Archives:

Categories:

Presidential Seal

Get a Hillary Is 44 button! Here's How:

Please Send a Donation to us at Hillary Is 44 So We Can Continue Our Work. Donate $10.00 or more and we will send you a pink Hillary Is 44 button.

Get a Hillary Is 44 T-Shirt! Here's How:

Donate $100.00 or more and we will send you a pink Hillary Is 44 T-shirt as well as a button.

Donate To Hillary Is 44 below:





Suscribe To Our RSS Feed

The Funnies

See Our Funnies Archive.

February 17, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Hillary Clinton Wants To Accomplish On Her Trip Overseas

10 Exchange U.S. dollars for currency that's worth something

9 Win respect defeating Japan's top-ranked sumo wrestler

8 Shift world's perception of America from "hated" to "extremely disliked"

7 Personally thank all of her illegal campaign donors

6 Three words: stylish Indonesian pantsuits

5 Visit burial site of revered Chinese military leader, General Tso

4 Get drunk with that Japanese finance minister guy

3 Convince China to switch from lead-tainted products to mercury-tainted products

2 Catch Chinese screening of Benjamin Button entitled "The Strange Adventures of Freaky Grandpa Baby"

1 Pick up carton of duty-free smokes for Obama

February 16, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Abraham lincoln Would Say If He Were Alive Today

10 "Sup?"

9 "I see Madonna's still a slut"

8 "Who's that handsome sumbitch on the five?"

7 "Is that free Grand Slam deal still going on at Denny's?"

6 "I just changed my Facebook status update to, Tthe 'ol rail splitter is chillaxing'"

5 "How do I get on 'Dancing with the Stars'?"

4 "Okay, Obama, you're from Illinois, too. We get it!"

3 "Hey Phelps, don't Bogart the weed!"

2 "What's the deal with Joaquin Phoenix?"

1 "A Broadway play? Uhhh, no thanks. I'm good."

January 28, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard at the Meeting Between Barack Obama and the Republicans

10 "I miss the Clinton administration when we'd meet at Hooters"

9 "Can we wrap this up? I've got tickets to the 4:30 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop"

8 "Smoke break!"

7 "You fellas really need to take it easy on the Old Spice"

6 "Mr. President: don't misunderestimate the Republicans"

5 "Another smoke break!"

4 "What was the deal with Aretha Franklin's hat?"

3 "About that tax the rich stuff -- you were joking, right?"

2 "Sir, it's refreshing to have a Chief Executive who speaks in complete sentences"

1 "Senator Craig's offering his stimulus package in the men's room"

January 27, 2009 - David Letterman - Top Ten Ways Rod Blagojevich Can Improve His Image

10 Star in new television series, "America's Funniest Haircuts"

9 Quit politics and become a fat, lovable mall cop

8 Start pronouncing last name with Jerry Lewis-like "BLAGOOOYYYJEVICH"

7 Offer a senate seat with no money down, zero percent interest

6 Team up with John Malkovich and Erin Brockovich for hot Malkovich-Brockovich-Blagojevich sex tape

5 Change his name to Barod Obamavich

4 Safely land an Airbus on the Hudson River

3 I don't know...how about showing up for his impeachment trial?

2 Wear sexy dresses, high heels and say, "You Betcha!"

1 Uhhh...resign?

January 16, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Signs Obama's Getting Nervious

10 New slogan: "Yes we can... or maybe not, it's hard to say"

9 In moment of confusion, requested a $300 billion bailout from the bailout industry

8 He's up to not smoking three packs a day

7 Friends say he's looking frail, shaky and...no, that's McCain

6 He's so stressed, doctors say he's developing a Sanjay in his Gupta

5 Been walking around muttering, "What the hell have I gotten myself into?"

4 Offered Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, $100,000 to buy his old Senate seat back

3 Standing on White House roof screaming, "Save us, Superman!"

2 Sweating like Bill Clinton when Hillary comes home early

1 He demanded a recount

January 8, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Barack Obama Plans To Fix The Economy

10 Encourage tourists to throw spare change in the Grand Canyon

9 End our dependence on foreign owls

8 Sell New Mexico to Mexico

7 Put a little of that bailout money on the Ravens plus 3 at Tennessee. Come on! It's a mortal lock!

6 Rent out the moon for weddings and Bar Mitzvahs

5 Lotto our way out of this son-of-a-bitch

4 Appear on "Deal or No Deal" and hope to choose the right briefcase

3 Bail out the adult film industry -- not sure how it helps, but it can't hurt

2 Release O.J. from prison, have him steal America's money from China

1 Stop talkin' and start Obama-natin'!

January 7, 2000 - David Letterman - Top Ten Things Overheard At The Presidents' Lunch

10 "Sorry, you're not on the list, Mr. Gore"

9 "If Hillary calls, I've been here since Monday"

8 "Laura! More Mountain Dew!"

7 "You guys wanna see, 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop'?"

6 "Call the nurse -- George swallowed a napkin ring!"

5 "Hey Barack, wanna go with us to Cabo in March? Oh that's right, you have to work!"

4 "Kissey kissey"

3 "Obama? I think he's downstairs smoking a butt"

2 "Did you ever see a monkey sneezing?"

1 "I hope Clinton's unbuckling his belt because he's full"

Recent Articles Calendar

November 2008
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Networked Blogs

Follow me on Twitter

Obama Is The Third Bush Term

Oh, if we would only go away. If we would only accept the divinity of Barack Obama. If we would only keep quiet and quietly forget. Abandon the historical memory of what has happened and what has been done. Bury the institutional memory of the process and the events of the last two years. If only we would stop saying that Obama is the third Bush term. How happy Hopium eaters would then be. Dancing would break out in the alleys of Chicago.

But memory has its uses and history is a teacher. Let’s remember and look to the future of the third Bush term – President-elect B.O.

The Hopium eaters will doubtlessly churn and burn at the mere mention that their worship is anything at all like George W. However, memory and history acknowledge that Mess-ianic Obama with his delusions of grandeur is very much a George W. Consider the evidence.

Back in 2007 we wrote about Obama finding nothing impeachable about what George W. had done. If Obama believes George W. acted legally then surely Obama will not object to committing the same acts. Of course, George W. knew that what he had done was illegal and impeachable. That was one of the rationales for including telecomunications immunity in the FISA legislation. Remember FISA? That’s the legislation Obama swore during the primaries he would filibuster. When the general election season began however, Obama (unlike Hillary) voted for the FISA legislation he swore he would filibuster.

Here’s is some of what we wrote back in December 2007:

Recall this Obama Bush moment:

“Part of the problem here is not just George Bush and the White House,” Obama told a crowd of hundreds gathered at a park in Cedar Falls. “We can’t just change political parties and continue to do the same kind of things we’ve been doing. We can’t just go about business as usual and think it’s going to turn out differently.”

Obama absolves Bush of the mess the country is in. Obama wants to blame Democrats too. But of course, Obama who styles himself, without evidence, as a constitutional authority, thinks Bush has not done anything impeachable.

“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president’s authority,” he said.

Impeachment as a tactic, is open to argument. Some arguments against impeachment are: there is little over a year in Bush’s term so why bother; impeachment might help the Ripublicans paint the Democrats as crazed; impeachment and a Senate trial could turn into a major diversion from discussion of important issues.

But, while Democrats can argue about the wisdom of impeaching either Bush and Cheney or both of them there is no argument that Bush and Cheney have committed impeachable crimes and that they have committed intentional, grave breaches of presidential authority.

Impeachment is equal to an indictment which then proceeds to a trial in the Senate for determination of guilt or innocence. The violations of Buch and Cheney’s oaths of office to protect the constitution, violations of law in spying on Americans, questions on torture and Iraq – all reach the constitutional threshold of impeachment and trial in the Senate.

Obama apparently disagrees with us on what is impeachable. We suspect most Obama Hopium eating supporters agree with us on what is impeachable and what is not, but they will remain silent and worshipful.

We will not remain silent and worshipful. Too many for too long have remained silent and worshipful. Glenn Greenwald recently articulated several good points about the responsibility of American opinion-making elites and legal experts for the abuses and anti-constitutional assaults of the last eight years.

Instead, many of our leading opinion-makers and elites often defended those policies and thus legitimized them. Even when there was opposition, it was typically tepid, mild, respectful, ambivalent, constrained, dispassionate — creating the appearance to a citizenry that relies upon experts and elites to sound the alarm when things have gone fundamentally off track that there was nothing unusual or noteworthy about the powers this administration was claiming and the conduct in which it was engaging.

Obama does not think George W. did anything impeachable.

Just consider — with no hyperbole — what our Government, our country, has done.  We systematically tortured people in our custody using techniques approved at the highest levels, many of whom died as a result.  We created secret prisons — “black site” gulags — beyond the reach of international monitoring groups.  We abducted and imprisoned even U.S. citizens and legal residents without any trial, holding them incommunicado and without even the right to access lawyers for years, while we tortured them to the point of insanity. We disappeared innocent people off the streets, sent them to countries where we knew they’d be tortured, and then closed off our courts to them once it was clear they had done nothing wrong.  We adopted the very policies and techniques long considered to be the very definition of “war crimes”.  

Our Government turned the NSA apparatus inward — something that was never supposed to happen — spying on our conversations in secret and without warrants or oversight, all in violation of the law, and then, once revealed, acted to immunize the private-sector lawbreakers.  And that’s to say nothing about the hundreds of thousands of people we killed and the millions more we displaced with a war launched on false pretense.  And on and on and on.

Prime responsibility for those actions may lie with the administration which implemented them and with the Congress that thereafter acquiesced to and even endorsed much of it, but it also lies with much of our opinion-making elite and expert class.  Even when they politely disagreed, they treated most of this — and still do — as though it were reasonable and customary, eschewing strong language and emphatic condemnation and moral outrage, while perversely and self-servingly construing their constraint as some sort of a virtue — a hallmark of dignified Seriousness.  That created the impression that these were just garden-variety political conflicts to be batted about in pretty conference rooms by mutually regarding elites on both sides of these “debates.”  Meanwhile, those who objected too strongly and in disrespectful tones, who described the extremism and lawlessness taking place, were dismissed by these same elites as overheated, fringe hysterics.

Some political issues, including ones that provoke intense passion, have many sides, but not all do.  Not all positions are worthy of respect.  Some actions and policies require outrage and condemnation, to the point where it becomes irresponsible to comment on them without expressing that.  Some ideas are so corrupted and dangerous and indefensible that they do reflect negatively on the character and credibility of their advocates, on the propriety of treating those advocates as though they’re respectable and honorable.  Most of all, elites who seek out an opinion platform have a responsibility to accept that their ideas and arguments have consequences and they should be held accountable for what their actions spawn (see Atrios’ related point yesterday about Tom Friedman’s responsibility arising from his advocacy for the Iraq War). 

Over the last eight years (at least), we have not only crossed the line of what ought to be within the realm of reasonable, respectful debate, but we have crossed it repeatedly, severely, and with great harm to our political system and huge numbers of people.  And one of the prime reasons that happened is because those with the most vocal platforms and with the greatest claims to expertise failed in their responsibility to oppose it passionately and to describe its extremism, and, instead, eagerly served as apologists for it.   Those who seek now to depict their tepidness in the face of all of that as some elevated form of enlightened reason are merely illustrating one of the key mechanisms that enabled all of it to happen.

In upcoming weeks and months many will exhaust their energies discussing Obama appointments. Is this one good, is that one bad, what does this name mean, what does that mention portend? We remember that in the George W. Bush White House only one appointment mattered – Karl Rove. In the third Bush term only the deck chairs will be moved about.

It was a standard applause line on the campaign trail: Barack Obama condemned the “perpetual campaign” that has consumed Washington, contending that the slash-and-burn politics practiced by the Bush White House had gotten in the way of governing.

But President-elect Obama has been virtually silent on bipartisan calls in recent months to eliminate the White House office that has been described as the nerve center of the sprawling political operations headed up by Bush adviser Karl Rove. And the fate of that office will be just one of the questions Obama will have to answer in explaining how his mammoth and skilled campaign operation can be transformed into an administration that traffics in a different kind of politics at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

John McCain pledged in September to abolish the White House Office of Political Affairs as president. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) followed up with a report last month recommending its elimination. And Craig Holman, a lobbyist with the government watchdog group Public Citizen, said Wednesday that it “must be dismantled.”

“I would be startled if he kept it and I would be very critical of an Obama administration that kept a political office,” Holman said. “I could not imagine this office being structured in a way that would be in the public’s interest.”

Transition aides declined to comment Wednesday on Obama’s plans for the office. [snip]

Obama’s decision on the political office is an early test of how sharply the president-elect plans to turn away from the practices of his predecessor. [snip]

Waxman’s committee spent months investigating the Bush political affairs office, and concluded in an October report that the extent of its activity and “its deep and systematic reach into the federal agencies are unprecedented.” The office sent cabinet secretaries to campaign for vulnerable Republican candidates, targeted grant announcements to key districts and provide political briefings for agency heads, the report found.

“For these reasons, the committee recommends that Congress develop legislation to eliminate the White House Office of Political Affairs,” the 27-page report stated. “If this is not politically feasible, Congress should adopt reforms to ensure that the office serves the interests of the taxpayer rather than the political party of the president.”

Republicans looking for something to do might consider the hypocritically responsible thing to do is hold Obama to his promises and end the endless campaign. Republicans can assist the Dimocrats in doing what they themselves failed to do.

What fueled the abuses of the last eight years as much as anything else was the ongoing (and severely accelerated) abdication of power by Congress to a bordering-on-omnipotent presidency. [snip]

That means restricting the President’s role to what the Constitution prescribes and having Congress fulfill its assigned duties and perform its core functions. [snip]

Just consider reports this week that Obama intends to use unilaterally issued, unchecked Executive Orders, rather than acts of Congress, to dictate outcomes on a whole range of politically controversial policy debates that are so plainly the province of the Congress to legislate – from restrictions on stem-cell research funding to regulations governing aid to foreign family planning groups to oil drilling.

During the unDemocratic primaries, Hillary answered questions about her views on the “unitary executive” and presidential power.

Senator Hillary Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she intends to roll back President Bush’s expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.

“I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency,” Clinton told the Boston Globe’s editorial board. [snip]

She also said she did not subscribe to the “unitary executive” theory that argues the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws limiting the president’s power over executive branch operations. Adherents to the theory say any president who refuses to obey such laws is not really breaking the law.

“It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people,” she said.

Hillary Clinton also told Michael Tomasky:

Well, I think it is clear that the power grab undertaken by the Bush-Cheney administration has gone much further than any other president and has been sustained for longer. Other presidents, like Lincoln, have had to take on extraordinary powers but would later go to the Congress for either ratification or rejection. But when you take the view that they’re not extraordinary powers, but they’re inherent powers that reside in the office and therefore you have neither obligation to request permission nor to ask for ratification, we’re in a new territory here. And I think that I’m gonna have to review everything they’ve done because I’ve been on the receiving end of that. There were a lot of actions which they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted or that in my view that was inherent in the constitution. There were other actions they’ve taken which could have obtained congressional authorization but they deliberately chose not to pursue it as a matter of principle.

During the same unDemocratic primaries, Joe Biden echoed Hillary on George W. and the “unitary executive”.

Biden charged that Dick Cheney had become “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had probably in American history” because of his attempts to create a super-powerful unitary executive. Biden didn’t take time to explain exactly what he meant, but it’s an extremely important, poorly understood subject, and it’s time to question the presidential candidates — closely — about it.

Bush’s aggressive exercise of unilateral powers has attracted serious opposition. Unfortunately, too many imagine that the unitary executive doctrine and its kingly prerogatives will leave office with him. That hope is false. History teaches that presidents do not give up power — both Democrats and Republicans have worked to keep it. And besides, hoping the next president will give back some powers means conceding that it is up to him to make that decision.

If people have found Bush’s exercise of executive power alarming, they should not only begin questioning presidential candidates about it, they should make it clear to their congressional representatives that they want these excess powers checked. Barack Obama has already promised that he will continue using signing statements, though he will not act as if they have the force of law. Interestingly enough, John McCain has suggested he will end the practice. These slim indicators deserve more pressure and scrutiny.

Keep Hoping for Change, Hopium Eaters. But we know that the past is prologue – history is a teacher.

Hopium will not change reality:

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.

Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques — which some consider torture — by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies. [snip]

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting “excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency.”

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA’s interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.

Yet he more recently voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision.

The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition.

Just wait till next year when yet another White House occupant requests hundreds of billions of dollars more for the Iraq War, for the 55,000 troops that will stay in Iraq for the long-term after “combat troops” leave in mid-2010 (if you believe Obama’s words), and even more appropriations to move troops from Iraq to Afghanistan – talk about a Hopium buzz kill.

But the real test for Obama, and for that matter, the Democrats who now control a bigger majority in both Houses of Congress will come next spring when the Pentagon submits another funding request to Congress to continue operations in Iraq.

Since the electoral victories in November 2006, the Democratic-controlled Congress has approved more than $500 billion in emergency spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan without the benchmarks that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other leaders said they would demand.

Last summer, Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer engineered a $162 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan that funded the war until mid-2009 without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, a move that led to widespread anger among the Democrats constituents.

And Obama just like George W. does not like oversight nor snooping into money matters. Remember all the noise about lobbyists?

President-elect Barack Obama is barring lobbyists from participating in the transition that will help install his administration. He will still leave room on his team for the rich and powerful.

Top fundraisers and other well-connected supporters will serve in an advisory capacity before the Democrat takes office on Jan. 20.

Five of the 12 members of Obama’s transition advisory board raised at least $50,000 for his presidential campaign, and eight contributed the maximum individual donation of $4,600. Other transition team members include a partner in a lobbying firm and two executives of financial companies whose employees were among his biggest donors.

“If an Obama administration is going to sell influence, these are the ones who have bought it,” said Craig Holman of Public Citizen, a Washington-based advocacy group that favors stronger campaign-finance and lobbying laws. [snip]

The rules, however, won’t prevent campaign fundraisers known as bundlers from serving. [snip]

Another board member, Mark Gitenstein, was registered to lobby through June, House records show. Gitenstein is a partner in the lawyer-lobbying firm of Mayer Brown LLP, whose clients include Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford Motor Co., which is pushing for government help, and New York-based Merrill Lynch & Co., which sold itself to Bank of America Corp. in September.

Obama may be learning quickly that what sounds good on the campaign trail may not always be best for governing, said Costas Panagopoulos, director of Fordham University’s Center for Electoral Politics and Democracy in New York. [snip]

Obama raised a record $650 million for his presidential campaign as he became the first major party nominee to shun federal funds for the general election.

Once again Obama bans lobbyists by redefining the term.

But the new rules do seem to leave some wiggle room. Aides to Mr. Obama, who declared during the campaign that lobbyists would not “find a job in my White House,” said the guidelines allowed for lobbyists to work on the transition in areas where they have not done any lobbying.

Further, the rules apply to lobbyists who must register with the federal government; many people who work for lobbying firms or in other areas of the influence business in Washington do not have to register, because they do not personally lobby federal officials on specific issues.

And in the George W. tradition, all that money raised during the campaign will have no oversight nor scrutiny:

The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.

Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.

Obama is expected to escape that level of scrutiny mostly because he declined an $84 million public grant for his campaign that automatically triggers an audit and because the sheer volume of cash he raised and spent minimizes the significance of his errors. Another factor: The FEC, which would have to vote to launch an audit, is prone to deadlocking on issues that inordinately impact one party or the other – like approving a messy and high-profile probe of a sitting president. [snip]

Obama – the first presidential candidate to decline public funding in the general election – certainly would provide fodder for the green eye-shades at the FEC’s E Street offices.

Obama’s campaign admitted it initially mis-categorized the purpose of an $832,598 payment for get-out-the-vote efforts to a consulting firm affiliated with ACORN, the community organizing group that became a top target for Republicans alleging voter fraud.

And FEC analysts over the course of the campaign have written more than a dozen letters to Obama singling out hundreds of contributors for whom the campaign either didn’t supply adequate information or from whom he accepted donations exceeding the $4,600 limit. [snip]

Allegations that the Obama campaign was willfully allowing foreign donations and excessive donations blossomed in the conservative blogosphere and prompted the Republican National Committee to file an FEC complaint.

Seizing on Obama’s reversal on a pledge to accept public financing if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same, as well as his campaign’s refusal to voluntarily release the names, addresses and employers of donors who gave less than $200 each – a group that accounted for about half of the more than $600 million that the campaign had raised through the end of September – the RNC asked the FEC “to immediately conduct a full audit” of all of Obama’s contributions.

Obama and the Hopium eaters believe that Obama is worthy of worship and a messenger of God. Republican Tony Blankley reminds them that Alcuin of York famously wrote to Charlemagne that the voice of the people should not be mistaken for the voice of God. This is something Hopium eaters might well remember.

For years Obama and Michelle have warmed their tootsies in front of the mahogony fireplaces of their Rezko-assisted mansion. Now the American people along with us, must hold Obama’s feet to the fire. If we don’t hold Obama’s feet to the fire, the third Bush term will be as bad as the previous two.

Be Sociable, Share!

82 comments to Obama Is The Third Bush Term

  • NewMexicoFan

    Admin, excellent article, but I feel we have lost our Democracy and our free Press. It appears that we scrutinize only one party, the Reps. Not that they don’t need it. But the God like worship of O will prove a fatal flaw to our country.

  • Sherm Kader

    Admin, this article explains clearly why this website is an absolute necessity. Hopefully there are many others that could join in this important watchdog role.

    So many comments from the BHO organization have made it sound like he plans another imperial presidency. He is headed in the wrong direction in so many ways as you’ve already pointed out in other recent articles.

    BM is little more than a co-conspirator, and so many people are totally blind to what is happening to our country. Well, this website told them over and over again. I hope people wake up quickly enough.

  • Mrs. Smith

    YOUR PARTY LEFT YOU….NOW YOUR COUNTRY IS LEAVING YOU!

    IMF MEETING NOV 15 ****Sure to See Protests****

    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/your-party-left-you-now-your-country-is-leaving-you/

  • Mrs. Smith

    Please publish the most important article I just posted.

    The US is giving up it’s sovereignty (unbeknowns to the people) to the New World Order.

  • ShortTermer

    I could not agree more NewMexicoFan.

    Can someone tell me how to locate the video of the interview last night on O’Reilly featuring Linda Stasi and Kinky Friedman. Women just do not support women. Why?????????????????????????

    Admin, I will have to read the entire post later, out the door right now.

  • meiyingsu

    Saying anything about Sarah Palin

    Mocking Sarah Palin has become a bit of a cottage industry, but it does seem worth pausing to doubt the quality of the information at this point. Some of the details in the damaging Newsweek narrative of her candidacy were obviously false — notably, the claim that she refused to stand on stage with “pro-choice” John Sununu, who is pro-life — and make me a bit nervous about a lot of the blindly sourced details about her.

    When I spoke to people loyal to her a week before the eleciton, they told me they were defending her pre-emptively because “these people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves.” There does seem to be something to that.

    In any case, she has now moved into that incredibly dangerous political territory when people will believe anything about her. The Times has a very funny, and instrucitve story about the origins of the false story that she thought Africa was a country, not a continent. It’s from a mildly notorious fake pundit, “Martin Eisenstadt,” who heads a think tank of his own creation.

    (I once emailed “Eisenstadt” for confirmation of one of his claim that Joe the Plumber was a Charles Keating relation, which had circulated widely…but then Googled him.)

  • meiyingsu

    the above post is from politico.com

  • admin

    If you want to kill a Hopium buzz, read this to the Hopium addict:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml?source=search_story

    CBS News’ Election and Survey Unit’s survey analyst extraordinaire Jennifer De Pinto goes inside the exit polls from last week’s election and finds some interesting nuggets about those Hillary Clinton supporters who voted for John McCain:

    As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

    Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

    So who were these potential cross-over voters?

    They were older: 61% of them were age 45 and above.

    53% were women; while 47% were men.

    43% of these voters who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while 26% were Democrats.

    84% of them were white – higher than the electorate at large. 12% were Hispanic, compared to 9% of the total electorate.

    21% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton said race was factor in their vote. 19% of McCain voters overall said race was factor in their vote.

    61% of these McCain voters who would have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 39% earned less. 61% do not have a college degree.

    These voters valued experience over change. 47% said experience was their top candidate quality and 32% said a candidate who shares their values. Just 10% picked change. But like voters overall, the economy was the top issue for these voters.

    58% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton if she were a candidate said their candidate’s personal and leadership qualities was more important in their vote; 36% said it was their candidate’s positions on the issues.

    Among McCain backers overall, voters were divided with 48% choosing issues and 49% picking qualities. But among the electorate at large, 58% said their candidate’s position on the issues was more important.

    While 85% of Obama voters said they would have voted for Clinton had she been the Democratic candidate, 13% would not have supported her including 6% who said they would have backed McCain and 7% who said they would not have voted.

    60% of these voters were under age 45.

    They were mostly men. 59% were men; while 41% were women.

    41% of these voters who supported Obama but would not have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Democrats. 20% were Republicans; while 38% were Independents.

    While most of these voters were white (74%); 17% were black – higher than the share of the total electorate. 5% were Hispanic.

    53% of these Obama voters who would not have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 47% earned less. 58% do not have a college degree.

    These voters were clearly looking for change – 57% picked it as their top candidate quality. This was followed by values (20%) and cares (12%). Experience ranked last with 8%.

    60% of these voters said issue positions were more important; 38% said it was leadership and personal qualities.

  • rgb44hrc

    From admin’s article:

    Obama – the first presidential candidate to decline public funding in the general election – certainly would provide fodder for the green eye-shades at the FEC’s E Street offices.
    &&&&&&&&&

    I thought I recall hearing that Obama was the second one to forgo public financing. Perhaps Nixon, in 1972?

  • NewMexicoFan

    rgb44hrc

    And his supporters were upset because of the lack of oversite of the Bush Administration. This is another case of the Dems criticizing the Reps for things, that they think it is perfectly OK for O to do. I am off the Dem political party forever.

    Taked with a Rep last night, and I have to say, she was more logical and sane than the Kool aid drinking Dems. She knew all about Sorous.

  • meiyingsu

    Rove’s View of How Obama Won
    November 13, 2008 12:46 PM

    Q: Do you see the election results as a repudiation of your politics?

    A: “Our new president-elect won one and a half-points more than George W. Bush won in 2004, and he did so, in great respect, by adopting the methods of the Bush campaign and conducting a vast army of persuasion to identify and get out the vote.”

    – Karl Rove in the Sunday New York Times Magazine
    November 11, 2008

  • JanH

    Admin,

    Excellent! We need to make Obama’s reign as uncomfortable and accountable as possible.

    —————————————–

    meiyingsu,

    How convenient that Rove et al take a blind view to all the caucus shenanigans, DNC maneuvering of delegates/states etc…

  • Berkeley Vox

    No idea if there’s any truth to this, but here’s what WaPo is reporting:

    —————
    In the Loop
    Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?

    By Al Kamen and Philip Rucker

    There’s increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for Secretary of State these days and that the field may be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

    There’s talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

    The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries. Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women’s issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama’s efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide.

    And Obama could put her in his speed-dial for a 3 a.m. phone call every morning.

  • JanH

    Even the way that article is written is a slap in the face/insult to Hillary. They have gone through their rolodex and while she wasn’t their first choice, they may have no choice.

    What a bunch of toads!

  • independent2008

    JanH,

    I hope that she flatly refuses and just stay in the senate. She don’t need to be associated with those clowns. Let them all drown. I didn’t want her to Obama’ vp and now I don’t want her being Obama’s secretary of state. I absolutely hate the way they are using the Clintons but I hate even more how the Clintons are allowing themselves to be used for the illusion of party unity !!!!!!!!!

  • Lorey

    The article is great. Thi site must continue opening the eyes of many and shaking up the hopium eaters.

  • Secret

    Hillary will not be given that post. They have insulted Hillary over & over again. First with not helping her retire her debt that he promised he would. Then didn’t even consider her for VP post. Virtually ignored her throught out after that. So, what makes anyone think she would be given a post? He wouldn’t want to be reminded of the woman he stole the election from. He wouldn’t want to be in presence of such a capable & competent woman. He just likes us to think he is happily married to the bully MO.

  • Secret

    JanH,

    independent2008,

    I think the clintons have no choice but to play along with what their mad party – so, they stay in the game. That is how you survive. If you get into a huff and walk off everytime, I am telling you – you will not be the last one standing. I have no illusions about politics. I know Hillary does what she has to do. But, I hate that she is put in that position but our girl – she will survive!!

  • Secret

    ADMIN,
    Can you reassure us – all the devoted members and readers of this site – the future of this site? Any news? We are all frantic to know. We are willing to contribute in whatever way to keep this going. Please let us know.

  • rgb44hrc

    Lorey Says:

    November 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
    The article is great. Thi site must continue opening the eyes of many and shaking up the hopium eaters.
    &&&&&&&

    Alas, I don’t think any amount of common sense will be able to shake the average Bot out of their delusional state. They are completely hopeless. They’ll defend him even when he’ll:

    a) break his promises: “We knew he’d have to make some compromises, but the main thing is that we have a trustworthy liberal in the WH”.

    b) screw up: “The _____ (press, Republicans, foreign Leader X) is just trying to tear him down”

    c) shamelessly pander to conservatives (which he already poorly tried with anti-gay stances, etc.) to try and position himself for re-election in 2012: “He’s being politically smart; we know he still is one of us, but this is the game he has to play”.

    ****
    We made these kind of excuses for Bill Clinton, but believe me, I am NOT trying to compare BHO and WJC. It’s just an analogy.

    I think slowly, over time, as his galling cynical behavior becomes too overt to overlook, there will be the disgruntled ex-Hopiumers who will make noises. They already did back when he threw his own FISA stance under his own bus back in June. There was a mini-revolt amongst the Bots, even on his own web site.

    Bush supporters too made all the excuses in the world for his corruption, ineptitude, and uncaringness. Only much later, as it became too obvious what dick wad the 43rd President was that you had the slow migration away from him, and the deteriorating ratings, until he won top prize: Worst in Show.

    I don’t think anyone can top W. for ineptitude, but Obama may top him in gall and self-glorification. Obama should be able to equal W. for secrecy.

    As much as I despise 43, 44 I hate more; he’s a Democrat, throwing other Dems under the bus. Unforgivable. Ever.

    He will not be MY president.

  • ABM90

    My local news channel reports that BHO team member has released a very troubling bit of news.Obama is establishing a Web Site for his release of filtered information to all Americans.
    He will by-pass the media and congress.Reminds me of Dr.Josef Goebbels Information Minister for Adolph.Time for americans to wake up and lodge complaints with their Reps in congress.

    By ABM90

  • justmeinmountdorafl

    Secret, Admin did state that this website was here to stay, I believe.

  • independent2008

    # Secret Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    He just likes us to think he is happily married to the bully MO
    ————————————————————————————————–

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks for the laugh. Made my day!

    Anyway, what happened to the Vera Baker lady?

  • henry

    Any truth to the story that the effective internet campaignors for waffles will be hired by his administration to continue the war they waged on dissent? If he wants to have an open internet way of dealing with the people that is unavoidable but if his administration or groups that are supportive of him continue the online intimidation and harrassment of those that do not support him I am very scared.
    Months ago I remember a few women who were pro-Hillary that had their business reputations tarnished by the bots as they had made their identities available and posted the most egregious things about them. How can it be checked?

    This may sound stupid or perhaps niave but after talking to a lifelong democrat who voted for obama in the ge after voting for Senator Clinton in the primaries, I realized people do not know how the dnc attributed thier vote. A Philadelphians vote in the dem primary counted more than a vote in the suburbs or royal areas. The people of PA I believe were not aware of this. At least not those I know. How can the dimocratic “rewards” program be made available to the average voter?

  • henry

    Anyone up for the task—- before the 2010 elections I will walk door to door in PA districts that voted heavily Senator Clinton but caved to the belief that repubs are bad and deliver a well written explanation to those voters how a philly vote counted more than thiers.

  • turndownobama-com

    EXIT POLLS: HILLARY WOULD HAVE WON *BIGGER* THAN OBAMA DID

    easy post.

    16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton,
    the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee. 43% of these voters
    who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the
    race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while
    26% were Democrats.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml?source=search_story

  • turndownobama-com

    justmeinmountdorafl Says:

    November 13th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    Secret, Admin did state that this website was here to stay, I believe.
    ===========

    Oh I do hope so! At least long enough for us to set up something else and get it running smoothly.

  • turndownobama-com

    confloyd and others from last thread,

    Hillary has stated very strongly this week iirc that she has ZERO interest in any job other than her current job as Senator from NY. This fits with what she said all summer about takng VP only if requsted by the party as a favor, but preferring to remain in the Senate.

    Resiging her Senate seat to work directly for BO would be a very bad move. At best the job would end when BO’s term ends. At worst he could fire her any time (or harrass her into quitting). In either case she would not have her Senate seat to go back to, as she would not want to fight a Democratici Senator for it (nor woudl she want to give it up to a Republican Senator now).

    The media and soem people like to talk as though such a job would be a promotion and an honor, but in fact keeping her seniority in the Senate and buildign her strength there is her safest move and best way ot increase power — and to get her legislation passed, which is her priority. Sec of State or something would really just be spinning her wheels over grassfires, and might get her caught in a pinch like Powell was. BO would love to put her in a position where he could blame something on her!

  • turndownobama-com

    henry Says: Anyone up for the task—- before the 2010 elections I will walk door to door in PA districts that voted heavily Senator Clinton but caved to the belief that repubs are bad and deliver a well written explanation to those voters how a philly vote counted more than thiers
    ==============

    Sounds like a good ‘action’ to propose to pumapac.org — for doing right now, while memorires are fresh. You could make a flyer adn upload it to their repository. Leaving stacks of the flyer in laundramats etc might be more efficient than knocking on doors.

    You could make the flyer yourself or ask if someone there would make it.

    They have re-organzied and have several links in the left sidebar at
    h t t p : / / pumapac.org/

    This might be a good place to discuss it:
    h t t p : / / pumapac.org/forums/action/

  • gonzotx

    Incredible post.

  • turndownobama-com

    I’ve just added more info to my diary supporting Larry Summers for Treasury Secretary, at

    h t t p : / / clintondems.com/2008/11/restore-bill-clintons-secretary-of-the-treasury-larry-summers/

  • confloyd

    turndown and others not wanting Hillary to be the next Sec of State. I think the job is beneath her capabilites, but I also am selfish. I can’t think of anyone that I trust more with putting out the fires America gets itself into other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has been putting out fires since her college years and has done it well. I think I might even rest easier knowing she was the one who will intercede between the President and other countries. She has the most experience of anyone out there!

  • rickya

    Lconfloyd Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    turndown and others not wanting Hillary to be the next Sec of State. I think the job is beneath her capabilites, but I also am selfish. I can’t think of anyone that I trust more with putting out the fires America gets itself into other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has been putting out fires since her college years and has done it well. I think I might even rest easier knowing she was the one who will intercede between the President and other countries. She has the most experience of anyone out there!

    Absolutely, the Sec of State post is beneath her. It is an insult to offer it to her right now. It is like telling Hillary – “You are not qualified to be President OR Vice President! Take the Sec of State post and STFU!”. Moreover, she will be in a very precarious position of being there when the shit hits the fan. As Sec of State, it is her job to defend the disastrous presidency that is Obama’s. She can be dumped at anytime and made the sacrificial lamb. She should not touch this with a ten foot pole. Instead she should stay in the US Senate snipe at them by releasing her own policy pronouncements. She should take the role of the wise statesperson exposing the amateur that Obama is.

  • Hillary should not accept any position from Obama if offered. As a Senator she has a platform, if she joins his administration he can pull the rug out from under at the drop of a dime. What better way to be done with the Clinton’s once and for all, get her to join the administration, resign her senate seat and then fire her.

  • meiyingsu

    rjk1957,

    they want to trick her to take the Sec of state so that Caroline Kennedy can become senator from New York.

  • confloyd

    meiyingsu, I had not thought of tricking her into sec. of state to vacate the post for Caroline! These B’s are real A holes!

  • mp

    They really wabt Bill so they think offering to Hillary would be like getting “two for one” for sort their effing mess!!!!!

  • confloyd

    mp, thats what I thought of too, gee they sure could help the situations, but when you lay down with dogs you wake up with fleas!

  • Southern Born

    Wasn’t there an arguement during the primaries that people should not vote for Hillary because this country does not need a political dynasty…Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

    And now they want to “run” yet ANOTHER Kennedy. I’m not seeing the difference, here. Help me out.

  • Berkeley Vox

    One thing I like about the idea of Hillary as Sec. of State is that it would put her in a strong position to run for President in 2016, if she wants.

  • Berkeley Vox

    From Politico :)

    ———
    November 13, 2008
    Hillary goes to Chicago

    Andrea Mitchell reported this evening that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, something that’s been buzzed about as a possibility for a few days.

    I haven’t been able to confirm it, and neither Obama nor Clinton camps would comment, though NBC apparently has confirmation that she went to Chicago today.

    One interesting item: Clinton aides are not knocking the report down, which they might.

    “Any speculation about cabinet or other administration appointments is really for President-Elect Obama’s transition team to address,” emails spokesman Philippe Reines.

    That’s the statement of someone open to a job; the alternative — given by the likes of Valerie Jarrett, Al Gore, and Andy Stern — is “not interested.”

    UPDATE: Mike Allen reports that some Obama advisers like the idea, and that it’s unclear what the candidate thinks, and explains the logic.

    UPDATE: A Democratic source tells me Obama has, himself, recently discussed the possibility with advisors.

  • turndownobama-com

    November 13th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
    Lconfloyd Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    turndown and others not wanting Hillary to be the next Sec of State. I think the job is beneath her capabilites, but I also am selfish. I can’t think of anyone that I trust more with putting out the fires America gets itself into other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has been putting out fires since her college years and has done it well. I think I might even rest easier knowing she was the one who will intercede between the President and other countries. She has the most experience of anyone out there!

    Absolutely, the Sec of State post is beneath her. It is an insult to offer it to her right now. It is like telling Hillary – “You are not qualified to be President OR Vice President! Take the Sec of State post and STFU!”. Moreover, she will be in a very precarious position of being there when the shit hits the fan. As Sec of State, it is her job to defend the disastrous presidency that is Obama’s. She can be dumped at anytime and made the sacrificial lamb. She should not touch this with a ten foot pole. Instead she should stay in the US Senate snipe at them by releasing her own policy pronouncements.
    =====================

    Yep. Maybe she should tell him to hire Colin POwell. ;-}

  • rickya

    The only reason that the Secretary of State post is being bandied about is because the Obama camp knows that the rift hasn’t been healed. They know that they got lucky this time around when Obama is not running on anything. In 2012, when he has to run on how well he has governed the swing of Clinton democrats will determine the election. They know that the Clinton democrats will be more of a factor next time around.

    I still say that the best position for her would be in the Senate where she can just wait until the Obama administration implodes. She will be tainted by the failure that will be the Obama administration if she joins them.

  • confloyd

    This maybe ugly, but I thought ted kennedy was getting chemo, why is he taking over healthcare?? I guess maybe it will be his dying wish to elect a black president and get universal healthcare, then he will believe he finished his life’s work. I really don’t mind him doing all these things, but most of it was to beat Hillary out of getting the credit for it. He wants another star by the Kennedy name! I don’t think for one minute he really gives a crap about either thing! He is an egomaniac!

  • confloyd

    I read on another blog that Newt thinks she would make a fine SOS, but doesnt think she should give up her senate seat and ride with the Chicago gang. Should be trust his judgement??

  • Blue Democrat

    Hello to all, it’s been too long. Hope all’s well.
    Been reading always (admin, you’re killer, as usual).

    Hard not to see straight through the BO-Axelrod thought process on
    Hill as SOS, if you ask me.
    Thinking of the country and the world first, it better than an other potential SOS appointee automatically soothes jittery nerves around the globe, particularly with WJC looming and ready to lend a hand.
    It would send a clear signal for the general peace – and genuine attempts at peace – of the 90′s, and it sure won’t be the last time BO reaches back to try to feed off that magic.

    It has the added benefit to BO-DA of removing them (Bill & Hill)from domestic politics – and literally and frequently, from the country.
    At least that was my initial reaction, and I also think Hill will take it if offered. In many ways it seems to make sense, and international relations are obviously not trivial matters, especially now.

    Lastly, I think the time for those supporter-finessing Hill-as-this-or-that trial balloons is over, unless these guys really are the biggest tools in history.

    Hill seemed to leave the door open in today’s NYDN. Ok, see ya….

  • Blue Democrat

    Turn-down Obama,
    I agree with some of what you said in your 1st graph, but also remember you saying some REALLY dumb shit down the stretch of the primaries and apparently you didn’t stop there.
    To say Hillary shouldn’t take the job because she’d have to defend Obama’s “disasterous presidency” when the man hasn’t been sworn in is at least a bit premature.
    Then to say “it’s beneath” Hillary to take the job, well, you’ll undoubtedly find a few duds on this list, but I think the job has to be considered an honor regardless;

    Former Secretaries of State

    2001-2005: Colin L. Powell
    1997-2001: Madeleine Korbel Albright
    1993-1997: Warren Minor Christopher
    1992-1993: Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger
    1989-1992: James Addison Baker III
    1982-1989: George Pratt Shultz
    1981-1982: Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr.
    1980-1981: Edmund Sixtus Muskie
    1977-1980: Cyrus Roberts Vance
    1973-1977: Henry Alfred Kissinger
    1969-1973: William Pierce Rogers
    1961-1969: Dean David Rusk
    1959-1961: Christian Archibald Herter
    1953-1959: John Foster Dulles
    1949-1953: Dean Gooderham Acheson
    1947-1949: George Catlett Marshall
    1945-1947: James Francis Byrnes
    1944-1945: Edward Rielly Stettinius, Jr.
    1933-1944: Cordell Hull
    1929-1933: Henry Lewis Stimson
    1925-1929: Frank Billings Kellogg
    1921-1925: Charles Evans Hughes
    1920-1921: Bainbridge Colby
    1915-1920: Robert Lansing
    1913-1915: William Jennings Bryan
    1909-1913: Philander Chase Knox
    1909: Robert Bacon
    1905-1909: Elihu Root
    1898-1905: John Hay
    1898: William Rufus Day
    1897-1898: John Sherman
    1895-1897: Richard Olney
    1893-1895: Walter Quintin Gresham
    1892-1893: John Watson Foster
    1889-1892: James Gillespie Blaine
    1885-1889: Thomas Francis Bayard
    1881-1885: Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen
    1881: James Gillespie Blaine
    1877-1881: William Maxwell Evarts
    1869-1877: Hamilton Fish
    1869: Elihu Benjamin Washburne
    1861-1869: William H. Seward
    1860-1861: Jeremiah Sullivan Black
    1857-1860: Lewis Cass
    1853-1857: William Learned Marcy
    1852-1853: Edward Everett
    1850-1852: Daniel Webster
    1849-1850: John Middleton Clayton
    1845-1849: James Buchanan
    1843-1845: John Caldwell Calhoun
    1843-1844: Abel Parker Upshur
    1841-1843: Daniel Webster
    1834-1841: John Forsyth
    1833-1834: Louis Mclane
    1831-1833: Edward Livingston
    1826-1831: Martin Van Buren
    1825-1829: Henry Clay
    1817-1825: John Quincy Adams
    1815-1817: James Monroe
    1811-1814: James Monroe
    1809-1811: Robert Smith
    1801-1809: James Madison
    1800-1801: John Marshall
    1795-1800: Timothy Pickering
    1794-1795: Edmund Randolph
    1789-1793: Thomas Jefferson

  • Blue Democrat

    Turn-down Obama,
    I agree with some of what you said in your 1st graph, but also remember you saying some REALLY dumb shit down the stretch of the primaries and apparently you didn’t stop there.
    To say Hillary shouldn’t take the job because she’d have to defend Obama’s “disasterous presidency” when the man hasn’t been sworn in is at least a bit premature.
    Then to say “it’s beneath” Hillary to take the job, well, you’ll undoubtedly find a few duds on this list, but I think the job has to be considered an honor regardless;

    Trying to post the list but it’s not taking….

  • Blue Democrat

    Former Secretaries of State

    2001-2005: Colin L. Powell
    1997-2001: Madeleine Korbel Albright
    1993-1997: Warren Minor Christopher
    1992-1993: Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger
    1989-1992: James Addison Baker III
    1982-1989: George Pratt Shultz
    1981-1982: Alexander Meigs Haig, Jr.
    1980-1981: Edmund Sixtus Muskie
    1977-1980: Cyrus Roberts Vance
    1973-1977: Henry Alfred Kissinger
    1969-1973: William Pierce Rogers
    1961-1969: Dean David Rusk
    1959-1961: Christian Archibald Herter
    1953-1959: John Foster Dulles
    1949-1953: Dean Gooderham Acheson
    1947-1949: George Catlett Marshall
    1945-1947: James Francis Byrnes
    1944-1945: Edward Rielly Stettinius, Jr.
    1933-1944: Cordell Hull
    1929-1933: Henry Lewis Stimson
    1925-1929: Frank Billings Kellogg
    1921-1925: Charles Evans Hughes
    1920-1921: Bainbridge Colby
    1915-1920: Robert Lansing
    1913-1915: William Jennings Bryan
    1909-1913: Philander Chase Knox
    1909: Robert Bacon
    1905-1909: Elihu Root
    1898-1905: John Hay
    1898: William Rufus Day
    1897-1898: John Sherman
    1895-1897: Richard Olney
    1893-1895: Walter Quintin Gresham
    1892-1893: John Watson Foster
    1889-1892: James Gillespie Blaine
    1885-1889: Thomas Francis Bayard
    1881-1885: Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen
    1881: James Gillespie Blaine
    1877-1881: William Maxwell Evarts
    1869-1877: Hamilton Fish
    1869: Elihu Benjamin Washburne
    1861-1869: William H. Seward
    1860-1861: Jeremiah Sullivan Black
    1857-1860: Lewis Cass
    1853-1857: William Learned Marcy
    1852-1853: Edward Everett
    1850-1852: Daniel Webster
    1849-1850: John Middleton Clayton
    1845-1849: James Buchanan
    1843-1845: John Caldwell Calhoun
    1843-1844: Abel Parker Upshur
    1841-1843: Daniel Webster
    1834-1841: John Forsyth
    1833-1834: Louis Mclane
    1831-1833: Edward Livingston
    1826-1831: Martin Van Buren
    1825-1829: Henry Clay
    1817-1825: John Quincy Adams
    1815-1817: James Monroe
    1811-1814: James Monroe
    1809-1811: Robert Smith
    1801-1809: James Madison
    1800-1801: John Marshall
    1795-1800: Timothy Pickering
    1794-1795: Edmund Randolph
    1789-1793: Thomas Jefferson

  • Blue Democrat

    Jefferson, Adams, etc, etc.

  • Blue Democrat

    _ _ _ .state.gov/secretary/former/

  • Idunn

    Lessee…Biden, Albright , Powell , Rudd , etc. are all publicly predicting some major catastrophic event shortly after Oliar takes office. And… HRC is now being considered for SOS?!

    RUN HILLARY! RUN!!!

  • rickya

    Blue Democrat Says:
    November 14th, 2008 at 5:53 am

    To say Hillary shouldn’t take the job because she’d have to defend Obama’s “disasterous presidency” when the man hasn’t been sworn in is at least a bit premature.
    Then to say “it’s beneath” Hillary to take the job, well, you’ll undoubtedly find a few duds on this list, but I think the job has to be considered an honor regardless;

    Blue Democrat,

    TurndownObama actually quoted my post and it was me who said that Obama would have a disastrous presidency(this is my prediction). I really believe that, considering that Obama promised the moon and the stars to get the nomination. There is no way that Obama is going to deliver on his promises. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State can be made to appear as condoning this duplicity. Hillary would be tainted with the lies and incompetence of the Obama administration. Do you really think that Hillary would have a voice there even as Secretary of State? I don’t think so. I think that she is just going to be used and dumped when she has already been tainted. It is a pattern with Obama.

    On the one hand, if Hillary pushes her agenda, she can be painted as usurping and interfering. They will say ” You are not the President”. On the other hand, if she cannot intervene, the failed policies that she will be asked to execute will cling to her. She will be in a no win position if she accepts.

    Why should she give them the benefit of her wisdom when they in effect said that she is not qualified for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency.

  • rickya

    Obama: I know that I cheated during the primaries, and I don’t think it is a good idea for you to be my vice president but I think that you should take it as an honor that I am offering to you the Secretary of State post.

    Clinton: Oh thank you, your highness!

    Obama: Remember Hillary, it is part of your job to make me look good so whatever bird-brained idea I come up with you have to sell to the public.

    Clinton: Absolutely, your eminence. You can also make me as your scapegoat when things go awry. I’m all yours.

    IS THIS HOW WE WANT THIS TO GO?

  • ABM90

    Far be it from me or anyone else to give Hillary advise on any thing.She is far smarter than any of us or for that matter or the political clowns we elect and the MSM assasins.She knows who she is where she is going and what she will do for the people of this country.She failed as a candidate for CIC because she was betrayed and cheated by BO and the DNC.She is going to be just fine and I will support her in whatever career decisions she makes.

    By ABM90 She is the leader to follow.

  • JanH

    The ONLY way Hillary should consider a cabinet position of any kind is under her own terms…with many conditions favorable to her and with an airtight contract.

  • ABM90

    JanH I agree but with Obama nothing is airtight.Axelrod is the Svengali of this evil Cabal.

    By ABM90

  • meiyingsu

    Hank Paulson, Naked Emperor
    by Michelle Malkin

    Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson finally confirmed what lonely bailout opponents tried to tell the American public all along: The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing.

    Paulson held a bazooka to taxpayers’ heads. He groveled on his knees in front of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He lured leaders from both political parties into linking arms in a panicked Chicken Little line dance for the beleaguered mortgage industry. Paulson demanded an unprecedented $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program for the good of the country. For the health of the housing market. For the survival of the economy. No time for deliberation. No time to review the failures of such interventionist approaches around the world. Now, now, now!

    And now? The pulled-out-of-the-posterior “$700 billion” price tag has ballooned into the trillions. The “mortgage industry rescue” has expanded to banks, insurance companies, automakers, credit card companies and possibly the entire national volume of consumer lending. Oh, and that vaunted “TARP” component, Paulson admitted this week, is nothing but a four-letter word that rhymes with TRAP.

    townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2008/11/14/hank_paulson,_naked_emperor

  • blue

    At first blush I thought that this appointment as Sec of State was a snare and a step down for Hillary. On reflection though it seems like a brilliant opportunity for her. As it is now, her Senate colleagues are determined to keep her from doing much of anything that would put them in the shadow. Reid is no fan of hers and others have leaped into the Health Care issue before she can get going on it. Pelosi is jealous to a pathological degree. Hillary could wind up being seen as a poor loser every time she had anything critical to say about the Beloved Leader. On the other hand, if she were Sec of State she would have an independent platform and a great deal more visibility. Her effectiveness in actually forming policy worldwide would be enormous – and she could employ her vast experience and skill to benefit the country. Even if the only benefit were that she would keep that idiot Kerry out of the job it would be worthwhile. As it stands now her role in the Senate seems clouded by many who did not support her in the election – but as Sec of State she would have a way to show just how splendid and competent she is. Go for it, Hillary.

  • JanH

    Maybe we are just jumping the gun here and reading more into media persuasiveness than we should. We have been bitten more times than ever before by a media who starts a rumor and sits back and lets it explode in our faces.

  • birdgal

    rickya Says:

    November 14th, 2008 at 7:48 am
    Obama: I know that I cheated during the primaries, and I don’t think it is a good idea for you to be my vice president but I think that you should take it as an honor that I am offering to you the Secretary of State post.

    Clinton: Oh thank you, your highness!

    Obama: Remember Hillary, it is part of your job to make me look good so whatever bird-brained idea I come up with you have to sell to the public.

    Clinton: Absolutely, your eminence. You can also make me as your scapegoat when things go awry. I’m all yours.

    IS THIS HOW WE WANT THIS TO GO?

    ————————————————————————————————

    Rickya, I enjoy your postings, and I agree with the above scenario. There could be some positives as SOS, but I remember how Powell was cut out some major decisions, and sold the Iraq War. He didn’t have the power and regard that he should have had, because the administration team was split. I would hate to see the same thing happen to Senator Clinton. She would be wonderful as SOS, but I don’t her to be tainted by the Chicago Machine and BO.

  • rickya

    Birdgal,

    That’s what I fear most – that she would be tainted by Obama and his ilk. There’s no question that between Senator and SOS, SOS would be more prestigious. But it is also precarious in that you can be replaced anytime as SOS. Respected Senator for New York is not bad considering that she would command a lot of respect and deference because she has a lot of pull (ie, fundraising) and if she decides to become adversarial, it would make life difficult for the Obama administration.

  • JanH

    She isn’t stupid. She is a zillion times smarter than Obama and his friends. I have every faith that whatever Hillary decides will be in her best interests as well as the country’s.

  • birdgal

    Excuse my former post, for all the typos. EEK.

    It is ironic that BO is considering Senator Clinton for SOS, especially after minimizing her international experience. During the primary, the international experience was degraded to “tea parties.” What a bunch of hypocrites, but I guess, this is politics.

    If Senator Clinton leaves the Senate, do you think Caroline Kennedy will be appointed to the position?

  • wbboei

    In the Loop
    Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?

    By Al Kamen and Philip Rucker
    ——————————————–
    This one should be filed under the category mindless speculation by people who have no insight on what she is thinking and will go nowhere. They kill trees for this? Hillary’s elevated sense of duty to party may have dictated that she not pursue her candidacy to the convention, but surely it does not require that she turn over her senate seat to a dimwit like Patterson and thus end her career in public service. Wait until act 3.

  • wbboei

    if she were Sec of State she would have an independent platform and a great deal more visibility. Her effectiveness in actually forming policy worldwide would be enormous – and she could employ her vast experience and skill to benefit the country. Even if the only benefit were that she would keep that idiot Kerry out of the job it would be worthwhile. As it stands now her role in the Senate seems clouded by many who did not support her in the election – but as Sec of State she would have a way to show just how splendid and competent she is. Go for it, Hillary.
    ———————————————
    Hi Blue. Havent heard from you for awhile. Do you really believe this? She would lose her senate seat. And bambi could fire her with impunity. Any job in this administration is a brown helmut job. This is a dead end in my opinion. But tell me where you think she goes from there because that is the next question to consider.

  • wbboei

    Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson finally confirmed what lonely bailout opponents tried to tell the American public all along: The man doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing
    ————————————–
    file this one under obvious

  • rickya

    blue Says:
    November 14th, 2008 at 9:46 am

    At first blush I thought that this appointment as Sec of State was a snare and a step down for Hillary. On reflection though it seems like a brilliant opportunity for her. As it is now, her Senate colleagues are determined to keep her from doing much of anything that would put them in the shadow. Reid is no fan of hers and others have leaped into the Health Care issue before she can get going on it. Pelosi is jealous to a pathological degree. Hillary could wind up being seen as a poor loser every time she had anything critical to say about the Beloved Leader. On the other hand, if she were Sec of State she would have an independent platform and a great deal more visibility. Her effectiveness in actually forming policy worldwide would be enormous – and she could employ her vast experience and skill to benefit the country. Even if the only benefit were that she would keep that idiot Kerry out of the job it would be worthwhile. As it stands now her role in the Senate seems clouded by many who did not support her in the election – but as Sec of State she would have a way to show just how splendid and competent she is. Go for it, Hillary.

    I completely disagree. The most effective way to silence Hillary would be to take her in as Secretary of State. She would have no opportunity to disagree or become independent. She would be there at the behest of the President and can be replaced at any time for any reason.

    Even if what you say is true, even if Reid would be able to defeat any initiative that she brings forth, she can still speak her mind out and release policy pronouncements directly to the public. Mind you, the scenario that you envision is totally unlikely. Remember, Hillary still garnered the most number of votes in the primaries. That is not easy to dismiss. Moreover, her fundraising ability is unmatched in the Senate. Third, the Democrats have major agenda to push and will need her support. If she decides to become adversarial…good luck!

    Let us not be too enthusiastic about the offer(if there’s actually an offer). What we know of both Obama and Hillary is that Obama would not seriously offer this and Hillary would not accept. The only reason there is actually a story about this when no offer was actually made is that the MSM sees this as an opportunity to pacify the Clinton democrats. They know how biased they were during the primaries. They know how they shat on the Clintons. This is just their lame attempt to make amends. Do not be too easily placated. Do not forget what they did.

  • birdgal

    Senator Clinton did take a trip to Chicago, so she may be considering it.

  • wbboei

    TurndownObama actually quoted my post and it was me who said that Obama would have a disastrous presidency(this is my prediction). I really believe that, considering that Obama promised the moon and the stars to get the nomination. There is no way that Obama is going to deliver on his promises. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State can be made to appear as condoning this duplicity. Hillary would be tainted with the lies and incompetence of the Obama administration. Do you really think that Hillary would have a voice there even as Secretary of State? I don’t think so. I think that she is just going to be used and dumped when she has already been tainted. It is a pattern with Obama.

    On the one hand, if Hillary pushes her agenda, she can be painted as usurping and interfering. They will say ” You are not the President”. On the other hand, if she cannot intervene, the failed policies that she will be asked to execute will cling to her. She will be in a no win position if she accepts.

    Why should she give them the benefit of her wisdom when they in effect said that she is not qualified for the Presidency or the Vice Presidency.
    —————————————–
    This is the right analysis. The incompetent one has promised the dwindling largesse of this country to the third world and needs someone to tamp down those expectations, or as we say here on the back 40 renedge on those promises. They will be at his coronation to pay their respects and whisper in his ear dont forget about me. Secretary of State will be the flack catcher. That is not where I believe Hillary needs to be. I think the independence of the postion is a total snare and delusion. The one thing it would give her is visibilty, if she wants to end her political career. Forgetttabout it Hillary. Wait for act 3.

  • admin

    NEW ARTICLE IS UP.

  • wbboei

    Senator Clinton did take a trip to Chicago, so she may be considering it.
    ——————————————
    God I hope not.

  • wbboei

    I completely disagree. The most effective way to silence Hillary would be to take her in as Secretary of State. She would have no opportunity to disagree or become independent. She would be there at the behest of the President and can be replaced at any time for any reason.

    Even if what you say is true, even if Reid would be able to defeat any initiative that she brings forth, she can still speak her mind out and release policy pronouncements directly to the public. Mind you, the scenario that you envision is totally unlikely. Remember, Hillary still garnered the most number of votes in the primaries. That is not easy to dismiss. Moreover, her fundraising ability is unmatched in the Senate. Third, the Democrats have major agenda to push and will need her support. If she decides to become adversarial…good luck!

    Let us not be too enthusiastic about the offer(if there’s actually an offer). What we know of both Obama and Hillary is that Obama would not seriously offer this and Hillary would not accept. The only reason there is actually a story about this when no offer was actually made is that the MSM sees this as an opportunity to pacify the Clinton democrats. They know how biased they were during the primaries. They know how they shat on the Clintons. This is just their lame attempt to make amends. Do not be too easily placated. Do not forget what they did.
    ———————————————
    BINGO!!!!!! AND WE WILL FIND A WAY TO GET EVEN.

  • rgb44hrc

    ABM90 Says:

    November 14th, 2008 at 8:31 am
    Far be it from me or anyone else to give Hillary advise on any thing.She is far smarter than any of us or for that matter or the political clowns we elect and the MSM assasins.She knows who she is where she is going and what she will do for the people of this country.She failed as a candidate for CIC because she was betrayed and cheated by BO and the DNC.She is going to be just fine and I will support her in whatever career decisions she makes.
    &&&&&&&

    ABM90, you are right on. Let Hillary make her own decisions. We don’t know the inside game that she has to contend with. She’s a big girl, and I’m not overly concerned that Hillary is not looking out for her own welfare (and by extension, our welfare, because I believe her goal is much self-sacrificing; her desire to be president would be to serve THE PUBLIC INTEREST).

    Obama, like Bush, is COMPLETELY SELF-SERVING. They crave the spotlight, shun accountability, enjoy “being king”, and the hell to what the people need.

  • ABM90

    Condoleezza WHO? Hillary is too saavy to hit the bait.Ask yourselves if you would quit any job to go to work for this acorn? His presidency will be a very short one and you can bet your checks that’s in the mail that he promised.Hustlers are like leeches and should be treated as such.

    By ABM90

  • blue

    # wbboei Says:
    Hi Blue. Havent heard from you for awhile. Do you really believe this? She would lose her senate seat. And bambi could
    fire her with impunity. Any job in this administration is a brown helmut job. This is a dead end in my opinion. But tell me where you think she goes from there because that is the next question to consider.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________
    wbboei – Your remarks are always a credit to you. What you say is shrewd but I think that, if this Sec of State business is anything more than a rumor, Hillary and we would be better off for her taking it. Beloved Leader would not be able to fire her with impunity — there would be lots of punity considering the now exposed record of their vile behavior during the primary. If His Lordship were to try to discharge her he would have to admit (perhaps for the first time ever) that HE was responsible for a MISTAKE! She would be in a far stronger position than Colin Powell was to differ publically with the president over policy. Hillary would win that battle.
    Besides, we all know that the Senate has become a feckless bloviating club. It is dominated by Claghorns like Biden, poseurs like Lieberman and wretched leaders like Daschle and Reid — all of whom specialize in self promotion and getting very little done.
    For Hillary to go back there after all she has been through would be a letdown. Her voice would likely be lost in the endless prattle and maneuvering the Senate values so much. She has shown that she is in a far better class than those clowns and I would rather that she had a job on the world stage that she deserves so well than go back to arm wrestling with those drones and the K Street wolves.
    The question to ask is just how a person with her experience and intelligence can best be utilized to (a) benefit the country and (b) fulfill her own ambition and goals. My feeling is that any risk she would incur taking on the Sec of State job would be far better for her and us than another period as the junior Senator from NY.

  • Blue Democrat

    Well, I see someone is now posting under “Blue”, and that’s not me, so I’m not sure if you guys in the prior thread were saying hello and responding to me or not.

    Seems many here are against the Hill as SOS idea, but I have to tell you the way I see it, it’s like you guys are still fighting the campaign without recognizing it was Hillary’s decision not to go to Denver and fight the absurdity against her.
    And it was her campaigning all out for Bo that obviously wasn’t some kind of act but rather a recognition that – based on her decision not to fight for the nomination – she would instead do what she said she would do, which was do everything she could to get BO elected.

    Rather than view her taking or not taking SOS based on Machiaveliian maneuvers for 2012 or 2016, it might be best to view them as her actions dictate – which is that she’s playing for the team – scumbags though they certainly may be.
    As such, she can do the job and help the country, and there’s no question we need it.

    So I think if you look at it from the perspective of a hard-nosed political professional rather than a rapid supporter, it’s easier to see how it makes sense.
    And sure, as I originally speculated, it’s hard – if not impossible – to image BO & Axelrod scheming to essentially remove her from domestic politics and frequently, American soil.

    But in large part this is where it is because of Hill’s own decision, and if she’s ok with it and can do the job and help the country, then maybe that’s the best thing out there for her.

    Guess we’ll find out soon enough.

  • wbboei

    It is counterproductive for us to wait for Hillary to return to the fold and lead us because that day may never come– for any number of reasons.

    Instead, we must turn our attention to the future of our country. Our goal is to preserve a nation which is of the people, by the people and for the people, and the separation of powers bequeathed to us by de Montesquieu. The framers of the Constitution believed in that model of government and the freedom and liberty it preserved for its citizens. In fact, they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to that end.

    Today, however that model is under direct attack by those who advocate the unitary concept of government. The unitary concept subordinates the will of the people to the power of government and envisions the executive, legislative, judicial branches of government and press all marching in the same direction under the control of a supreme leader with mystical powers. This is not at all what the framers believed in. In fact, it is precisely what they sought to avoid.

    But it is alas what the Obama Administration stands for. It is no accident that his surrogates avoid the word “serve” and use the word “rule”.

    We must recognize what the true legacy of Hillary’s historic campaign is. Yes, she put eighteen million cracks in the glass ceiling and that is indeed important. But that alone is a historical footnote. The great contribution she made to this country was in giving birth to this community and others like it around the country.

    We are the ones who will fight to preserve what we are as a county and to improve upon it. To that end, we see five (5) critical goals to which we should pledge ourselves:

  • cstapp08

    Brilliant, wonderful article. I wonder how whoever writes these comes up with all the insight? The thoughts are all very well justified.

  • meiyingsu

    from drudge report,

    NYT ON CLINTON/OBAMA: ‘Associates of both Democrats cautioned that their conversation was mostly general and that no job was offered’…

  • alcina

    thoughts on SoS

    one of the main reasons i support(ed) HRC during her run was her astute knowledge and grasp of foreign affairs. the woman is absolutely brilliant. her depth of knowledge cannot be matched and i would trust her, above anyone else, in representing, guiding and protecting this country.
    that said, yes, she would be working for BHO in that capacity, but as we are stuck with him, who else would you rather see at the helm of international affairs?
    HRC is in her prime. This country needs her. I hope she is offered the position. i
    hope she accepts.

  • turndownobama-com

    blue,

    How many ‘Blue’s are there? Another Blue-something says he didn’t post as plain ‘Blue’. Maybe the late-comer should use a different handle?

    As to ‘junior Senator from NY’, Hillary already has more on-paper power (committee appointments etc) than many longterm Senators — plus of course her personal clout (18 million votes, fund-raising record for other candidates, media attention, etc.)