It's your words not mine's, sir.
Well, perhaps, you cannot appreciate my sense of humor. I would have thought that the sarcasm implied was not that obscure. For your information, the leading post was strictly intended to be funny. I hope that not too many others fell in the trap you did, as that was definitely not my intent.
The links you added were very good by the way. I enjoyed reading them.
As for Obama being "another Clinton traitor", that's passing judgment before the sin is committed. I am not saying that Obama is above critique or criticism. In fact, if you search some recent contents of Ann Pale, you will see that I have criticized some of his votes (on the FISA bill, the wall between the U.S. and Mexico, his pro-war stance on Afghanistan, etc). However, at this point, I judge the Obama-Biden ticket to be MY OWN, 5000% over the alternative, McCain-Palin. I do think that a McCain-Palin administration will be little different from the Bush-Cheney administration. And McCain's congressional record is ample evidence of that. In addition, the very photogenic Mrs. Palin appears to be even to the right of Mr. McCain: Roe vs. Wade, creationism, not to mention her worst attribute: her voluntary participation in the destruction of Alaska's natural environment, and by extent her denial of global warming and the desirability to protect some animal species. So, what would I be gaining by branding Obama "a Clinton traitor" ? Any vote not cast for Obama is, like it or not, a vote AGAINST the democratic ticket. This translates to a vote for McCain-Palin. That is THE reality, today September 08, 2008.
Like you, I was completely dismayed by Clinton's executive order, signed 24 hours before
he was actually sworn as President, an order to interdict Haitian refugees at sea and return them to Haiti without due process (that is an hearing to determine the validity of their fears or special circumstances. This was shocking, not because the U.S. did not have a logical reason (trying to stop a sudden exodus of Haitians to Florida's shores). However, Clinton had forcefully condemned the same policy which was implemented by his predecessor, George H.W. Bush (or Bush Sr.), as "immoral and inhumane". Even in the context of Washinton politics, that was a flip-flop of extraordinary proportions.
Now how should we react to that? Should we voluntarily hand in power to the Republican Party which has treated Haiti in even worse ways than the Democrats? Or should we support THE BETTER CANDIDATE and work to influence his policies, as that is OUR RESPONSIBILITY
? We would be foolish to expect Obama to spend his entire political capital on Haitians!! But the simple fact that he chose a Haitian-American, Mr. Patrick Gaspard as the Policy Director (strategist) of his electoral campaign AND the fact that he has publicly declared that the U.S. immigration policies are harsher for Haitians than other groups, should give us an opportunity to commend him and influence him more, if we can (yes, we can) to pay greater attention to our needs (like TPS, Temprary Protected Status for Haitian immigrants, in view of the natural disasters back home in Haiti).
At this stage, I see absolutely no reason to label Obama "a Clinton traitor". I would only do so if I were a mad "McCain-Palin" FAN or a super-rich devil-may-care Conservative.
Until proven wrong, I believe that we should do our utmost to support the democratic ticket, this time around. Enough of Bush, Bush, and Bush.