Clintonistas oppose the super-wealthy and tax-cuts for same when they are suggested and promoted by the Bush administration.

But when their own candidate turns out to be among the super-wealthy, then suddenly it's okay and fair because "she earned it."

Not one of them can tell you how she "earned" the money, of course. They are simply certain - taking it on faith, perhaps - that she and her husband must have worked hard for that money. It's an "American success story" to them, even if their candidate accumulated her wealth by partnering with some of the very same people who assist the fiduciary gain of other super-wealthy individuals (you know, the ones the Clintonistas oppose).

The Clintons got rich off the backs of working Americans, just like George Bush and his cronies. They gave to charities, but at no greater percentage than other Americans of their stature. And it is one of the oldest political dodges to give money to charity in order to convince some people that your super-wealth doesn't mean you don't give table scarps to your servants.

Wealth in America rarely comes from hard-work and fair-play. Wealth in our capitalist system is the sole possession of those who own the capital. Those of us who do not own it are relegated to wages which barely cover our living expenses. While we may not live on or below the poverty line, a large number of Americans are but one layoff or one foreclosure away from it.

Not the Clintons, of course: They parlayed their eight years of White House duty into lucrative business deals, a stunning lecture circuit business, and of course a Senate seat )which has allowed them further access to wealth and power).

That's our system, to be sure. You cannot fault the Clintons for taking advantage of it. But you also cannot deny it hardly puts them in a position of knowing the pains of the working class. Nor does it give one faith in their sincerity when they claim to want to change the very system which gave them so much wealth.

And they wonder why so many people consider Hillary a "Republican in drag."

WES is a true Clintonista. His response is right on the money, revealing not only the mind of the typical Clinton supporter but also the strategy the campaign employs in deflecting criticism of Clinton's policy positions and statements. It indicates what we can expect from the Clinton campaign, and likely what we could expect from Clinton as President.

The Clintonian strategy is simple, one borrowed from the playbook of Karl Rove: distraction.

As in:

"A top advisor to Hillary Clinton met with Colombia's ambassador Monday for talks on a free-trade agreement his candidate is against." (This calls into question not only Clinton's integrity but also the strength of Clinton's opposition and perhaps her ability to choose advisers.)

Clintonian response: "Look! A scary black man!"

We've come a long way in America, when Democrats resort to the same slimy racist tactics typically associated with friends of the Klan. It is as if the ghosts of old Dixiecrats have risen to possess the minds and bodies of aging boomer Democrats. It's quite tragic, but certainly represents a sea-change in the party that once stood for equality and civil rights. Now the Democratic Party is truly the "big tent" party, a welcoming place for racists and other bigots, able to comfort black Americans with one hand while oppressing them with the other.

I suppose you might call that "progress," but it doesn't make Hillary Clinton a progressive.

This is the kind of pointless item I'd expect to hear from Rush Limbaugh.

Is Koppelman moonlighting? It would explain the irrational and blatant bias in favor of Hillary Clinton, and his hellbent path on destroying what little "journalistic reputation" he enjoyed in the first place.

No story is too trivial, factless or obviously biased for Alex Koppelman!

Just when I think this Koppelman hack has gone as low as he can, he goes lower.

Alex Koppelman, Limbo Master!

HOW LOW CAN HE GO?!?

(Answer: However low Hillary goes, Alex will follow, like a good trained dog.)

Bow wow!

You mean...

Reality TV...

isn't...

REAL?!?!

Ohmigod.

I think I'm going to have a nervous breakdown.

This entire piece consists of a quote from another source.

Joan Walsh didn't write this column: she merely assembled it.

Another pathetic, empty attempt at "gotcha" "journalism" from Joan Walsh.

For people who purport to enjoy comedy, you folks don't have much of a sense of humor. Johnson clearly has her tongue tickling her cheek on this one.

The second paragraph is the five-alarm clue, her faux outrage intended to segue you into a hilarious rap of faux-feminist polemic about a piece of faux journalism from a faux news network.

While she's serious about her theme (generally, that women ought to enjoy the same options as men), Johnson is applying a good deal of humor to her report. There's a definite tone of sarcasm and snark, prime components in even the cheapest irony.

Of course, it's hard to recognize intended irony these days, when there's so much free-floating irony in the air.