts in seats. Selling products. There's always a lot of roaring about how overpaid they are, but the fact is, people show up, buy tickets, to see Earnhardt drive ... people buy the shoes Kobe promotes. It's shocking, but people fill the theater to watch a freaking Adam Sandler movie, they buy the DVDs. You think Tiger hasn't had a net impact on the bottom line for Nike's golf products??? He IS the bloody golf product!

All of which begs the question, beyond the book money, which is an obvious product, just what is all the income FOR? If you pay Bill $500,000 to give an hour speech, and you're not selling 20,000 tickets for $50 a pop, what's the ROI?

Posted at April 4, 2008 8:31 PM in response to Clintons Release 2000-2006 Returns: Earned $110 Million, Paid $33 Million In Taxes

LostwithAmerica: Let me get this straight.

Obama spent a few years abroad as a child, in an Islamic country, therefore we should be suspicious of him.

You spend 60% of your time abroad, apparently frequently in Islamic countries ...

ergo, you must be a terrorist.

Someone contact the CIA.

Posted at February 10, 2008 2:47 PM in response to Obama Campaign: Tonight's Sweep Puts Us Ahead In Delegates