Hillary, the Obamas, and "The Working Man"

Well, Hillary's gone and done it. She's gone off the deep end. And I knew she would.

Like Bill, she's too full of herself to concede, even when she's clearly defeated. So she's taking the fight all the way to the convention, and trying desperately to get the Michigan and Florida delegates seated. Michigan - where Obama wasn't even on the ballot - offered her a compromise: 69 delegates for her, 59 for Obama (she beat "uncommitted" by a margin of 65% to 35%).

But Hillary wants them all. Why? Because she needs them all, if she's to claim the nomination.

In Florida, she's trying a populist approach, whipping voters into a frenzy. "You didn't break a single rule," she tells them. No, but the party did, and she didn't protest back then. "The outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people," she tells them, "and we believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will."

Oh, really? Funny, I can't find a single speech she gave before the primaries and caucuses got underway where she argues that the delegate system should be discarded in favor of the popular vote. Why? Because she didn't feel that way until it suited her (lost) cause.

Yet she wants delegates seated. Hypocrisy? You bet.

This will only continue to divide Democrats, and it can't be good for the party. But I don't think that's what she wants. I think she knows she's lost, but she wants to wound Obama to the point that McCain beats him, so she can run again in four years. She doesn't want a solid Obama to win, then perhaps win a second term, then endorse his veep (which certainly won't be her), forcing her to wait anywhere from four to 12 or 16 years for another shot.

********

Speaking of hypocrisy, when asked why, on an income of $240,000 a year, Barack and Michelle Obama didn't give more money to charity (they contributed less than 1% of their income), they complain about the high cost of raising kids, and having to pay back expensive student loans. (Gee, I make less than that, and I have a kid and some debt, but I manage to give a heck of a lot more than 1% of my income to charity.)

But now that they're millionaires (and giving more to charity, but still not a significant percentage, and they've only been doing since Barack declared his candidacy), Barack apparently feels differently about the bracket that he formerly struggled to live in.

Justifying his planned tax hikes, he said, "Once people are making over $200,000 to $250,000 they can afford to pay a little more in payroll tax." But wait - they can't afford to give to charity, not if they have kids or loans. So how can they afford to pay more in taxes?

This is what's wrong with big-government types. The world is better off if we direct our money to charity, under our own guidance, than if we trust politicians with it. Case in point: Obama himself, who has already - in his notably short tenure in Washington - proven himself adept at serving up pork. He requested $330 million in pork for his home state in a single year.

One example was the $1 million he requested for the University of Chicago Medical Center. A worthwhile cause, perhaps. Though maybe the fact that one Michelle Obama is a vice president of the hospital has something to do with the request. Or the fact that her pay for that role nearly tripled shortly after her husband got elected as Senator.

But it's probably just a coincidence. She probably just went plaintively to her boss, hat in hand, and explained how difficult it was for her and Barack to pay for their kids' dance lessons and sports supplements (which she recently complained cost about $10,000 a year - good Lord, what kind of supplements are they giving those kids?), and repay those darned expensive student loans, so could she please have a raise? And voila, her boss tripled her salary. Yeah, I'm sure that's how it went.

********

More on the Obamas: Barack - who's been seen by some as lacking the backbone to be Commander-in-Chief - showed his moxie in a recent interview, when he said that making Michelle a campaign issue was "unacceptable." Well, sorry, sport, but you're not dictator - er, President - yet, so you don't get to make that call.

Hey, he trumps her out on the campaign trail, uses her to appeal to the female vote, with which his opponent has an edge, encourages her to campaign on his behalf. So anything she says - especially things like "I've never been proud of my country," or "America is a mean country" - is fair game. Just ask Hillary, whose spouse's acute case of foot-in-mouth has cost her numerous times. Or ask John Kerry.

And another curious thing: Michelle's Princeton thesis, which addressed the topic of race, has been shelved by the University until November 5. Hmmm. Wonder who Princeton supports for President?

********

Finally, a thought from my good friend Rick Maner. The Democratic candidates often appeal to the blue-collar crowd by talking about how they're going to tax the "rich" to take care of "the working man." Well, Rick takes umbrage to that reference, as do I.

While certainly not "rich," we fall into the tax bracket to which both Clinton and Obama plan to put the screws (and I daresay we give more to charity than either of them). So their implication is that we're not "working men." Just because we don't carry a union card, or come home with grease on our pants and dirt under our fingernails.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with those that do. I admire the work they do. But I work equally hard. Granted, what I do uses my brain more than my hands. But the average mechanic or plumber could no more do what I do, than I could do what they do. Someone apparently values what those of us in the higher tax brackets do - those of us that earn our living working for someone else, not trust fund babies or the like - or they wouldn't pay us what they do.

So, Hillary and Barack, when you say you're going to take care of "the working man," I'm curious: what are you going to do for me? At least I don't take two years away from my desk, while still drawing a salary, to run for President.