Bloodthirsty Liberal

Aggie’s already noted that President Obama plans to pay for health care by… uh… well, taxing health care.

But (hat tip to Michael Graham) his feelings on this issue have “evolved”:

And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase — not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital-gains taxes, not any of your taxes. My opponent can’t make that pledge, and here’s why: For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits. Apparently, Senator McCain doesn’t think it’s enough that your health premiums have doubled, he thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too.

…

[Taxing your health care benefits] is so radical, so out of touch with what you’re facing, and so out of line with our basic values.

Even a stopped clock, as the saying goes…

What say you, Obamabots? He’s a lying sack of [bleep], but he’s your lying sack of [bleep]? Yeah, I’d say so.

It’s been quiet, too quiet—but we know they’re out there.

Now, they’re making their presence known:

Let’s be honest: we didn’t vote for the Barack Obama his campaign advertised. We didn’t vote for an African-American man, nor for a US senator from Illinois, nor for a father, a husband, an activist, or a young politician.

We voted for the Barack Obama we fantasized — the progressive miracle worker. We voted for Change.

…

And now, we have reason to worry that Change is not coming to America after all. For nearly two years we were encouraged to “Be the Change you want to see in America.” It is now obvious that we have a ways to go toward Being that Change. And so does President-elect Barack Obama. And that, above all else, needs to Change.

It was not the Democratic base, nor the centrists, nor even the center-left, who put Obama where he is today. The progressive movement rose from near death and kept Obama alive in the primary, eventually proving stubborn enough to carry him to victory over the Establishment candidate. And then, in the general election, it was the progressives whose energy infected the nation, whose enthusiasm reminded longtime vote-the-ticket Dems that elections were about the future, and whose contributions, tiny as each individual one was, funded the revolution of Change that swept Obama into the Oval Office.

Now is the time to hold him accountable — even before he takes the oath of office — because once he’s in there, he will be surrounded by the trappings of Power, the machinery of State, and the inertia of Bureaucracy. If we are to reach him, we must act quickly. Though he has shown us that he is not who we thought he was (for the record, we did know he wasn’t the Messiah), he has also, fortunately, shown us the way to keeping him — and our country — on the right track.

…

Progressives have a variety of objections, largely relating to flip-flops (warrantless wiretapping), climbdowns (withdrawal from Iraq and taxing the ultra-rich), and betrayals (keeping Bushies like Robert Gates and Michael Hayden anywhere near the halls of power). Many also object to a return of Clintonites, who while certainly Democrats, were hardly progressives in many areas.

I suppose it all boils down to nothing more than trying to keep all elements of a coalition happy. But the article is correct that Obama did not win by cobbling together the same old Dem coalition—the coalition that failed to elect Kerry and Gore, and even failed to give Clinton a majority in either of his election wins.

But as we’ve all learned to our great annoyance over the past eight years, an unhappy Left is a loud and whiny Left. I don’t suppose they’ll be as loud and whiny as they were under Bush—they could not possibly be more so—and we may mistake the decrease in volume as silence.

But when asks Dick Cheney if he wouldn’t mind leaving the Hammacher Schlemmer Waterboard behind—just as a cautionary reminder of the danger of abuse of power, you understand—I would expect to hear something. And sweet music it shall be.

The series has been renewed for another four years. And why not? For sheer entertainment value, nothing beats it. More plot twists than Lost; more misanthropy than House; more spectacular pratfalls than Dancing With the Stars.

Now if only we could get Kate Beckinsdale to play Madame Secretary.

The Clintons refused to tell the public who was donating millions upon millions of dollars to Billy Boy’s charitable foundation and library fund during her presidential run. But in a deal with Team Obama, this long-sought-after disclosure is apparently the price they are willing to pay to secure her Secretary of State nomination.

It will be announced on Monday, according to wire reports:

…

Donors have pledged more than $500 million for construction of the library and for the Clinton Foundation, which administers the library as well as his global anti-AIDS and sustainable development campaigns.

…

The Saudi royal family gave $10 million, according to The Washington Post, and numerous foreign governments have given $1 million.

…

These gifts raise a number of questions, particularly in the case of Giustra, who in 2005 flew with Clinton to Kazakhstan, where his connections to the former president impressed officials enough to win him a lucrative uranium mining contract. They also raise the question of what favors might be sought by other donors who don’t want to be identified.

Clinton argues that the confidentiality he promised his donors should take precedence over calls for transparency…

Ten million dollars???

George Bush merely held hands with the Saudis. What did Bill Clinton do for that kind of money—put on Monica’s blue dress and… the rest of it?

Do you suppose there’s any connection between the money and Obama’s support for the Saudi peace plan?

Oh, and get this delicious detail from the NY Times account of the deal:

The disclosure of Mr. Clinton’s full agreement on a Saturday night might have the effect of drawing less attention to it while keeping the focus Monday on Mrs. Clinton.

Talk about transparency! When the media understands and acknowledges its manipulation by politicians—and then reports that manipulation—democracy is well served.

If you bothered to read to paragraph seven, that is.

All you Obamabots who flooded our comments with anti-Hillary polemics, what say you to this news? Not only is this witch (to put it kindly—you used harsher terms) to be spokesperson for US foreign policy, but her libertine husband is part of the deal.

As Lyndon Johnson said of J. Edgar Hoover, “It’s probably better to have him inside the tent [urinating] out, than outside the tent [urinating] in.” But Obama better have a big mop to clean up all that [urine].

From the Obama website

Hard to believe our future President is this immature:

The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world - so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.

That is your weapon! “Precious” needs to get on the phone and say, “Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama…

When it comes to your family, you are Barack’s most effective advocate. There are less than two weeks left in this election. If you haven’t already talked to your family, now is the time.

If you’ve already talked to your parents and grandparents about Barack and what’s at stake in this election, let us know how it went, and what advice you would offer fellow supporters who are thinking about having the talk themselves.

Weapon? Weapon? They are so creepy.

- Aggie

A McCain supporter does not (repeat: does not) shout “Kill him!” at a rally, and everyone reports it as if he did. (The only one who seems to have heard it, according to the FBI, was the “journalist” who originally reported it.)

Meanwhile, an Obama supporter tries to put those empty words into action, and the media all of a sudden can’t find their own tongues:

“Defendant grabbed the sign [informant] was holding, broke the wood stick that was attached to it, and then struck informant in informant’s face thereby causing informant to sustain redness, swelling, and bruising to informant’s face and further causing informant to sustain substantial pain.”

An informant, huh? Well, the rat probably deserved it.

The overly formal document doesn’t mention this important detail: the victim was a small, quiet, middle-aged woman wearing glasses, and the attacker was a loud, angry man who went into orbit at the mere sight of McCain campaign signs.

…

I reached for the sign that he ripped up, and he grabbed another sign, broke it, and ripped it to shreds. And when I said, “You can’t do that,” he took the stick from the sign and started beating me on the head with it. He broke the skin on my head, he scratched my wrist, and almost broke my glasses, and then he left.

I followed him down the stairs to the subway until I could get the police and I said, “You’re not going to get away with it.” And as soon as he saw the police he immediately went calm. He still had the stick in his hand, and you could see the injury on my face, and he admitted it. He was arrested. He actually said, “I don’t know why I did this. It’s just those signs, and this election, it has me so upset.”

Forget Joe the Plumber; he sounds like Joe the Democrat political operative.

The Boston Glob ran a story this morning about vandalism to lawn signs, trying to make the case that both sides do it. While I’m sure that’s true, the ratio of Obama signs to McCain signs is like 100-1. You literally can’t take a walk around here without tripping over Obama lawn signs, which is not the same thing as vandalism. Next time I see a McCain sign I’ll take a picture so I can show my grandchildren.