About This Blog
Last night, during round 20 of the Democratic pseudo-debates in Cleveland (which I nickname RABID MSNBC DOGS ATTACK HILLARY), Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sparred about health care, NAFTA, and Iraq. It was absolutely (yawn) electrifying. The candidates staked out their clear differences on the issues. In summary:
Hillary is for universal health care. Obama is for universal health care.
Hillary wants to renegotiate NAFTA. Obama wants to renegotiate NAFTA.
Hillary wants to pull the troops out of Iraq. Obama wants to pull the troops out of Iraq.
Note the subtle policy differences. You'll have to look closely, because they are very nuanced. These are two very smart Ivy league graduates here. If you are just a regular person, it's probably over your head, and you should just vote for the person the media tells you to vote for. That would be best. Resistance is futile. In other words, Vote for Obama. Vote for Obama. Vote for Obama.
Rather than listen to candidates who agree about absolutely everything pretend to argue, I propose that Barack and Hillary become co-presidents since they are the same person, politically speaking. It would be unfair to choose one over the other, and picking only one would probably be harmful to the loser's self esteem. No self-respecting liberal would want that, right ? That would be mean, fascist, and way harsh. Sounds like something Dick Cheney would do. Hillary even has prior experience as co-president. She will be ready on day one, and then Barack could take day two, after Hillary gives him the White House tour. Following that, they could alternate days, with each getting two weekends off per month - with pay, of course. As an additional bonus, we'd get the first black president AND the first woman president at the same time ! History in the making, times two. Maybe Hillary would even return the White House silverware the Clintons stole on the way out the door in 2001. It's win-win folks, except for you taxpayers. Unfortunately for you, Hillary and Obama are both liberal Democrats, and will most likely have a Democratic-led Congress. Bend over. The Dems will be "investing" in all kinds of stuff to "help" you. Translated, that means you'll be broke, but what a small price to pay for all that history-making. Don't be so selfish. It's only money.
Ohio has become a major battleground in the Democratic primaries. The Democratic presidential nomination may hinge on who wins Ohio. As a result, both Dems have discovered they are against NAFTA, much more against it than they ever were before, as a matter of fact. And when they are talking to a group of blue collar Ohio factory workers, the candidates find they HATE NAFTA with a passion, and always have (except for when they were quoted saying NAFTA was beneficial. Ignore the man behind the curtain).
Here's Barack Obama speaking about NAFTA a few days ago:
"Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America. Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America - and I never have."
Here's Barack Obama speaking about NAFTA a couple weeks ago:
"It's a game [the Washington status quo] where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart".
Now, the merits of NAFTA are definitely a subject for debate, and maybe I'm not a smart Ivy league grad like Mr. Obama, but I'm pretty sure about one thing. NAFTA, a free trade agreement between Canada, the USA, and Mexico, isn't responsible for any jobs being shipped overseas. Those 3 countries are all part of the same land mass, North America, and there are no seas between them. I learned a little something in 5th grade geography class, in between passing notes to my puppy love Wendy.
Obama also voted to expand NAFTA into Peru, a move not supported by the AFL-CIO, and a pretty bizarre move for someone who claims he was always against NAFTA.
And there's the rub. Obama WASN'T always against NAFTA, unless by "always" he means "always since I set foot in Ohio in 2008 needing to be against it to win Ohio and secure the Democratic presidential nomination". Maybe it's like Bill Clinton's definition of the word "is", you know, malleable.
Here's Obama talking about NAFTA in 2004, according to AP:
"NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States." His comments, as reported in 2004, were that NAFTA had brought enormous benefits to his state.
Thats called doin' the NAFTA hustle.
- 2013 (55)
- 2012 (125)
- 2011 (167)
- 2010 (185)
- 2009 (228)
- 2008 (195)
- 2007 (72)