Phony Democrats for John McCain

This morning, I heard that Hillary Clinton is expected to suspend her campaign for the presidential nomination on the Democratic ticket. So, it is with great puzzlement that I came across this website, The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. What the hell?

My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a load of crap. From the horrible, eye-bleeding design of the website (the formatting of which, I've come to notice, is a trademark of Right-wing bullshit chain emails -- i.e., use of flashing words, all-caps, multiple and conflicting colors, and misaligned text) to the use of the phrase "Democrat party," I get the clear indication that these "Democrats" were likely not progressives ever at all.

But this also reminds me of something that happened while I was in college. The 2004 presidential election had wrapped up towards the end of the semester during my political science course on interest groups and lobbyists. My professor related a story about a student who came to him about financial aid. The rules for qualification had changed, and those changes had been made possible by the Bush administration. This student wanted to know what he could do to remedy his situation quickly, as he would now be unable to afford his education. My professor asked one question first, "Who did you vote for?" The student's answer was, "Bush." And my professor snapped.

Because my professor is a principled educator, he did eventually help this student out but not before laying into him for his voting choice. What bothered my professor so much was the fact that this student had voted for a president who was actively working against the student's best interest. My professor was amazed how an issue of such importance to this student, such as education policy, had not been on his mind when he voted.

I am similarly amazed at the idoicy that is The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. Here we have a group of individuals who are prepared to campaign against their own interests (by supporting a candidate, John McCain, who is against most of the policies of their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton) while also sabotaging those same interests (by planning to actively campaign against a candidate, Barack Obama, who represents many of the same policies as Hillary Clinton).

Mind-boggling.

The Gas Tax Holiday Scam

Yesterday, I read this post over at Stranger Fruit on Scienceblogs, which got me thinking about Hillary Clinton's comments over this issue:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But economists say that's not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies, they're not going to actually lower their prices. And the top two leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economists in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugaman of 'The New York Times" calls it pointless and disappointing. Can name one economist, a credible economist who supports this suspension?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I think we've been, for the last seven years, seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans. From the moment I started this campaign, I've said that I am absolutely determined that we are going to reverse the trends that have been going on in our government and in our political system. Because what I have seen is that the rich have gotten richer. A vast majority, I think something like 90% of the wealth gains over the last seven years have gone to the top 10% of wage earners.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?

CLINTON: Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not going to put my lot in with economists. Because I know if we did it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively. [emphasis mine]

What's this "elite" opinion Clinton is talking about, you say? More than 200 economists who have publicly denounced Clinton's proposed gas tax holiday. This isn't "elite" opinion either, this is what we call expert opinion, and the two are not synonymous. Elite opinion is when an individual thinks that s/he knows more about a topic than those who actually do know quite a lot about the subject of that topic. This is exactly what Clinton is espousing -- she is guilty of her own criticism. Furthermore, this is indicative of the Republican playbook, i.e., "attack the intellectuals." She's fanning the flames of anti-intellectualism for her own political gain at the peril of an educated America.

This is also why Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air. He's publicly denounced Clinton's proposal as a typical "Washington gimmick" to win votes, which it is and which Clinton's own campaign staff have admitted to, and in this way he has stayed committed to his promise of a different kind of Presidency. Not only is Clinton is on the wrong side of the issue, but I feel that her implicit attacks on intellectualism do far greater damage to our country.

Further Details on the Clinton/Scaife Meeting

Talking Points Memo has more on the Clinton/Scaife meeting, suggesting that Clinton is taking part in the Right-wing smear against Obama about the Jeremiah Wright "controversy":

As you know, earlier today Hillary Clinton tried to stoke the Jeremiah Wright controversy by telling an editorial board meeting in Pittsburgh that Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor" and then going on to note that she had denounced Don Imus in contrast to Obama's allegedly more tolerant attitude toward hate speech.

Later in the afternoon she repeated the same comments at a press conference and when asked why she had chosen to engage Obama on the Wright controversy she seemed to suggest that rather than being intentional she was only providing an answer to a direct question. "Well I answered a question in an ed board today that was very specific about what I would have done," Clinton told the reporter, "And you know I'm just speaking for myself, and i was answering a question that was posed to me."

The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same

My wife sent me this link today, about the familial connection between Angelina Jolie and Hillary Clinton, as well as the connection between Brad Pitt and Barack Obama.

Jolie and Clinton are ninth cousins, twice removed, while Pitt and Obama are ninth cousins, according to a genealogical study conducted over the last three years.

In addition to her kinship with Jolie, Clinton is also related to Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette, researchers found. Other cousins include Camilla Parker Bowles and Jack Kerouac.

Obama, on the other hand, shares his ancestry with six U.S. presidents, including current commander in chief, George W. Bush, and his father, George H.W. Bush.

Other far-reaching Obama relations include Gerald Ford, Lyndon Johnson, Harry S. Truman and James Madison, as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Sir Winston Churchill.

[...]

[John McCain] was found to be a sixth cousin to first lady Laura Bush.

Strange, isn't it, that almost every presidential election cycle in recent memory has some article about the familial connections between politicians and other politicians and/or celebrities. Isn't this only more evidence that our entire mainstream political and cultural structures are run by a perpetuating elite few?

Clinton Meets with Scaife

As has already been pointed out by Atrios over at Eschaton:

First Clinton allows Rupert Murdoch, Chair and CEO of News Corp., to host a fundraiser for her campaign, now this.