What evidence do you have the by experience Clinton means her relationship to money rather than the ability to work with officials within Govt.to craft legislation?
^^^^ CB: Well, it's a bit of a joke comment. It not what C means , but what her admission reveals beyond her intended meaning.
Where's your presumption of "evilness" and "mendacity" concerning C, someone who is seeking the Oval Office (as you say below) ?
^^^
Just because Clinton has a longer relationship to the moneyed class is
not evidence that it is a fundamentally different relationship.
^^^^ CB: Yes, it is . That's the Clintons and as President, which is on a much higher and more entrenched level than lower level officials.
Burden of proof shifts to you. ^^^^^
Unless you can demonstrate by providing examples that Obama has a differing relationship to money, that he sees money and the moneyed class in substantially different ways from Clinton or other politicians, it is nothing but an article of faith in the "goodness" of Obama.
^^^^ CB: No. I've introduced enough evidence already to shift the burden to you to prove that there isn't a qualitatively different relationship. Takes no article of faith. Just accepting the evidence we have so far on O, including his bio, personal history.
^^^
I have no faith in the "goodness" of anyone who seeks the Oval Office. Short of something other than what has been posted to date Carrol is correct. It is revealed truth and as such is of no real merit.
John Thornton
^^^ CB: Actually, Carrol and you are the one's expressing articles of faith in the "evilness" of all who seek the Oval Office without considering any evidence. But anyway, even if the presumption is against any who seek the office, that presumption has been rebutted by the evidence others and I have introduced, shifting the burden of proof to vous. ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk