Apology #x: People hate her "ambition" because she's a woman and because the media has been bashing her unfairly for years!"
OK, so the media has bashed her over the years - boo-freaking-hoo. Some of it was unfair, probably an early edition of the "liberal media" revving up the post-Fairness Doctrine age. But you know, if she fought FOR something (anything!) that wasn't an unmitigated disaster, maybe she wouldn't be such easy prey for the MSM. Her meticulous diddling with words and overly-rehearsed, poll-driven answers that haven't a shred of spontaneity make her unlikeable - and her positions on issues like flag burning, Iraq, et. al. don't help (except to try to appeal to the extremist right wing).
I haven't done the homework to prove it, but I'm pretty comfortable suggesting that one of the leaders of the HRC bashing was Rupert Murdoch and his legion of jackals. So what does HRC do to confront this injustice? Sucks up to him, hangs out at Faux News HQ for a while, and begs for money! She's getting cash from the people who "bashed" her.... that either tells you that she's a complete, total, transparent sell-out whore, or she doesn't care at all about the bashing. My money is all on the former, of course.
But why did the bashing begin in earnest anyway? I recall the last BIG uproar to be the time she decided to move to New York - a place where I can't find any record of her ever living before (she was born in Illinois and schooled in Mass.). Every media outlet in the nation jumped right on the boldface, obvious, transparent plan - win a Senate seat in a near-term election in a safely liberal state, then make the move for Prez in 2008. People of every political stripe saw what she was doing. Sadly, too many Dems have conveniently forgotten this matter. It was like everything else she does, calculated, risk-averse, and hollow.
So in summary, 1). she has NOT, on the whole, been unfairly skewered in the media. She brought much of it on herself. And 2). her ambition is up for grabs in the media and elsewhere because few candidates for high office have gone so far as to move to snag a Senate seat in a state to which they really have no ties in a telegraphed move that everyone could see from a mile away. Your apology is crap.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Pathetic
So now there's finally a big push to find out what candidates think about ways to address global warming and energy in general. The League of Conservation Voters (www.lcv.org) has released a scorecard with a few of their policy points.
Unsurprisingly, Clinton and Obama, the Democratic warriors for our suffering corporate elite, are the weakest (ok, so that is under the proviso that we exclude former Senator Gravel from the list as he is virtually incoherent on the matter). MoveOn has sponsored an odd town hall-type thing where the candidates can discuss their policies, the transcript of which can be found here.
To me, on this issue, Obama is the biggest loser of the candidates. The cap system of which he speaks has been used from the 70s to deal with trading air pollutants within EPA-established regions in the US. Clearly, this system has been a complete and total failure, otherwise, we'd have much cleaner air and all metropolitan areas tracked by the EPA would be in Attainment. They're not. And when you realize how much of the pollution hasn't been moved around within metro areas - but over borders to China and Mexico (because it's easier to move your plants there than it is to figure out how to buy pollution credits), where they REALLY know how to belch filth into the sky - the global impact of the entire policy of which he bases his emissions shell game has been nearly cataclysmic. Not coincidentally, many plants have closed up in the US in order to move overseas. Some of them HAVE sold their pollution credits to other companies - which is a financial windfall/bonus - helping to subsidize the exportation of US jobs.
Wow, we gotta get us more of THAT, right?!
Does anyone actually believe that China will give a crap about caps? Are they gonna dump billions of dollars into that program? Will third world countries even be able to try to buy into it? Do you?!?! Bottom line, no one will globalize the control of their smokestacks - period.
Obama's concept doesn't only sound weak and feel impractical, it's the environmental equivalent of proposing in 2007 a new "trickle-down" economic policy. Been there, done that, f-d up everything! I don't know if it's stupid, misleading, the apex of borderline psychotic optimism, or some combination thereof.
I've been cold toward Clinton, mainly because she's as phony as Joan Rivers' cheeks (all 4 of them). She's in it to win it, as they say, and that's it. But Obama's energy and environmental policy - probably the two momentous issues of our age - are simply a recipe for total and complete disaster. The best he can hope to achieve is a few years of begging for everyone to buy into the plan and then after realizing that it's not going to work, give up and adopt a plan that actually might have a prayer of working.
Worse, I doubt he came up with this stupid plan on his own. I say this because I wouldn't know much at all about the topic of pollution credits if I had not been elected locally to help scuttle a plan to build another fossil-fuel burning power plant in a region that exports a massive amount of the power that its plant generate. Unless he's been personally involved in issues like that in Illinois, he can't have known how the system works. He asked someone to make it for him. And given how comfortably he trots this foolhardy idea to the public, he clearly has total faith... in fools.
Sound like anyone else we know in DC?
Unsurprisingly, Clinton and Obama, the Democratic warriors for our suffering corporate elite, are the weakest (ok, so that is under the proviso that we exclude former Senator Gravel from the list as he is virtually incoherent on the matter). MoveOn has sponsored an odd town hall-type thing where the candidates can discuss their policies, the transcript of which can be found here.
To me, on this issue, Obama is the biggest loser of the candidates. The cap system of which he speaks has been used from the 70s to deal with trading air pollutants within EPA-established regions in the US. Clearly, this system has been a complete and total failure, otherwise, we'd have much cleaner air and all metropolitan areas tracked by the EPA would be in Attainment. They're not. And when you realize how much of the pollution hasn't been moved around within metro areas - but over borders to China and Mexico (because it's easier to move your plants there than it is to figure out how to buy pollution credits), where they REALLY know how to belch filth into the sky - the global impact of the entire policy of which he bases his emissions shell game has been nearly cataclysmic. Not coincidentally, many plants have closed up in the US in order to move overseas. Some of them HAVE sold their pollution credits to other companies - which is a financial windfall/bonus - helping to subsidize the exportation of US jobs.
Wow, we gotta get us more of THAT, right?!
Does anyone actually believe that China will give a crap about caps? Are they gonna dump billions of dollars into that program? Will third world countries even be able to try to buy into it? Do you?!?! Bottom line, no one will globalize the control of their smokestacks - period.
Obama's concept doesn't only sound weak and feel impractical, it's the environmental equivalent of proposing in 2007 a new "trickle-down" economic policy. Been there, done that, f-d up everything! I don't know if it's stupid, misleading, the apex of borderline psychotic optimism, or some combination thereof.
I've been cold toward Clinton, mainly because she's as phony as Joan Rivers' cheeks (all 4 of them). She's in it to win it, as they say, and that's it. But Obama's energy and environmental policy - probably the two momentous issues of our age - are simply a recipe for total and complete disaster. The best he can hope to achieve is a few years of begging for everyone to buy into the plan and then after realizing that it's not going to work, give up and adopt a plan that actually might have a prayer of working.
Worse, I doubt he came up with this stupid plan on his own. I say this because I wouldn't know much at all about the topic of pollution credits if I had not been elected locally to help scuttle a plan to build another fossil-fuel burning power plant in a region that exports a massive amount of the power that its plant generate. Unless he's been personally involved in issues like that in Illinois, he can't have known how the system works. He asked someone to make it for him. And given how comfortably he trots this foolhardy idea to the public, he clearly has total faith... in fools.
Sound like anyone else we know in DC?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)