The hysterical rantings…

Kathleen Parker topped the list today with her:

With endorsements like this…

That proceeds to attack former presidential candidate John Edwards for even daring, daring to endorse Senator Obama. Well after her obviously racist position as described in her last editorial republished in the Spokesman-Review, I am quite frankly not surprised. And so I can only wonder, that if Edwards had instead endorsed Senator Clinton, would Ms. Parker remind potential voters of his 400 dollar haircuts? How much his home is? And all that regardless of the fact that he happens to be the son of a steel worker? Used to be that people didn’t have a bad opinion about those who happened to make their lives a success. Now if you are a Democrat, and you make your life a success story, there must be something wrong with you.

Or would Ms. Parker instead decide that Senator Clinton should now be the subject of her ire if Edwards had endorsed her instead? Well, Senator Clinton was before. Ms. Parker had nothing nice to say about Senator Clinton, just because well, she happened to be Senator Clinton. If today I don’t have something nice to say about Senator Clinton, it is how she has run her campaign, it is what I disagree with her on the issues. But I am not going to disagree with Senator Clinton that she has earned her personal millions, undoubtedly through book sales. That she has gained a cushy job in the Senate. That she had come from somewhat poorer circumstances—just like Edwards himself. So she got lucky and made good, I don’t have a problem with that. So why are all of a sudden the GOP and their sympathizers in the news media suddenly getting all lathered up over the Dems who make good anyway? Looks like a type of class warfare if I ever saw it.

Then Susan Estrich proceeds to practically call:

Pro-choice group chose wrong

NARAL a traitor for backing Senator Obama instead of Senator Clinton. Well I have a bit of news for Estrich on this. It is because of how Clinton had run her campaign that I am not so certain that NARAL had made a mistake. Consider this: Since Lyndon Baines Johnson first signed on to the Civil Rights act in the 1960s, the Dems have been known for their support for minority causes. Senator Clinton proceeded to trash that Dem legacy with her run for the White House. Even more unfortunate, was the news media’s willingness to do the same.

Quite frankly, I don’t think that as a pro-choice Republican, I’d ever care to back someone who could make use of those Dem “entitlement programs” to an advantage, then proceeds to attack at will a Democratic challenger to the White House who was himself a beneficiary of the better of what Dems offered. Just because he is blocking her “easy race” to the White House? I’d wonder just what else she’d throw over board next?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: