Obama: My Plan Will 'Spread The Wealth Around'

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by dude1394

You do have a point however. We are about to elect a candidate who tried his damdest to surrender to AlQueda and believes in socialism. The Democrats picked the most liberal politician(s) in the senate and we are about to elect him.

It makes me cuckoo and quite sad.

You can call it HDS.

Who is this we you are speaking of? I imagine the larger part of the center of mainstream America, a diverse, multi racial & multi regional coalition, the one that has rejected the failure of right-wing politics, chosen the Democratic Party as it's national bearer and will choose Barack Obama as it's next president by a substantial margin, probably wouldn't care to be associated with someone like you if they could help it. And I for one wouldn't blame them.

[dude1394]

We being the entire country. Whiche includes... Folks who don't really think that someone who would surrender to our enemies is a good choice for president. Folks who don't really think someone who is openly a socialist and wanting to greatly increase guvment power over them is not a good choice for president.

[chumdawg]

Let's put some numbers to it. First, recognize that it is only the income beyond 250K that is affected by the tax increase. And that increase is from 36% to 39%. So, effectively 3% on the margin. Three percent.

If Plumber Joe pulls down 300K, we are talking about 3% of 50K, or $1700 or so. As a percentage of income, that's what, about half of one percent?

I'm sorry, but half of one percent is not at all significant when it comes to things like whether to let employees go, much less when it comes to whether to go in business in the first place.

We need to inject a healthy dose of reality into this debate.

[fluid.forty.one]

guys if Obama is good enough for Colin Powell, he's good enough for me.

[dude1394]

yea.
http://american.com/archive/2008/oct...lars-and-sense

What about corporate income taxes? McCain has suggested reducing the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, a former Bush economic adviser, argues that this “is perhaps the best simple recipe for promoting long-run growth in American living standards.” As economist Zachary Karabell, president of River Twice Research, observes, it is precisely because the United States has such high corporate taxes relative to countries in Europe and Asia that “even U.S.-listed companies that operate globally keep their profits outside the U.S., and thereby avoid those high taxes altogether.” A recent National Bureau of Economic Research paper coauthored by economists at the World Bank and Harvard notes that higher corporate taxes “have a large and significant adverse effect on corporate investment and entrepreneurship” and “are also associated with a larger size of the informal sector, greater reliance on debt as opposed to equity finance, and slower economic growth.”

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

oh yeah, I got the point. it's just the point was ludicrous.

a) there has not been a "free ride". far from it imo. that talk is just opponents not recognizing what he has accomplished.

b) if you want to know "what obama will do" just look at the positions that he has expressed over the last 20 months. pretty straighforward.

c) the opponents in the primary battle and the republican opponent for the presidency have all done a great job of putting his "feet to the fire". he has been challenged and he has responded.

d) he will not win in a landslide, and there will be no mandate which allows for unrestrained liberties by the presidency. he will still have to deal with the congress, and the congress has its own self interest.

e) you characterazation of obama saying "anything, anytime, anywhere if it is politically expedient" is just whining and not supported by the facts. could you point out exactly where this happened and what he said that was a clear example of pandering?

Let's start with the Iraq war. How did Obama beat Hillary in the first place?? By taking a definitive stand saying he would end the war in Iraq. As soon as he gets beyond Hillary he changes his position to something like it depends on what's happening on the ground.

Public financing. You know the story.

Abortion. He used to be definitive about partial birth abortion, but now that he is in a general election he has modified his posiiton. Most recently, he has stated that "mental distress" was not what he meant when he took his stand to "protect the health of the mother".

Offshore drilling. He used to be against it. Now he's for it.

His votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate. Oh I know a "present vote" is as good as a "no" vote in terms of its functionality. However, by voting "present" he puts a bit of vagueness to his position. Why not just vote 'no'? The obvious answer is its more politically expedient to keep people guessing.

Reverend Wright: Why does he disavow his friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor after 20+ years? Because the kitchen was getting hot of course.

Capital punishment: Obama has had a pretty clear anti-capital punishment record but now he says that he might support it in the case of child rapists.

Guns: Again, a clear anti-gun record but now he backs off by saying he might be in favor of gun ownershsip in DC. Why? because its politically expedient.

Is that enough, I can give you some more if you like???????

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Let's start with the Iraq war. How did Obama beat Hillary in the first place?? By taking a definitive stand saying he would end the war in Iraq. As soon as he gets beyond Hillary he changes his position to something like it depends on what's happening on the ground.

Public financing. You know the story.

Abortion. He used to be definitive about partial birth abortion, but now that he is in a general election he has modified his posiiton. Most recently, he has stated that "mental distress" was not what he meant when he took his stand to "protect the health of the mother".

Offshore drilling. He used to be against it. Now he's for it.

His votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate. Oh I know a "present vote" is as good as a "no" vote in terms of its functionality. However, by voting "present" he puts a bit of vagueness to his position. Why not just vote 'no'? The obvious answer is its more politically expedient to keep people guessing.

Reverend Wright: Why does he disavow his friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor after 20+ years? Because the kitchen was getting hot of course.

Capital punishment: Obama has had a pretty clear anti-capital punishment record but now he says that he might support it in the case of child rapists.

Guns: Again, a clear anti-gun record but now he backs off by saying he might be in favor of gun ownershsip in DC. Why? because its politically expedient.

Is that enough, I can give you some more if you like???????

It sounds to me as though you are making a good case for him for president. Surely you would prefer a president who carefully considers all points of view, as opposed to an inflexible ideologue. Wouldn't you?

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

Let's start with the Iraq war. How did Obama beat Hillary in the first place?? By taking a definitive stand saying he would end the war in Iraq. As soon as he gets beyond Hillary he changes his position to something like it depends on what's happening on the ground.

Public financing. You know the story.

Abortion. He used to be definitive about partial birth abortion, but now that he is in a general election he has modified his posiiton. Most recently, he has stated that "mental distress" was not what he meant when he took his stand to "protect the health of the mother".

Offshore drilling. He used to be against it. Now he's for it.

His votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate. Oh I know a "present vote" is as good as a "no" vote in terms of its functionality. However, by voting "present" he puts a bit of vagueness to his position. Why not just vote 'no'? The obvious answer is its more politically expedient to keep people guessing.

Reverend Wright: Why does he disavow his friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor after 20+ years? Because the kitchen was getting hot of course.

Capital punishment: Obama has had a pretty clear anti-capital punishment record but now he says that he might support it in the case of child rapists.

Guns: Again, a clear anti-gun record but now he backs off by saying he might be in favor of gun ownershsip in DC. Why? because its politically expedient.

Is that enough, I can give you some more if you like???????

none of that is about a 'free ride", is it?

I am disappointed in his reversal on public financing, yet I do understand why he choose to forgo the public $: the result is that his campaign had much, much more money on hand to battle with. that is neither saying anything or pandering as you alluded, it's making a decision that would benefit him and increase his chance of success.

the remark on abortion is not a change in position.

offshore drilling has been endorsed by everybody, so he's like everyone else.

look at his past remarks on the second amendment, and also the recent scotus decision.

me, I have no problem with a politician who has changes in their positions, as long as it is not a constant change from audience to audience, but a fundamental change based on reasoning. that's a good thing in my book.

[rabbitproof]

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by fluid.forty.one

guys if Obama is good enough for Colin Powell, he's good enough for me.

Was this always your standard, or only now because he agrees with you?

[dude1394]

yup...

Palin was also asked if she and McCain believe that Barack Obama’s tax plan, which would raise taxes on Americans making over $250,000 and provide tax credits to middle and lower-income workers, is socialist. At a campaign rally in New Mexico earlier Sunday, Palin said Obama wants to "experiment with socialism."

"There are socialist principles to that, yes," Palin said of Obama's plan. "Taking more from a small business or small business owners or from a hard working family and then redistributing that money according to a politician’s priorities. There are hints of socialism in there."

Asked if think the government’s plan to inject billions of taxpayer dollars directly into troubled banks amounts to socialism — a belief held by many conservative legislators, talk radio hosts and bloggers — Palin said, "No, I do not."

"I believe that there are those measures that had to be taken by congress to shore up not only the housing market but the credit markets also, to make sure that that’s not frozen, so that our small businesses have opportunities to borrow, and that was the purpose, of course, and that part of the bailout and the shoring of the banks," she said.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It sounds to me as though you are making a good case for him for president. Surely you would prefer a president who carefully considers all points of view, as opposed to an inflexible ideologue. Wouldn't you?

changing his words to gain favor in an election does not make a good case for presidency.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by dude1394

yup...

Uhhh...

A: Sarah Palin isn't exactly a go to authority on what constitutes socialism (or a go to authority for anything really)

B: Since she's currently campaigning for Vice President on the ticket opposite of Obama's, she isn't exactly a reliable source of good faith observation of her opponent's policies.

C: Highlighting an article snippet where she characterizes raising taxes on the wealthy as socialism, but the government bailing out failed banks and financial institutions to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars as not being socialism, doesn't exactly make her look good.

Do you read these things, before you post them? Honest question.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by dude1394

We being the entire country. Whiche includes... Folks who don't really think that someone who would surrender to our enemies is a good choice for president. Folks who don't really think someone who is openly a socialist and wanting to greatly increase guvment power over them is not a good choice for president.

You are associating yourself into the "we" that's electing Obama. I'm pointing out that the 'we' is a good, honest upright people who I don't think you've earned the right to associate yourself with. Most of them probably wouldn't associate with you.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Epitome22

Uhhh...

B: Since she's currently campaigning for Vice President on the ticket opposite of Obama's, she isn't exactly a reliable source of good faith observation of her opponent's policies..

you would have a leg to stand on if you also discounted everything Obama and Biden say about McCain.
to extend your argument, you should also discount the observations of partisans such as yourself

[dude1394]

Bill Engram questions (rightly) whether spreading the wealth versus creating wealth is the right thing to do while staring into a recession. Much, much more at the link.


http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...th-around.html

It seems fair to characterize conservatives as being largely concerned with the creation of wealth and liberals as being largely concerned with the fair distribution of any wealth that happens to be created. As America falls into what may turn out to be a steep recession, it seems reasonable to ask whether now is the time to focus on policies that create wealth or on policies that spread the wealth around. Policies that create wealth tend to make everyone better off (except, perhaps, those at the lowest end of the economic totem pole, who are nether better off nor worse off), but they also tend to cause greater income inequality. Policies that emphasize the redistribution of wealth have the opposite effect (i.e., everyone is worse off, except for those at the bottom, but income is distributed more fairly). At least that's what I have concluded from my past analyses comparing the U.S. economy (where income inequality has been growing for years) to European economies (where incomes are more equal).

Barack Obama seems largely focused on spreading the wealth for purposes of fairness, not to stimulate economic growth. On his website, for example, he says "Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility." No less an authority than Larry Summers seems to agree that the motivation underlying Obama's tax plan is the issue of fairness:

He's not saying that this aspect of Obama's tax policy stimulates growth. Instead, he's saying that it levels the playing field (i.e., it increases fairness). The fairness argument also seems to underlie Obama's now famous response to Joe the plumber:

"I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Spreading the wealth around is good for everybody? Good in what way, exactly? In the sense that it stimulates the economy, creates jobs and enhances worker productivity? I don't think so, and neither does he (or so I assume). If your job or your retirement income depends on a growing economy, you might want to think about that before voting for Barack Obama. At a minimum, you should look for his detailed explanation about how taxing the rich and taxing capital gains and taxing corporations will accelerate economic growth instead of accelerating the nation's plunge into recession. I don't believe that he has made that case, and that's because his proposal to "spread the wealth around" is more about fairness than it is about stimulating the economy.

Speaking of spreading the wealth around, Obama's recent comments reminded me of another plan to do just that, except that in this case the plan was to spread your wealth around the globe, not just to the less-well-off in America. To do that, Obama introduced a bill called the Global Poverty Act of 2007:

S. 2433: Global Poverty Act of 2007

A bill to require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.


The Millennium Development Goal, which Obama's bill embraces, is a UN initiative described here. This resolution (adopted by the General Assembly in 2000) proposes to do many things, including:

• To halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s people whose income is less than one dollar a day and the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and, by the same date, to halve the proportion of people who are unable to reach or to afford safe drinking water.

• To ensure that, by the same date, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling and that girls and boys will have equal access to all levels of education.

• By the same date, to have reduced maternal mortality by three quarters, and under-five child mortality by two thirds, of their current rates.

• To have, by then, halted, and begun to reverse, the spread of HIV/AIDS, the scourge of malaria and other major diseases that afflict humanity.

• To provide special assistance to children orphaned by HIV/AIDS.

• By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers as proposed in the "Cities Without Slums" initiative.

[rabbitproof]

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Bill Engram questions (rightly) whether spreading the wealth versus creating wealth is the right thing to do while staring into a recession. Much, much more at the link.

that premise is sufficient evidence to discount everything else in the reading....ridiculous.

[chumdawg]

If the issue were "spreading wealth" instead of "spreading the wealth," I think everyone would agree that it's a good end to aim for.

[dude1394]

But I think we all really know this, some just don't want to call it what it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...st_emailed_day

Obama's Tax Plan Is Really a Welfare Plan

Barack Obama's tax plan is the opposite of supply-side economics. He proposes to raise marginal rates for just about every federal tax. He also proposes a raft of tax credits that taxpayers can receive if they engage in various government-specified activities.

Moreover, the tax credits would mostly go to those who pay little or nothing in federal income taxes. His trick is to make the tax credits "refundable." Thus, if the tax credit is for $1,000, but the taxpayer would otherwise only pay $200 in taxes, the government would write a check to the taxpayer for $800. If the taxpayer pays nothing in federal income taxes, the government would pay him the whole $1,000.

Such credits are not tax cuts. Indeed, they should be called The New Tax Welfare. In effect, Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits. The spending on these programs is then subtracted from the total tax burden, in order to make the claim that his tax plan is a net tax cut overall.
...
The latest Congressional Budget Office data shows the bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes. Indeed, they receive a net payment from the federal income tax system -- meaning from the taxpayers -- equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes, because of the refundable tax credits under current law.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Let's put some numbers to it. First, recognize that it is only the income beyond 250K that is affected by the tax increase. And that increase is from 36% to 39%. So, effectively 3% on the margin. Three percent.

Actually, the increase once the Bush tax cuts sunset will be from 35% to 39.6%. Not that it changes your point much, but the number will be a bit higher.

[Epitome22]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But I think we all really know this, some just don't want to call it what it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...st_emailed_day

Peter Ferrara is a hack.

[alby]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But I think we all really know this, some just don't want to call it what it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...st_emailed_day

great read.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But I think we all really know this, some just don't want to call it what it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...st_emailed_day

as the article mentions, refundable tax credits are already part of our tax code, used to motivate the taxpayer to act in one way or another.

[Epitome22]

He's not saying that this aspect of Obama's tax policy stimulates growth. Instead, he's saying that it levels the playing field (i.e., it increases fairness). The fairness argument also seems to underlie Obama's now famous response to Joe the plumber:

"I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Spreading the wealth around is good for everybody? Good in what way, exactly? In the sense that it stimulates the economy, creates jobs and enhances worker productivity?

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. What is the purpose of "creating wealth" if that wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands? Why should the average person care about a rise in the GDP if that extra growth largely goes into the coffers of the already wealthy? Who do you think would gain a greater utility of another dollar, me or Bill Gates? If "more wealth" is created, but that wealth largely ends up in the hands of a narrow and increasingly narrower group of (already wealthy) people, how are we as a "nation" really any richer? Distribution matters. Economic growth doesn't benefit us as a nation if it isn't broad based and right now it isn't.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by dude1394

But I think we all really know this, some just don't want to call it what it is.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...st_emailed_day

the earned income tax credit was a program introduced by the nixon administration as an alternative to welfare. If instead of paying people directly to sit on their butts, you encourage them to work, but actually supplement the incomes of the people at the very bottom (negative taxation) rather than reducing it (normal taxation) you encourage people to work rather than sitting on their butts.

this is nothing new. and it is a HUGE improvements in incentives over simple welfare.

[rabbitproof]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/14803

At a time when the McCain campaign is suggesting that Obama’s tax policies border on socialism, the Democratic candidate countered by appeared alongside the chief executive officer of Google, a symbol of American capitalism.

“My personal support for him is basically a statement that it is time for a change,” Schmidt told reporters after the event. “The current group of people got us into where we are, and it is time for a new group of people to get us somewhere else.”

Ranking 59th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, Schmidt said he supports Obama’s proposal to cut taxes for families that earn less than $250,000, even though he would be among those on the other end of the scale who see his taxes rise.

“Hopefully I act in the interests of the country and not my own interests,” Schmidt said.

“If you look at the math of income distribution, the vast majority of the income is in the middle class of our country. It is not among the top one percent. So if you want to solve the various problems, you have to get that group employed, paying taxes, et cetera,” he said. “The other groups don’t matter, statistically. I don’t think a tax change of a 1 or 2 percent on the upper or lower bound will materially change that. I think all the action is in the middle of the income distribution.”

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/14803

“Hopefully I act in the interests of the country and not my own interests,” Schmidt said.

Palin would call him unpatriotic.

[u2sarajevo]

Eric Schmidt..... he did wonders for Novell.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/14803

At a time when the McCain campaign is suggesting that Obama’s tax policies border on socialism, the Democratic candidate countered by appeared alongside the chief executive officer of Google, a symbol of American capitalism.

“My personal support for him is basically a statement that it is time for a change,” Schmidt told reporters after the event. “The current group of people got us into where we are, and it is time for a new group of people to get us somewhere else.”

Ranking 59th on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans, Schmidt said he supports Obama’s proposal to cut taxes for families that earn less than $250,000, even though he would be among those on the other end of the scale who see his taxes rise.

“Hopefully I act in the interests of the country and not my own interests,” Schmidt said.

“If you look at the math of income distribution, the vast majority of the income is in the middle class of our country. It is not among the top one percent. So if you want to solve the various problems, you have to get that group employed, paying taxes, et cetera,” he said. “The other groups don’t matter, statistically. I don’t think a tax change of a 1 or 2 percent on the upper or lower bound will materially change that. I think all the action is in the middle of the income distribution.”

A Democrat is endorsing a Democrat. What a shocker.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

A Democrat is endorsing a Democrat. What a shocker.

or viewed another way, a capitalist endorsing a capitalist.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

or viewed another way, a capitalist endorsing a capitalist.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Thanks for the laugh.

well, I get a laugh every time someone calls obama a socialist.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

well, I get a laugh every time someone calls obama a socialist.

Really? I don't think it's that funny at all.

[chumdawg]

I find it very laughable, even ridiculous.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I find it very laughable, even ridiculous.

That's because you don't care about his worldview or his ideology.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Really? I don't think it's that funny at all.

do you not find humour in the absurd? cuz calling obama a socialist is definitely absurd.

[alby]

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas...t-connections/

Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara. But Obama has his own controversial socialist connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based Marxist group with access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the "champions" of "Chicago's democratic left" and a long-time socialist activist. Obama's stint as a "community organizer" in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama's career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama "one of the great leaders of the United States Senate," even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as "the most liberal Senator." More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?

DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.

The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, "The Global Poverty Act," has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the "Millennium Goals" established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a "hold" on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative "victory" that he could run on.

Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean's speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as "progressive." Democrats, Dean said, want to be "good citizens of the world community." He spoke at a session on "Global Challenges for Progressive Politics."

Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting "in the Democrats HQ in Washington," met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that "PES activist groups" in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.

The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson, the subject of our 2005 column, "A Socialist at the Washington Post," has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama's success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros's success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.

It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton's nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.

After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was "penned in the pen." A blurb for the book declares, "Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center."

In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as "a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America's budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform." His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who's who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.

Creamer's list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a "Democratic political consultant."

Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a "Democratic political consultant." He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama's presidential campaign.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

That's because you don't care about his worldview or his ideology.

No. If I could be so bold as to speak for others (and if not I suppose it will suffice to just speak for myself here). WHat we (I?) don't care about is OTHER people's increasingly wild-eyed and nonsensical characterizations of Mr. Obama's worldview and ideology.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

No. If I could be so bold as to speak for others (and if not I suppose it will suffice to just speak for myself here). WHat we (I?) don't care about is OTHER people's increasingly wild-eyed and nonsensical characterizations of Mr. Obama's worldview and ideology.

Well, let me ask you then: What do you think his worldview and ideology is?