Obama-McCain in 2008!

Things are looking somewhat better computer-wise, though I'm still working out a lot of things. For now, here's an interesting campaign ad that has been linked in various places:



When the Democrats' Great Satan appeared, though, a thought occurred to me and I looked for his birthdate. Nader is older than McCain. On the other hand, Nader's running mate is no Sarah Palin.

Anyway, this witty little clip is a depressing reminder that the current Presidential campaign is not about issues, not even about issues that matter to most Americans. One old friend of mine, who's opposed to McCain and wary of Obama (though not as wary as I am), protested to me that while Obama's not perfect, she and I are just atypical of most voters (true enough) and that what we want is not what most Americans want, so we should not be too critical or pessimistic about Obama. I was momentarily boggled by that, because it shows how well even aware and informed people are misled by the propaganda in which we marinate all day, every day whether we mainline the corporate media or not.

The fact is that most Americans want the US to withdraw from Iraq; most Americans want, if not a single-payer health care plan, at least something closer to one than the subsidy to the insurance companies favored by Obama; most Americans are skeptical of "free trade" as the term is used by McCain and Obama; most Americans want George Bush impeached. Contrary to the denunciations of "elitism" that come from most of the Democratic loyalists I've argued with, the real elitists are these two candidates and the party machines that are forcing them down our throats.

It's a home-game weekend in Bloomington, so the white American hordes have descended on the city once again. Last night I was hanging around on the street with some friends, and a passerby who'd stopped to buy a slice of pizza from a stand outside Rockit's Pizza suddenly threw a tantrum over a homeless man a few feet away. "Why doesn't he get a job at McDonald's?" the guy (white, about 40, probably college-educated, probably an IU alum) fumed. I suggested that the homeless man should be given a job as CEO of a financial corporation for $2 or 3 million a year instead; he'd surely be as qualified as the men who run them now. "But you have to have an education for that!" he blustered. I disagreed -- sure, they probably all have MBAs, but we see how well they've managed their businesses over the past few decades. The Angry Guy accused me of being an Obama supporter, which I denied: I don't like either Obama or McCain, I corrected him, and so he changed the subject back to McDonald's. But you know, dear reader, John McCain has never held a real job in his life (via), not the kind of job you have to apply for and be qualified for, and for which you might be turned down. He isn't qualified to do anything but marry money and accept corporate support, which of course he does very well. If Cindy dumped him and his corporate and party fans cut off the funds, McCain could easily end up sleeping in a box and begging for coins on the street too: "Disabled Veteran -- Please Help."

Speaking of Paulson's bailout plan, I wanted to quote too this wonderful comment by one of John Caruso's readers at A Distant Ocean: "The $700 billion may be a little high. Actually, once the oil starts flowing again, the bailout will pay for itself. I predict people on Wall Street will greet us as liberators!" As John said, Nice.

P.S. Not so Nice is this bit from a New York Times article on the bailout plans, linked derisively by Amygdala (who appends it to excerpts from another NYT article in which Aaron Sorkin imagines Barack Obama meeting Jed Bartlet of The West Wing; the article, also linked by Nicola Griffith, is well below-average stuff -- see Dennis Perrin's latest post for better satire):

[...] Under a so-called claw-back provision, the secretary would have the power to force companies to recoup previous payments to executives of companies involved in the program. And Mr. Frank’s plan would give broad authority for the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, to audit and oversee the program.

But Mr. Paulson said that he was concerned that imposing limits on the compensation of executives could discourage companies from participating in the program.

If the companies don't want to participate, let them go under -- or, if that would do too much damage to the economy, the government can seize them and dispose of them and their executives as the law and the situation require. I think it needs to be brought home to the incompetents and criminals who have brought about this crisis that they are responsible for it, and they're not in a good position to lay down conditions about it now.