This election’s outcome, even more than the campaign leading up to it, will be transformational on multiple levels. Here’s a story illustrating just how much, at least on one level.
Remember Michelle Obama’s story about a 10 year old girl who told her that if Barack Obama wins, “it will be historical”?
I find these stories really compelling.
Of course, there are many other reasons to vote for Obama, as noted on this blog and many others. The war in Iraq, the economy, healthcare, global warming, education, incompetence in general (remember Hurricane Katrina?), torture, the shredding of the constitution, warrantless wiretapping of Americans en masse, the abrogations of signed international treaties, contempt for the rule of law—take your pick (or add your own to the list—it’s almost endless). Dick Cheney endorsed John McCain today, thereby reminding everyone with a brain that the latter really does represent, in multiple ways, a continuation of the disasters perpetrated by the administration of the former for the past 8 years. Obama wasted no time, taking full advantage of that to remind us all, once again, what's truly at stake in this election.
For God's sakes vote—but also do phone calling, travel to a battleground state, do anything you possibly can to get Obama supporters to the polls! I’m going to PA to canvass voters from Sunday through Tuesday. I’ve been arguing for years that we who live in a safe Democratic state (NY) should go to other states to do this stuff. Now that the opportunity has arisen, I’d feel like the biggest hypocrite in the world if I didn’t act on my beliefs. For the first time in my life, we have a candidate whose campaign has been predicated on ideas I truly believe in & who has rhetorically grounded his candidacy in the principles embedded in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution (as amended) & Lincoln’s second inaugural. If you feel the way I do about this election, ask yourself this: If I don’t do everything I can to a candidate I genuinely support into the White House, when will I ever get another such chance in my life?
Let’s make this happen! The future of our country and our planet are at stake!
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
We're All Socialists Now
Hendrick Hertzberg outlines the absurdities inherent in the charges of “socialism” leveled by the usual suspects against Barack Obama.
(H/T to Josh Marshall)
(H/T to Josh Marshall)
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
It's a River in Egypt
A mysterious interlocutor identified only as “b” has responded to my calm, measured, thoughtful post on the Obama website suggesting that we kill the GOP brand by directing me to an opinion piece on the Daily News website by one Jamie Kirchick, evidently a writer for The New Republic (where do they find them?).
Kirchick claims that
Is he asserting that accusations against the neocons are implicit attacks on Jews? Neoconservativism is a well-established ideology, and its acolytes have had a major role in developing the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush administration. That’s a simple matter of record. Is Kirchick attempting to deny it? That many of the neocons happen to be Jewish I regard as a source of great embarrassment, as should anyone who looks carefully at the record and recognizes the gigantic damage those arrogant clowns have caused this country and the world. To twist the well-deserved condemnations of the neocons into a threadbare excuse to change the subject by crying antisemitism is, I suppose, predictable in the sense that the people who got us into Iraq have been anything but honest about their responsibility for the disasters they’ve caused, but it’s certainly not convincing.
Kirchick attempts to accuse Joe Klein of antisemitism, which is kind of silly, given that Klein is Jewish himself and has stated clearly his own support for Israel in the very post being cited, as well as in this followup to it. Klein is making a serious argument that right wingers have tried to suppress by drowning it out with the antisemitism charge. Daniel Levi has an expansion on that argument here. Has Kirchick forgotten that it was considered axiomatic among such neoconservatives as Richard Perle (he of Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans, for those suffering from amnesia) that the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad? Joe Klein didn't make that up.
Kirchick goes on to raise the various mentions of Nazism and fascism as supposed examples of hate speech, when in fact they all refer to the charming combination of hypermilitarism, hypernationalism, action for action's sake, corporatism, contempt for civil liberties, contempt for democracy and anti-intellectualism that William F. Buckley himself long ago identified as key components of fascism, all of which are easily identifiable elements of the Bush-Cheney (and neocon) world view and resultant policies. If Kirchick and his ideological soulmates don’t like being identified as such, maybe they ought to take a good look in the mirror and change their thinking. Their ideology is pernicious and we all have the proof.
Kirchick writes
Pardon me for finding preposterous a comparison between comments of bloggers and those of the leading GOP candidates. It is precisely the fact that a long series of sleazy comments impuning the patriotism of their opponents and insinuating evil motives to Obama are coming from McCain and Palin themselves that is so astonishing and troubling. Please don’t try to tell me that bloggers have influence in any way commensurate with that of the top candidates of one of the two major political parties. That dog won’t hunt. And what the hell does a book of fiction by Nicholson Baker have to do with any of this? He’s not involved in the campaign at all, as far as I know. His book came out 4 years ago. What’s Kirchick smoking? And the last time I looked, Fox was nobody’s idea of a liberal media outlet. Boo hoo—a cartoon depicted McCain & Palin as Nazis—or anything, for that matter. Does Kirchick seriously intend to claim equivalence between this and cries of "kill him" at McCain-Palin rallies?
Regarding Kirchick’s attempt to depict the situation as one of rough equivalence between two opposing groups of campaign supporters (thereby, as usual, attempting to obscure the crucial difference that on the GOP side, the rot starts at the top), read this & see if any of it sounds familiar.
I reiterate: The GOP has a history of hate-mongering and character assassination that is unparalleled in modern American political history.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Kirchick's piece can also be seen as a mistimed attempt to restart the sputtering GOP outrage industry, something that was running on high gear until McCain won the GOP nomination. A few months ago, Kirchick could have depended on a great deal of synchronized huffing and puffing about the perfidy of liberals to drown out complaints from those liberals about insinuations of treason issuing directly from the top of the GOP ticket. Now, however, Kirchick’s gambit simply looks desperate—and more than a little absurd. The entire country has seen the two candidates side by side, with McCain grimacing, refusing to look at Obama or address him by name, ping ponging from campaign suspension to photo op to campaign suspension while Obama has remained calm and steady. The polls now show a popular verdict on the two candidates’ choices of running mates, and it is clearly to the advantage of Obama. The result is that McCain is increasingly seen as risky, and Obama the candidate of security. In that context, hyperventilating about the outrageous conduct of liberals comes off as a giant nonsequitur.
For anyone in need of a humor break, here’s a great post on the GOP outrage machine by Michael Kinsley from a little over a year ago. (Its original title, “How Dare You,” was much better than the one on the Time website.)
Kirchick claims that
“[a] not insignificant portion of liberals in this country believe that a small group of Jews, er, the "neocons," took control of the government following 9/11 to fight wars on behalf of Israel. Is not this slander as odious as the Internet rumors about Barack Obama?”
Is he asserting that accusations against the neocons are implicit attacks on Jews? Neoconservativism is a well-established ideology, and its acolytes have had a major role in developing the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush administration. That’s a simple matter of record. Is Kirchick attempting to deny it? That many of the neocons happen to be Jewish I regard as a source of great embarrassment, as should anyone who looks carefully at the record and recognizes the gigantic damage those arrogant clowns have caused this country and the world. To twist the well-deserved condemnations of the neocons into a threadbare excuse to change the subject by crying antisemitism is, I suppose, predictable in the sense that the people who got us into Iraq have been anything but honest about their responsibility for the disasters they’ve caused, but it’s certainly not convincing.
Kirchick attempts to accuse Joe Klein of antisemitism, which is kind of silly, given that Klein is Jewish himself and has stated clearly his own support for Israel in the very post being cited, as well as in this followup to it. Klein is making a serious argument that right wingers have tried to suppress by drowning it out with the antisemitism charge. Daniel Levi has an expansion on that argument here. Has Kirchick forgotten that it was considered axiomatic among such neoconservatives as Richard Perle (he of Douglas Feith's Office of Special Plans, for those suffering from amnesia) that the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad? Joe Klein didn't make that up.
Kirchick goes on to raise the various mentions of Nazism and fascism as supposed examples of hate speech, when in fact they all refer to the charming combination of hypermilitarism, hypernationalism, action for action's sake, corporatism, contempt for civil liberties, contempt for democracy and anti-intellectualism that William F. Buckley himself long ago identified as key components of fascism, all of which are easily identifiable elements of the Bush-Cheney (and neocon) world view and resultant policies. If Kirchick and his ideological soulmates don’t like being identified as such, maybe they ought to take a good look in the mirror and change their thinking. Their ideology is pernicious and we all have the proof.
Kirchick writes
“Have the journalists now bemoaning the low tactics of the McCain campaign and its supporters never set eyes upon the wildly popular Huffington Post? That Web site hosts countless angry rants, many examples of which are too vulgar to document in a family newspaper. In 2004, Nicholson Baker wrote a novel imagining the assassination of President Bush. Last week, Fox's "Family Guy" depicted Nazis donning McCain-Palin buttons.”
Pardon me for finding preposterous a comparison between comments of bloggers and those of the leading GOP candidates. It is precisely the fact that a long series of sleazy comments impuning the patriotism of their opponents and insinuating evil motives to Obama are coming from McCain and Palin themselves that is so astonishing and troubling. Please don’t try to tell me that bloggers have influence in any way commensurate with that of the top candidates of one of the two major political parties. That dog won’t hunt. And what the hell does a book of fiction by Nicholson Baker have to do with any of this? He’s not involved in the campaign at all, as far as I know. His book came out 4 years ago. What’s Kirchick smoking? And the last time I looked, Fox was nobody’s idea of a liberal media outlet. Boo hoo—a cartoon depicted McCain & Palin as Nazis—or anything, for that matter. Does Kirchick seriously intend to claim equivalence between this and cries of "kill him" at McCain-Palin rallies?
Regarding Kirchick’s attempt to depict the situation as one of rough equivalence between two opposing groups of campaign supporters (thereby, as usual, attempting to obscure the crucial difference that on the GOP side, the rot starts at the top), read this & see if any of it sounds familiar.
I reiterate: The GOP has a history of hate-mongering and character assassination that is unparalleled in modern American political history.
UPDATE: On the other hand, Kirchick's piece can also be seen as a mistimed attempt to restart the sputtering GOP outrage industry, something that was running on high gear until McCain won the GOP nomination. A few months ago, Kirchick could have depended on a great deal of synchronized huffing and puffing about the perfidy of liberals to drown out complaints from those liberals about insinuations of treason issuing directly from the top of the GOP ticket. Now, however, Kirchick’s gambit simply looks desperate—and more than a little absurd. The entire country has seen the two candidates side by side, with McCain grimacing, refusing to look at Obama or address him by name, ping ponging from campaign suspension to photo op to campaign suspension while Obama has remained calm and steady. The polls now show a popular verdict on the two candidates’ choices of running mates, and it is clearly to the advantage of Obama. The result is that McCain is increasingly seen as risky, and Obama the candidate of security. In that context, hyperventilating about the outrageous conduct of liberals comes off as a giant nonsequitur.
For anyone in need of a humor break, here’s a great post on the GOP outrage machine by Michael Kinsley from a little over a year ago. (Its original title, “How Dare You,” was much better than the one on the Time website.)
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Obama Responds to McCain's Return to Smears
Here's the Obama campaign's latest ad in response to the McCain campaign's return to attempts to divert public attention from the issues via character assassination:
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Forest for the Trees
On September 20, Factcheck.org posted an item claiming that Barack Obama lied when claiming that current retirees would have lost their savings had they been dependent on private retirement accounts invested in the stock market, which are a feature of John McCain's Social Security plan. The Factcheck.org charge is accurate in terms of current retirees, but misleading in terms of the long-term implications of McCain’s plan, which would, in fact, result in the unraveling of the Social Security system.
And here are the likely economic consequences.
Dean Baker comments on McCain’s plan to privatize Social Security.
Here’s a post by hilzoy on McCain’s Social Security plan.
Here’s a Reuters article on how the numbers in McCain’s economic proposals don’t add up. The quote by Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation carries implications for the logic of privatization in the context of the economic cross-pressures inherent in the McCain proposals.
In theory, the individual accounts would supplement traditional benefits. But that assumes a perpetually rising stock market. Oops...
In this Wall Street Journal article, McCain emphasizes his support for the Bush plan, including individual retirement accounts.
Here are his campaign’s position statements on Social Security.
Given the likely consequences of McCain’s plan, it’s easy to see why he claims that it doesn’t amount to privatization.
Here's more on those claims.
Another post outlining McCain’s history of support for Social Security privatization.
Ezra Klein outlines the implications of McCain’s denunciation of Wall Street and his promotion of Social Security privatization.
I suppose the most charitable interpretation of McCain’s comments is that by ‘privatization’, he means complete replacement of Social Security by private accounts. In this interpretation of his denials, McCain is speaking the truth in that his intention is to carve out a portion of the Social Security tax pie for use in individual accounts, while leaving the remainder in the traditional Social Security plan. (That, of course, would have to ignore his own comments in support of Bush’s plan in which he specifically supported privatization.) However, this interpretation only holds true if one ignores the long-term consequences of McCain’s plan.
In the short term, McCain’s plan does not represent a complete replacement of Social Security with individual accounts. By weakening the financing of traditional Social Security, however, McCain’s plan has the net effect of strengthening the argument, further along the line, for the privatization alternative by decreasing the current system’s viability.
Given McCain’s previously unambiguous support for privatization and the probable long-term effects of his current plan, is it really unfair to assume that complete privatization in the long run is McCain’s true intent? Or should we just assume that, as with so many other things economic, McCain simply doesn’t understand the implications of his own plan?
At any rate, it should be clear from the above that, aside from the issues already discussed, factcheck.org would render far more accurate analyses were it to bring a broader scope to its considerations of the truth or falsehood of a given statement. In this case, they have succeeded in simultaneously illuminating and obscuring.
- Factcheck.org asserts that Obama misled Floridians in saying that McCain would put their Social Security benefits on the stock market.
- McCain’s plan is based on the original Bush plan, which would only have changed the Social Security benefits of retirees born on or after 1950. Both plans would put part of the Social Security tax of those born in 1950 or later into an individual fund sort of like a 401k, which could then be invested in the stock market as part of a mutual fund managed by some unspecified Wall Street investment firm.
- In terms of current retirees, then, Obama’s statement was misleading.
- However, the consequences of the McCain plan for those of us born on or after 1950 are another story altogether:
- Due to the ciphoning off of part of the Social Security tax of individuals 58 years old or younger into individual accounts, financing of Social Security would be undermined.
- Traditional Social Security benefits for those still in the plan would thus decrease compared to what’s currently available.
- Relatively affluent retirees would thus leave the traditional program, and younger workers with the means would opt for individual accounts, further draining financial contributions from the Social Security system.
- The result in the medium term would be a bifurcated system of social insurance with affluent retirees and workers opting out of the Social Security system and poorer retirees remaining in the traditional system, which would be increasingly unable to support their needs.
- In the long run, the traditional system would prove untenable.
And here are the likely economic consequences.
Dean Baker comments on McCain’s plan to privatize Social Security.
Here’s a post by hilzoy on McCain’s Social Security plan.
Here’s a Reuters article on how the numbers in McCain’s economic proposals don’t add up. The quote by Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation carries implications for the logic of privatization in the context of the economic cross-pressures inherent in the McCain proposals.
In theory, the individual accounts would supplement traditional benefits. But that assumes a perpetually rising stock market. Oops...
In this Wall Street Journal article, McCain emphasizes his support for the Bush plan, including individual retirement accounts.
Here are his campaign’s position statements on Social Security.
Given the likely consequences of McCain’s plan, it’s easy to see why he claims that it doesn’t amount to privatization.
Here's more on those claims.
Another post outlining McCain’s history of support for Social Security privatization.
Ezra Klein outlines the implications of McCain’s denunciation of Wall Street and his promotion of Social Security privatization.
I suppose the most charitable interpretation of McCain’s comments is that by ‘privatization’, he means complete replacement of Social Security by private accounts. In this interpretation of his denials, McCain is speaking the truth in that his intention is to carve out a portion of the Social Security tax pie for use in individual accounts, while leaving the remainder in the traditional Social Security plan. (That, of course, would have to ignore his own comments in support of Bush’s plan in which he specifically supported privatization.) However, this interpretation only holds true if one ignores the long-term consequences of McCain’s plan.
In the short term, McCain’s plan does not represent a complete replacement of Social Security with individual accounts. By weakening the financing of traditional Social Security, however, McCain’s plan has the net effect of strengthening the argument, further along the line, for the privatization alternative by decreasing the current system’s viability.
Given McCain’s previously unambiguous support for privatization and the probable long-term effects of his current plan, is it really unfair to assume that complete privatization in the long run is McCain’s true intent? Or should we just assume that, as with so many other things economic, McCain simply doesn’t understand the implications of his own plan?
At any rate, it should be clear from the above that, aside from the issues already discussed, factcheck.org would render far more accurate analyses were it to bring a broader scope to its considerations of the truth or falsehood of a given statement. In this case, they have succeeded in simultaneously illuminating and obscuring.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Hurricane Katrina, Economic Version
I've scoured the web for commentary by economists and others on the collapse of the U.S. finance industry (and economy in general) so you don't have to:
Background
Brad DeLong: Mark Thoma Is a Leading Indicator
Economist’s View (Mark Thoma): An Overview of the Crisis and What to Do about It (
Paul Krugman: Crisis Endgame
Brad DeLong: Thoughts on the Big Buyout
Thomas Palley: The Liquidation Trap
Econobrowser (Menzie Chinn): Some Observations on the Ongoing Crisis: Causes and Opportunity Cost Again
Brad DeLong: Understanding the Three Ways of Dealing with Financial Crises
Capital Gains and Games (Andrew Samwick): The Ownership Society, International Edition
Paulson’s bailout proposal
Calculated Risk: Bailout Proposal
Objections to the Paulson bailout plan
Daily Kos (gjohnsit): What in the Hell Just Happened?
emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler): No
Glenn Greenwald: The complete (though ever-changing) elite consensus over the financial collapse
Paul Krugman: No Deal
Mark Kleiman: Paulson Channels Cheney
Tyler Cowen: Luigi Zingales on the Paulson Bailout—Kazow!
Capital Gains and Games (Andrew Samwick): Financial Frustration
The Edge of the American West: New Deal or No Deal
Matt Stoller: If a Legal Armed Robbery Happens in Front of Everyone, Does It Make a Sound?
Alternatives
Dean Baker: Progressive Conditions for a Bailout
Matthew Yglesias: Mallaby: This Deal Stinks
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
Straight Talk Simulacra
McCain calls his campaign “the Straight Talk Express.”
McCain has completely reversed his position on almost every issue except support for the war in Iraq and opposition to abortion:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
He has deliberately and systematically misrepresented Barack Obama’s views on a multitude of issues.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/1842/82920
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/soft_on_iran.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_obama.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
Having campaigned on a claim to experience far superior to that of Obama, he has chosen as his running mate a person with absolutely no relevant experience or expertise for the position. A heartbeat away. With little or no prior vetting, apparently.
His chosen running mate gave a speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday in which she repeatedly misrepresented Barack Obama’s record and attitudes, as well as her own.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/ap-attacks-praise-stretch_n_123771.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/09/calling-bullshit.html
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/open-thread-rnc.html
Now it turns out that even the photographs of black people used by the McCain campaign as part of the backdrop at their convention were purchased stock photography.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/5/153224/4904/749/588112
I’ve long marveled at the expertise with which the GOP obscures its agenda and distracts voters from the nature of its governance. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many in the GOP railed against the supposedly sinister influence of postmodernists on college campuses. By now it should be obvious to everyone that the GOP is the true party of postmodernism. How anyone can believe anything they say is beyond me.
McCain has completely reversed his position on almost every issue except support for the war in Iraq and opposition to abortion:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
He has deliberately and systematically misrepresented Barack Obama’s views on a multitude of issues.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/1842/82920
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/soft_on_iran.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_obama.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
Having campaigned on a claim to experience far superior to that of Obama, he has chosen as his running mate a person with absolutely no relevant experience or expertise for the position. A heartbeat away. With little or no prior vetting, apparently.
His chosen running mate gave a speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday in which she repeatedly misrepresented Barack Obama’s record and attitudes, as well as her own.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/ap-attacks-praise-stretch_n_123771.html
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/09/palin_v_reality.php
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/09/calling-bullshit.html
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/open-thread-rnc.html
Now it turns out that even the photographs of black people used by the McCain campaign as part of the backdrop at their convention were purchased stock photography.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/5/153224/4904/749/588112
I’ve long marveled at the expertise with which the GOP obscures its agenda and distracts voters from the nature of its governance. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many in the GOP railed against the supposedly sinister influence of postmodernists on college campuses. By now it should be obvious to everyone that the GOP is the true party of postmodernism. How anyone can believe anything they say is beyond me.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Hoax e-mail Campaign Targets Obama Tax Policies
An e-mail is spreading around claiming falsely that Barack Obama will raise a bunch of different taxes substantially. This, of course, is a standard charge leveled by the GOP against Democrats every election.
To get an accurate picture of Obama’s tax plans, see the Tax Foundation’s Tax Policy blog.
Another honest analysis, by the Tax Policy Center of The Urban Institute and Brookings Institution is here.
Lastly, FactCheck.org debunks the e-mail’s claims in detail.
Steve Benen noted today that the McCain campaign is —ahem—incentivizing e-mail spamming by its acolytes in an effort to add some kind of spark to his campaign. I imagine these comments come from independent actors—even the increasingly sleazy McCain campaign probably wouldn’t want to be directly associated with charges as outrageously cheap as these—but certainly the McCain campaign’s efforts to encourage trolls add fuel to this kind of fire.
By the way, the e-mail ends by saying “[a]ccording to Nancy Pelosi we also need to increase Social Security payroll deductions FICA so illegals dont [sic] have to pay but can take it back home with them and retire in luxury.” The gratuitous shot at immigrants I suppose is the cherry on top of this rich Sundae of dishonesty. That alone should be a glaring clue to uninformed recipients that the e-mail is bogus.
The version I read claimed to be from one Sharon M. Valois, apparently an employee of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island, which credential I suppose is intended to give the claims an air of authority.
Do your country and planet a favor—spread the links above as widely as you can.
To get an accurate picture of Obama’s tax plans, see the Tax Foundation’s Tax Policy blog.
Another honest analysis, by the Tax Policy Center of The Urban Institute and Brookings Institution is here.
Lastly, FactCheck.org debunks the e-mail’s claims in detail.
Steve Benen noted today that the McCain campaign is —ahem—incentivizing e-mail spamming by its acolytes in an effort to add some kind of spark to his campaign. I imagine these comments come from independent actors—even the increasingly sleazy McCain campaign probably wouldn’t want to be directly associated with charges as outrageously cheap as these—but certainly the McCain campaign’s efforts to encourage trolls add fuel to this kind of fire.
By the way, the e-mail ends by saying “[a]ccording to Nancy Pelosi we also need to increase Social Security payroll deductions FICA so illegals dont [sic] have to pay but can take it back home with them and retire in luxury.” The gratuitous shot at immigrants I suppose is the cherry on top of this rich Sundae of dishonesty. That alone should be a glaring clue to uninformed recipients that the e-mail is bogus.
The version I read claimed to be from one Sharon M. Valois, apparently an employee of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island, which credential I suppose is intended to give the claims an air of authority.
Do your country and planet a favor—spread the links above as widely as you can.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
What is Reality?
First there was the McCain ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears. In addition, the McCain campaign mocked Obama for his suggestion that people inflate their car tires to the recommended pressure.
Then Obama responded with a deft application of humor.
Now Paris Hilton has responded as well. And the funny thing is that she makes more sense than McCain. She's funnier, too (although that's setting the bar pretty low, I admit).
What a strange campaign this is...
Then Obama responded with a deft application of humor.
Now Paris Hilton has responded as well. And the funny thing is that she makes more sense than McCain. She's funnier, too (although that's setting the bar pretty low, I admit).
What a strange campaign this is...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
