Tophat665

That was delightful, wasn't it. Certainly sparked a bit of class warfare type rage in me that I swallowed pretty quickly when I considered the alernatives. I must admit, I was not as outraged by Clinton as Bush, and it is a purely partisan response to the mere fact of them using their office as a campaign tool.

Now, as for the cost of the president moving about, that is more than offset by the media he doesn't need to buy. The President is a news-maker. If he wants coverage, it takes him next to no effort to get it, and only a bit of tweaking to turn the daily working of the government into a campaign event. Yes, Clinton did this too.

No, what really burns my biscuits is the null response from the folks who lambasted Clinton for his behavior. If that isn't a purely partisan response, then I am the Queen of England.

And, as to "Rich White Men" being racist, show me a Poor Hispanic Female Chief Executive and you'd be right. This is the clearest example there is of the difference between racist and not colorblind. If 100% of a group is verifiably one race, gender, and class, then noting that is responsible, not racist.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.