Villifying Wall Street is uber chic in the Age of Obama. The campaign money was great, but now Wall Street is the symbol of all that is wrong in this brave new Obama world and they must be punished.
Since 1998, the financial sector has given a total of $37.6 million to Obama, compared to $32.1 million to McCain. But Obama ran for his first national office only in 2004. So McCain got less from the financial industry in a decade that included two runs for president than Obama did in four years.
As we’ve seen in recent weeks, Wall Street gets what it pays for. Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd included language in the stimulus bill allowing executives of the bailed-out banks to collect million-dollar bonuses.
And yet the Democrats’ endless favors for their Wall Street friends never sticks to them because everyone treats Democrats’ shilling for their own contributors as if it’s a Nixon-goes-to-China moment.
Here’s the thing – the Obama administration didn’t fully intend to throw their generous benefactors under the bus, not at all. For goodness sakes, the Obama administration arranged to keep the AIG bonuses in the bailout in the first place then feigned ignorance (not a lot of acting involved) when it became public.
Of course now it’s ultra cool to board a charter and take a rich-hunt tour of the AIG executive homes just to taunt them. Please take note that Obama has not condemned such actions – in fact, he’s eerily silent. Contrast that to President Bush asking Americans not to take out our anger after 9/11 on Muslims in America.
The Brownshirts are supposed to be knocking at your door today!
Just in case you doubted that President Obama is still in campaign mode:
Seriously? We will be asked to sign a pledge to President Obama? Does this not concern anyone?
Well, my personal plan (should a lovely volunteer approach me) is to engage the Obamabot in conversation. Perhaps I’ll discuss Obama’s appearance on Jay Leno and how it upset me, a mother of a child with Down syndrome, that our president so easily, so casually, was able to make a joke at my son’s expense. Perhaps I will discuss the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and how Barack Obama was able to hear testimony about how a baby with Down syndrome was born alive after an abortion and left to die on a shelf and Obama was still able to coldly vote against the act. Perhaps we’ll discuss exactly what s/he is doing asking me to sign a pledge of loyalty?
I will take up the volunteer’s time because time spent with me is time taken away from getting other people to pledge their souls away.
Operation Disorganizing for America – engage the volunteers for as long as you can and waste their time. Be cordial, be informative and be strong.
Ahhhh, the unholy union of John Edwards and the irrepressible Amanda Marcotte. No, it’s not a marriage – just one of the moonbattiest bloggers reporting for duty as John Edwards’ blogmaster.
This is both my first post to the Edwards blog and my announcement that I’m joining the presidential campaign for John Edwards for 2008. I’ll be taking over the job of Blogmaster (mistress?) over the course of the month of February.
The main two questions this brings up are: Why me? And why John Edwards?
Yes, indeed, why you? Do you have something on Edwards?
So Mr. Edwards – who is this lovely woman you have managing your blog?
One thing I vow here and now–you motherf*&#$rs who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f*&$ without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf*&#$rs. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.
Okay, so would it be considered “irony” that Ms. Marcotte is “not going to be ‘punished’ with babies,” while Mr. Edwards has reaped all of his rewards directly from babies? We’ve got Hillary Clinton scootching past Edwards displaying her “maternal tendencies” and Edwards is employing one of the most anti-maternal bloggers on the internet. Only popcorn and Cherry Coke would complete this show.
Speaking of shows, don’t miss Hot Air Theater Presents Amanda Marcotte.
Mary Katherine Ham has more items of interest.
Where did that come from?
The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
New Middle East Commander Correctly Stays in His Lane
See that post tucked in the middle – it wasn’t there yesterday. In fact, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out, only appeared on his side bar on the front page for a short time yesterday and the post itself was on the front page for a very short time.
I popped over there today and see the Arrogant post along with this new mystery post A Note to my Readers on Supporting the Troops. And the timestamps make it VERY interesting.
Arrogant timestamp: Posted at 09:39 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
Note to my Readers timestamp: Posted at 05:31 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
First comment under Note to my Readers:
You’re a jerk, Arkin.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 05:47 PM
First comment under Arrogant:
Being subjected to such things isn’t fun, is it?…
…Keep in mind how all your words affect them, not just the ones you direct at them.
Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 04:08 PM
Now, it’s not so much that the timestamp of the comment on Arrogant comes before that of the Note to my Readers first comment – it’s the question of where are all the comments that were there before 4:08 PM yesterday for Arrogant and why were they removed? Is it because they want us to think that the “apologetic” Note to my Readers came first?
Leaning Straight Up analyzes the apology more closely.