You know, I was so happy when you endorsed and supported Senator Clinton. I thought you were a pretty decent guy, and seemed to make some good decisions. But I started to get an idea of how you really operate from the report of tax scandals, for starters, but then the way you could not WAIT to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus for Obama. That said a whole helluva lot to me about you and your character, none of it good. To recap, Rep. Rangel, you were a bit snarky. And now this - what the hell is the matter with you?
I swear, it is like respected members of the Democratic Party are taking on the thuggish, ill-mannered behavior of many of Obama's minions. I expect better from them than this. A lot better.
Along those lines, to be bi-partisan, what the hell is wrong with CHUCK HAGEL? He, too, made some stupid, ill-informed comment about Gov. Palin, the VP candidate for his own PARTY. Yes. First he said he doubted she had the experience to be vice president, especially in terms of foreign policy. Well, okey dokey - way to be a team player, there Chuck! Oh, don't think that's all - he also made fun of her claiming she said she could see Russia from her house. Really, Chuck? Did you not SEE the whole interview?
I have to say, it kinda makes me wonder about Chuck considering his relationship to Obama and the voting machines-formerly-known-as-Diebold. You know, that he is saying this kind of crap about his party's VP candidate. Just coincidence? Maybe, but it makes me a tad suspicious. And I noticed that Chuck hasn't made any kind of similar statements about OBAMA'S lack of experience in foreign policy! Does he think that being on that little junket with Obama this summer is sufficient "foreign policy" experience??? But Palin's going to Kuwait and Germany, plus having to be on constant alert because of the proximity of Russia doesn't count for ANYTHING? Some double standard that.
And while we are talking about experience, I would like to bring the national down to the local. As some of you may know, Charleston had a horrible fire not too long ago, in which a number of fire-fighters were killed. It was the largest number since 9/11 of firefighters killed in one situation. As it turned out, there were things that could have been handled better. To make a long story short, the fire chief stepped down, and they have narrowed down their list of candidates. Wanna know what the main thing was on which they focused on the news last night and in the paper today? Experience. They list the name, the location in which the person is currently serving, and the length of time they have been in fire service. The LOWEST number of years is 30 - that's THIRTY years. To be a fire chief. In a medium sized city. I am the first to say, I WANT my fire chief to be experienced - hell to the YES, I do. Lives depend on that level of experience. And I am sure you see where I am going with this. I want my PRESIDENT to be experienced, too. I want him/her to have experience delegating, fixing, maintaining, reforming, creating whatever needs to be delegated, fixed, maintained, reformed, and created. Being smart doesn't hurt. Yes, Senator CLINTON fits the bill - and had the DNC acted so immorally and unethically, she would be the hands down winner. But they did, and she isn't. I will never forgive them for destroying the Party of the People the way that they have.
But, what real-life executive experience does Obama bring to the table? None. Well, unless you count trying to strong arm state senators to do his bidding in IL, against the wishes of their own constituents, as indicated here:
And the story doesn't end with Obama's support for set-asides. A Chicago Defender story of 1999 features a front-page picture of Obama beside the headline, "Obama: Illinois Black Caucus is broken." In the accompanying article, although Obama denies demanding that black legislators march in perfect lockstep, he expresses anger that black state senators have failed to unite for the purpose of placing a newly approved riverboat casino in a minority neighborhood. The failed casino vote, Obama argues, means that the black caucus "is broken and needs to unite for the common good of the African-American community." Obama continues, "The problem right now is that we don't have a unified agenda that's enforced back in the community and is clearly articulated. Everybody tends to be lone agents in these situations."
Speaking in reply to Obama was Mary E. Flowers, an African-American state senator who apparently broke black caucus discipline and voted to approve the casino's location in a nonminority area. Said Flowers: "The Black Caucus is from different tribes, different walks of life. I don't expect all of the whites to vote alike. . . . Why is it that all of us should walk alike, talk alike and vote alike? . . . I was chosen by my constituents to represent them, and that is what I try to do." Given Obama's supposedly post-racial politics, it is notable that he should be the one demanding enforcement of a black political agenda against "lone agents," while another black legislator appeals to Obama to leave her free to represent her constituents, black or white, as she sees fit.
Oh, what the hell - here's a bonus quote:
When the 2000 census revealed dramatic growth in Chicago's Hispanic and Asian populations alongside a decline in the number of African Americans, the Illinois black caucus was alarmed at the prospect that the number of blacks in the Illinois General Assembly might decline. At that point, Obama stepped to the forefront of the effort to preserve as many black seats as possible. The Defender quotes Obama as saying that, "while everyone agrees that the Hispanic population has grown, they cannot expand by taking African-American seats." As in the casino dispute, Obama stressed black unity, pushing a plan that would modestly increase the white, Hispanic, and Asian population in what would continue to be the same number of safe black districts. As Obama put it: "An incumbent African-American legislator with a 90 percent district may feel good about his reelection chances, but we as a community would probably be better off if we had two African-American legislators with 60 percent each."
Someone want to tell me again how Obama sitting in the pew at TUCC for over 20 years was NOT affecting his politics??
But I digress - experience. Obama is sorely lacking in it, and it would behoove both Charlie and Chuck to keep their yaps shut lest the glaring jackass in the room is actually discussed by, oh, I don't know, the MEDIA?!?!?! Just a thought. In any event, you "gentlemen" do not reflect well on your respective parties, or on your chosen (apparently, for Chuck, definitely for Charlie) candidate. Try a bit of decorum, would you? It couldn't hurt, and elevating the gutter politics in which Obama and his minions have engaged would be a blessed relief. Just sayin'.