Barack Obama Is The Enemy Of Health Care Reform, Part II

Obama is and always has been the enemy of health care reform. Obama Dimocrats and Big Media sycophants refuse to accept, let alone publish that fact, so they are now in a tizzy about Democracy.

Obama sycophant Ezra Klein is bemoaning the rising ocean of opposition to Obama and his alleged health care “plan” (which does not exist) as a failure of Democracy. Writes whiny Ezra in an article called It Is Democracy, Not Health-Care Reform, That Is Sick:

What we’re seeing here is not merely distrust in the House health-care reform bill. It’s distrust in the political system.

Obama sycophant Ezra cites Obama sycophant Josh Marshall in his argument. Marshall whines “the health care debate right now… it’s clearly in a place where any sort of logic is incapable of making sense of what’s going on.” Democratic “strategist” Ed Kilgore, clearly an amnesiac who has misplaced his memory that it was Obama Dimocrats who planned to sell the non-existent Obama/Dimocrats health care “plan” via town halls, nows says ‘screw the town halls’. Whines Kilgore:

But I have a different question: authentic or phony, should these protests matter to Congress? We are talking, after all, about relatively small groups of people vociferously expressing a point of view (yes, some ask “questions” of their representatives, but generally of the loaded and rhetorical sort). Should these expressions be given disproportionate weight, perhaps more than, say, the party or ideology of Members of Congress, their understanding of their districts’ needs, or surveys of public opinion?

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal also wrote an article along the same lines called Health Debate Isn’t About Health. Writes Seib:

The health debate, which now has moved beyond the Beltway and into raucous town halls across the land, is so intense in part because it’s not really about health care at all.

On a deeper level, it’s about the role of government in America’s economy. And that is a raw and unresolved topic, only made more so by months of exceptional government intervention amid a deep recession.

Clearly the question of trust of the political system is a factor in the health care debate. Democrats used to love to protest and demonstrate. Now Dimocrats hate protests- “unAmerican” they say. Claire McCaskill, Obama sycophant extraordinaire, whined yesterday “Beg your pardon … you don’t trust me?” McCaskill said. “I don’t know what else I can do.”

No, we don’t trust you Claire even as you try to hide from your Obama drenched past. As to trust in the political system: Hillary supporters do indeed know quite a bit about that.

Let’s talk about trust.

* * * * *

Yesterday we discussed just some of the lies Barack Obama and the Dimocrats and sycophantic Big Media engaged in when Obama clearly was the enemy of health care reform. Today Ruth Marcus, in the Washington Post, echoes our article. Marcus does add the detail about how Obama attacked, in commercials, those he now has deals with:

The campaign even aired an ad singling out Billy Tauzin, the drug industry’s chief lobbyist. “The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies,” Obama said in the ad. “And you know what? The chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. Imagine that.”

Now, it turns out, the Obama White House has cut a backroom — actually, Roosevelt Room — deal with Tauzin: Drugmakers would ante up $80 billion in savings in return for a promise that Medicare wouldn’t be allowed to negotiate drug prices.

Ruth Marcus does a wonderful job of cataloging Obama lies in her article Change We Can’t Believe In? Marcus ends with the question, The secret deal with Tauzin can only deepen the skepticism. Which leads to the core question facing the still-young administration: What happens when people start to wonder whether they can really believe in this change?

Hillary supporters do remember the Obama lies and have always known that Obama was change no one should believe in. We remember the threats of riots in Denver if Obama was not given the nomination. We remember the long list of lies and the long list of how the political system was twisted – with Ezra and Josh cheering on the election theft. We remember Harold Ickes protesting the election theft and sounding a warning about how corruption begets distrust.

Hillary supporters remember the corruption.

We also remember the 15 Million Lies Obama uttered during the campaign while Ezra and Josh cheered. We remember Paul Krugman, before he joined the “racist” shouting Obama brigades, as Krugman described “the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s [health care] plan“. Krugman noted how Obama was “attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points”. Krugman made it clear that Obama gives “aid and comfort to the enemies of reform“.

Krugman eventually amplified his critique of Obama’s health care lies. Krugman wrote “Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.”

It turned out to be true. Obama’s words now are repeated by many to the detriment of genuine universal health care reform. Krugman wrote:

My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

Also true, Obama ripped off Hillary lines during the campaign on just about every issue but Obama never understood the words he mouthed or had the guts, the testicular fortitude that Hillary had in abundance, to fight for what the words meant.

“Bitter and clingy” Americans may recall Hillary when she said “we’ve got to put up a candidate that’s willing to stand for it and fight for it.”

Health care reform died in Denver in August 2008 when Obama appeared with Grecian columns to utter more words. It’s a hard truth for Democrats who cared about the issues and health care in particular. On August 28, 2008 we mourned the death of the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt with these prescient words:

For Hillary supporters, for those of us here at Big Pink issues do matter and are worth fighting for. For us Obama must be defeated in NOvember. We have written before and we repeat today our reasoning to oppose Obama in NOvember: Better to fight McCain and the Republicans with Democratic majorities forced to fight than to bow to Obama’s betrayals of core Democratic principles and appeasements to Republicans. Obama cannot be trusted by neither friend nor foe. We want Democratic elected officials to fight for core Democratic principles. Obama would betray Democratic principles, appease the worse of Republican demands and anyone who opposed Obama as in the past would be called a “racist”. We say NObama, NOvember.

Because of the economic crisis and the high profile of the despised George W. Bush the John McCain/Sarah Palin lead was washed away by November 2008. But can anyone deny the cheap treacheries of core Democratic values by Barack Obama now?

No, he can’t.
No, he won’t.

No, he won’t because he never wanted to. No, he can’t because his Rezko style conflicts have Obama entangled with the most retrograde forces in America.

Obama recited right wing arguments to hit at Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Now Obama cuts deals with the health care industries. Yesterday we discussed Obama’s deals with Tauzin and the drug companies. We promised to discuss why we don’t believe the “misdirection” of Obama vs. the insurance industry.

Slate Magazine’s Timothy Noah analyzed how Big PhaRMa “conned the White House out of $76 billion”.

Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, has cut a secret deal on health reform with the White House. [snip] “The president encouraged this approach,” White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina said in an e-mail. “He wanted to bring all parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform.”

Why is the White House’s PhRMA deal a bad bargain? Because in securing $80 billion in savings over 10 years, the White House is forgoing what could be as much as $156 billion over the same time period. That’s what a 2008 report by energy and commerce’s investigations subcommittee calculated to be the savings if Medicare were permitted to buy drugs at the same rates negotiated by the (much smaller) Medicaid program.

So Tauzin conned the White House out of $76 billion. [snip]

In striking the bargain with PhRMA, Obama broke a not-insignificant campaign promise (“Obama will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings … to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality”). Candidate Obama, citing a paper by Roger Hickey, Jeff Cruz, and Dean Baker of the Institute for America’s Future, put the savings at $30 billion a year, which over a decade would be roughly twice the $156 billion savings envisioned by the energy and commerce committee. [snip] By this reckoning, Tauzin swindled not $76 billion from President Obama but $220 billion.

We don’t necessarily agree with Noah that the White House was “conned”. We expect a great paying future job for Michelle from Big PhRMa or another hospital or some type of Chicago style deal.

Rich Galen too mocks the Chicago way:

In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good.

So, what if the previously dreadful, greedy, self-serving oil companies sent their lobbyists in to cut a deal with Obama to support a cap-and-trade bill though heavy advertising? Might they trade for removing any caps on their profits?

I think I’m beginning to get how this works.

It works like … Chicago!

The drug dealers have been taken care of. What about the allegedly hostile to Obama insurers? We’re being told repeatedly that the insurers are not on board with Obama. How true is all this? Has Obama, the enemy of health care reform, made a side deal with the health insurance companies?

magazine says The Health Insurers Have Already Won:

How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit

By Chad Terhune and Keith Epstein

As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.

Remember Tom Daschle? Daschle was the tax cheat Obama wanted as Secretary of Health and Human Services as well as to serve as Obama’s health reform czar. Now tax cheat Tom has a new job with the insurance industry:

Sommer has retained such influential outsiders as Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Leader who now works for the large law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird. Daschle, a liberal from South Dakota, dropped out of the running to be Obama’s Secretary of Health & Human Services after disclosures that he failed to pay taxes on perks given to him by a private client. He advised UnitedHealth in 2007 and 2008 and resumed that role this year. Daschle personally advocates a government-run competitor to private insurers. But he sells his expertise to UnitedHealth, which opposes any such public insurance plan. Among the services Daschle offers are tips on the personalities and policy proclivities of members of Congress he has known for decades.

Conceding that he doesn’t always agree with his client, Daschle says: “They just want a description of the lay of the land, an assessment of circumstances as they appear to be as health reform unfolds.” He says he leaves direct contacts with members of Congress to others at his firm.

Daschle was the man Obama wanted to run what he now calls health insurance reform. Daschle no doubt knows the “personalities and policy proclivities” of a lot of Obama friends and has a direct line to them. We suspect a lot of phone calls from Washington to Michelle’s former hospital employers in Chicago too.

Businessweek suggests Americans should not trust the numbers we are hearing either about profits nor costs:

What people in Washington tend not to discuss, at least on the record, is the open secret that insurers are minimizing their forecasts of the eventual windfall they will enjoy from expanded coverage for Americans. UnitedHealth has given certain key members of Congress details about its finances and tax liability—both historical numbers and figures projected under various cost-sharing scenarios. But some on Capitol Hill are skeptical. “The bottom line,” says an aide to the Senate Finance Committee, “is that health reform would lead to increased revenues and profits [for the insurance industry]. … There will be [added] costs [to the companies], but we’re not sure the revenues and profits will be as low as they say.”

* * * * *

Why should anyone be surprised?

Krugman agreed with us long ago that Barack Obama Is The Enemy Of Health Care Reform.

Obama bragged during the primary campaign in 2008 of his work in Illinois. Remember: “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama spoke at a rally Thursday in Atlanta. Obama has tried to distinguish himself from rival Hillary Clinton by criticizing her ties to lobbyists.” Remember? Remember? Obama’s health care lies about what he did in Illinois:

When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the “Health Care Justice Act,” they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system.

Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama’s remarks on the Senate floor.

Why is anyone surprised. Obama always was and is the Enemy of Health Care Reform. It’s his history. History is a teacher. History is a teacher, sometimes History repeats itself in just about every detail:

The Health Care Justice Act, which Obama sponsored in the state Senate, grew out of work done by the Campaign for Better Health Care, an Illinois coalition of healthcare advocates, labor unions, and nonprofit organizations. The ostensible goal was simple: make affordable healthcare available to all Illinoisans. But the politics were anything but simple.

On one side were healthcare advocates, eager to capitalize on the Democrats having won control of the General Assembly and the governor’s office. On the other were most insurers, who worked vigorously to sink the bill. Obama was in the middle, trying to reconcile a range of agendas to get a viable plan signed into law.

Obama tried to take credit for the work of others. Obama wasn’t just in the middle – he worked both sides to profit and advance himself.

The bill originally called for a “Bipartisan Health Care Reform Commission” to implement a program reaching all 12.4 million Illinois residents. The legislation would have made it official state policy to ensure that all residents could access “quality healthcare at costs that are reasonable.” Insurers feared that language would result in a government takeover of healthcare, even though the bill did not explicitly say that.

By the time the legislation passed the Senate, in May 2004, Obama had written three successful amendments, at least one of which made key changes favorable to insurers.

Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy – the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access. In the same amendment, Obama also sought to give insurers a voice in how the task force developed its plan.

Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry’s concerns into consideration.

Rezko vs. freezing tenants – Obama sided with Rezko. Universal Health Care in Illinois – Obama sided with the lobbyists and the insurers. Citizens of Illinois poisoned by radioactive leaks vs. Exelon – Obama sided with Exelon.

Why is anyone surprised?

Obama always was, Obama always will be – The Enemy Of Health Care Reform.


125 thoughts on “Barack Obama Is The Enemy Of Health Care Reform, Part II

  1. Admin,

    I don’t think bambi or his handlers give a damn about how the public feels about this non-health care plan. He is going to be very heavy handed in all of his legislation. And when it all falls apart, he will, of course, point the finger and thrown everyone but himself under the bus.

    Excellent article.

  2. White House retreats on bank pay curbs: Obama has talked tough about a crackdown on Wall Street bonuses, but his treasury secretary has quietly taken a softer line

    Andrew Clark in New York, Wednesday 12 August 2009

    Despite thundering rhetoric from President Barack Obama about the “shameful” and “outrageous” size of Wall Street bonuses, the White House has largely backed down from imposing any tough restrictions on runaway pay in the financial industry.

    New York’s attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, recently reported that America’s nine biggest banks handed out $32.6bn (£19.7m) in bonuses last year despite running up aggregate losses of $81bn. But after early threats to cap pay at $500,000 at banks in receipt of state aid, the US treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, has been an influential voice in the administration urging a more laissez-faire approach.

    Senior bankers have lobbied hard to keep their golden pay cheques, arguing that restrictions would put the US at risk of a flight of talent to financial centres in Europe or elsewhere in the world.

    Giving evidence to lawmakers on Capitol Hill in February, Morgan Stanley’s chief executive, John Mack, said the mere threat of curbs for US firms had already led to European banks poaching his mid-level investment bankers: “Some of the European banks have already gone out and put packages and multi-year guarantees in front of them.”

    His counterpart at Bank of America, Ken Lewis, said: “It is okay to do the things that are being talked about at the very top, but if you start to go too low in the organisation, you will run off key talent to foreign competitors.”

    A few modest measures are under way. The Obama administration is supporting a bill in Congress which will introduce British-style ’say on pay’ votes at annual meetings, giving shareholders a chance to voice approval or disapproval of boardroom remuneration arrangements. The US government is working on a change in regulations to make compensation committees more independent. And so-called “golden parachutes” rewarding departing executives are under review.

    Lawmakers have suggested various other measures – the chairman of the house financial services committee, Barney Frank, wants incentive schemes to include penalty clauses deducting money from salaries if things go wrong, as well as paying out bonuses in good times. As many as 19 different legislative proposals on remuneration have been discussed in Congress this year.

    But seemingly anxious to calm Wall Street nerves, Geithner assured banks in June that their pay packets were safe: “I want to be clear on what we are not doing. We are not capping pay. We are not setting forth precise prescriptions for how companies should set compensation.”

  3. JanH, you are right.

    We do wonder why no one focuses on Obama’s earlier history on health care, which we cited at the end of the article. What happened to the Illinois health care plan is almost exactly what has happened now. Yet, few are discussing this earlier history.

  4. Great job, admin. He is a Chicago flim-flam artist, not to be trusted with healthcare or anything else.

    Interesting. Local news from NH has video of Obama’s bussed-in supporters to his townhall event.

    Shot of the buses is at about 45 seconds in. The reporter notes at the end that the bussed-in folks are the ones being allowed inside, to participate in the townhall. All the protestors outside? Not so much.

    Whether you agree with the protestors or not, the meme being pushed by the media and Obama that those against are “astroturfed”, and those for it are just pure-as-the-driven-snow real grassroots is an outright propaganda lie.

  5. HillaryforTexas Says:

    August 12th, 2009 at 1:29 pm


    bambi needs to round up his “bussed in” support bots and move to a galaxy far…far…away… His “politics of fear” polution is leaving permanent damage.

  6. OO is in trouble. I saw the video of Mc what ever her name is. She said don’t you trust me? The audience said NO. I have never seen voters protesting like this. The disrespect with which these crowds have been treated is really going to hurt the Democrats.

  7. NMF,

    And she smirked when they said that. These idiots don’t care what the public thinks of them. Their audacity and arrogance just reeks.

  8. NMF, I love Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, but these democrats are just tone deaf to the voters.

    I saw a video clip where she had a town hall, and in the middle of the questions session, while a constituent was trying to talk to her, she answered her cell phone, and started talking to someone else. While standing in front of a none-too-happy crowd. You could hear comments in the crowd, and they were STUNNED that she’d have the sheer gall to do that.

    I mean, how STUPIDLY DISMISSIVE can you be? Sorry, Stephanie, but you blew it there, bigtime.


    An eye-opening quote deep in the Post’s fine piece on Eunice Shriver and the state of the Kennedy clan:

    Who will carry the Kennedy torch of public service now?

    “I think it’s over,” said former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee, a close friend of Jack Kennedy’s. “I don’t think there are any left” in the next generation of Kennedys whose work can compare with their parents’ generation.

  10. OOps, sorry admin. Not enough coffee earlier this a.m., I think. I called Ron Paul “Paul Ron” on another blog earlier! Maybe I need to stop typing on 2 computers at once. (I have medical billing work stuff up on hubby’s laptop, and blogs on mine – LOL!)

  11. Poll: 70% of Americans see Israel as U.S. friend

    Nearly two-third of Americans regard Israel as an ally despite recent diplomatic tensions, a nationwide survey conducted by the U.S. polling firm Rasmussen Reports has revealed.

    The 70 percent who view Israel as America’s friend marks twice the number of respondents who view Egypt as an ally, though that Middle Eastern country has been polled as the most highly regarded Islamic country among Americans.

    According to the poll, 81 percent of U.S. voters agree that Palestine Authority leaders must recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of any future Middle Eastern peace agreement.

    As part of the telephone survey, a representative number of adults were asked to evaluate America’s relations with key Middle Eastern countries. Israel is by far considered the closest friend among respondents.

    Nevertheless, 8 percent of Americans polled said that Israel is an enemy of the U.S., while 16 percent placed it somewhere between ally and enemy.

    Following Egypt – which 39 percent see as an ally – Saudi Arabia is the American’s second favorite of Islamic countries, with 23 percent of respondents considering it an ally. Even so, 25 percent see Saudi Arabia as an enemy, and nearly half put it somewhere in between.

    According to respondents, Iran is the greatest risk to U.S. national security. Some 70 percent regard the Islamic republic an enemy of the U.S. Merely 5 percent think of Iran as an ally, and 20 percent characterize it as somewhere in between. In comparison, 41 and 40 percent respectively view Iraq and Afghanistan as enemies of the United States.

    In addition, Rasmussen Reports asked voters to assess America’s relationship with the Muslim world. 21 percent say the relationship will have improved in a year from now, whereas 25 percent believe it will get worse. 44 percent think the relationship will be more or less the same a year from now.

  12. Rep Tim Bishop (D-NY) has decided to have a town hall. He’s holding it at SEIU headquarters, 20 miles outside his district.

    Wanking coward, running to hide behind the legs of thugs.

  13. Admin says:

    Obama tried to take credit for the work of others. Obama wasn’t just in the middle – he worked both sides to profit and advance himself.

    so what’s new…he will stand by declaring ‘present’ and then wait until all the heavy lifting and hard work is done and sweep in to take credit…his mo

    admin Says:

    August 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
    JanH, you are right.

    We do wonder why no one focuses on Obama’s earlier history on health care, which we cited at the end of the article. What happened to the Illinois health care plan is almost exactly what has happened now. Yet, few are discussing this earlier history.


    you can’t really be surprised…more protection and more cover up…we cannot really respect any investigative reporting on O when the MSM is spending all day spinning anything critical of him to project on his critics…

  14. What do most of you think the end result will be on this issue? I fear Bambi will get a health care bill.

  15. Al Qaeda could seek ‘foothold’ in Nigeria, Clinton warns during

    ABUJA, Nigeria (CNN) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday visited Nigeria and warned it could be a target for al Qaeda. Nigeria is the fifth stop in Hillary Clinton’s visit to Africa, to be followed by Liberia and Cape Verde. The country has been racked by violence between Christians and Muslims, with hundreds having died in riots over the past several years.

    “Al Qaeda has a presence in Northern Africa,” Clinton said. “There is not doubt in our minds that al Qaeda and like organizations that are part of the syndicate of terror would seek a foothold anywhere they could find one, and whether that is the case here or whether this is a homegrown example of fundamentalist extremism — that is for the Nigerians to determine.”

    Clinton is meeting President Umaru Musa Yar’Dua and other leading politicians in the capital Abuja, the latest stage on an 11-day African tour designed to show U.S. commitment to the continent.

    Nigeria is “the most important country in sub-Saharan Africa” and one of the most corrupt, according to a senior official on the trip. It is a major oil and gas producer, one of the largest suppliers to the American market, said Johnnie Carson, assistant secretary at the State Department’s Bureau of African Affairs.

    Clinton opened her Africa trip in Nairobi, Kenya, then went to South Africa, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. She will travel next to Liberia and Cape Verde.

    The Obama administration is also using Clinton’s tour to promote development and good governance.

    Clinton brought an offer of help Tuesday for victims — especially victims of sexual violence — in Africa’s longest war, a regional conflict that’s dragged on for more than a decade. “We want to banish the problems of sexual violence into the dark past where it belongs,” she said during her visit to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    In a meeting with leaders of nongovernmental organizations, Clinton said the United States will provide “more than $17 million in new funds to prevent and respond to gender and sexual violence.”

    On Monday, Clinton had delivered a blunt message to Prime Minister Adolphe Muzito when he hosted a dinner in her honor. “There must be an end to widespread financial corruption and abuses of human rights and women’s rights,” she said. “There must be an improvement in governance and the respect for the rule of law.”

    The United Nations estimates 200,000 women and girls have been raped in Congo since war broke out 12 years ago.

  16. JanH-this is a positive # considering the anti-Semite and his croonies we have leading the country.

  17. From the comments to Ezra Klein’s piece in today’s WP. This guy really nails it in cold, hard, fact…

    let’s take a look at two issues you mention above and see exactly folks might reasonably be mistrustful of government in general and Obama and particular. First, there is the issue of the individual mandate. Obama’s original plan and campaign was very clear that they are plan did not include individual mandate and in fact attacked the Clinton campaign because it did. Then in March or April of this year, he had a “change of heart” and decided to include the individual mandate.

    Secondly, one of the funding mechanisms talked about above is changing what you politely called the “changing the existing subsidies” to the health care system. what this of course is referring to is a change to the tax deductions for employer provided healthcare. In the campaign last year, Obama savaged McCain for his proposal to end deductions for employer provided healthcare.

    So who exactly is being dishonest in this debate? Who exactly is demagoging the debate? if Obama can have a “change of heart” about an issue he campaigned on and can be so dishonest to pursue a policy that he is specifically attacked his opponent on in the last election, why are people now supposed to trust him in everything going forward? What in fact is there to prevent him from breaking his promises in the future? your editorials and comments seem to be saying that it’s somehow beyond the pale of discussion for people to question whether Obama’s plan will really be what he says it is, but there are now two instances where it will be (or might be) what he specifically said it wouldn’t be before. So why exactly should the opponents believe that Obama’s plan will really be what he says it will be, especially 10 years down the road?

    Posted by: sgaliger | August 12, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

  18. jbstonesfan,

    Yes I agree. And another example of bambi not listening to his constituents.

    I’m off to read the article you just posted.

  19. I am sick and tired of the Dimocrats getting their panties in a wad, and the talking heads bemoaning how angry these crazy protestors are, and going on and on about how this is something dangerous and new in politics in this country.


    Anyone remember 2002?

    When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting “Bush is a terrorist!”, the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

    One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush’s assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

    “BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE,” read the placard, which had an X over the word “ALIVE.”

    Another poster showed Bush’s face with the words: “F— YOU, MOTHERF—ER!”

    A third sign urged motorists to “HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH.” A fourth declared: “CHRISTIAN FASCISM,” with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

    Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like “Slut!” “Whore!” and “Fascists!”

    Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.

    Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.

    The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush’s motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president’s moving limousine.

    All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as “9/11 – YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB,” and “BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT.” One sign read: “IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!”

    Oh yeah, but we have Democratic congressmen Baron Hill calling grandpa a “political terrorist” because he might dare to yell at his elected representative in an open town hall, or call him a liar.

  20. The problem is that a few “bad apples” i.e. extremists make things bad for everyone else. And those are the cases that get so much publicity. Apparently a swastika was painted on a sign outside Rep. David Scott’s Georgia district office yesterday by someone angry about the health debate.

    Now that, in my opinion, went way overboard.

  21. JanH I hate to say it, but with what we are experiencing, what’s to day that someone in his own group did not paint that on his door. After All Poopsie claim there were at town halls when they were not. Maybe that was the signal to make her embarrasing rant look better.

    Just a though, as I don’t beleive any of them to be truthful anymore.

  22. Okay, this is funny:

    If politicians are treated with contempt, it is because they, as a class, have behaved contemptuously. Members of both parties have shown a high tolerance for corruption. The public tends to view members of Congress as oversexed middling figures on a power trip, perhaps hoping to earn big money as a lobbyist after their time in Congress. The public mostly accepts the corruption of Congress as a fact of life, electing incumbents on the philosophy of “better the devil you know.”

    However, when people we distrust and view as corrupt start wanting to mess around with our health insurance coverage while running an annual deficit of nearly $2 trillion, many are justifiably angry and will show it.

    I wouldn’t urge shouting down members of Congress. I would much prefer sarcasm as a response to the demands of Speaker Pelosi. Go to a town hall meeting and begin your statement with an obsequious “my liege lord” or “if it pleases your excellency.” Maybe curtsy for them.

    What’s becoming apparent to the American public is that we have an imperious Congress full of big egos and little minds, greedy, near-sighted people who are drowning future generations in debt and have the gall to demand that people calm down.

    ROTFLMAO! I’d really love to see that. Someone at a town hall giving a sweeping bow, than going to one knee with lowered head, saying “I prithee, my liege lord, give ear to the concerns of a faithful peasant. Will thou not hear, in thy noble benevolence, the worries and concerns of thy subjects that cry unto thee? Hearken to us if it pleases thee, your excellency, for we are sore distressed.”

    I’d pay MONEY to see that.

  23. National Enquirer has confirmd that a DNA test has proven John Edwards is the father of his mistresses child.

    To my mind it further proves that Edwards deliberately was a set up against Hillary in the 08 Primaries.

    The scumbag has no business entering the 08 Race, who put him up to it and it even more begs the question of that very very quick pullout of the race after Florida when Hillary handed Obama his ass.

    I sense a very big set up.

  24. According to the National Enquirer, former North Carolina senator and two-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has secretly undergone a DNA test, and it proves that he is the father of Rielle Hunter’s love child. Multiple sources have confirmed the news with the Enquirer, and it is said that lawyers are now privately working on arranging child support payments with his former mistress.

    When the Enquirer broke the story about Edwards’ affair in 2007, he denied it. It was not until mid-2008 that Edwards finally admitted the affair (after having been caught red-handed), in an interview aired on ABC’s NIghtline. Despite acknowledgng the affair, Edwards has maintained that he is not the father of Hunter’s child. Pictures of him meeting up with Hunter and holding the child have long suggested otherwise.

    The National Enquirer has also revealed that they have learned that Hunter testified against Edwards in his secret federal grand jury investigation that is looking into whether he broke campaign finance laws by secretly paying her to keep quiet. Her testimony could end up sending him to jail.

    The cover-up surrounding the affair and child involved hush money paid out to Hunter, as well as Andrew Young, who was once a loyal staffer of Edwards and claimed that he fathered Hunter’s child. The payments were made secretly to Hunter and Young by Fred Baron, Edwards’ national finance chairman who has since passed away. Young also testified before the grand jury, and is said to be readying to publish a tell-all book.

    “Rielle had no choice but to demand John take a DNA test,” said the close friend.

    “She was worried about getting long-term financial support for her daughter. So she hired an attorney, and John consented to undergo a secret swab test to establish paternity.

    “There was no surprise: The results of the DNA test proved John was Frances’ daddy.”

    Another source also confirmed:

    “John always knew he was the father of Rielle’s baby.”

    Rielle spent 9 hours in the courthouse in Raleigh, NC on August 6. Her testimony came as a “cooperating witness” with the federal government. A source added:

    “Rielle is not dumb. She knew the feds had subpoenaed her bank statements and knew about every payment she received,” said the source.

    “The FBI told her it was in her best interests to tell the truth, and she did. And unlike the others who have testified, Rielle was driven to the court by FBI agents and escorted in by them. She got favorable treatment because she testified against John.”

    Say what you will about the National Enquirer, but they broke the story in 2007 and were proven correct over a year later.

  25. Anyone else want to guess that the Obama campaign held this over his head and told him how to conduct his campaign and then pushed him out when he had done his damage to Hillary. It certainly all makes sense now.

  26. # admin Says:
    August 12th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    JanH, you are right.

    We do wonder why no one focuses on Obama’s earlier history on health care, which we cited at the end of the article. What happened to the Illinois health care plan is almost exactly what has happened now. Yet, few are discussing this earlier history.


    If the Illinois HC Plan Obama proposed as a State Senator can be reconstructed comparing the outcome as it was legislated to the proposal used to sell it to the public. Could be the Silver bullet loaded in the Smoking Gun.

  27. MoonOnPluto, sex tales is what Obama’s campaigns have always specialized in.

    As to John “Are You My Daddy?” Edwards, we are reminded of that great sage Mae West who said: “A little hush money can do a lot of talking.”

  28. No theory Basil, Edwards was never going to keep that quiet about the child, the question is why he ever went for the 08 nomination, it makes no sense with that hanging over his head unless it was with a gun to his head.

    Edwards always had a similar line to Hillary, who did that help, Obama, no one else.If you look at it, Edwards did Hillary damage in Iowa, if he had not been there, she would have won Iowa hands down. S.Carolina, another one designed to hurt Hillary and split the minority Dem white vote. Edwards was brought in to bring Hillary down in the 1st 4 primaries.

    Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC. Hillary probably would have just won Iowa without Edwards and then Hillary’s win in NH and Nevada would have been enormous had Edwards not been there and Obama’s win in SC would have been severely lessened had Edwards not been the patsy to split the white vote.

    Had Edwards not been in the 08 race, Hillary would have won the Nomination on NH night. Florida was the Ace in the DNC hole if they needed to use it to relegate Hillary and give Obama time.

    I’m more sure than ever.

  29. NewMexicoFan Says: to Jan H re: Swaistika on David Scott’s office

    August 12th, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    JanH…NMF could be correct and it could be their own people that are doing some of these really radical things…they are a few posts with links over at suggesting just that…that people were bused in to O’s TH, that people holding O poster with Hitler face are his supporters, the young girl at the TH is the daughter of an O supporter, complete with a picture of her mom and O on facebook and political connections

    notice how the media pounces on all of the really radical stull, a bit convenient don’t you think? and then continues their branding of the protestors…most of these seniors and soccer moms as the culprits are just not credible…

    I do not put anything past this O and his crowd…all you have to do is listen to the O admin and MSM’s detailed coordinated talking points to know that none of them can be trusted AT ALL.

    I was in my car listening to some talk radio and part of their strategy started dawning on me…O and the dems failed to rush, the bum’s rush, thru to get their bills passed…so now what and why???

    there are five competing congressional bills on the table between the house and the senate and O is just saying ‘present’ and giving vague statements but nothing concrete…

    so what is going on? how could they be so stupid?? hmmm…well for one thing, the bills are, in effect, moving targets…what is in one, may not be in another…all the better to keep everyone completely confused…and set trial ballons at the same time…if they say no to one that does not necessarily mean no goes for a different bill, or house vs senate, etc…just keep all those targets moving…

    they probably did not expect the ‘stupid’ mobs to take the time to actually read any of these bills, especially since they are written as if they were written in some legalise foreign language…

    however people are not only reading them, they are dissecting them and breaking them down in detail

    …some of the things I heard discussed on the radio are truly a concern…for example, if you do not sign up for a program when you do your taxes, you will automatically be fined and then put in a program…

    also the $500 BILLION taken from Medicare will be used to offset other things but with more and more boomers, etc needing medicare there will be less $$ available for less treatments…

    certain things and medical advances that have made seniors lives much more liveable such as drugs, hip replacements, multiple stents, etc especially for those in late 70’s and 80’s will be frowned upon and instead there will be a bureaucratic group set up with incentives to discourage those procedures and suggest alternatives….(kind of like a sales team in a way and the team makes their money by saving $$ from discouraging treatments)

    what about assisted living? seniors these days have a great quality of life in many assisted living centers…are these going to be govt run? state run? oh brother…


    the other thing I think we need to push back on hard…is that the media and O admin and dems keep attacking all the protestors, etc as organized by the repubs…they want to crystalize that this is the dems vs repubs…IT IS NOT

    there are many dems and independents that are against what the dems and O are trying to bamboozle and pull off…those voices need to be heard in the media – some tech savvy people should get out there and create some viral utubes and even include O supporters who now are wary…they are out there…

    and the way they should do it is to crystalyze that it is not only health reform…the pulse of the country is reacting because of an accumulation of O projects….the failed stimulus, the cap and trade, the continued earmarks, the broken camp promises…the LACK OF JOBS…

    why is O doing everything on god’s green earth, except focusing on creating jobs… he can save the banks, the energy bill, health reform…but no time for job creation and home forclosures…THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE REALLY CARE ABOUT RIGHT NOW!

    lastly, the seniors may be our salvation because many of them are coalescing against O and the health reform debacle…I have seen them in action when they organize and believe me…as individuals and a group…they can move mountains…

    one thing we can say, that our parents are still our parents, unlike the dem party that is no longer our parent’s democratic party…it might take them a little while to get it…but do not mess with them…

    and tech savvy people, The return of the Realist or friends??…let’s get those seniors on utube and let them go viral…and let’s include people who voted for O but now have buyer’s remorse…

  30. John Edwards was Obama’s whipping boy. Obama didn’t want to seem antagonistic towards Hillary because he feared being criticized or deemed mean spirited towards women. At every debate, it was pretty obvious Edwards was running interference for Obama.

    The telltale sign was when he turned on Obama when they were discussing the new BK/ CC Laws. Edwards stated he voted for a cap of 30% interest Banks could charge cardholders. He then asked Obama what rate he proposed for an interest cap… Obama stood mute.

    Edwards proceeded to giggle in total disbelief that Obama never proposed ANY caps at all on Consumers cc interest rates. Edwards forgot millions of people were watching his reaction to Obama’s silence… and that Edwards unwittingly verbalized and exposed…Obama’s secret.

  31. Edwards proceeded to giggle in total disbelief that Obama never proposed ANY caps at all on Consumers cc interest rates. Edwards forgot millions of people were watching his reaction to Obama’s silence… and that Edwards unwittingly verbalized and exposed…Obama’s secret.


    and funny it was right after that one that Edwards left (was told to leave) the race…..Obama obviously decided to flush his chained dog as payback for doing that. There was a big story that Hillary and Edwards both had a huge talk after that debate, i think thats when Edwards told Hillary what Obama was up to and that he had to leave the race. He knew Obama was about to flush him.

  32. admin Says:
    August 12th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Bingo! Mrs. Smith


    The thought of the damage the comparison can do… has me licking my lips in anticipation.
    Also, there was a case of a woman complaining about the nuclear plant (I believe in Ill) that was leaking spent nuclear materials after it was shutdown. I remember Obama promised her he would propose legislation in getting the mess cleaned up. The Bill was either never submitted or never passed. Either way, a lie and another broken promise.

  33. Edwards was brought in in order the split the white, populist, blue-collar vote, plain and simple. He was either coerced or played by the Obama campaign.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the “leak” of that story came from the Axelrod machine, when they figured they no longer needed him to counter Hillary.

  34. compliments of Uppitywoman08 –

    don’t mess with a senior!

  35. HillaryforTexas

    I could not agree with you more. I wonder what his wife says to him in private now, or how much she know of what was going on. What a terrible mess for you once promising life to be in.

  36. moononpluto:

    and funny it was right after that one that Edwards left (was told to leave) the race…..Obama obviously decided to flush his chained dog as payback for doing that. There was a big story that Hillary and Edwards both had a huge talk after that debate, i think thats when Edwards told Hillary what Obama was up to and that he had to leave the race. He knew Obama was about to flush him.


    No, Edwards was paying Obama back and why he made the disclosure public. Obama had Edwards on the ropes because Edwards confided to Obama of his little predicament. Edwards quickly figured out he was no longer useful to Obama. Obama’s retaliation came after… the first photos mysteriously appearing in the tabloids of Edwards visit to the hotel in the wee hours of the morning to see his mistress and their baby

  37. MOP,

    I still think it’s a pretty brilliant analysis.

    You too, Mrs. Smith.


    BTW, Anyone else notice how friggin comfortable BO is when talking about end-of-life care? It’s chilling.

  38. NewMexicoFan & S,

    I hadn’t heard that those actions were being taken by his own people. I should have thought of that. I’m am stilled appalled by what took place but even more so if it was done by the bots.

  39. ‘Obama had Edwards on the ropes because Edwards confided to Obama of his little predicament.’

    Interesting. Is that a hunch or based on stuff you’ve heard thru the grapevine?

  40. HillaryforTexas Says:
    August 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

    Edwards was brought in in order the split the white, populist, blue-collar vote, plain and simple. He was either coerced or played by the Obama campaign.


    Yes, exactly right. That was the original Axelrod strategy. In exchange, Edwards no doubt was promised a high position in his administration if all went as planned.

  41. yes Jan H…we are too trusting (and so many of his supporters so gulliable and naive)

    for what it is worth…

    take a peek over at and you will see a number of stories with links and perhaps put in an archive time of about 1:00 PM to get stories that may have been replaced

  42. JanH

    I don’t have any positive proof that it was done by the bots, but according to the blog, when Poopsie viciously stated there were Swastika signs being held up at meeting, there appear to be no substantiation of the. So how do you make the Poopsie look right? you make them appear.

    We have seen the crap going on during the whole campaign, and I don’t put it past them. I remember the vote in IOWA at my little site, and it was obvious that Edwards and Richardson were sent out to make deals. The horribe pushy attitude was evident. You could cut it with a knife.

    They obviously think that they will never be accountable to any one. They might be suprised, as right now there are some people holding them accountable, and they are acting irate, entitle, above the voters.

    I think that is what got the Catholic church into trouble, as they always felt that the Priest were in a class above the people. Well I guess we know how well that worked out.

  43. Diane Feinstein’s office gripes to WH about OFA-inspired constituent visits

    (hmmm…and who is doing the organizing????)

    A rare bit of friction between Dems and Obama’s political operation, Organizing for America:

    Aides to Senator Dianne Feinstein have complained to the White House about a deluge of visits to her offices by constituents who thought they had an appointment after OFA called on supporters to visit members of Congress, Feinstein’s office confirms to me.

    OFA recently blasted out an email to its list asking supporters to “visit” the office of their representatives. OFA asked supporters to sign up in shifts to avoid overwhelming the offices, whereupon supporters received follow-up emails reminding them of the “scheduled visit” they’d chosen. OFA advised them to “call ahead” before visiting.

    But some constituents took the follow-up email to mean that they had a hard-and-fast scheduled meeting with their members of Congress, and around 100 such people showed up at Feinstein’s offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Feinstein spokesperson Gil Duran says. The visitors got upset when they learned they didn’t have a scheduled meeting, Duran says, adding that Feinstein’s office “expressed their concerns” to the White House.

    Roll Call reported today that GOP Rep Eric Cantor’s office is charging that OFA is “misleading” constituents into believing they have an appointment. But the OFA email merely calls for “office visits” and says that there’s “no need to schedule an appointment unless you’d like to have a longer conversation with staff.”

    Feinstein’s office is the first Dem office to complain about the program.

    “We asked people to visit their representatives to let them know that they had the support of their constituents in supporting insurance reform this year,” DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan told me. “In an effort to serve their constituents, we’ve had a few offices call to clarify that these were visits and not meetings. Of the tens of thousands of people who signed up, it wouldn’t be surprising if a few may have mistakenly thought they had an appointment. ”


    Update: Edited to clarify that Cantor is the Republican hitting OFA.

  44. # basil9 Says:
    August 12th, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    ‘Obama had Edwards on the ropes because Edwards confided to Obama of his little predicament.’

    Interesting. Is that a hunch or based on stuff you’ve heard thru the grapevine?


    It’s the Law of the Jungle. Hindsight is 20-20. Framing the picture with known facts, dates and times and thinking like the the players in the scenario. Obama and his team are Triangulation². Which is a deliberate mechanic putting people off their scent.

  45. NMF you say:

    They obviously think that they will never be accountable to any one.


    that says it all…they think they are unstoppable no matter what…

  46. ‘It’s the Law of the Jungle’

    You can’t use the word ‘jungle’ anymore. it’s RACIST! For real! If textbook publishers get their way that word will be banned in favor of ‘rain’forest’ and ‘savannah.’

    Oh, and ‘Adam and Eve’ will be ‘Eve and Adam’ and ‘poor’ will be a dirty word to be replaced by something politically correct like economically challenged.

    👿 :mrgreen: 😈

  47. NMF you say:

    They obviously think that they will never be accountable to any one.


    They won’t. We have to begin again, supporting and electing Indys until the Party is purged of the Losers who $old their $ouls for the almighty dollar or caved in under pressure from coercive threats exerted against them and their families. I’ll bet there are a few of those still in the Party.

  48. Bill Clinton on Wife’s Visit to Africa: Hillary Can ‘Boogie’

    Former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that his wife’s recent trip to Africa showcased her effectiveness as the nation’s top diplomat — and her dance moves.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2009

    President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that his wife’s recent trip to Africa showcased her effectiveness as the nation’s top diplomat — and her dance moves.

    The former president was speaking at the launch of a new guide that highlights Harlem, N.Y.’s main attractions when he was asked about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s outburst on her trip to Africa.

    Secretary Clinton had been visibly bothered by a student who seemed to ask for President Clinton’s opinion on an issue.

    “She had an amazing trip,” Clinton said. “She went to Goma, one of the most (horrible) symbols of global suffering. She went to Angola, tried to reestablish a relationship there that began when I recognized them when I was president.

    “America should be grateful for this. That’s what I think,” he said.

    Clinton then complimented his wife’s televised dance moves while visiting with women in Kenya.

    “I saw on television Hillary boogying with those women in — you see that? — in Kenya,” Clinton said. “And I thought, well, you know, Kenya? Harlem? What am I chopped liver? Maybe I can get her to come and do that here.”

    The Spotlight on Harlem guide from the Zagat Survey, sponsored by the Clinton Foundation’s Economic Opportunity Initiative, gives reviews on more than 300 restaurants, nightspots, shops and attractions like Sylvia’s restaurant and the Apollo Theater. It also gives an overview of Harlem’s history.

  49. Hillary Clinton and the media making something out of nothing

    August 12, 2009

    Most of the news media, especially cable news, seemed to think that the momentary flash of anger and a sense of disrespect felt by Hillary Clinton from a question that was misunderstood due to a mistranslation by a translator amounted to a big news story.

    The moment, in which Clinton, clearly showed some irritation at a question she thought had more to do with her husbands opinion than her own due to a botching of the translation, reduced adults at CNN and Fox News to the level of a pesky little brother who thought they had something to embarrass an older sister with.

    The reaction was mostly male and infantile. Most women would probably understand Clinton’s irritation at what she thought was a question inquiring about Bill’s opinion instead of her own. It seemed a reasonable response to what sounded like a question reeking of sexism especially in a part of the world where women are treated as chattle. And cattle. It was more than reasonable considering what Clinton thought the question was. It was called for.

    But not to many in the news media who, like a bunch of 8 year olds delighting in having something they could use to tease an older sister, ( like big brother Sean Hannity) they thought Clinton’s reaction was big news. And worth re-running.

    The video showed the incident and a report on CNN on a state department explanation of her clearly irritated answer, referring to the experience of women in that part of the world and Clinton’s concern. But Clinton’s reaction didn’t need defending.

    For those who missed the media’s “Na-na-na-na- na” moment, and the state department’s explanation of her reaction, see the video below. You’ll also be treated to CNN anchor
    Rick Sanchez making patronizing remarks about his own wife and producer (” they are always right” — with a slight smirk). The only thing missing was Sanchez saying “take my wife — please” and then giving us a mother-in-law joke. But the real joke is on the news media who once again made themselves look fools.This time childish ones.


  50. Admin, your last two posts cut through the chase. Obama is not offering a “liberal” health reform. he’s offering something Romney would offer if he were President. A pro-insurance, pro-pharma, pro-big business health finance reform that will not help the average joe.

  51. hat says it all…they think they are unstoppable no matter what…
    That is our edge.

    Of all the causes which conspire to blind
    Man’s erring judgment and misguide the mind
    What the weak head with strongest bias rules
    Is pride–the never failing vice of fools.

    They will overreach. They cannot help themselves. Arguably they have already done it. But when we get to that tipping point it will all come tumbling down.

  52. 8. Branding: former New York Times Bureau Chief Chris Hedges calls the game on them. Big Media attached a positive brand to Obama because he will do the bidding of their corporate owners. The purpose of brand Obama is to make us feel better about government while corporate overlords loot the treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, and divert us with their gossip and trivia. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all products spun from the world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting things that are not in our interest. Corporations which control our politics no longer produce different things. They produced different brands. The Bush brand of studied folksiness collapsed. So we have been given the new Obama brand which is exciting and faintly erotic. The goal is give their products edge and to make consumers confuse brand with experience.
    At the same time, Big Media attached a negative brand to Hillary and later on Sarah because they were independent and would do the bidding of the American People. For example, on the eve of the primary season, CNN retained strategists developed a marketing strategy to brand Hillary Clinton as someone who is “divisive”, “polarizing”, “dishonest”, “untrustworthy”, “calculating”. Then they proceeded to repeat those adjectives again and again in the same manner that “biological warfare” and “weapons of mass destruction” were pounded across the air waves in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Jake Tapper compared Hillary to “Tanya Harding” implying that she would break Obama’s knees to steal his crown. Even today, Big Media ignores the excellent work Hillary is doing as Secretary of State, but when she gave a tough response to an insulting question in the Congo, they presented that clip over and over to support the negative image they have cultivated so assiduously. And they crucify ordinary citizens who make Obama look bad, e.g. Joe the Plummer. Big Media is allied with Obama and will destroy anyone who stands in his way.

  53. The Spotlight on Harlem guide from the Zagat Survey, sponsored by the Clinton Foundation’s Economic Opportunity Initiative, gives reviews on more than 300 restaurants, nightspots, shops and attractions like Sylvia’s restaurant and the Apollo Theater. It also gives an overview of Harlem’s history.
    Silvias is a great restaurant. 128th and Lexington. Have not heard from our friend Henry lately.

  54. “The video showed the incident and a report on CNN on a state department explanation of her clearly irritated answer, referring to the experience of women in that part of the world and Clinton’s concern. But Clinton’s reaction didn’t need defending.”


    Truth be known, until I saw the video, the media’s description of Hillary’s reaction to the student’s question was of Hillary standing, lips pursed, shaking a clenched fist at the questioner. Which was far and away my reaction after viewing the video. I read where a lame excuse was tendered to the effect, the student simply misspoke. Excusing, he should have asked her what Obama thought instead of former president Clinton.

    This incident is more in line with past events. As soon as the Clintons gain any sort of notoriety and praise; entrapment follows from the Obama camp. I guarantee that student was a set up to push Hillary’s buttons.

  55. This Harlem Guide is Bill Clinton’s way of giving back to the community. The businesses there are really suffering from the economic downturn and he is trying to showcase and bring business back.

    In his own quiet way, President Clinton continues to be a hero.

  56. Mrs. Smith,

    What bothers me most about how the media is focusing on a 30 second mind warp of Hillary speaking up for herself, is that they are minimizing all her hard work over there.

    I am sick and ashamed of these idiots. Since when have war, famine, rape, untold violence and corruption taken a back seat to petty boy’s games???

  57. “They will overreach. They cannot help themselves. Arguably they have already done it. But when we get to that tipping point it will all come tumbling down.”


    They have overreached, the Public’s reaction is proof of that. As I said before, we’re looking at Triangulation². The end game is yet to come. Race War and Martial Law.
    That is where all this chaotic talk is headed. I heard it today on msnbc. They’re drawing the battle lines and giving them labels between the blacks and the whites. The Blacks representing Obama and the government and the whites home town militias.

  58. It was complete sexist behaviour again, i’d be pissed off if I was the speaker representing a nation and someone asked me what my husband thought.

    Its like he asked the question as if he was asking some stupid woman who needed an to obtain an answer from from her husband before she could speak out of turn.

    Personally i’d have wrapped the chair round his head but thats just me.

    She defended herself, end of discussion.

  59. The American College of Surgeons is a wee bit pissed off at Obama’s demagoguery with them as villains out to chop off your leg to make a buck. They released a statement today:

    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
    completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
    amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
    $1,140 for a leg amputation.
    This payment also includes the
    evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
    follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
    Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
    this service.

    They go on to call his remarks “inflammatory”, “dangerous”, and harmful to the doctor/patient trust. They close with a polite version of “STFU making clueless statements, you moron.”

    We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

  60. The American College of Surgeons is a wee bit pissed off at Obama’s demagoguery with them as villains out to chop off your leg to make a buck. They released a statement today:

    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts
    completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg
    amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and
    $1,140 for a leg amputation.
    This payment also includes the
    evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient
    follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation.
    Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for
    this service.

    They go on to call his remarks “inflammatory”, “dangerous”, and harmful to the doctor/patient trust. They close with a polite version of “STFU making clueless statements, you moron.”

    We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

  61. moononpluto, I felt exactly the same way when I watched the video and heard how the question came across. BTW, the silly Fox story having foreign policy dweebs (from conservative think tanks, naturally) question her temperament is sexist in itself because they’d never write this about a male SoS.

    On an entirely different subject, Bill has brought on Paul Farmer as his Haiti deputy. So USAID’s loss is Haiti’s gain.

  62. “What bothers me most about how the media is focusing on a 30 second mind warp of Hillary speaking up for herself, is that they are minimizing all her hard work over there.”


    Remember the old saying: “What you see is what you get?” Born of logic is what our minds have relied on as principles steeped in history and our commonality regarding the standard of Truthfulness . We cut our teeth on the straight talk of the Founding Fathers.

    Obama and his Crime Cartell are using this mindset for playing the crowds and winning.. Once the crowds are within their grasp, (after the election) they’re using the power that comes with the office of president for their covertly planned agenda that is not in the best interest of the People at all but is in their own best interest.

    Look at their Track Record:

    The Democratic Congress is at their beck and call.

    They have Wall St and the Banking System sowed up.
    Those three accomplishments are ginormas.

    Now they are after the Health Care System making it their own.
    The back door deals with Big Pharma and Ins Cos are cast in stone.

    Reading the Legislation, it’s obvious the legislation is written to shred
    the last of our Civil Rights, which so far have been untouchable even through the Pats Act I & II.
    Freedom to choose and our Right to Privacy.

    Obama’s job is to vaporize America’s Equilibrium.

    Bill Clinton strived for equilibrium in all aspects of his presidency. Obama’s job is to bring choas,
    agitation, imbalance, inequality, unfairness and asymmetry to the table. So far he’s doing a fine
    job in that respect.

  63. HillaryforTexas Says:

    August 12th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
    The American College of Surgeons is a wee bit pissed off at Obama’s demagoguery with them as villains out to chop off your leg to make a buck. They released a statement today:

    HFT – the O admin shows what a bunch of amateurs they are by the day…

    Obama inadvertently makes the point for the protestors: (1)

    this statement from the surgeons you provide proves, in effect, what people are worried about…that non medical people, in this case, O himself, are sticking their noses into an area that they know nothing about…no medical expertise, and yet, they think they are qualified to make decisions that will effect the health of other people’s lives…

    …and yesterday O inadvertently made another point for the protestors (2)
    O stated that “UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. … It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems.”

    once again confirming the fears of the protestors that the govt (post office) will screw things up and private companies fare better (UPS and FedEx)

    …just keep talking (and reading) O, you confirm our worst fears by the day…

  64. oh, oh…

    joker posters of MO appearing:

    A new version of the Obama Joker poster featuring Michelle Obama has now started to appear around the country. This one was photgraphed on the Boston subway system.

  65. S Says:
    August 12th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    oh, oh…

    joker posters of MO appearing:


    Please say you have a link with an example…

  66. there a ticking time-bomb for the US economy?

    by David Corn (an Obama supporter)

    And is the Obama administration, Congress, and the media not paying it sufficient attention? That seems to be the message of a government report released this week that drew not as much notice as it deserves.

    This is all about those toxic assets–now euphemistically referred to by the US government as “legacy assets”–that were at the core of the economic meltdown. Though some economic news of late has been not so bad–economic contraction slowing, job losses leveling off, banks passing stress tests–these toxic assets still pollute the nation’s financial system and endanger it.

    On Tuesday, the Congressional Oversight Panel, which was set up to monitor the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (aka the Big Bank Bailout), put out another of its monthly reports, and this one notes that the Treasury Department has not used its TARP billions to purchase this junk–which includes both lousy commercial and residential mortgages and securities based on lousy mortgages–and that billions of dollars of toxic assets remain on the books, threatening the security of numerous financial institutions.

    In other words, whoops.

    What’s happened is that accounting changes have made it easier for banks to contend with these assets. But this bad stuff hasn’t gone anywhere. It’s literally been papered over. And it still has the potential to wreak havoc. As the report puts it:

    If the economy worsens, especially if unemployment remains elevated or if the commercial real estate market collapses, then defaults will rise and the troubled assets will continue to deteriorate in value. Banks will incur further losses on their troubled assets. The financial system will remain vulnerable to the crisis conditions that TARP was meant to fix.

    So all those hundreds of billions spent by TARP were for naught? Treasury officials will tell you that they used the money to pump capital into banks–rather than buy their garbage–and this stabilized the financial system. Perhaps that worked. But, as the report makes clear, the original sin still stands.

    In a conference call with a few reporters (myself included), Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor heading the Congressional Oversight Panel, noted that the biggest toxic assets threat to the economy could come not from the behemoth banks but from the “just below big” banks. These institutions have not been the focus of Treasury efforts because their troubled assets are generally “whole loans” (that is, regular loans), not mortgage securities, and these less-than-big banks have been stuck with a lot of the commercial real estate loans likely to default in the next year or two. Given that the smaller institutions are disproportionately responsible for providing credit to small businesses, Warren said, “if they are at risk, that has implications for the stability of the entire banking system and for economic recovery.” Recalling that toxic assets were once the raison d’etre of TARP, she added, “Toxic assets posed a very real threat to our economy and have not yet been resolved.”

    Yes, you’ve heard about various government efforts to deal with this mess. With much hype, Secretary Timothy Geithner in March unveiled a private-public plan to buy up this financial waste. But the program has hardly taken off, and it has ignored a big chunk of the problem (those “whole loans”). As the website, which tracks news at the intersection of politics and finance, points out, “The regulators have started to move to make financial institutions address these troubled assets, but their efforts have been tenative.”

    The Congressional Oversight Panel warned that “troubled assets remain a substantial danger” and that this junk–which cannot be adequately valued–“can again become the trigger for instability.” Warren’s panel does propose several steps the Treasury Department can take to reduce the risks. But it’s frightening that Treasury needs to be prodded by Warren and her colleagues, who characterized troubled assets as “the most serious risk to the American financial system.”

    It’s also frightening that this fundamental issue barely registers a blip on our collective Attention-O-Meter. The panel’s report warranted merely a small article on the second page of The New York Times’ business section. White House reporters didn’t ask press secretary Robert Gibbs about it. Sarah Palin’s stupid comments about health care reform certainly light up the blogosphere. But Treasury not taking all necessary steps to avert another financial collapse? That’s a yawner. The Obama White House–and all of us–better hope that this panel is worrying needlessly.


  67. S Says:
    August 12th, 2009 at 11:42 pm


    Tx, S.. I think we have a winner. Or at least a trend!

  68. Here is an interesting piece I found on LaRouchePac. It seems some of the small rural hospitals may have to close due to Obamacare. This would be terrible for rural americans.
    Shutdown of Community Hospitals Portends Near-Term Health Disaster
    by Marcia Merry Baker

    [PDF version of this article]

    Aug. 7—The fastest way to kill people who are sick is to close their local community hospital. That is what the Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) policy has done in the United States since the 1980s. Now, in the midst of the accelerating breakdown crisis, which itself is feeding the spread of a deadly flu pandemic, that hospital-closing policy is about to lead to a rapid increase in the death rate, including in the United States.

    The Obama Administration health “reform” will, if it is permitted to go through, disastrously accelerate this process. The behavioral Nazis devising the policy have declared their intention to wrench “savings” out of the Medicare and Medicaid budgets, much of which goes to paying hospitals. Already, as of 2007, community hospitals had a $32 billion payment shortfall, relative to their costs, for treating Medicare and Medicaid patients, and the Obama plan would reduce payments much more, in the name of “incentivizing” “effective” care.

    The community hospital is the baseline health-care resource for the country, and particularly for the uninsured, Medicaid, and Medicare recipients. In 2007, these hospitals cared for 121 million patients with emergency needs, performed 27 million surgeries, and treated 35 million inpatients. With tens of millions of Americans having lost their jobs and health insurance since 2007, the strain on hospitals has gotten much worse.

    However, the nation is in the process of losing these community hospitals, along with specialty hospitals, and vital hospital beds, every day. The peak of the buildup of hospitals under the 1946 Hill-Burton policy, which set a standard of 4.5 to 5.5 beds per 1,000 persons, was in 1980. That year, there were 5,904 community hospitals, spread across most of the 3,000 U.S. counties, providing their populations with the desired standard. But, by 2007, the number of community hospitals had shrunk to 4,724, a 20% decline, and only 3 out of the 50 states had anything approaching the required beds-per-1,000 persons ratio.

    In order to face the worsening pandemic, not to mention, address the general health needs of the American population, it is the Hill-Burton policy that must be revived. Lyndon LaRouche has outlined the necessary program: 1) cancelling the HMO law; 2) reviving Hill-Burton; and 3) instituting the single-payer system—all in the context of the bankruptcy reorganization required by the fatal bankruptcy of the current financial system. In addition, there must be an emergency infusion of monies to the states, in the range of $150 billion, by early September at the latest, to fill the holes in services being created by collapsing revenues and state budgets.

    We summarize here some of the recent testimony and warnings on the disastrous decline of the U.S. community hospital network.

    Start with the Military
    Of the 36 Army base medical centers, fully 26 cannot meet the needs of the military right now, according to a late 2008 Army survey, reported by USA Today (July 31-Aug. 2 weekend edition). “Army records show that 26 of its [36] medical centers, hospitals and clinics are unable to meet Pentagon standards requiring that 90% of patients get routine care appointments within seven days. Those are the worst results since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s a 13% increase from 2006 in the number of medical facilities unable to meet the standard….

    “The Army doesn’t have enough doctors to provide care both to families and soldiers at home and to those in combat,” according to those in charge, including Gen. George Casey, Army Chief of Staff; Col. Ken Canestrini, who is in charge of improving the situation; and Col. Jonathan Jaffin, director of Health Policy and Services, for the Army Surgeon General, Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker. Among the stopgap measures, Schoomaker has authorized 12 medical centers to hire more primary-care physicians, and has ordered that soldiers and families may go to off-base care centers, even if it costs more.

    The on-base medical center at Ft. Bragg, for example, has “not met the routine care standards since 2005. Bragg is home to the 82nd Airborne Division and special operations forces that have been fighting in the two wars constistently.”

    To go “off base” for medical treatment, means in many localities, to seek care in communities already short of hospitals and facilities.

    Shutdowns Proceed
    Meanwhile, the rapidly worsening net loss of beds and staff in the U.S. medical-care delivery system proceeds. For example:

    New Orleans, La.. On Sept. 1, the New Orleans Adolescent Hospital (NOAH, which also serves adults of any age) is set to close, which among other things, will shut down the city’s only public hospital with a dedicated mental-health unit (with 35 beds). At present, the city has only 170 inpatient beds for the mentally ill, located at seven hospitals—way down from 400 such beds at 10 hospitals, four years ago.
    Syracuse, N.Y.. In the nearby town of Hamilton, the Community Memorial Hospital will close its baby-delivery unit as of Sept. 1, because of financial constraints and lack of obstetricians. Women will have to go to the more distant facilities in Utica, Syracuse, Oneida, and elsewhere. The physician shortage in Upstate New York is bad, and is acute in the Mohawk Valley, where the supply of doctors fell 4%, between 2002 and 2006, according to the Center for Health Workforce Studies at the State University in Albany.
    Toledo, Ohio. On Sept. 1, the Toledo Hospital will shut its Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center, which has operated both in- and out-patient services. The 20 staff members are seeking work at other facilities in the ProMedica Health Care System. The patients are being referred to a 42-bed facility in the region, operated by Arrowhead Behavioral Health, a company based in Tennessee.
    And then comes the flu …
    Meanwhile, responsible public officials are looking ahead to the disaster over the horizon—when the expected Fall flu pandemic hits. Public health leaders from California, New York City, and Maryland testified about their fears during a hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee on July 29. They described how their capacity was stretched “to the limit” during the Spring outbreak of A/H1N1. Health officer Mark Horton, M.D., M.S.P.H., added, “There is no way we could have sustained this…. I am very concerned about this for the Fall….”

    States and localities are now in the throes of still further reductions in their public-health capacity, given the budget-slashing underway since the start of the new fiscal year July 1, under impossible conditions of revenue collapse. But, at the same time, they are trying to step up “pandemic readiness”!

    In Pennsylvania, the state has managed to purchase 19 mobile “medical surge” trailers, with 50 cots each, and eight portable hospitals, with 50 beds each, but the net gain is reduced by the loss of pre-existing beds from the closure or downsizing of local hospitals, reductions in Veterans hospitals, etc. This crazy pattern prevails across the country. Last year, 12,000 public-health worker jobs were eliminated in the United States.

    On Aug. 5, nurses demonstrated in Sacramento, Calif., to protest the lack of protective equipment to provide them safety during their care for flu patients. A week earlier, the first death of a nurse occurred in the state, due to A/H1N1.

    The Administration sent only their number-two-level deputy secretaries from the Health and Human Services and Homeland Security departments to report to Congress on the hearing topic, “Beyond Readiness: An Examination of the Current Status and Future Outlook of the National Response to Pandemic Influenza”: respectively, William Corr and Jane Holl Lute. These officials played down any deficiencies in the U.S. hospital/public health delivery system, by instead focussing on “collaboration” between agencies, “communication,” etc.

    They also spoke of the $350 million in Federal grants for preparedness aid, now going out to the 50 states and the territories—a paltry sum, given, for example, that, to properly protect New York City alone, a bare minimum of $70 million will be required this Fall, which they don’t have (this was in the New York City testimony), and for full protection from a severe episode, $0.5 billion is needed.

    The Administration spokesmen actually left the hearing chamber at the end of their panel, without bothering to listen to what the state and local officials had to say.

    Dr. Horton spoke afterward, on the second witness panel for the July 29 hearing, which was chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). Horton and two other government officials, Thomas A. Farley, M.D., commissioner of New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and Richard G. Muth, executive director of the Maryland Emergency Management Agency, reported on their experience from this Spring’s A/H1N1 outbreak, and their preparations for the Fall. In addition, Colleen M. Kelley, President of the National Treasury Employees Union, called for Federal action to provide A/H1N1 protective gear for customs, border, airport, and other key front-line Federal personnel. The following are indicative specifics from their testimony.

    Surge Capacity
    The California Department of Public Health has stockpiled supplies and equipment for 21,000 “alternate care site beds” being lined up by local health departments, but Dr. Horton describes the overall process as “an overloaded health-care system” statewide.

    In New York City, an advance-planning effort is underway for bed space and equipment. Dr. Farley reported, “During the peak of the pandemic this past Spring, some hospital emergency departments were overwhelmed. Many emergency departments saw a 200% increase in the number of patient visits. To deal with overcrowding, some hospitals created additional space by setting up a tent outside of their emergency departments or used outpatient clinic space to allow those patients with influenza to be quickly separated from others….” Now, a bigger surge is ahead.

    Every state and city has big “personnel gaps.” Dr. Farley testified that, “the steady erosion of funding the last few years hinders our ability to maintain progress and retain the critical workforce needed to respond to the unique risks and public health emergencies in New York City….

    “The primary source of support for the preparedness infrastructure in New York City, the [Federal] Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement through CDC, has steadily decreased since 2002, dropping approximately 26%.” Other Federal programs have also dropped, especially a 25% reduction in New York City’s allocation under the 2004 Cities Readiness Initiative program. Farley testified, “And we have been advised that we will receive another 25% reduction in the next grant year….”

    Dr. Horton of California asked Congress for “additional investment in the public health workforce, including epidemiologists, microbiologists, and laboratorians to ensure enough scientists are on the ground to identify and monitor the spread of disease.”

    Supply Lines
    In California, where the first two U.S. A/H1N1 cases were identified April 17, and by July there were 3,200 reported cases, and 537 hospitalizations, Dr. Horton said, “We experienced an early and inexplicable collapse of the private industry pipeline for antivirals and masks, which, if not resolved, would have rapidly depleted our stockpiles. The resolution required Federal intervention, as the suppliers were national companies….” This must be worked on “more closely … to ensure supply-chain reliability.”

    California’s network of 26 local public-health laboratories tested over 14,500 specimens over a four-month period, “compared to a typical volume of 2,000 in a regular influenza season,” but they came within hours of shutting down because of a shortage of reagents. Lab capacity must be expanded, with reliability in supply lines.

    Mary Jane Freeman contributed to this article.

  69. Judith Warner
    August 12, 2009

    Hillary Fights a Tide of Trivialization

    This was supposed to be the trip that would show exactly how Hillary Rodham Clinton would make good on her pledge, at her confirmation hearing for secretary of state, to make women’s issues “central” to U.S. foreign policy, not “adjunct or auxiliary or in any way lesser.”

    There could have been no more dramatic setting: Overruling the security fears of her aides, she traveled to eastern Congo, where hundreds of thousands of women have been raped over the past decade. She visited a refugee camp and met with one woman who was gang-raped while eight months pregnant; she heard of another who’d been sexually assaulted with a rifle. She was told of babies cut from their mothers’ bodies with razors. She spoke of “evil in its basest form.” She promised $17 million to fight sexual violence.

    And back home, all anyone could talk about was Bill. Had he upstaged her with his trip to North Korea? Had he dogged her, in absentia, all the way to Kinshasa, where a university student, wondering about “Mr. Clinton’s” views, set her off, and set the world cluck-clucking, once again, about her marriage, her temperament, even her hair?

    As she circles the globe in coming years, making the case for women’s empowerment, starting with their basic right to be taken seriously, Clinton really has her work cut out for her. And it isn’t just because the situation of women around the world is so dire, and the ocean of problems confronting them — maternal mortality, sex trafficking, domestic abuse, malnourishment, lack of education, lack of adequate medical care, just for starters — is so wide and so deep. And it isn’t just that her historic mandate — to equally empower the other half of the world’s population, to chip away at the forces “devaluing women,” in the words of Melanne Verveer, the State Department’s new ambassador at large for global women’s issues — is so huge and vague and seemingly overwhelming. It’s also because the tide of trivialization that washes over all things “Hillary” is just so powerful. That tide threatens to drown out anything of substance Clinton might attempt for a population whose problems have long been obscured in the androcentric world of diplomacy. And that’s a huge pity.

    This could be a moment for America to redeem itself as far as the world’s women are concerned. Our recent track record, after all, is pretty dim. The Bush administration sent anti-feminists to Iraq to train that country’s women in participatory democracy. We pulled our financing from the United Nations Population Fund and imposed a global gag rule barring women’s health organizations that merely talked about abortion from receiving U.S. funds. We never ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a pretty base-level human rights treaty, because of worries by black helicopter types that American sovereignty would be compromised. Our lack of paid maternity leave made us something of a world joke.

    But now things just might change, and not just within the state department. In the Senate, Barbara Boxer is leading a subcommittee charged with global women’s issues; a bill to combat child marriage is moving through Congress.

    And yet, a peculiarly gendered form of trivializing scorn still tags our secretary of state. Just two weeks ago, The Washington Post had to remove from its Web site an ostensibly humorous video sketch by two of its prominent political journalists that juxtaposed a picture of Clinton’s face with a bottle of derogatorily named beer. This sort of thing bodes badly for the country’s ability to treat her — and the issues she most passionately champions — with appropriate respect.

    “We have our own work to do at home,” Verveer told me. “We trivialize the importance too often of these issues: the ‘women’s issue’ — you put it in quotes, that little category over there, the box you check. What we have to do is realize these are the issues; if we want societies to prosper and if we want our own security, we have to raise the status of women.”

    Women’s issues are being framed by this administration in terms of realpolitik: U.S. security depends on women’s empowerment. Global economic growth depends on women’s participation.

    Women’s empowerment won’t be delivered at the end of a gun or through economic sanctions or even overt criticism, if it cuts into accepted cultural practices. This is messy stuff; some of our most sensitive allies have horrific records on women’s rights. Programs that show success tend to be slow-moving and incremental. Can all this complexity attract — much less sustain — the attention of the public?

    Maybe — if we stop viewing everything Clinton does as entertainment.

  70. 13/08/2009

    Clinton arrives in Liberia

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Liberia on Thursday in a show of support for Africa’s only female leader, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, who has faced calls to quit after a probe into the country’s civil war.

    Clinton arrived in Monrovia to pouring rain but still found one of the most rousing welcomes of her trip with young people from a peace movement dancing and beating drums on the tarmac.

    As the motorcade headed past ramshackle homes into the capital, dozens of schoolchildren held up signs welcoming Clinton and declaring their pride in Barack Obama, the first African-American US president.

    “Hillary Clinton — The women of Liberia salute you!” read one banner held by a group of several hundred women.

    Clinton flew in from Nigeria on the sixth leg of a tour of seven African nations as Washington seeks to restate its case on a resource-rich continent facing some of the most serious development and social challenges.

    On arrival, she went into a meeting with President Sirleaf, 70, who was elected in 2005 in the aftermath of bloody civil wars from 1989 to 2003 which cost an estimated 300,000 lives.

    Liberia, founded by freed US slaves in the 19th century, lies on the Gulf of Guinea, a region of strategic importance for its oil which has attracted the attention of many outside parties, especially China in recent years.

    Sirleaf has won strong support overseas, particularly in the United States, as she spearheads efforts to rebuild, but earlier this year, Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended she be banned from political activity for 30 years because of alleged involvement in the civil wars.

    Johnnie Carson, the US Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs, said on Wednesday that Clinton “wants to reaffirm US support” for Sirleaf.
    “The secretary wants to use this visit to show and demonstrate US support for the democratic progress that has occurred in Liberia,” Carson said. He said Liberia was one of the most important nations in Africa for Washington given its historic links.

    Clinton has made women’s rights a key theme on her 11-day tour, which included a lightning visit to the war-ravaged eastern Democratic Republic of Congo to comfort survivors of an upsurge in rape.

    In an interview in Nigeria, Clinton — who narrowly lost to Obama in her bid last year to be the first female US leader — said no country could reach full development without women.

    “If African women decided to stop working tomorrow, the whole continent would shut down. People wouldn’t eat. Crops wouldn’t be planted and harvested,” Clinton told popular Nigerian television talk show host Mo Abudu.

    The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s recommendation on Sirleaf has largely fallen on deaf ears internationally as attention turns instead to the trial of former Liberian president Charles Taylor. The former leader and warlord is on trial on charges of murder, rape, conscripting child soldiers, enslavement and pillaging. In a courtroom in The Hague last month, he denied that he had ever eaten human flesh but did not dispute that there were some cannibals in Liberia during the civil wars. He was handed over to the tribunal in 2006 following his arrest in Nigeria.

    Sirleaf has admitted she met Taylor several times and helped raise funds for him but denies she was ever a member of his National Patriotic Front of Liberia.

    Clinton on Wednesday held wide-ranging talks in Nigeria aiming to build ties with Africa’s most populous nation.

  71. JanH at 8:42 – Media had been unusually kind to Hillary. Then Bill rescued the journalists. Too much good press for each. Obama looking weak, neglected. So it was back to coverage as usual. Prop the jerk back up.
    Meanwhile at Google a few minutes ago, these headlines were grouped together. (I tried to paste a screen clipping, but that did not happen):
    New Jobless Claims Rise Unexpectedly to 558,000
    Number of US Foreclosures Rises 7%, Setting New Record in July
    US Retail sales unexpectedly fall 0.1% in July
    WalMart sales down, but profit grows

  72. holdthemaccountable

    Those headlines are certainly interesting, and not what we have been promised by OO and his hope an change message (or Lie).

  73. Poll: Health care views take sympathetic tilt

    By Susan Page, USA TODAY

    WASHINGTON — The raucous protests at congressional town-hall-style meetings have succeeded in fueling opposition to proposed health care bills among some Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds — particularly among the independents who tend to be at the center of political debates.

    In a survey of 1,000 adults taken Tuesday, 34% say demonstrations at the hometown sessions have made them more sympathetic to the protesters’ views; 21% say they are less sympathetic.

    Independents by 2-to-1, 35%-16%, say they are more sympathetic to the protesters now.

    The findings are unwelcome news for President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders, who have scrambled to respond to the protests and in some cases even to be heard. From Pennsylvania to Texas, those who oppose plans to overhaul the health care system have asked aggressive questions and staged noisy demonstrations.

    The forums have grabbed public attention: Seven in 10 respondents are following the news closely.

    “No one condones the actions of those who disrupt public events,” House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said in an op-ed article published in today’s USA TODAY. “But those in Washington who dismiss the frustration of the American people and call it ‘manufactured’ do so at their own peril.”

    White House adviser David Axelrod questioned the USA TODAY survey’s methodology, saying those who report being more sympathetic to the protesters now were likely to have been on that side from the start. “There is a media fetish about these things,” Axelrod said of the protests, “but I don’t think this has changed much” when it comes to public opinion.

    A study by the non-partisan Pew Research Center concluded that 59% of the airtime last week on 13 cable TV and radio talk shows were devoted to the health care debate.

    In the USA TODAY Poll:

    • A 57% majority of those surveyed, including six in 10 independents, say a major factor behind the protests are concerns that average citizens had well before the meetings took place; 48% say efforts by activists to create organized opposition to the health care bills are a major factor.

    • There’s some tolerance for loud voices: 51% say individuals making “angry attacks” on a health care bill are an example of “democracy in action” rather than “abuse of democracy.”

    • Some actions are seen as going too far. Six in 10 say shouting down supporters of a bill is an abuse of democracy. On that question, unlike most others, there isn’t much of a partisan divide: 69% of Democrats and 58% of Republicans agree.

    In Hagerstown, Md., Wednesday, nearly 1,000 people turned out for a forum held by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin; only 440 could fit in the community-college theater. The crowd often interrupted the senator, but was generally respectful.

    In State College, Pa., Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter was jeered at a forum at a Penn State conference center. The 90-minute meeting at times became a shouting match between bill backers and foes.

  74. Election 2010: Pennsylvania Senate Election
    Pennsylvania Senate: Toomey 48%, Specter 36%

    Thursday, August 13, 2009

    Uncomfortable town hall meetings are just the tip of the iceberg for Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in his bid for reelection next year and is viewed unfavorably by a majority of the state’s voters.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters shows 48% would vote for Toomey if the election were held today. Just 36% would vote for Specter while four percent (4%) prefer a third option, and 12% are not sure.

    These figures reflect a dramatic reversal since June. At that time, before the public health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by eleven.

    Just 43% now have a favorable opinion of Specter while 54% offer an unfavorable assessment of the longtime GOP senator who became a Democrat rather than face Toomey in a party primary. Those numbers have reversed since June when 53% had a favorable opinion of him.

    The current figures include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion of Specter and 36% with a Very Unfavorable view.

    Specter has found himself front and center in the health care debate just as support for the reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to new lows nationwide. In Pennsylvania, 42% of voters support the plan while 53% are opposed.

    Those who like the congressional health care plan favor Specter 70% to nine percent (9%) for Toomey. Those who are against the legislative effort oppose Specter and give Toomey an 82% to nine percent (9%) advantage.

    If Congressman Joe Sestak is the Democratic nominee instead of Specter, Toomey still leads but by a smaller margin. The polling shows 43% for Toomey and 35% for Sestak. In June, Sestak had a six-point edge over Toomey.

    The most recent polling was conducted during a week in which Specter held some contentious town hall meetings on the health care issue. It is significant both that Toomey now leads Specter and that Sestak outperforms the incumbent in a general election match-up.

    Toomey is viewed favorably by 54%, Sestak by 40%. However, opinions of both men are quite soft. Just 13% have a Very Favorable opinion of Toomey, and only eight percent (8%) say the same about Sestak. On the negative side, 11% have a Very Unfavorable opinion of Toomey, and an identical number are that negative about Sestak. Sestak trails Specter by 13 points in the race for the Democratic nomination.

    Specter, a longtime GOP senator, switched parties and became a Democrat in April just after a Rasmussen Reports poll in the state showed him trailing Toomey by 21 points in a likely Republican Senate Primary match-up. Specter’s team initially dismissed the poll but later acknowledged that one of the reasons he changed parties was a fear that he might lose his own party’s nomination.

    Particularly damaging to Specter among Pennsylvania Republicans was his vote for President Obama’s economic stimulus plan, one of only three cast by Republicans for it.

    Eighty percent (80%) of Republican voters now favor Toomey in a match-up with Specter, up from 68% two months ago. Specter draws 61% of the Democratic vote, down from 74% in June.

    As part of the effort to coax Specter into switching parties to move Democrats closer to a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, both the president and Pennsylvania’s Democratic governor, Edward Rendell, endorsed Specter as the party’s Senate nominee in 2010. They also promised to campaign for him. Sestak, angry like many Democrats in the state about a longtime Republican suddenly becoming the Democratic candidate for Senate, is challenging Specter for the nomination over the objections of his party’s leadership.

    Just 39% of Pennsylvania voters now approve of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s job performance, down from 53% in June.

    Fifty-one percent (51%) approve of President Barack Obama’s job performance, down from 60%. His Pennsylvania numbers are similar to the national findings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

  75. Hah Bambi starting to tank

    Rassmussen Pres Poll

    47% Approval 52% Disapproval, women and AA’s keeping Bambi afloat. Men disapprove of Obama by 56 to 44. Not looking good for him.

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8

    Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.

    Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans disapprove along with 65% of those not affiliated with either party. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Democrats offer their approval. Most women (51%) offer their approval while most men (56%) disapprove.

  76. I don’t know what Dems are doing but 2010 is looking remarkably bad, add this one to the disasters.

    Uncomfortable town hall meetings are just the tip of the iceberg for Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in his bid for reelection next year and is viewed unfavorably by a majority of the state’s voters.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters shows 48% would vote for Toomey if the election were held today. Just 36% would vote for Specter while four percent (4%) prefer a third option, and 12% are not sure.

    Against Sestak its 43 to 35. So you can see there is a 5 point anyone but Specter difference between him and Sestak but at this rate, Dems are in for a very very bad midterms next year.

  77. moon,

    I have a really bad feeling that bambi and his scout troop are going to start heavily inundating the airwaves again with their propoganda. 24/7 bambi, bambi, bambi.

  78. Janh, I am counting on it. The more Bambi and his trolls plaster their crass mugs on tv, the more his poll numbers will plummet.

    People are fed up with seeing this lot trying to justify this on tv. It just looks more and more crass as time goes by. Give it up, the people aint buying the shit anymore.

  79. I talked to someone recently who was fervently on the koolaid and now they are like enough, i’m sick of seeing his face now on tv 24/7. Over exposure is the worst thing they could do.

    Fads pass by and people move onto the next big thing.

  80. If you accept the premise advanced by Walter Cronkite that there is a ruling class who so manipulates our democracy as to control democracy, then the question arises what were they thinking when they gave the nod of approval to this sociopath.

    I had dinner last night with a friend and by the end of the evening he asked me a provocative question, have the elites–or as he put it the old money in this country given up on the system?

    My initial response was no, but new elites were created by the economic boom of the 90s and their influence is being asserted from behind the scenes. In particular, I cited the new technology billionaires.

    He listened patiently and then reiterated the question–which was very Socratic now that I think about it. I said, now that I think about it that is an excellent question–excellent because of this.

    During the past few weeks, I have had occasion to speak with two members of the group we are talking about in ad hoc social circumstances. Since I do not travel in those circles this was purely episodic.

    In both of those conversations, I noted a sense of concern about our economic situation, a certain level of support from Obama and a refusal to examine the contradictions in his character and background.

    My friend took up the conversation from there. He said there is a French word which sums up the prevailing attitude among the elites: fin de siecle–literally, the end of the century, or in this case, the epoch.

    His premise was that these elites know the score better than the rest of us because they have more information and more insight. This allows them to see more clearly what lies over the horizon.

    He noted that when markets collapsed in the 1930s, the elites retreated into gated communities in places like Tuxedoville, Saratoga, etc. about which I knew nothing. But today, most of them have safe locations far away from Manhattan or other places where the mob could get at them.

    I said to my friend wait a minute. Do you realize what you are saying. These people are the movers and shakers of the society. Their lives are synomomous in some cases with the founding of this country.

    He said yes of course I do. But bear in mind, they are also the ones who have created 60 trillion in bad paper floating around the world. They know that the obligations owed to the middle class are growing. And they know the center of gravity of the world economy is shifting.

    So how does that relate to Obama, I asked him. He said they see the middle class of this country, dwindling to the point that they are prepared to cut a deal with the left which Obama despite his Harvard trappings represents.

    The story he said is as old as Rome. During the late days of their civilization, the yeoman class (soldier farmers) were bankrupted by the importation of foreign cheap foreign wheat and oppressive taxes.

    They left the farms and went to the city to join the swelling ranks of the underclass. As that happened, the elites cut a similar deal with the barbarian hordes, to protect themselves. When the end came, they migrated to other venues–like Ravenna.

    I asked him how does this work. He said there are 200 families that comprise the elite of this country. The top hundred exercise 85% of the influence. They break down along party lines.

    Behind each party there is a group of money men. One in the group is the designated spokesman–usually the most junior. The rest remain in the shadows. During the 70s the dem front man was Mannett.

    What is the deal they have cut I asked him. He said it is to inflate our way of out our unsustainable debt position. And to force the other countries around the world to inflate their money as well. He called it a game of chicken.

    The problem with that deal is it screws the middle class and everyone on fixed income. They are the target according to him. And the role of Obama is to coterize that deal and protect them from the great unwashed. That is how they hope to ride out the storm.

    Do I believe this is true? The honest answer is I do not know. One must be wary of some of the ideas which emerge from late night conversation particularly when they are animated by too much alcohol. But we were not drinking.

    All I can say for sure, is this gave me further perspective on the current situation, and like everyone else I will be watching. Let us hope he is wrong. But I will say this much. The corruption of big media smacks of retrenchment as well as new economic opportunity.

  81. Moononpluto 10:17

    Tuesday I was sitting in the wating room at a doctors office, waiting for a relative. There were two other women there, one with her husband, and the other with her older mother and her daughter.

    We had an interesting general conversation. The one said that she was throughly discussed with the Politics, and it was directly attributed to the last primary general election. She said I have lost a lot of faith. The other lady said that she really no longer listens to the news, and then the other lady said that she took days when she no longer listened to any of them at all.

    I consider this to be a random sample of people sitting in a waiting room. These were also women like any other. When one women said, I really don’t know what to believe in anymore, it kind of sunk home. I really feel that the spirit of these women were crushed at the Primary, and how women were treated in the election.

    I told them that I got my information from the blogs online, because I could see a variety of information, and had more of an ability to make my own judgements. Just as we all became a little numb after the last primary and general election, I think there are alot of people out there just like us, trying to figure out where they go in politics next, and who do they believe.

  82. So I may be slow on the uptake…lol…but it appears to me that those people who play act at presenting the news are trying to change the message again, cover for their messiah, and bring back an old tried and true villainess that never was.

    Sure, lets spend hour after hour vilifying Hillary for a 30 second moment of honesty and forget all about barack obama’s treachery. I mean boys will be boys and some of their female cohorts will be boys as well. And lets face it, women are meant to be invisible.

  83. JanH they want to erase the memory of the OO calling the law enforcement people STUPID, when what HRC did was shout, I don’t speak for any man, and I AM THE SOS, I speak for myself.

    So how do you think that is playing with women, OO saying STUPID vs HRC saying, I don’t speak through men, I speak for myself, and I am SOS.


    Retail sales disappointed in July and the number of newly laid-off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits rose unexpectedly last week. The latest government reports reinforced concerns about how quickly consumers will be able to contribute to a broad economic recovery.

    “There is really no positive spin to put on these numbers,” Jennifer Lee, an economist with BMO Capital Markets, wrote in a research note. “The U.S. consumer remains very weak. The jobs situation, while slowly improving, is still dismal.”

    The Commerce Department said Thursday that retail sales fell 0.1 percent last month. Economists had expected a gain of 0.7 percent.

    While autos, helped by the start of the Cash for Clunkers program, showed a 2.4 percent jump — the biggest in six months — there was widespread weakness elsewhere. Gasoline stations, department stores, electronics outlets and furniture stores all reported declines.

    The July dip was the first setback following two months of modest sales gains. Excluding autos, sales fell 0.6 percent, worse than the 0.1 percent rise economists had forecast. And excluding both auto and gas purchases, retail sales fell 0.4 percent — the fifth straight monthly decline.

    Households are working to pay down debt and add to savings, longer-term trends along with little job growth making it “probable that the U.S. consumer will not be much of a help during the early stages of the economic recovery,” Joshua Shapiro, chief U.S. economist at consulting firm MFR Inc., wrote in a note to clients.

    The Labor Department said initial claims increased to a seasonally adjusted 558,000, from 554,000 the previous week. Analysts expected new claims to drop to 545,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

  85. Admin

    I have to admire the people who go before congress, and flying in the fact of the President, tell them the truth, and the people collecting the statistics who are not falsifying their polls to satisfy the ONE.

    I view them as true guardians of our Democracy.

    As for the people in Congress, they Bowed to the crap being dictated by their party, and the one. They folded in, and they expected everyone else to fold in. They really thought The One and their party would make them glorious and annoited with their voters, as they bet on a man with no experience, and a group that bullied the Superduds, and the voters.

    What they did not count on was the anger of people who don’t want to be in debt to China, see a slow recovery in the Economy that is worriesome, who see little effects of the stimulus, and who desperately want a health care system, but look at their budgets and don’t understand how they will pay for it, as they have to balance their budgets (an beleive me people of all parties have to balance their budgets).

    So instead of coming home, and having people gravel at their feet, they are seeing the frustrations at their townhalls. Few have read the medical reform information (remember the Reps at least took courses on it), and they don’t really understand what the final bill will look like. In addtion the testimony by OMB, and the Polls are not good.

    In addition, the Democratic party did not conduct how to respectfully handle angry crowd courses before they left for their recess.

    I really don’t think any of us wanted this, or realized it would be this bad this quickly. All of us have family member deeply hurt by what is going on.

  86. I just received “William J. Clinton Foundation” annual report. it is a great foundation and has some nice pics of Bill all over the world.

  87. HillaryForTexas, thanks for letting us know of your article at The Confluence which details front-line experience on health care.

    As we have written before, when we began this website there were just a handful of “pro-Hillary” websites. Those websites mostly republished Hillary speeches. There was not much content and certainly there was not much full-throated defense of Hillary.

    One of the main goals of this website therefore, was to spark other websites into existence and stop the mealymouth apologies and calls for “fairness” that came from the pro-Hillary sites. Our approach was a “whine free zone” that would promote Hillary with vigor and with a “Don’t Tread On Me” flourish and panache.

    It is very gratifying to see so many websites take up the banner and attitude we have always held. (If the campaign had taken our advice….)

    It is very gratifying to see so many of you publish on so many websites and so many of the commenters on this website whose comments inspire articles and actions all over the Internet. Some of the comments on this website (Wbboei for example) are entire articles themselves which get circulated and communicated to shakers and movers in the world outside the Internet.

    We have a feeling akin to “proud parents” thanks to our commentors and lurking readers. You justify our existence.

  88. JanH Says:

    August 12th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
    Poll: 70% of Americans see Israel as U.S. friend

    ….And Barack Obama is in the other 30%.

  89. Thanks, admin. It works in a reciprocal way – I’m always plugging this or that article or comment from Big Pink on other websites.

    We will not be silenced, and we will not give up. Hillary supporters have been across such a broad spectrum – from the very liberal to the moderately conservative. So many supported her not because we 100% agree with her (or even each other) on every small detail, but because of trust, and competence, and love for this country, and the belief that she would truly strive to represent and respect us all.

  90. jbstonesfan Says:

    August 12th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
    What do most of you think the end result will be on this issue? I fear Bambi will get a health care bill.

    jbstones, you continue to impress us with your pessimism. At least you’re consistent.

    As for the bill, of course some damn piece of paper will eventually cross his desk, and they’ll be proud, slapping each other on the back while Obama signs it, that they “got ‘r done”. The issue is what are the details lurking in the over 1,000 pages, which were cobbled together from requests from various lobbying groups.

    Ergo, what will be passed is not going to reform health care, but will carefully protect the industries who contributed heavily to Obama. Squid Pro Quo.

  91. Admin

    You have forged the new way in providing news to the computer generated world, who want to read it all, and come to their own conclusions in a computer speed world.

    If it was not for twitter and blog information coming from inside IRAN, one has to wonder what we would have know about what was going on.

  92. Admin,

    You are so nice to compliment your faithful followers. 🙂

    wbboe – EXCELLENT post at 11:05.


    Congrats on your article. I will check it later.

  93. MOP (9:520

    I have to give credit to Spector for his townhall the other day. At least he tried to communicate with the people.

    Not bad for an octogenarian. But I would still never vote for him.

  94. Congratulations, H4T. I wondered why you did not get into blog frontpages with your incisive and insightful analysis and now you have. I like your writing style, biting wit and all that and the precision especially with health care reform. Look forward to reading your articles.

    Admin, your blog was my first find last year (or was it 2007?) when I was despairing about the opportunity slipping right through our fingers and I found like minded people and have stuck with it ever since. When I come back here it is like coming home.

  95. Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet recorded. The President’s ratings first fell below 50% just a few weeks ago on July 25. Fifty-two percent (52%) now disapprove.


    Woops, they’ve stopped balancing their ‘somewhat’. If they are going to use ‘somewhat approve’ they should balance it with ‘somewhat disapprove.’

  96. jbstones, you continue to impress us with your pessimism. At least you’re consistent.


    Funny!!!!(and true).

  97. Clinton stays mum on tart response to questioner


    MONROVIA, Liberia — A close aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton dismissed as “psychobabble” the fuss over the secretary of state’s barbed response to a questioner asking for her famous husband’s opinion instead of her own. Clinton ignored questions about the episode as she wound down a marathon African trip Thursday.

    Clinton had reacted strongly earlier this week when a Congolese student in Kinshasa asked her for the opinion of her husband, former President Bill Clinton, about an international economic issue.

    “Wait. You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” a wide-eyed Clinton asked Tuesday in response. “My husband is not the secretary of state; I am. So you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I’m not going to be channeling my husband.”

    Asked Thursday about the impact of the widely reported exchange, Clinton was silent, then quickly launched into a glowing assessment of her 10-day tour of seven African nations.

    Holding up the front page of a local tabloid, The Analyst, Clinton pointed to a smiling photograph of herself and a headline, “Hillary Arrives, Liberia Glees.”

    “I opened this newspaper and I think she looks like she’s having great time,” Clinton said.

    Melanne Verveer, an ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues and a longtime Clinton friend, said Thursday that the episode “was much ado about very little.”

    “I don’t want psychobabble read into it,” Verveer said during a conference call about the State Department’s commitment of $17 million to combat gender-based violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    Verveer added that “this whole question was very much a side event” during “an incredible discussion with college students who wanted to have a heart-to-heart discussion.”

    The Congolese student who raised the former president’s name later approached Clinton insisting he had meant to ask about President Barack Obama instead of her husband.

    State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said later that Clinton bristled because the question seemed to seek a male response instead of her view.

    “As the question was posed to her, it was posed in a way that said, ‘I want to get the views of two men, but not you, the secretary of state,'” Crowley said.

    Clinton’s African trip had just started last week when administration officials revealed that her husband was flying to North Korea to negotiate for the release of two American journalists being held for straying over the border.

    Bill Clinton’s mission succeeded, and media attention to his return with the two freed journalists stole the spotlight from his wife’s trip.

    Hillary Clinton then drew some negative attention for comparing a disputed Nigerian election with the 2000 U.S. stalemate that ended with George W. Bush winning out over Al Gore, who served as Bill Clinton’s vice president.

    “Our democracy is still evolving,” Clinton said. “You know we had some problems in some of our presidential elections. As you may remember, in 2000 our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of one of the men running for president was governor of the state. So we have our problems too.”

  98. You Go, Hillary!

    By Jonathan Capehart | August 12, 2009

    I know I’m a tad late to the party on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Congo outburst, so I’ll keep this short and to the point: You go, Hillary!

    Listening to a translation of a question from a student, the usually controlled Clinton reacted with uncharacteristic public fury when she was asked what her husband, former President Bill Clinton, thought about a trade deal between China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

    Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not the secretary of state. I am. So, you ask my opinion, I will tell you my opinion. I’m not going to be channeling my husband.

    Clinton was right to be upset about being asked that kind of question in a country and continent where male supremacy reigns unchallenged, generally speaking. Making it clear that she has authority in her own right sends a message to the men and the women in that audience, in Congo and in the rest of Africa that she won’t put up with condescension. Not as a woman and certainly not as secretary of state of the United States of America.

    Now it turns out Clinton was informed that the translation she was given was wrong. The student was asking her what President Obama thought. So, the secretary did what any self-assured leader would do. As Clinton left the event, she reached out and shook the hand of the student, exchanged some words and a hearty smile. Brava.

  99. And of course the rabid media won’t issue an apology to her…


    August 13, 2009

    Was Hillary Clinton’s Answer in Congo the Right One?

    By Robert Mackey

    Two days after video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was pummeled by American commentators from The New York Post to Jon Stewart for getting angry at an apparently rude question from a Congolese student during a forum in Kinshasa on Monday, two reporters who were at the event say that the much-reported idea that the French-speaking student’s question had been mistranslated is incorrect.

    In the video of the event embedded below, from Britain’s Channel 4 News, Mrs. Clinton can be seen listening and then responding to a simultaneous translation as the student asked: “We’ve all heard about the Chinese contracts in this country — the interferences from the World Bank against this contract. What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, and what does Mr. Mutumbo think on this situation?”

    By the time this video made its way to the attention of most viewers in the United States, though, it was packaged in reports, like one from Kirit Radia of ABC News, stating that “apparently the translator made a mistake.” On Tuesday Mr. Radia reported: “A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted,” and said that he had actually asked her to share President Obama’s views on Congo’s relations with China.

    It always seemed unlikely to The Lede that a translator working for Mrs. Clinton would make such a large error with a question asked in French — or that an African university student would say “Mr. Clinton” when he meant “Mr. Obama” — and my colleague Jeffrey Gettleman reports in Thursday’s New York Times that “further inspection of the audio recording of the event indicated that the translation was fine; the student had indeed said ‘Mr. Clinton.’ ” A second reporter traveling with Mrs. Clinton, a friend of your Lede blogger’s who is a magazine journalist, said the same thing in an e-mail exchange on Wednesday night, that a French-speaking colleague who was in the room confirmed that the student “did ask the question that way: ‘the mind of Mr. From the lips of Mrs.’ ”

    Given that it now appears that the question was translated correctly — and that the male student wanted to know not just what Bill Clinton thought of Chinese relations with Congo but also what the former N.B.A. star Dikembe Mutumbo, who was present at the event, thought, too, but expressed no interest in the perspective of America’s female secretary of state — is it possible that Mrs. Clinton has gotten a raw deal from commentators in the United States for her angry reply?

    More to the point, while most of the derisive commentary on Mrs. Clinton’s flash of temper contextualized it by noting that her husband had just been lauded for his trip to North Korea, few noted that she was in the middle of a trip to Congo, where the plight of women, many of whom suffered violent sexual abuse during recent fighting, is a major issue.

    As Mr. Gettleman reported in a post on The Caucus on the incident, a State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, said on Tuesday: “An abiding theme that she has in her trip to Africa is empowering women.” Mr. Crowley also noted: “As the question was posed to her, it was posed in a way that said I want to get the views of two men, but not you, the Secretary of State.” Mr. Gettleman also noted in an article on Tuesday that “the United Nations calls Congo the rape capital of the world.”

    The video below, from the State Department’s Web site, shows some of Mrs. Clinton’s remarks at the forum on Monday in Kinshasa on the subject of attacks on women, after her visit to a hospital founded by Mr. Mutumbo and dedicated to his mother. In her remarks to the group, which included the student who asked her to share her husband’s thoughts, Mrs. Clinton said:

    “I hope that here in the [Democratic Republic of Congo] there will be a concerted effort to demand justice for women who are violently attacked, and to make sure that the attackers are punished — and I hope that students will take the lead in this, to speak out because these are fundamental human rights.”

    Putting Mrs. Clinton’s reply to the student’s question in this context, as words spoken to Congolese students in a forum partly devoted to a discussion of violent discrimination against women in that country, do readers still think that her indignation at this request that she channel her husband as inappropriate as some of her critics have charged? Or could it be seen as a legitimate attempt to make a clear statement that women’s opinions matter, in a part of the world where that perspective may not be often aired?

  100. It is amazing how long this item remains in the news cycle…Bambi making fun of the special olympics got about a days notice…

  101. Professor’s latest book examines presidential bid of Hillary Clinton

    Wednesday, August 12, 2009

    Professor Gutgold’s new book looks at Hillary Clinton’s bid for the U.S. presidency. Center Valley, Pa. — When Barack Obama accepted the nomination as the Democratic candidate for president in 2008, the media were quick to point out that Hillary Clinton lost. In her new book, “Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008,” Nichola D. Gutgold, associate professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State Lehigh Valley, argues that Hillary Clinton gained more than she lost in her bid for the presidency.

    “All around the world women are presidents and prime ministers, yet in America, we have yet to elect the first woman president,” said Gutgold. “Hillary Clinton won almost 18 million votes, and was the first front-runner woman candidate. I wanted this book to be a rhetorical journey through the 2008 primary and analyze the role communication played in how close Clinton came to being the Democratic nominee.”

    The book, published in July by Lexington Books, is an account of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid, with special emphasis on her communication skills and media coverage, from her sophisticated YouTube-style announcement speech to her ardent campaigning on behalf of her rival, Barack Obama. It covers the stump speeches, debates and notable media moments in between. The book features several photos from Hillary Clinton’s campaign trail and offers an analysis of her public speaking and debate skills.

    Gutgold teaches a variety of communication courses and advises for the student newspaper, State of the Valley. She also serves as the representative for the College of Communications and is liaison for part-time faculty. Her research examines the communication skills needed for women to be successful in male-dominated fields. Gutgold’s other books include “Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News,” published by Lexington Books in 2008; “Paving the Way for Madam President,” published in 2006 by Lexington Books, and “Elizabeth Hanford Dole: Speaking from the Heart,” with co-author Molly Wertheimer, professor of communication arts and sciences at Penn State Hazleton, published by Praeger Press in 2004. Gutgold is a member of the International Communication Association, National Communication Association, Eastern Communication Association and the 2008-09 President of the Pennsylvania Communication Association. She serves on the Board of Directors of LifePath.

  102. I continue to find great humor in the fact that this translator confused the two men. Who’s name did she remember? ‘Twasn’t Obama’s.

  103. Why is it a gaffe? Gore was cheated plain and simple. I don’t know if he would have made a good president, but he should have been given the chance.

  104. From Ed Koch, 84, and former NYC mayor:

    … Opponents of Obama’s health care proposals raise the specter of a panel making decisions on who should receive health care. I am not aware of any proposed panel. However, an article in today’s New York Times, referring to a Senate bill, stated, “The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies.”

    w w

    This is not the first place I’ve seen the caveat which Koch mentions.

  105. 100% correct JanH….it is a fact..we screwed up an election palin and simple. The net result is we got a moron in Bush and as a reaction to him, a socialist with marxists tendecies in Obbie.

Comments are closed.