Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?

Baby Jane Hudson is living in the White House. Her stage name is now Barack Obama.

Film fans will recall the garish Bette Davis Hollywood horror about a very aged elderly former child star who cannot let go of the spotlight of earlier days and yearns to return to the glory days of center stage. Like Baby Jane Hudson, Obama is unwilling to forgo the spotlight or the warming dream which is the Klieg lit stage.

As “cold” and “ungrateful” Michelle Obama shops for her “fashion icon” clothes at the hospital emergency room and her “fashion forward” accessories at auto supply stores her “selfish” and “careerist” Baby Jane Husband will continue to oppress the nation with ceaseless publicity stunt appearances.

Caroline Kennedy Barack Obama is Baby Jane Hudson:

* * * * *

Maybe Barack Obama is a racist or maybe Obama just does not like other black men, or maybe Obama wants to be the only (half) African-American male on the political stage but, as we wrote yesterday, Obama is out to get rid of African-American New York Governor David Paterson – after bouncing Illinois successor Senator Roland Burris, another African-American male off the stage. What does Obama have against black men? Should Deval Patrick be worried that Baby Jane will start to kick him soon too?

We don’t know the answers to the above. We do know that Governor Paterson is defiant and intends to run – just like Joe Sestak against Obama Republican favorite Benedict Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania.

Maybe David Letterman, who will donate the full hour of his show to Obama tonight, will ask the Baby Jane Husband about Governor Paterson and throw Baby Jane Obama off message – again.

Remember, the message is supposed to be about health insurance and to “razzle-dazzle” Americans from finding out Obama plans to steer billions of IRS enforced dollars to the insurance companies. Obama is supposed to talk about health insurance because as George Will channels Baby Jane Obama: ““Nothing wrong with the idea. It’s the packaging that’s wrong. People have seen too little of me.

If Obama refuses to confess his thugs are out to get Paterson, there is still the possibility of more Obama boobery. Maybe David Letterman will witness another Obama “special Olympics” blooper which Big Media will help cover up or explain away.

Maybe Dave will ask Obama about his “read my lips, no new taxes” on the middle class pledge?

In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

But he could look it up — in the bill.

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.

And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.

The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.

The House bill also refers to the penalties for not carrying insurance as a tax. It calls for a “tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage” and amends the tax code to implement it.

The questions from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos highlighted a politically dangerous new aspect of the health reform debate for Obama – as critics from Republican leaders to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say his reform proposals amount to a middle-class tax increase. Obama promised during the campaign that Americans earning less than $250,000 a year would not see any tax increases from an Obama administration.

Maybe Dave could ask Obama about another category of Obama lies such as the Obama lies of 2008 versus the Obama lies of 2009. Here’s a video for Dave of resource material if he decides to ask a non-fluff question:

Because he is in showbiz David Letterman well understands faded stars clinging bitterly to the Klieg lights. Perhaps Dave will ask Obama about his faded glory and how world leaders have contempt for Obama.

Maybe Dave will ask Obama why the protesters at the G-8, or is it now G-10, or G-20 will get respect from Dimocrats but the Tea Party protesters are denounced and ridiculed and disrespected? That’s right, later this week (September 24-25) in Pittsburgh Obama will be mouthing more words in front of the Klieg lights to guffaws and sotto voce insults from world leaders (after Obama sits cozily with Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi of Lockerbie infamy at the United Nations Security Council) at the G-20 meeting.

Please Dave, ask Obama about his craving need for publicity and publicity stunts and “the people have seen too little of me” mentality. Please Dave, amuse us with with the showbiz relevant “overexposed” question:

The White House doesn’t buy the notion that President Obama, who appeared on five talk shows Sunday and is heading next for David Letterman’s couch, could be wearing out his welcome on the tube.

Sure, this is a president who has dissected basketball brackets on ESPN, gone for burgers with Brian Williams, showed Steve Kroft his swing set, dissed Kanye West (off the record) with CNBC and ordered a general to shave Stephen Colbert’s head. By that standard, Obama’s Sunday blitz was a mere throat-clearing that, as it turned out, produced little in the way of big news. And some journalists — even as they continue to clamor for access — say he is diluting the product. [snip]

So did Obama score?

While the White House plan was for Obama to focus primarily on health care and Afghanistan, he broke no new ground on either subject, repeating points he has made many times.

That’s a nice way of saying “Obama is a bore.” Celebrity Obama is a starlet with no new films to promote but who wants to appear on TV chat shows anyway just to feel the Klieg light heat.

Baby Jane Hudson or Norma Desmond – as we have compared Obama to before?

Norma Obama

For sure Americans are tired of Obama and his craving need to get attention.

Baby Jane Hudson or Norma Desmond?

Both were dragged off stage by the police.

Obama deserves nothing less than to be dragged off the stage – screaming.


150 thoughts on “Whatever Happened To Baby Jane?

  1. admin: Great article, perhaps Obama uses his fellow AA to get what he wants and then throws them by the wayside, like an old girlfriend. This regime cares nothing about other AA politicians unless they belong the “the Chicago boys” club, et la Deval Patrick, the other are mere pawns in their overall plan for America, which includes making things much worse than they are today for AA’s and poor whites.

    I sincerely hope this new tape will put another chink in this armor.

  2. LOL…Admin,

    Both Gloria Swanson and Bette Davis gave me the shivers in those rolls.


    Letterman is devoting the whole hour to his king? Yawn! Double Yawn!

  3. Well here’s substance for you…


    The president and the potato
    By BEN FELLER (AP) – 38 minutes ago

    NEW YORK — Add this one to the presidential experience: the heart-shaped potato.

    By the time Barack Obama came on stage to the taping of the “Late Show” on Monday, host David Letterman had offered up 10 reasons why in the world the president had agreed to do it.

    Among Letterman’s theories: Obama said yes without thinking about it, or as Letterman put it, “Like Bush did with Iraq.”

    But Obama had other ideas. It turns out he was listening when Letterman had bantered with a woman in the audience who brought — yes — a potato in the shape of a heart to the show.

    Obama told Letterman: “The main reason I’m here? I want to see that heart-shaped potato.”

    The woman tossed the potato to Letterman.

    She agreed to let Obama keep it. Said the president: “This is remarkable.”


  4. Sorry for the length…


    Gaddafi getting away with murder: Gaddafi’s arrival in New York pours shame on the UN and Obama. There is one way to put it right…

    Geoffrey Robertson guardian.co.uk,
    Monday 21 September 2009

    Tomorrow brings excruciating embarrassment for the United Nations. It will honour the worst man left in the world, who now devotes his time to thwarting its attempts to bring other international criminals to justice. Colonel Gaddafi will make a triumphant address to the assembled dignitaries (including a humiliated President Obama), unless a district attorney in New York arrests him for murder, or torture, or conspiracy to cause explosions – or for any of the various crimes against humanity committed during 35 of his 40 years of dictatorship.

    Gaddafi gets away with murder because European nations, and the corporations that influence their governments (British Petroleum in the case of the UK), are desperate to share in his oil wealth, and because he buys off the relatives of his victims with “blood money” ($2.7bn for Lockerbie, $1m per family for a UTA passenger jet, and further millions for US victims of his supply of semtex to the IRA), accompanied by insincere apologies.

    In Africa, his impunity is attractive to other corrupt or brutal rulers: in February, he was elected chairman of the African Union, and he has transformed this organisation into the main opponent of the international criminal court, guaranteeing to protect Omar al-Bashir from its arrest warrant over his alleged crimes in Darfur. Gaddafi has in the past ordered many assassinations of dissidents (“stray dogs”) and sponsored terrorist groups reportedly ranging from Baader Meinhof to Abu Nidal – while his charity provides lavish compensation to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

    The legal excuse for his untouchability is sovereign (or head of state) immunity, the Machiavellian doctrine that for centuries protected political and military leaders from any kind of accountability other than by forcible overthrow. But immunity is not what it used to be: the Pinochet decision, by Britain’s highest court, held that ex-dictators could be liable for torturing their own people; and then the international court of justice held that courts set up by the United Nations could prosecute government ministers for mass murder. In due course Slobodan Milosevic went to trial, followed by Charles Taylor after the UN’s court in Sierra Leone had upheld the issue of an arrest warrant at a time when he was still the head of Liberia. The particulars in this warrant, significantly, named Gaddafi as an “unindicted co-conspirator”, accusing him of sponsoring Taylor and Foday Sankoh, the brutal rebel leader whose Operation No Living Thing almost lived down to its words in Freetown.

    The experienced prosecutor who obtained the Taylor warrant has publicly stated that he had the evidence to indict Gaddafi. His successor, Stephen Rapp, has just left the Taylor trial to take up the post of ambassador for war crimes prosecutions with the Obama administration. If his replacement obtains an arrest warrant from the UN court, Gaddafi would have no immunity if it were executed on him in New York.

    There are other ways for US law enforcement to feel the colonel’s collar. Britain gave the world the Pinochet precedent, but the US provided the Noriega example – the Panama head of state was arrested, convicted and jailed for exporting cocaine to the US. If Megrahi was guilty of the Lockerbie bombing (and, conspiracy theories aside, the evidence justified the verdict), then Gaddafi must have given the order.

    Megrahi was a senior Libyan intelligence official, and there is no way that Gaddafi’s intelligence services, run by his brother-in-law, would commit an atrocity of this magnitude without his knowledge and approval. This crime has such close connections to America, given the nationality of the airline and most of the victims, that a New York district attorney would have no difficulty claiming jurisdiction to arrest the man reasonably suspected of being an arch co-conspirator.

    Just six months after Lockerbie, the Libyans did it again – to a French airliner over Chad. A French court convicted in absentia Gaddafi’s brother-in-law and five Libyan intelligence operatives. Then investigating judges held that there was a strong case for Gaddafi himself to answer: post Pinochet, sovereign immunity could not apply for a crime as serious as blowing up an airliner. But a French appeal court overruled this decision, on the erroneous ground that airline terrorism did not amount to an international crime. The families of Gaddafi’s victims appealed to the European court of human rights, so to get himself off the hook his charity paid each family $1m to compromise the case. If the evidence is still available, this case too might proceed in the US.

    There are other legal possibilities. Unruly rulers such as Karadzic, Mugabe and Marcos have on visiting America been served with writs and made the subjects of civil actions under the US alien tort claims act. Although those indicted cannot be obliged to wait around for the verdict, proceedings can give victims’ relatives some satisfaction through the presentation of evidence about the defendants’ complicity in crimes against humanity.

    For the present however, Gaddafi struts the world stage, a living embodiment of impunity. He came in from the cold in 2003 for one reason only – to obtain help against Islamic enemies who despise his “green book” and want to destroy his dynasty. Britain has been his leading appeaser: the SAS trains his troops, Scotland Yard helps his police (although not to apprehend the murderer of PC Yvonne Fletcher), and his dissidents here have been arrested and jailed under the UK’s anti-terror legislation. Italy and France have welcomed him, and last month the Swiss government issued a grovelling apology for arresting his son, Hannibal, over allegations of beating his servants.

    So, over to America. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton recently criticised Britain for pandering to Gaddafi by encouraging Megrahi’s release. This week the US has the opportunity to end Gaddafi’s invulnerability which derives not from his strength, but from the weakness of international law and those who

    guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/21/gaddafi-lockerbie-terrorism-international-lawave a duty to apply it.

  5. September 21, 2009

    No White House Time for Some GOP House Members

    The White House has rebuffed attempts from House Republicans to schedule meetings with the president to discuss health care, prompting some to write a letter asking for, at least, a group meeting, the Hill newspaper reports.

    Mr. Obama has said in public comments that he will always listen to anyone willing to offer productive ideas for health care reform. “My door is always open,” he said in his address to a joint session of Congress this month.

    A handful of GOP representatives, however, have been unable to meet with Mr. Obama, according to the Hill. On Thursday, Reps. David Roe (Tenn.), Bill Cassidy (La.), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Steve Scalise (La.) and Tom Price (Ga.) sent a letter to the president agreeing a group meeting if he is not able to sit down with them all individually, “in an effort to accommmodate (Obama’s) schedule.”

    Roe, who was a practicing medical doctor before joining the House, told the newspaper his experience would be worthwhile for the president to hear about. “He needs to hear this from someone who has had feet on the ground and seen the problems,” he said.

    While the president has not met with all Republicans who have requested meetings, he has met with lawmakers likely to significantly shape the debate, such as Republican Senate Finance Committee members Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.). Mr. Obama even sought to work with moderate Republican Olympia Snowe before he took office, the New York Times reports. As the Times’ John Harwood put it, “To achieve his objectives, Ms. Snowe may be the only Republican he needs.”

    “He’s always eliciting my views,” said Snowe, who could be vote No. 60 for a final piece of health care legislation. “Wondering, you know, what my concerns are.”


  6. Where do I go to see this latest video?? Glen Beck was BS today, nothing new. He still hasnt nailed to, maybe someday he will, although he sure has Soros name in the big lights.

  7. I must tell you what I think and believe to be true. When I watch Olympia Snow talk about Mr. Obama and extol his policies even though she is hypothetically a Republican, I get the distinct impression that she feels some physical attraction to him. Perhaps I am wrong about that. But if it is true, and it has some impact on her voting record, then all I can say is that is not the kind of objectivity we normally seek in a public official. Watch her yourself and tell my what you think. Or just read the New York Times article which says or was quoted as saying she is his biggest fan in the Republican Party. In that case, it is a sad note.

  8. Can anyone tell me how this NEA thing is illegal?? I just don’t get it. I realize they have tied Jarrett to it in concrete terms,but using this govt. office during his campaign, thats seems a little fuzzy. How can he use the govt. facilities as a candidate?? Is this what they are talking about??

  9. Mrs.Smith, as per your last comment, yes you are right, no one in their right mind would accept this, but if you embed them with over 50% unemployment, food supplies very scarce and extremely expensive, and Obama new in country police force, you might change your mind. Soros is already unmining the farmers, dont forget that! He wants to the bread basket to be in Brazil which they have been working to get up to snuff for years. Brazil will be the new bread basket, not America. They have been getting rid of all our big businesses for years and sending them off to other countries.

  10. “When I watch Olympia Snow talk about Mr. Obama and extol his policies even though she is hypothetically a Republican, I get the distinct impression that she feels some physical attraction to him.”


    As does Pelosi, Oprah, Caroline, and on and on…ad nauseum.

  11. confloyd- you should read the reviews of your book so you don’t get sucked into thinking there aren’t forces at work behind the scenes working against the ultimate class divide of the few elites and the permanently poor.

    h… //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    There are a dozen or so compelling overviews here that will give you a better perspective. You shouldn’t be so frightened thinking this is a big secret and people aren’t aware of what is going on.. There is still time. We have a chance to prevent them from the ultimate takeover… and we’re going for it!

    This is exactly what we are doing here at Big Pink sounding the alarm and getting the word out.

  12. # JanH Says:
    September 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    A reminder to anyone interested,

    President Bill Clinton will be on Larry King tonight.


    Thanks, Jan for the reminder…

  13. Mrs. Smith, thanks, I will check it out. The republicans are kneee deep in this too.

    JUst on FOx, apparent the JUSTICE dept is looking to see if the govt. is really supporting Acorn, so they are pulling a Dick Cheney, there will be fires in trash cans as they BURN the evidence.

  14. Dole confesses that they never wanted Bill Clinton to have any successes so they never even tried to compromise on Hillarycare.

    Meme was so petty and jealous of Hillary that she refused to countenance Hillary as V.P.


    There are no words…

  15. Mrs. Smith,Thankyou for showing me these comments on Wikipedia. I see the ones who say Ms. Klein is lunatic, are the very ones she quotes in the book as helping this plan to take place. THe economist is definitely one of the rags associated with take over. We must read the “shadow party” to understand hopefully the DNC’s part in this. I can imagine the speculators (SOros) have that part. We do know the GWB started with robbing of taxpayers money thru bailouts, Medicare Part D with no controls on the big pharma. So its the combine from Chicago. Its funny how all the crap comes from there, isn’t it!

  16. JanH, Hillary and Bill aren’t in the loop, there for the American people and the machine doesn’t like them, especially Hillary! She IS the female version of FDR, not the wanna be we have now.

  17. Anyone want to hazard a guess thats where Obama’s record breaking fundraising came from. I guess Obama will have to hand back all his donations along with the DNC as they will be classified as stolen money.

    Democratic (and Obama) Fund-Raiser Nemazee Indicted In $292 Million Fraud

    NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- New York businessman and prominent Democratic fund- raiser Hassan Nemazee was indicted Monday for allegedly defrauding three banks out of $292 million in loans.

    Nemazee, 59 years old, was charged with aggravated identity theft and three counts of bank fraud in the indictment. Each bank fraud count carries a term of up to 30 years in prison.

    A lawyer for Nemazee didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Nemazee, who was involved in various presidential campaigns and once served as finance chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, was initially charged criminally in August related to a loan he allegedly obtained fraudulently from Citigroup Inc.’s (C) Citibank unit.

    Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan also are seeking $292 million in forfeiture in the case.

    In the indictment, prosecutors alleged that Nemazee obtained hundreds of millions of loans from Bank of America Corp. (BAC), Citigroup and HSBC Holdings Plc (HBC) between 1998 and 2009.

  18. The only reason Michelle Obama hated Hillary was that Hillary would outshine her in the administration, Michelle would have been on the backseat.

    She took the bitchy way out, she wanted to be Queen bee and to do that, she had to ensure no other strong woman was near her.

  19. confloyd-

    Gingrich made it all public in his ‘Contract With America’ speech.

    If you look up the Neo-cons PNAC Agreement, although it’s been sanitized for public consumption, their mission statement is basically on point with their strategy. This is basically why they HATE Bill and Hillary Clinton so much.

    What we are going through now was supposed to happen in 1992 when Bush I was seeking re-election. He lost to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was the spoiler who got himself elected and set their plans back almost 15 years because he interfered with their plans of a world takeover. Bush I never really got over it…

    What Bill Clinton proved was the world is big enough for everyone to live comfortably and prosper…the chicken in every pot analogy. He proved to the wealthy they could maintain their wealth and the poor could rise out of poverty without depending on handouts from the government. He gave them jobs.

  20. “When I watch Olympia Snow talk about Mr. Obama and extol his policies even though she is hypothetically a Republican, I get the distinct impression that she feels some physical attraction to him.”

    wbboei, I think you may be right. This is how Joan Walsh wrote in her article admin linked couple of posts ago — “It’s a cruel irony that this conciliatory, courteous, accommodating black man still faces claims that he’s a scary menace to America.” ROFL if it was not disgusting. These middle aged women are having middle age crisis.

    BTW, thanks for your kind comment on my NQ post.

  21. JanH Says:
    September 20th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Obama faces an enormous political and communications challenge in selling his health care plan as Congress debates how to pay for it all.

    So this is what “failure” smells like…

  22. Wbboei.Moononpluto, Nemazee belongs to the CFR. He is the Iranian specialist. Soros and him are in this together, although the web has been cleaned. When I click on a story of these two, you get some stupid pic of a farmer planting seeds. Maybe its symbolic!!

  23. Too funny! I just saw a CNN commercial on Lou Dobbs. It’s going after Fox News, saying that they are complaining that CNN doesn’t cover the same stories. Then they say that Fox News is Distorting the News.

    LOL…this just keeps on getting better and better.

  24. BTW, that Taylor Branch book on Bill Clinton portrays him as how he actually is, because it’s based on interviews with Bill. I just read a GQ interview with Branch, and he says the Bill in his book is the complete opposite of the caricature the press created about him. All that stuff about “secrets” Bill didn’t want revealed is typical garbage from the media. The only “juicy” bit I read was about Yeltsin being drunk, lol.

  25. Admin

    Too funny

    Michelle fashion icon clothes from a hospital emergency, and accessories from auto supply
    supply stores.

  26. Quoting admin from the top:

    In the most contentious exchange of President Barack Obama’s marathon of five Sunday shows, he said it is “not true” that a requirement for individuals to get health insurance under a key reform plan now being debated amounts to a tax increase.

    But he could look it up — in the bill.

    Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

    And the rest of the bill is clear that the Finance Committee does, in fact, consider it a tax: “The excise tax would be assessed through the tax code and applied as an additional amount of Federal tax owed.”

    The bill requires every American, with few exceptions, to carry health insurance. To enforce this individual mandate, the Senate Finance Committee created the excise tax as a penalty for people who don’t have insurance – and it can run as much as $3,800 a year per family.

    A law without enforcement provisions is (like our president) a JOKE.

    If Obama was writing traffic laws…

    Obama: “This law that I am signing today will deter people from speeding. The police will pull over speeders in a new effort to crack down on this bane that endangers the public’s safety. The fines are:

    MPH over speed limit Fine
    ============== ========
    10 $0
    20 $0
    30 $0
    50 $0
    100 $0

  27. I vote (Gloria Swanson’s) Norma Desmond. Paranoia and all. Another astute analogy Admin on the vain, shallow empty suit, in this Manchurian candidate/President’s portayal/betrayal. So, with the outing of the bribe to the NEA, speaking of our artistic/celebrity community, just how much longer before this Victor/Victoria is exposed for the whacked out, Type B Personality Disorder – Narcisisstic Bipolar that he is?

    I have to say, were it not that I am such a right-brained TCM addict and lover of art, I would be all for boycotting anything and everthing to do with Hollywood, Broadway – any of these venues that continue to walk the plank for The One.

    There are a very damn few celebs I care one whit about anymore, and I decided last year which actors to not pay the price of admission for again – which eliminates most of my movie-going. It’s almost like going through your own private divorces with those you formerly admired. Disappointing and disheartening to say the least. If anyone knows of any such boycott against certain who’s who – let me know.

    Count me in. They just think things are bad in Caleefornia and NY, NY. They can get a whole lot worse if middle America decides to forego entertainment at the flicks, theatre, art showings, concerts, tabloids, etc.

  28. Well, I just had to watch one of the evil twins on “Dancing with the Stars”. Tom Delay was more nervous dancing than he was when he faced indictment. LOL!! It was funny as hell, he danced to “Wild THing”. I wonder if his partner in crime was watching, Karl Rove??

  29. I’ve read this Nemazee was Hillary’s campaign finance guy, well since he is in bed with Soros, its no wonder she went broke!

  30. Bill was excellent as always despite King interrupting him at times…it still amazes me that a guy like King who ran out of S. Florida decades ago is so revere. He is the worst interviewer of the bunch.

  31. Paula,

    I just read the online excerpts of GQ’s interview with Taylor Branch…

    Humanizing and brilliant… next book after Browns’

  32. jbstonesfan, I’m glad to hear that someone else also thinks that Larry King is “not all that” as an interviewer.

  33. Mrs. Smith, I was going to post the link and forgot, lol. Here it is:


    BTW, I agree with jbstonesfan. I could listen to Bill talk forever.

  34. Bill and Hillary truly world leaders and
    always ready to serve their country.
    Her move will come soon and Bo will never see 2012 in the Oval Office.Acorn probe will be his waterloo.

    BY ABM91 Post Hillary 24/7

  35. Mrs. Smith Says:
    September 21st, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    Great info-confloyd.. very important the connection with Soros-

    I found this article accidentally, wbb. It was written 12/1997.

    The article is a pretty thorough rundown of BO’s involvement w/Acorn. Obama WAS instrumental in training ACORN’s workforce in what was coded as: “inside baseball” Chicago style.


    I had some cites that relate to this, have you seen them? I’ve posted the link here several times. Haven’t updated for months. They were at Clintondems whatever that has renamed to.

    Something about ‘community organizer’.

    If you don’t have them and want them, I’ll try to find them again.

  36. I think it’s sad when once talented interviewers don’t know when to call it a day. What it means in that while they once excelled at their jobs, what we will remember them by is there last performances which suffer in comparison.

    Larry King used to be very sharp.

  37. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCnUsInBQws
    Theme song of the bots to Obama.

    Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia’s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world’s largest private equity firms,

    SOCHI, Russia (Reuters) – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Friday a decision by the United States to scrap plans for a missile defense shield in Europe was positive.

    Putin, speaking to investors in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, said he now expected the United States to back a bid by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to join the World Trade Organisation.

    “I expect that after this correct and brave decision, others will follow, including the complete removal of all restrictions on the transfer of high technology to Russia and activity to widen the membership of the World Trade Organisation to (include) Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus,” Putin said.

    (Reporting by Toni Vorobyova and Gleb Bryanski, editing by Guy Faulconbridge)

    The United States wants to kick off by November a new effort to ease global economic imbalances to prevent a repeat of the devastating financial crisis, according to a document obtained by Reuters on Monday.

    The document, outlining the U.S. position ahead of a summit of leaders from the Group of 20 nations this week, calls for a process of regular consultations and increased cooperation on policies that will ensure a rebalancing of world growth.

    The document proposes the International Monetary Fund play a significant role in overseeing policies to rebalance the world economy.

    Obama’s “science czar” Holdren, about whom Joseph Abrams notes, “John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, “compulsory sterilization,” and the creation of a ‘Planetary Regime’ that would oversee human population levels….”

  38. TheRealist Says:

    September 21st, 2009 at 9:20 am
    There isn’t going to be a single “bombshell” that pushes him out, although that would be great, but a constant erosion of support from both camps in the democratic party, as his inexperience and indecision see him betray each in turn, leaving him ultimately a constituency of one. Policy failure trumps conspiracy theory every time in elective politics, and his policies are losers…


    Hillfriends…we know that the MSM covered up anything that could have ‘hurt’ O during the primaries and the media did not even expose Wright until too late in the game…so obviously, there is tons of stuff many people must have on O…chicago and so on…

    …today I was thinking….hmmm…the CIA…O is supporting Holder to go after the CIA….hmmm…they probably have things to leak if O starts to clip their wings too short…mess with the CIA?…but then again, we are dealing with the ego and amateur hour…he thinks his charm and toothpaste grin make him untouchable…maybe he thinks he can always threaten a riot – “fired up, ready to go” repeat, repeat, repeat!!! and take it to the streets…


    also I am reading that now the Justice dept is going to investigate Acorn, and conyers wants to open investigation again and many states are investigating…so when are we going to hear about the fraud Acorn pulled during the primaries against Hillary…what happened to all of those complaints…in the thousands, that were waged against acorn and their co-hort tentacles that were in full force to intimidate Hillary’s supporters…will we ever, ever have any justice for that brutality and fraud…surely any investigations will lead in those directions amongst others…

    …hearing O says he hardly knows a thing about Acorn is turning O into pinochhio!

    how can anyone believe anything that comes out of him…he can promise the world now but we already knows he does not honor even any of his primary promises…’he lies’


    ADMIN described above how O did not even know what was in the Baucus bill, and did not know about the “taxes” and The Realist lists a number of things in the last thread the O also claimed he knew nothing about…

    …well, besides lying half of the time, the other half he is too busy going on tv and running around like a chicken without a head…no wonder he has no idea what is going on around him…no one will ever call this guy a ‘policy wonk’ or hard worker…he is an deceitful, amateur, celebrity showboater all the way…and we are only 8 months into this sentence…

    …like Lyndsey Graham said, he has to get off tv and get to work…what an imposter of a president…as if he is playing the role of the president, but doing none of the real work…

    my two cents re: Hillary as SOS…Hillary will never quit…she has the best of all worlds all things considered…

    Hillary is admired and respected all over the world, being SOS keeps her free from the politics of O…we need Hillary on the international stage…the NY governorship is too confining for her now…Hillary knows what she is doing, I respect her choices…

  39. Morris is a despicable ass, but he gets to the heart of the matter on Obamacare,

    Obamacare: Losing everyone

    THE elderly were the first group to turn against President Obama’s health-care pro posals, alienated by the plans to cut $500 billion cut from Medicare. The young and the uninsured may be the next to jump ship — out of worry over about the huge premiums they’d have to pay.

    Requiring everyone to buy insurance will impose a massive tax on all who now are uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office projects that it would force the middle-income uninsured to pay on average more than 15 percent of their income.

    The poor will still have Medicaid. But for those earning more, the required premiums will be worse than any tax increase. For example, CBO estimates that when the program is fully implemented — by 2016 — an individual earning $32,400 a year would have to pay $4,100 in premiums before getting any subsidy. With deductibles and co-payments, he’d have to shell out $5,600 a year, or 17.3 percent of his income. A family of four, making $80,000 a year, would have to pay about $10,500 in premiums alone — with deductibles and co-payments, up to $15,000 or just under 20 percent of income.

    And if they don’t buy insurance, they’ll face federal fines that begin to approach these same premium levels. They won’t be able to buy what they truly need — catastrophic-only coverage at a lower premium — that won’t satisfy ObamaCare’s “minimum insurance” mandate.

    The young and uninsured will catch on: This bill is designed to force healthy people who don’t have health insurance — and may neither need nor want it — to buy it anyway, in order to raise the money to subsidize those who do need it.

    Obama has pledged only to increase taxes on the rich. But his program essentially taxes the core of the middle class (those making $30,000 to $80,000). It will make them overpay in order to pick up the slack for others who need the extra coverage.

    In other words, health-care “reform” is a health-care tax dressed up as a program to cover the uninsured.

    No matter how Democrats get the money to cover those who need insurance, they offend supporters that they need to pass the bill:

    * If they get the money from more Medicare cuts, they alienate the elderly still further.

    * If they get it from raising the deficit, they lose moderates.

    * If they hike taxes to do it, they lose the “Blue Dog” Democrats who’ve gone on record as opposing such increases.

    * If they don’t increase the subsidies, they lose the uninsured themselves.

    The latest data from Scott Rasmussen’s poll of those who lack health insurance indicates that they’re starting to turn skeptical about the Obama plan. It’s supposed to help them, yet they back it by only 58 percent to 35 percent — and only 30 percent support it strongly.

    More to the point, only 35 percent feel it will improve the quality of their health care — and, by 41-26, they feel the cost of their care will go up, not down, under the plan.

    Having the uninsured — the stated object of Obama’s compassion — turn against his reform would be the most lethal cut of all.


    Obamacare by Obama – the man selling words and more words…any or no plan will do…as long as he is moving and has his teleprompter to read words in the most generalized terms that no one can object to…just don’t let anyone get a clue what is in any of those five different plans floating around ‘out there’


    as even Chris Matthews is actually saying, he thinks O has missed the channel on what people are really concerned about and what they care about these days…and it is not a trophy for O

  40. as even Chris Matthews is actually saying, he thinks O has missed the channel on what people are really concerned about and what they care about these days…and it is not a trophy for O


    Unfortunately, Baucus and others, including Bo, only care about passing “something.” They don’t seem to really care about the effects upon the middle-class. BO will be long gone, before the most of the bill takes place. Hopefully, some of the congress critters will hold out, until more reasonable legislation can be passed.

  41. Admin: it finally hit me, only six hours later. It is hilariious/ Three of a kind. I am not drinking, but I am giddy over the last line of your post!
    Both were dragged off stage by the police.

  42. We could spare him the Miranda warnings since he is a senior lecturer in constitutional law and knows all about that shit.

    I wish to part company with those who think it is foolish to introduce Michelle Obama to the health care.

    I think it is a marvelous distraction. Certainly her sartorial will turn heads– in the direction of the c-mode.

    People who hated bambis health care proposal will quickly find something or someone who they hate even more. And is not unrequited.

  43. S: you may be right. I only envisioned the New York govenorship as a springboard to something bigger–the presidency in 2012.

  44. I just saw a CNN commercial on Lou Dobbs. It’s going after Fox News, saying that they are complaining that CNN doesn’t cover the same stories. Then they say that Fox News is Distorting the News.
    Their opinion carries no weight whatsoever. They have lost their audience. Nobody wants to be lied to if they can go somewhere else and get some semblance of the truth. CNN needs to make deep cuts in their workforce if they want to survive, starting with that no nothing Campbell Brown, a miserable excuse for a human being.

  45. like Lyndsey Graham said, he has to get off tv and get to work
    The mere thought of work scares the crap out of him.

  46. Mrs.Smith and Wbboei, heres the difference between Soros and Friedman or if you want the republicans and democrats at this point in history. Its very long and I’m sorry about that. Its a good read, but it makes Soros sound reasonable to some degree, it explains Hedge Funds and how exactly this beast makes his money off other people blood money. He is evil!
    Home»International topics»EnvironmentGlobalisationEconomyScience & Tech.ArtAfrica»BotswanaChadCongoEgyptEthiopiaGuineaIvory CoastKenyaMadagascarMozambiqueMoroccoNigeriaSierra LeoneSouth AfricaSudanTunisiaZimbabweThe Americas»ArgentinaBoliviaBrazilCanadaChileColombiaCuba»Free the Miami Five!EcuadorEl SalvadorGuadeloupeHaitiHondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaraguaParaguayPeruUnited StatesVenezuelaAsia»GeneralAfghanistanBangladeshChinaGeorgiaIndiaIndonesiaJapanKoreaKyrgyzstanMalaysiaMyanmarNepalPakistanPhilippinesRussiaSri LankaUzbekistanVietnamEast TimorEurope»General EuropeEuropean UnionThe BalkansArmeniaAustriaBelgiumBritainCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyLatviaMoldaviaNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandUkraineMiddle East»EgyptIranIraqIsrael & PalestineLebanonSyriaTurkeyOceania»AustraliaNew ZealandOther languages»ArabicBahasa IndonesiaBasqueBengaliCatalanChineseDanishDutchEsperantoFrenchGaelicGalicianGermanGreekHebrewHungarianItalianKoreanMacedonianNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbo-CroatianSlovenianSpanish»América LatinaÁfricaAsiaEconomíaEuropaManos Fuera de VenezuelaNorte AméricaOceaníaOriente MedioTeoríaAudio y VídeoSwedishTurkishUrduVietnameseThe IMT»About usOur historyOur congressesNational congressesFinancial AppealsReports from meetingsSpeaking toursOur sectionsHistory & Theory»Topics»AnarchismDialectical MaterialismEconomic theoryHistorical MaterialismImperialismMarxism and the StateThe National QuestionWomen & MarxismWorkers’ ControlOtherHistorical Analysis»Revolution and counter-revolution before 1900Russian RevolutionWWI and the German RevolutionThe Spanish RevolutionWorld War IIThe Iranian Revolution1968British Labour MovementLabour and IrelandOther revolutions in the 20th centuryAncient historyEducate Yourself»Marxist ClassicsMarxism FAQIn defence of genuine MarxismPerspectivesAudio & Video»AfricaThe AmericasAsiaEuropeMiddle EastOceaniaWorldHistory & TheoryComments & Opinion»Them and UsComments & OpinionPublications»Pamphlets»IMT Manifesto on the CrisisBooks in English»Marxism and the United StatesGermany – from Revolution to Counter-RevolutionPakistan’s Other StoryReformism or RevolutionRussia: from Revolution to Counter-RevolutionBooks in other languages»Reason in Revolt (Bahasa Indonesia)Reason in Revolt (Türkçe)Solidarity»Solidarity AppealsVenezuelaIranPakistanSitemapLinksHedge funds, speculation and capitalism
    Written by Mick Brooks
    Monday, 14 July 2008
    Hedge funds are in the news again. They don’t much like being in the public gaze. We wonder why. Does their speculation cause prices to go up? Do they drive firms into bankruptcy so workers lose their jobs? These are the questions being asked. Let’s see what they get up to.
    Hedge funds are in the news again. They don’t much like being in the public gaze. We wonder why. Does their speculation cause prices to go up? Do they drive firms into bankruptcy so workers lose their jobs? These are the questions being asked. Let’s see what they get up to.

    Where does the name ‘hedge fund’ come from? It has a bucolic feel to it, and that’s the way they want us to think of them. ‘Hedging your bets’ means trying to minimise risk. If a farmer wants to know where he stands, he may sell his 2009 crop, which he hasn’t planted yet, on the futures market. This will give him the money to buy the seedcorn up front and a feeling of security about the future. He’ll get a known price whether the harvest turns out to be good or bad. He hasn’t eliminated risk, just let someone else take it on. If you’ve sent a cheque in for the ‘Reformism or revolution’ book (which is still being printed) you’re playing the futures market! Futures are the simplest form of derivative. The derivatives market is called this because the instrument is derived from another transaction. It is contrasted to the spot market, where goods and money change hands at the same time.

    This ‘everyday story of country folk’ is a long way from the reality of what modern-day hedge funds get up to. Some of the derivatives they deal in are so complicated that they need a bank of linked computers to work out the odds. Nobel prize-winning mathematicians have been sucked into the City to feed this tide of ‘financial innovation.’ And the sums of money that they deal with are awesome. Hedge funds are already playing with $2 trillion of other people’s money. There are $600trn of derivatives floating around the globe. They are a form of what Marx called fictitious capital. By way of comparison, the world produces less than $50trn in new goods and services each year. (See Wishful thinking by Michael Roberts)

    The scale of operation is bigger but the principle is the same as before. The farmer didn’t want to bet on whether the 2009 harvest will be good or bad. But that meant somebody else did take a bet – the hedge fund. That’s what hedge funds do – bet with other people’s money. And bets can get more and more complicated. Ever heard of forecasts, trifectas, jackpots, placepots or pool bets? These are all ways of betting on horses. Usually they make it possible to win more money for a smaller stake. (This is called leverage in the financial markets.) Provided…always provided the horse you pick runs a bit faster than the others. And, as we shall see, leverage makes it possible to augment losses in the same way.

    The attraction for rich people in ‘investing’ in hedge funds is that they promise, and deliver, returns of 30% a year. How is this possible? It’s a grisly story. Recently hedge funds have been betting on banks failing. After all you can win money betting on which horse comes last the same as which horse comes in first. Everyone knows the banks have been leaking profits since the credit crunch started last year.

    Bradford and Bingley, for instance, declared a loss of £8m for the first four months of 2008, compared with £108m profits over the same period last year. The main reason for this was because they had to write down £89m in assets, discovering that it was actually bad debt. B & B decided they needed more money in the vaults. They chose to recapitalise by offering a rights issue. This means that they ask existing shareholders to stump up money for extra shares. B & B wants £400m. (Don’t we all?) Shareholders don’t like rights issues. They want to be left in peace with their money. So B & B shares went down in price.

    The hedge funds have been on the case like jackals spotting a sick wildebeest on the veld. At one time they held 10% of B & B shares. A firm called GLG still holds 4.1% stake in B & B shares. But Texas-based TPG Capital has pulled out of the hunt. In fact B & B shares have now dipped so low they are said to be ‘virtually worthless.’

    Other banks are still being stalked. Hedge funds have been buying up shares in Northern Rock since its collapse last year. They actually brought the bank to its knees in the first place by short-selling its shares (see below). They are punting on the prospect that Gordon Brown and his hapless Chancellor Darling will hurl more money at the shareholders, thinking that they’re all little old Geordie ladies with votes.

    In the USA Lehman Brothers bank claims rumours are maliciously being circulated that they are virtually bankrupt and will soon be pulled to pieces like Bear Stearns was a few months ago. The fall of Bear Stearns Bank became a self-fulfilling prophecy once enough money got on the story. Is the threat to Lehman really just a case of incompetent managers blaming others for their firm’s misfortunes? Or are the hedge funds really up to something? Your guess is as good as mine.

    So are hedge funds the bad guys? There is a different point of view, given by headlines such as ‘Hedge funds bail out ailing corporate world.’ (Financial Times 02.07.08) The article shows hedge funds rallying round Barclays in its search for funds and underwriting, not sabotaging, HBOS’ rights issue. Angels or assassins? Hedge funds are just capitalists. They will tear a firm to pieces if it makes money and then put it back together again if it makes more money.

    But hedge funds work in the dark. And they’re now so mighty that, if they shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, they can create a panic and amuse themselves later by looting the dead bodies of those caught in the crush. A wall of money can make things happen.

    So what? Bear Stearns went belly up because of the financial crisis, not because of the machinations of hedge funds. Banks’ shares are going down because of the financial crisis, not because of manipulation. The financial crisis is part of a crisis of capitalism, not the product of evil minds. But, by golly, capitalism certainly produces plenty of evil minds. Capitalism is a dog-eat-dog world where only the nastiest and most ruthless survive. That’s just the way it is.

    The Financial Services Authority has recently demanded that the shadowy people ‘short-selling’ company shares should be identified. It’s the hedge funds. Short-selling is a practice where a capitalist borrows 10 shares worth £100, for instance, on the expectation that they are going down, so that if he is right he can buy them back for £80 and keep the other £20 as profit. This is the opposite of ‘going long,’ when a capitalist buys a security in the expectation that its price will rise, and can keep the extra as profit if he is right.

    Will Hutton fingers the hedge funds in an article ‘As we suffer, City speculators are moving in for the kill.’ (Observer 29.06.08) “The hedge funds weren’t even buying back the shares, they were ‘borrowing’ them from pension funds to manipulate the market,” he complains.

    He goes on. “A spotlight has been shone on some very murky corners of the financial markets. There practices occur that challenge the very conception of what we consider a company to be, and the accompanying obligations of ownership. A multi-billion pound business has emerged in which shareholders lend their shares to hedge funds to be played with. For a tiny fee, a hedge fund will arrange to borrow shares from a great insurance company or pension fund which it proceeds to sell. Share-loans are believed to exceed a stunning £7.5 trillion.

    “What then happens is the opposite of a bubble, a kind of financial black hole. The hedge funds sell the shares simultaneously, and the downward movement becomes self-reinforcing, with companies raising money during a rights issue particularly vulnerable. This is why the government forced disclosure. The hedgies reacted as if they were in Stalin’s Russia; their freedom to kill a company stone dead was being challenged. Let’s not mince words, that is the aim, and it gets ugly and personal. A senior official told me that in one case some hedge funds had allegedly warned the banks underwriting one rights issue to abandon it or face speculative attack – mafia practice.”

    Will Hutton is an intelligent commentator, and his apocalyptic article raises important issues. Hutton’s basic mistake through all his writings is his search for a decent, humane long term form of capitalism as opposed to the rapacious bunch of spivs who actually dominate our economy. We have to ask, why should pension funds lend their shares to hedge funds, who then short-sell the shares in order to make the pension funds’ holdings worth less? And, if the pension fund managers really are that stupid, shouldn’t the funds be nationalised right away just to safeguard people’s pensions?

    What is wrong with short-selling? Is it unethical? Under capitalism prices go up and down. They do so because people buy and sell, often with the aim of making money from the transaction. Is Hutton going to ban short-selling, so prices can only go up and never down?

    The core of Hutton’s argument, and it has been raised by others, is that the wall of money moved by modern hedge funds can actually make things happen. Share prices go down because hedge funds sell, and not for any other reason, he argues. In that case they are just parasitic plunderers. But Marxists believe that capitalism is an inherently unstable system, and the operations of hedge funds and other speculators are merely the executors of the market forces through which the laws of capitalist anarchy work.

    This point is at the heart of a controversy among capitalists and capitalist economists. Milton Friedman asserted that destabilising speculation was impossible. This was supposed to be the case because speculators who ‘got it wrong’ would be buying dear and selling cheap. They would lose money and soon disappear. Friedman, a notorious apologist for capitalism whose disciples advised General Pinochet’s regime of torturers in Chile, assumed that capitalism is a stable system. In that case the market just nudges people and things in the ‘right’ direction. But what is the ‘right’ direction?

    Friedman totally ignores the fact that markets can systematically move in ‘wrong’ direction’ – the opposite directions to the economic ‘fundamentals.’ (Whatever they are and whether or not they exist.) This is proved by the existence of financial bubbles. Bubbles have been a feature of capitalism since its inception. For instance during the 1630s Holland was seizes by a mania for tulips. Tulips passed from hand to hand at ever-increasing prices. A rare tulip could sell for more than a farm. Why? Because each speculator assumed that, since prices were going up, they would be able to get more for the bulb than they paid for it. And why were prices going up? Because people were buying bulbs. The whole thing was a classic bubble, based not on ‘market fundamentals’ but on speculative mania.

    Charles Kindleberger defines a bubble as “A sharp rise in the price of an asset or a range of assets in a continuous process, with the initial rise generating expectations of further rises and attracting new buyers – generally speculators interests in profits from trading in the asset rather than its use or earning capacity.” His book ‘Manias, panics and crashes’ is a cracking good read and an expose of the follies and villainies of capitalists over hundreds of years. Manias, panics and crashes have all been constant features of capitalism since its dawn – from the South Sea bubble that popped in 1720 to the housing bubble in the USA, Britain, Spain and Ireland that has just been pricked over the past year.

    In 1953 Friedman wrote an article called ‘An essay on the methodology of positive economics’ in which he denied that the assumptions behind economic theories need be realistic. Indeed he applauded theories consciously built on unrealistic assumptions. “A theory is to be judged by its predictive power,” he asserts. Marxists deny this. We believe a theory is to be judged by its explanatory power, though we note in passing that Marxist political economy has vastly superior predictive power to the ravings of Milton Friedman.

    He goes on, “To be important…a hypothesis must be descriptively false in its assumption.” And by Jiminy does he follow his own advice! He postulates a stable crisis-free capitalism, He ‘abstracts from,’ that is to say he ignores the existence of bubbles, of panics and manias, and of crises. Friedman has an infinite capacity to ‘forget’ about the shambles of real capitalism and instead sings us lullabies about the ‘rationality’ of the market.

    But this is not the real market at all. Friedman is conjuring up the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith, the hand of a wise man in the sky with a beard – god. Actually what we call market forces are the unconscious resultant of decisions taken by millions of individuals. These market processes are not willed or planned by any of the participants. Naturally markets are anarchic and can look chaotic.

    Can speculators make money by putting up prices or destroying the livelihood of firms? Some argue that it’s all a zero sum game. If one speculator buys a piece of paper and makes money, then somebody else must have sold and lost money. Certainly society as a whole is not made one penny richer from speculation, a parasitic activity that burns up wealth. But if there are a group of people with inside information such as hedge funds, then they can profit at the expense of the savings of widows, orphans and others not in the know.

    Secondly, hedge funds are not just gamblers. They are also the bookies. In addition to a share of the winnings, (made with other people’s money) they charge a management fee. As we know, whichever horse comes in first, the bookies always take their cut.

    George Soros believes that markets can get it wrong and that bubbles can be blown up by speculative activity. He believes a wall of speculative money is partly responsible for the ever-rising price of oil. There is a difference between Friedman and Soros. Soros has played the markets and won – big time. He’s not just someone who has spent their life telling fairy stories about the delights of capitalism. He knows what it’s really like.

    This is what Soros has to say about the fantasy of stable, self-correcting capitalism. “Unfortunately, we have an idea of market fundamentalism, which is now the dominant ideology, holding that markets are self correcting; and this is false because it’s generally the intervention of the authorities that saves the markets when they get into trouble. Since 1980, we have had about five or six crises: the international banking crisis in 1982, the bankruptcy of Continental Illinois in 1984, and the failure of Long Term Capital Management in 1998, to name only three. Each time, it’s the authorities that bail out the market, or organize companies to do so. So the regulators have precedents they should be aware of. But somehow this idea that markets tend to equilibrium and that deviations are random has gained acceptance and all of these fancy instruments for investment have been built on them.”

    Soros’ big coup was when, as hedge fund manager, he bet against the pound remaining within the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. As sterling was being squeezed out of the ERM the Tory government spent billions of our money, in effect throwing schools and hospitals at the foreign exchange markets. To no avail. Soros is believed to have made a billion dollars in a few days. Many economists argue that Soros did us a favour. The Tories had lodged sterling in the ERM at an overvalued rate. The pound was in effect suspended in mid air with no visible means of support and exports were hurting. It was only because of the Tories’ mistake that speculators such as Soros could make money.

    Soros argues that a wall of money ($200 billion at last count) is powering up the future price of oil in particular. “The institutions are piling in on one side of the market and they have sufficient weight to unbalance it. If the trend were reversed and the institutions as a group headed for the exit as they did in 1987 there would be a crash,” he warned the US Senate.

    As we argued earlier (see Why are so many people going hungry?), for Marxists speculation does not cause shortages, though shortages can lead to speculation – which makes the shortages worse. Ted Grant once compared the role of speculation to loose ballast in a ship’s hold. If the sea were calm, there wouldn’t be a problem. The storm is the cause of the problem. But in a storm the ballast can punch a hole in the ship’s hull and cause disaster. A wall of money can make things happen, but only when they’re prone to happen anyway.

    To coin it in, speculators have to go with the grain of economic processes. Hutton goes on about oil prices, “One witness, hedge fund manager Michael Masters, argued that there were two identifiable sources of new demand over the past five years – from China and from speculation – both around the same scale. Without the speculation the oil price would still be below $100 a barrel.” Masters knows that, if capitalism hadn’t given us a shortage of oil, he wouldn’t be able to make money out of it.

    But speculation in petroleum is profitable because demand is outstripping supply. Ten years ago oil stood at $10 a barrel. Oil companies could not be bothered to search for new sources of supply, and the western world guzzled petrol on the grand scale. Nobody knew how much oil the world would want in 2008. Now it’s panic stations.

    So the problem is capitalism, not speculation. Prices go up anyway because capitalism is unplanned. Capitalism inevitably creates shortages at some points and gluts elsewhere. Firms go bust and workers lose their jobs because that’s how capitalist ‘competition’ works. Let’s kill it.

  47. Wbboei, SOmetimes I feel so stupid! I had no idea about NED (National Endowment for Democracy) or CIA#2. It apparently does all the covert stuff that the CIA did 25years ago. I found this out looking at where SOros has been planting his greenbacks and he plants them here, too.

  48. Meme was so petty and jealous of Hillary that she refused to countenance Hillary as V.P.


    There are no words…
    The best thing about her is her sartorial spendor–and we know how good that is.

  49. Two TV reports and nary a link.
    11 PM New yesterday, ABC affiliate in Philly: Nan “Stretch” Pelosi was in Philly yesterday mingling with doctors to hawk health care at Jefferson College? Hospital? Said bill would be ready soon. Balmy-Dems so desperate as to send out Speaker. Meme. Biden. Who’s next? The kids?
    NBC NY during the 5 AM hour: Insurance companies sending Seniors leaflets to scare them away from hc may find themselves on the wrong end of a legal action.
    PS: must credit Drudge with Nan’s nickname.

  50. “…hearing O says he hardly knows a thing about Acorn is turning O into pinochhio!”


    The Justice Department investigation will be a whitewash. obama’s name/connection will be sanitized. The media will do the same as they did when the Rev. Wright issue blew up. They will laugh off the significance and only ask that he throw Wright under the bus. It will be the same with Acorn.

  51. Bill Clinton: Not all fighting health reform motivated by race

    Tue September 22, 2009

    (CNN) — While some criticism targeting President Obama is racially motivated, the fight over health care isn’t, former President Bill Clinton told CNN Monday.

    Former President Bill Clinton says Democrats need to win the health care debate “on the merits.” “I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president,” Clinton told CNN’s Larry King in a wide-ranging interview aired Monday evening. “But I don’t believe that all the people who oppose him on health care — and all the conservatives — are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now, would be opposing him then.”

    Clinton discussed a variety of issues facing the Obama administration — from health care to the war in Afghanistan — on the eve of the fifth annual meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative.

    Regarding race, the former president was referring to an outburst from Rep. Joe Wilson, a South Carolina Republican, who shouted, “You lie,” at Obama during the president’s joint address to Congress, and also former President Jimmy Carter’s assessment that racism is an obstacle for the current president. “While I have devoted my life to getting rid of racism, I think this [health care] is a fight that my president and our party — this is one we need to win on the merits,” Clinton said.

    On the Arab-Israeli conflict — which Clinton tried to address during his time in the White House — the former president said it’s an issue that first has to be addressed by the Palestinians and the Israelis. Obama has set up meetings with leaders from both sides this week as the U.N. General Assembly meets in New York.

    “First, it’s more up to them than it is to President Obama,” Clinton said. “I think if we can just get them to start talking again around the two-state solutions, around restoring a sense of normalcy and creating a Palestinian state … I think you would be surprised how quickly at least they would come down to all the same issues that they were down to in 2000 when I made my proposal.”

    Earlier this year, Clinton made headlines when he traveled to North Korea to gain the release of two detained U.S. journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling. During the visit Clinton met with reclusive leader Kim Jong Il, whose government is under U.N. sanctions for its efforts to develop a nuclear weapons program. Asked about how it felt to help the women on the trip, Clinton said, “It was humbling and it was a wonderful feeling. They’re really fine young women.”

    Clinton also discussed the ongoing U.S. war in Afghanistan, specifically addressing top U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s reported warning to Obama that more troops are needed within the coming year or the nearly 8-year-old war “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of a 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.

    Obama has promised to ask “tough questions” before deciding whether to send additional troops to Afghanistan, saying it was necessary to have a clear strategy in place before deploying resources. “My guess is that he will say, ‘You may be right, general, but we still have this ongoing election count, let’s wait until that happens, let’s see what the new government’s going to be, let’s see if both the top two finishers are going to be in the government, which is a possibility,'” Clinton said. “And if that means there’s going to be more broad-based support because we got everybody together right after the election was over, then it’s clear that more soldiers will be even more effective.”

    Clinton, a New York resident, also touched on a recent controversial New York Times story reporting that Obama administration officials have urged New York Gov. David A. Paterson to withdraw from running for re-election. Speaking to CNN, White House officials acknowledged that aides have conveyed to Paterson’s camp that they are aware of Paterson’s unpopularity at home and the political troubles it could cause.

    “Well, first of all, I have no direct knowledge of it,” Clinton said, adding later, “The truth is I can’t criticize either one of them.” “I think Paterson is in a tough spot but he’s done a better job than he’s gotten credit for,” he said. “So, he’s done some good things. I think that he will do what he thinks is right for the people of New York in the end and for himself. I think the president understandably wants to hold on to the governorship of the fourth biggest state of the country.”


  52. Anyone seen a new senator poll this bad in 3 months, he can’t even hit 45% let alone hit 50%….am I surprised, in a word no.

    Democrat Al Franken has been a U.S. senator for less than three months, but 41% of Minnesota voters think he is doing a good or excellent job.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports finds that 31% of voters in the state say Franken, who narrowly defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in a lengthy statewide recount, is performing his new job poorly.

    Where’s the other 28%?????

    Seems I’m amazed, the guy cant even get barely past 40% and he’s only been there 3 months.

    Seems he definitely only got in by fraud and this polling confirms it.

  53. Curious…don’t know how I feel about it, but here it is…

    “In short clip from Katie Couric’s new web-only interview show, Fox’s Glenn Beck praises Hillary Clinton and said that he may have voted for her against McCain.

    As for McCain or Obama?

    “I think John McCain would have been worse,” Beck said. “How about this? I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama. How’s that?”

    The full Couric-Beck interview goes up at 7pm tonight. And while they’re kind of an odd couple, the two media stars have one thing in common: they’re both represented by Matthew Hiltzik.”

  54. moononpluto Says:
    September 22nd, 2009 at 8:53 am

    Bullsh*t. i wonder if you know Hillary is a huge supporter of Franken’s, and helped raise money for the recount there. that he models himself after her and calls her is “shero”. Are you a Norm Coleman fan or something? He lost the election fair and square.

  55. I’m surprised you don’t know they call Franken, Senator Acorn. If you think Franken won that election fair and square, you must be blind, they both pulled every trick in the book.

    I don’t have to fall lock step in with anyone and frankly Franken is an embarrasment as a democrat and what Acorn were pulling in minnesota for him was no reccomendation.

    Franken rolled over for Sotomayer and has done zip since.

  56. Well, Hillary was a very forceful supporter of Franken. Coleman lost the election. several courts found he lost. i fail to see how he of all Democrats is an embarrassment. Further, Sotomayor was hardly objected to by Republicans so I have no idea what you are talking about.

  57. I don’t care mj, its none of your business how I feel about Franken. He took an awful lot of support from Acorn in that election and they way they have operated does not give me any confidence that election was fair and proper and i have no love for Coleman but i do care about free and fair elections and that was’nt, it was dubious in many ways.

  58. JanH Says:
    September 22nd, 2009 at 8:12 am

    I watched King’s interview. No one is going to pin BC down with anything that can be construed as negative towards Obama. What I do admire most about him is his handling of Hillary’s success. It takes a secure man not to begin competing with his wife for media attention undermining her role in the shaping of FP. This means not playing into the insecurity trap that is so common nowadays when the female spouse becomes more popular than the alpha male is for the moment. Men that secure are far and few between… Their relationship is based first and foremost on friendship. They are definitely each others best friend… the rest comes naturally, later-

  59. Here is why CNN is not worth paying attention to. The lie.

    If you read the text of their article, which purports to summarize the Larry King interview of Bill Clinton, here is what you find.

    1. Bill says SOME of the criticism against Mr. Obama is caused by race. That statement refers to CRITICISM IN GENERAL as opposed the fight over health care is not about race.

    3. Bill goes on to say that the CRITICISM ABOUT HEALTH CARE would be the same if Mr. Obama were a white candidate arguing the policies he does.

    Whereupon CNN TWISTS HIS WORDS into a headline which reads NOT ALL fighting heath care “reform” are motivated by RACE.

    The practical effect of that statement is imply that MOST OPPOSITION TO HEALTH CARE “reform” IS based on RACE. That is the dyametric opposite of what he said.

    They know most people will only read the headline, and even if they read the text the headline will prejudice the reader to interpret the article a given way.

    And the reason they do that is because they are invested in a diatribe which goes back to the days of Paula Zahn which says that everything that is wrong in America can be traced back to white racism. And if you cannot prove it, then twist the facts to conform.

    Simply put, these people are not in the business of objective reporting. They are in the business of lying. Sometimes they do it subtly. Sometime they do it blatantly. But it is always there.

  60. I taped King’s interview with Bill. Actually watched it twice… I fell asleep before seeing the end of the original interview. So, watched it again this am… He prefaced the race question, referring to Carter’s statement… as both he and Carter coming from the South…and noting his life’s work fighting against racism. He did assign blame to the Right in a subtle kind of way…as the racists…and tempered that comment with a follow up of how the Right fought Health Care Reform when Hillary proposed it. Then shifted into an overall view of the supposed world’s superpower throwing $900B at Health Care and no one any better for it. He ended questioning why we can’t even figure out something simple in the way of HC. Something all people can afford.

    He alluded to the huge campaign donations given to politicos by Ins and Big Rx… saying, they don’t want to give that up…

  61. Mrs. Smith: do you buy my premise about how cnn twisted the headline or do you think they fairly summarize his comments. I did not see the interview, only the comments they quoted, which is why I am asking.

  62. Wbboei-

    I believe if you took it that way- you, who has a formidable grasp of the English language..of course, you are right…

  63. Admin: I think this is one of the most hysterically funny posts on Obama I have seen, and it has the added advantage of being true.

    One thing about this guy. You have three ways to look at him. You can accept the Wizard of Oz perspective big media tries desperately to peddle. You can accept the more objective view which includes what is known to people like Glenn Beck who point out the serious problems and the threat he poses to our democracy and survival, and is in the hip pocket of big business who are making their move to establish the New World Order Bush Sr. referred to. Or you can assume as I do, that as bad as it looks, it is really much worse if all cards where put face up on the table. I accept the fact that this is a hyperpartisan administration that hasn’t a clue on what they are doing. What I keep coming back to however is the management structure he has established which is a full blown formula for unmitigated disaster. The other thing that is so obvious is that he is incapable of governing. He does run around like a chicken with its head cut off and has no effective input on policy decisions. He is trying to implement the Soros game plan, but even there he is faltering. To paraphrase the master:

    Barack’s but a walking shadow
    A poor player who struts and frets
    His hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more
    His speeches are a tale told by an idiot
    Full of sound and fury
    Signifying nothing–but Soros

  64. Wbboei, glad you liked the article about hedge funds, I just could never understand what these derivatives were either until this article.
    I can tell you what I think about these corporations leaving the U.S. to go to these foreign countries and polluting the rivers and streams to the point that it causes birth defects and working people like slaves is completely horrendous, but what that blood sucking bottom feeder SOros does should come with a prison sentence.
    I can’t understand how it could be legal, its nothing but a ultra high dollar poker game that causes whole companies to shutdown and hundreds of people losing their jobs.
    The derivative marked should be outlawed!!!

    So maybe Soros is not a corporatist by trade, but he certainly would not be as rich as he is, if there were no corporations to steal money from.

    The more I found out about Soros and the practice in which he makes money the more I can’t tolerate him and his little puppet.

  65. Confloyd: something I posted on another site:

    Perhaps we should stop calling this the White House agenda and start calling this the Soros agenda.

    I spotted the Soros connection early on and was struck by the way he lined up contributors for good old Barack. However, I was reluctant to conclude that he was the puppet master, without additional evidence.

    But after Mr. Obama was installed as president, I discovered that the policies he was pushing with great urgency were the very policies previously advocated by Soros. Specifically, the stimulus plan, cap and trade, health care, and amnesty.

    To me at least, that differentiated Soros from the General Electrics and Goldman Sacks of the world for this reason: their agenda was business–to expand their bottom line; whereas Soros has a social agenda as well which I firmly believe is to break down society and construct world government.

    As fantastic as that may sound, I am afraid the evidence is there for those who want to dig. That is not to say that everyone pulling the oars is privy to it. But I do believe the people in the know know.

    Where Soros and his cabal made their mistake was in underestimating the pushback on health care. Health care equates to survival for many Americans, and when survival is at stake the charges of racism do not register, they merely enflame.

  66. Barack’s people used the charge of racism to great advantage in the campaign but they hit a wall with it when they tried to apply it to health care. They will try in again when they get around to amnesty. But it is now a game of diminishing returns. Hopefully, it will not erupt into more violence. This was a step Mr. Obama never should have taken and the connection between the charge and him has now been established. They still my pursue it as part of the Soros strategy to break down our society but if they do that it will backfire.

  67. The thing to worry about is if this thing gets bad enough, the Obama people may try to drive things into the ditch. Normally, that would be unthinkable. But when you have a chief of staff who says never let a crisis go to waste, and when his domestic agenda is failing, it is no great leap to assume that they would generate a crisis to re establish control. That is the great risk of electing a president who has no values, and is obsessed with power. It is where we are today.

  68. SHV: if you are still reading the blog, take a look at what Larry Johnson says today about Afghanistan. It is the beginning of what you predicted. Again, it is one of those who that is relying on me do I cheat scenarios Barack is famous for since he has promised all things to all people to the standing applause and hail Caesar responses of our uber corrupt big media.

  69. By what sophistry of reason does uber corrupt CNN presume to criticize FOX for inaccurate or biased reporting? Have they looked in the mirror lately?

  70. wbboei, Do you know what Obama ever did about these derivatives. I thought they were to put in some regulation? I don’t think they ever got around to it and the bankers are up to their old tricks. I guess they like the 30% profit on the investments. This is what happened to our economy along with the housing market. DISGUSTING!!

    Just watched LarryKing with BC, it was quiet interesting. He was saying that Hillary was tired of the 60 and 70 hrs a week. I say BullS&*&!! This woman sleep an average of 3-4 hrs for a whole year during the primary. How could she be tired after 8 months??? This is what they are going to peddle so she can resign, which I hope she does.

    Why is Obama asking BC questions on the economy, I thought Soros knew everything about money??? I don’t believe that either. I do like what BC said about Patterson, the man is such a nice guy, saying that Patterson is not getting credit for some of the good things he has done.

    Bambi should have been consulting Hillary and BIll on everything from day one and maybe his numbers would still be up and he wouldn’t be losing the house in 2010′, but the dumbasses just thought that would/could only happen to Bill Clinton because afterall he is just a hillbilly from Arkansas, right??

  71. NY Leaders Criticize Obama on Political Meddling

    by Jenna Flanagan

    NEW YORK, NY September 22, 2009 —Former and current state leaders are criticising President Obama for interfering in New York’s gubernatorial politics. Governor Paterson over the weekend was asked to respond to published reports that President Obama had “lost confidence” in Paterson’s ability to win the next election. Former Governor Pataki says the President is overstepping his bounds.

    PATAKI: To weaken and undermine the governor beyond the weakness that already exists at a time when he will be the governor for the next 15 months, to me just doesn’t serve the interest of the state, doesn’t serve the interest of the country.

    REPORTER: And former State Comptroller Carl McCall agrees. The former Democratic candidate for governor says especially during the fiscal crisis, Paterson needs everyone’s support.

    MCCALL: We’ve all got to get behind David Paterson because of the job that he has to do. At some point when we get these big issues behind us, we should come together and decide who is the best person to lead the Democratic party.

    REPORTER: That conversation about party leadership is already well underway, according to Queens Congressman Gregory Meeks, who’s considered close to both President Obama AND Governor Paterson.

    MEEKS: Anybody that is in politics knows that we have issues that we’ve got to resolve in New York to be ready for the 2010 election. And you cannot do that without having conversation in that regard.

    REPORTER: The White House reportedly fears that Governor Paterson’s dismal poll numbers could drag down the entire Democratic ticket next year, when newly-appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and several newly-elected Democratic House members, are up for election.

    So far, Governor Paterson has made no signs that he’s bowing out of a run for re-election.


  72. WATERLOO–By Stonewall Jackson

    Little General Napoleon of France
    Tried to conquer the world but lost his pants**
    Met defeat, known as Bonaparte’s retreat
    And that’s where Napoleon met his Waterloo

    {Waterloo, Waterloo)
    (Where will you meet your Waterloo?)
    (Every puppy has its day)
    (Everybody has to pay)
    (Everybody has to meet his Waterloo}

    And what about Barack? Uh, uh, uh . . .

    From McClatchy newspaper posted today at NQ:

    Six months after it announced its strategy for Afghanistan, the Obama administration is sending mixed signals about its objectives there and how many troops are needed to achieve them.

    The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders, who’re trying to figure out how to demonstrate that they’re making progress in the 12-18 months that the administration has given them.

    Adding to the frustration, according to officials in Kabul and Washington, are White House and Pentagon directives made over the last six weeks that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, not submit his request for as many as 45,000 additional troops because the administration isn’t ready for it.

    In the last two weeks, top administration leaders have suggested that more American troops will be sent to Afghanistan, and then called that suggestion “premature.” Earlier this month, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that “time is not on our side”; on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged the public “to take a deep breath.”

    The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment. Officials willing to speak did so only on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

    In Kabul, some members of McChrystal’s staff said they don’t understand why Obama called Afghanistan a “war of necessity” but still hasn’t given them the resources they need to turn things around quickly.

    Three officers at the Pentagon and in Kabul told McClatchy that the McChrystal they know would resign before he’d stand behind a faltering policy that he thought would endanger his forces or the strategy.

    “Yes, he’ll be a good soldier, but he will only go so far,” a senior official in Kabul said. “He’ll hold his ground. He’s not going to bend to political pressure.”

  73. fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/the-obama-show/

    The Obama Show

    The received wisdom is that President Obama had a bad August and a not so great early September, what with contentious town-hall meetings, high unemployment numbers, falling poll numbers, less than firm support from members of his own party, biting Republican attacks on Obama-care, questions about his citizenship and his loyalty, dark suspicions of his motives for speaking to schoolchildren, comparisons with Hitler, accusations of socialism and being branded in public as a liar. He has been criticized for not making his case, and for making his case too often (see Mark Leibovich’s piece on overexposure). Every speech he makes is said to be the speech on which the viability of his presidency depends. Expectations of a Republican revival, once abysmally low, rise every day. Commentators predict that it will soon be 1994 in America again.

    But there is a surprising upside to all this bad news: because he is the object of unceasing criticism, Obama is also the object of unceasing attention. Day after day and night after night his is the face we see and the voice we hear. (On Sunday, we could have seen and heard him on five networks.) Like Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, he bestrides the political landscape like a colossus.

    Every administration takes its name from the president, but in this administration the president seems to be the only one performing. Cabinet members and party leaders barely rise to the status of supporting players. Even when they’re in the room, as Arne Duncan was when the schoolchildren were exhorted to study hard, they fade into the background.

    At a Montana town meeting, Obama kept referring to “Max and I,” but rather than giving Senator Baucus a share of the spotlight, the repeated invocation of his name came across as a piece of coercion: you’re going to do the right thing, aren’t you, Max? (Baucus wasn’t smiling.)

    Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner stumbled a bit in his first public appearance as the expert on the financial crisis and has barely been heard from again. Robert Gates is certainly secretary of defense, but speculations about Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict center on what Obama will do. Health care is on everyone’s mind, but how many people could name the current secretary of health and human services if their lives depended on it? Ray Lahood is the secretary of transportation, but when it came time to explain the GM bailout to the American people, guess who did it?

    I’m sure that Hilary Clinton is doing important work as secretary of state, but the only time she’s been in the news beyond a single cycle was when she bridled at a question about her husband. Harry Reid turns up on evening newscasts, not to say anything significant, but to look ineffectual. Nancy Pelosi periodically announces that no health care reform without a public option will be acceptable, but no one in the White House seems to be afraid of her. Vice President Biden’s big moment in the sun came when he had a beer with Obama and two other guys: no record of what he said.

    The only political figures who pronounce regularly and firmly on matters of current concern are David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, and everyone knows that their job is to carry Obama’s message.

    Contrast this with previous administrations. George W. Bush was only one of the players on his team, and was thought by many to be overshadowed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and, at times, even John Bolton. Bill Clinton was a commanding figure, but so, in their ways, were Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Donna Shalala, Janet Reno, Robert Reich and Robert Rubin.

    In the administration of the elder Bush, James Baker, Jack Kemp, Lamar Alexander and Elizabeth Dole all had high profiles. Jimmy Carter had to share press coverage with Cyrus Vance, Edmund Muskie and Griffin Bell, in addition to his brother Billy. Obama doesn’t even have embarrassments to explain away, at least not for long. He got rid of Reverend Wright before he was nominated. He distanced himself from Bill Ayers in a sentence. Tainted cabinet nominees went away in hours. Van Jones disappeared over a long weekend. New York governor David Paterson just got thrown under the bus.

    And his opponents? Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Jim Demint, Joe Wilson. As these pygmies shoot their little arrows, Obama stands there shaking them off and accepting apologies. (The real opposition heavyweights like John McCain and Newt Gingrich moderate their words.) Rather than responding to the charges against him, he deploys them as comic material at the beginning of speeches. While his opponents get arm-weary — it must be discouraging to throw so many punches to so little effect — he just keeps rolling along. He takes shot after shot, and not only is he still standing, he’s still smiling.

    A version of this strategy is being played out around the health care debate. The current thinking is that Obama may have made a mistake by giving the responsibility of coming up with a bill to Congress. After months of activity there are now five bills, thousands of pages of reports and no resolution. Everyone is frustrated and exhausted — everyone, that is, but Obama, who picked this moment to get off the sidelines and make a big speech that said in effect, O.K., now let’s get going. Control of the process has now passed to him if only because he alone has enough energy left to direct it.

    Of course, what will happen remains unclear. But whatever happens, Obama’s stature — his size relative to the size of all others in the field — will not be diminished. If health care reform is achieved, he will get the credit. If it is not, the blame will be distributed among all those whose exertions he encouraged by appearing to do nothing. And when it is all over, it will still be all Obama, all of the time.

    the above article hits on some points, but it is the following poster who really hits the nail on the head:

    Yes, you’re right. This administration is more show than substance. President Obama seems to be the center of the administration on almost every subject because the media wants to create a personality cult around the president with which to mesmerize viewers and because the president also wants the same. TV coverage of the administration is largely an extension of the earlier campagn mode and treats the president more as a celebrity than as a politician. This is fine with the president — in fact it is what his advisors want, since Obama has more ability as a celebrity than as a thinker or LBJ-style politician.

    In actuality it is Obama’s advisors and staff who are doing the heavy lifting so that the president can look cheerful and take responsibility himself for all their hard work. The president seems to have a fragile ego and therefore desires to hog the spotlight from morning to night, as if allowing people to see how capable others are would put him in the shadows. This fragility also accounts for his refusal to commit political capital to anything but abstract, vague goals. He refuses to risk anything for the legislation he says he supports and is willing to backtrack immediately if a hint of real difficulty appears. The public option in health care reform is a good example. He honestly likes the public option, but he won’t support it except with flowery rhetoric, since he now knows he’d have to expend a lot of political capital to get it passed. So recently he’s demoted the public option to a one-among-many-equals status, and, unless the House shows some guts, Obama will simply abandon the public option — the central part of any real reform — without a moment’s hesitation, since celebrities can’t afford to have the cameras showing unhappiness or failure.

    Mr. Fish, I think you’ve put your finger on something. The celebrity nature of this administration is reducing political debate to sound bites, personal anecdotes, and teachable “moments.” There is no overall vision or the will to make difficult, unpopular decisions. Every broken campaign promise will be transformed into a happy silver lining and every major reform failure will be covered by a “trust me” speech or TV appearance. Mr. Obama likes to compare himself with Lincoln, but to me he unconsciously seems to be trying to model himself on Moses, wandering through the wilderness and hoping for sudden divine revelations which he can show to the people as proof of his leadership.

    — C.C. 11:38 pm

  74. JanH, the quote you posted from Carl McCall is key. Andrew Cuomo will have zero cover to run against Paterson as long as Carl McCall supports Paterson.

    Obama wants to get rid of Paterson because of the losses that will be assured if Paterson heads the NY ticket. Schumer is desperate and wants Paterson out before November of this year.

    But Obama and Schumer are irrelevant. The one that counts is McCall. McCall is not favorably disposed towards Cuomo.

    If McCall decides to visit African-American churches and neighborhoods and reminds that community of how Cuomo ran against him years ago, Cuomo will lose the African-American vote.

    In a general election, Giuliani will defeat Cuomo – ignore the current polls which show the reverse.

    The quote you posted “We’ve all got to get behind David Paterson” from McCall must have sent shivers through Andrew Cuomo’s spine. Cuomo dare not challenge Paterson, even with Obama’s backing, while Carl McCall says “no”.

  75. “The conflicting messages are drawing increasing ire from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and frustrating military leaders”


    Not a big surprise, but with human lives at stake, this is a tragedy in the making.

  76. A thougtful man, in a thoughtful administration–according to barack disciple Bob Herbert (NYT) and that laughing hyena Eugenie Robinson (WashPo).

    Enough of this Rodan stuff. Get off the pot Barack. You said it is a war of necessity. So support the troops. You are no longer campaigning. You are supposed to be governing.

  77. If I was going to have any respect, even an iota for the potus, it would have occured if he had quietly gone about the business of the day, stayed away from his kodak campaign speeches and just showed he was really serious about doing his job.

    He treats the WH like it’s a holiday camp and the presidency like it’s a part-time job if that.

  78. Jan: what we are seeing in these mixed messages on Afghanistan is the inevitable result of a hyperpolitical organizational environment, with an irrational management structure, where the top man is a rookie with no clue what he is doing. It is chaos in motion, trust me. It is no different that what we say with Somalian pirate issue. There the proper order was shoot the pirates. Here the proper order is support the general. Yes, there are political and practical ramification, so deal with them. But don’t sit there like a breathing Buddah one minute and a tower of Babel the next. If tis done what ought to be done tis best it be done quickly. In a word: govern.

  79. If I was going to have any respect, even an iota for the potus, it would have occured if he had quietly gone about the business of the day, stayed away from his kodak campaign speeches and just showed he was really serious about doing his job.

    He treats the WH like it’s a holiday camp and the presidency like it’s a part-time job if that.
    True. It is the big rock candy mountain.

  80. Lou Dobbs was talking about this yesterday. Apparently McChrystal sent in that report at least 4 weeks ago and still hasn’t had a response.



    Thanks for explaining the significance of the McCall quote.

  81. He treats the WH like it’s a holiday camp and the presidency like it’s a part-time job if that.
    Here is the tune he will be humming in 2011

    Hello muddah (Imelt), hello faddah (Soros)
    Here I am at Camp Granada
    Camp is very entertaining
    And they say we’ll have some fun if it stops raining.

    I went hiking with Joe Spivy
    He developed poison ivy
    You remember Leonard Skinner
    He got ptomaine poisoning last night after dinner.

    All the counselors hate the waiters
    And the lake has alligators
    And the head coach wants no sissies
    So he reads to us from something called Ulysses.

    How I don’t want this should scare ya
    But my bunkmate has malaria
    You remember Jeffrey Hardy
    They’re about to organize a searching party.

    Take me home, oh muddah, faddah
    Take me home, I hate Granada
    Don’t leave me out in the forest where
    I might get eaten by a bear.

    Take me home I promise I will not make noise
    Or mess the house with other boys.
    Oh please don’t make me stay
    I’ve been here one whole day.

  82. THe Prez is in New York all week! I wonder how much that is costing and where is Muchelle?? She must be out shopping or getting ready for her date night, especially since they are already there!

    No, I think she likes going out on a date in Air Force One to some unforseen place, so she can make sure the S.S. has work to do!

  83. confloyd,

    I read somewhere that meme is going to flutter about the U.N. prostituting…er selling her push for the Chicago Olympics.

  84. Just heard Hannity play a excerpt of Bill Clinton calling “right wing” critics of the Frauds “RACIST” TODAY!!!

    Well there it is. I have lost my faith in BC. HE can not undo this statement in my mind. It makes me sick.

    We are on our own….

  85. gonzo,

    was it a slash job with no preface to it? I think I will wait to see/hear the whole interview first. I read earlier that he had said that he didn’t think the healthcare issue was opposed by racists. He did say that there were racists out there. Which we already knew, but that was it.

    If I’m wrong, I apologize.

  86. In an interview last evening by PBS and speaking of Afganistan, she said she has labeled “corruption a national security threat”, hmm, hmmm. Well I think the corruption in OUR govt. is a national security threat!!!

  87. September 21, 2009
    Bill Clinton weighs in on charges of racism against Obama

    Posted: September 21st, 2009 07:37 PM ET

    From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

    ‘I really think that we should disaggregate lingering problems of discrimination from the attacks to which the president is subject,’ Bill Clinton tells Larry King.
    (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton told CNN Monday that he thinks some of the criticism directed at President Obama is racially motivated, but added that not all of Obama’s detractors are racist and urged his fellow Democrats to remain focused on trying to enact health care reform.

    “I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president,” Clinton told CNN’s Larry King in an interview to air Monday evening. “But I don’t believe that all the people who oppose him on health care – and all the conservatives – are racists. And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now, would be opposing him then. Therefore, while I have devoted my life to getting rid of racism, I think this is a fight that my president and our party – this is one we need to win on the merits.”

    Clinton later added, “I really think that we should disaggregate lingering problems of discrimination from the attacks to which the president is subject.”

    Clinton was reacting to Rep. Joe Wilson’s, R-South Carolina, outburst when he shouted “You lie” at Obama during the president’s joint address to Congress and former President Jimmy Carter’s assessment that racism is an issue for Obama in trying to lead the country.

  88. gonzotx Says:

    September 22nd, 2009 at 3:52 pm


    i don’t think there is anything wrong with what BC said.

  89. gonzotx…i have not heard Hannity’s clip, but that was not the essence of Bill’s comments…what he actually said was that yes, there may be some far right wing critics that are motivated by racism, but that is NOT – NOT – what is creating the opposition to O…and that the opposition would be there regardless of O…bill went on to say that the dems have to win the argument for health reform “on the merits” Bill, in fact disagreed with Carter’s assessment…

    here is another account…hannity is probably trying to hit on Bill…Larry King will probably repeat the interview with BC on the weekend…I did not get to watch all of it and hope to catch it on the weekend…


    WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton says he doesn’t think racism is a principal factor in resistance to President Barack Obama’s plan for overhauling health care.

    Interviewed Tuesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said “there’s no question” racism exists in some outbursts in recent months. But he also said he believes “if he were not an African-American, all of the people who were against him on health care would still be against him. They were against me, too.”

    Cinton said that “I sympathize with” former President Jimmy Carter’s feeling that racism accounts for the strenuous opposition to Obama, but said “that’s not what’s driving” Obama’s critics. Clinton said: “What’s driving them is they don’t want health care.”


    Obama, the Imposter President, he plays one on TV, but is not really a President…

    btw…O, hard at work as usual…playing basketball with Reggie Love in NYC…O sure does treat being president as a part time job…O would be lost without his teleprompter…the most unprepared President ever…the imposter President…

  90. His giving ANY credence to the Fraud’s critics being RACIST gives it credence. He should have not gone there. HE knows personally how that will and has been used.

    You can have your opinion, I will stick to mine.

  91. gonzo,

    I respect your opinion. I’m just saying that nothing is 100% one way or another. Too say that there aren’t any racists out there who will glom onto any issue to attack Obama doesn’t ring true for me.

  92. gonzotx Says:

    September 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    Usually, with things like this, it is a combination of factors and not just one thing. There are many gray areas. It is just as unacceptable to deny racism, as it is to blame everything or call everything racism. Frankly, he was responding to a question by LK and did a diplomat’s job of answering the question quite well.

  93. Just heard Hannity play a excerpt of Bill Clinton calling “right wing” critics of the Frauds “RACIST” TODAY!!!

    Well there it is. I have lost my faith in BC. HE can not undo this statement in my mind. It makes me sick.

    We are on our own….

    YES WE ARE ON OUR OWN!!!!!!!

    That fraud is allowed to address the clinton global initiative…I am sorry I am not happy with Bill/hillary on this at themoment…..

  94. I love Bil, but I agree with gontox. Bill and Hillary are going above and beyond what they need to do to be “loyal” to the same guy who cheated her out of the election. His comments were not , as indicated, that a majority of the protestors were racists, but I agree that he should have simply said “No”, except for those who already were racists”…..We learn everyday more and more ow disrepectful Obama and MO were to the Clintons and how MO personally refused to have Hillary as VP.Thus, while Bill and Hillary can keep up their great work, they, particulalry Bill(Hillary has serious constrainsts as SOS) can support the party but not POTUS as strongly.

  95. gonzotz, That’s some special editing by Hannity, that is absolutely not what he said. I watched the interview last night and Bill did a great job. What he said was yes there was a few people out there who were racially motivated, but the the majority of the people were just opposed to health care. BC said that even if Obama was white the reaction would be the same, as he himself had lived through the process in 93, and also flatly stated that Carter was wrong. He did a great job during the interview.

  96. just re reading your post, the fight he was talking about winning on the merits was healthcare, and in saying so he was saying that people needed to stop playing the race card. There is something missing in that article a sentence, a phrase, I have the interview on DVR and can go back and watch it but Bill left no room for doubt that racisms was not in play in this debate.

  97. That article was on CNN. I have since seen it on other websites and now I am hearing on radio that BC called us racist. He KNOWS how this game is played. He KNOWS, but he said it anyway. It doesn’t matter that he said just some or a few or one white, bible clinging, elderly gun toting incest victim said it…the NEWS is that he said it and WE are RACIST. That is the game, and he knows it!

  98. “I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president,” Clinton told CNN’s Larry King in an interview to air Monday evening.

  99. fter ‘Inappropriate’ NEA Conference Call, White House Pushes New Guidelines

    September 22, 2009 12:46 PM

    An August 10, 2009 National Endowment for the Arts conference call in which artists were asked to help support President Obama’s agenda — a call that at least one good government group called “inappropriate” — has prompted the White House to issue new guidelines to prevent such a call from ever happening again.

    “The point of the call was to encourage voluntary participation in a national service initiative by the arts community,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told ABC News. “To the extent there was any misunderstanding about what the NEA may do to support the national service initiative, we will correct it. We regret any comments on the call that may have been misunderstood or troubled other participants. We are fully committed to the NEA’s historic mission, and we will take all steps necessary to ensure that there is no further cause for questions or concerns about that commitment.”

    In the call, Yosi Sergant, then the NEA’s communications director, seemed to encourage the listeners to create art to further the president’s goals by promoting the United We Serve campaign and create art specific to areas of health care, education and the environment.

    “I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service,” Sergant said on the call.

    Buffy Wicks, Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, was also on the call, and thanked the artists “for being on the call and just a deep deep appreciation for all the work you all put into the campaign for the two-plus years we all worked together.”

    At another point, Michael Skolnick, political director for hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, said, “I’m hoping that through this group, and the goal of all this, and the goal of this phone call, is through this group we can create a stronger community amongst ourselves to get involved in things we’re passionate about as we did during the campaign. But to continue to get involved in those things, to support some of the president’s initiatives, but also to do things that we are passionate about and to push the president and push his administration.”

    White House officials say they are enacting specific steps to make sure such a call never happens again.

    Today White House officials are meeting with the chiefs of staff of the executive branch agencies to discuss rules and best practices in this area, a conversation during which they will be told that that while White House lawyers do not believe that the NEA call violated the law, “the appearance issues troubled some participants,” Burton said. “It is the policy of the administration that grant decisions should be on the merits and that government officials should avoid even creating the incorrect appearance that politics has anything to do with these decisions.”

    After listening to the transcript and the audio posted at the conservative website BigHollywood.Breitbart.com — secretly recorded by Los Angeles filmmaker Patrick Couriellech — Melanie Sloan, executive director of the good-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), told ABC News that the call was “disturbing.”

    “Government agencies are not supposed to be engaged in political activities,” Sloan said. “Here, because they didn’t veer off into ‘This is about the election,’ where you’d get into violations of the Hatch Act, it’s not illegal. But it doesn’t look good — it looks terrible. It’s inappropriate.”

    The Hatch Act restricts the political activity of executive branch employees of the federal government.

    Said Sloan of the conference call: “It’s not what the NEA was created for, it’s not supposed to be helping the president’s agenda; that’s not the point.”

    Burton added that the White House will be issuing a formal memo for White House staff “to that effect and will be doing training sessions and personal visits with staff here to make sure the message gets across.”

    Sergant seemed to have some indication on the call that maybe he was coming close to the line of inappropriateness if not crossing it.

    “This is just the beginning,” Sergant says on the call. “This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally. We’re still trying to figure out the laws of putting government websites of Facebook and the use of Twitter. This is all being sorted out. We are participating in history as it’s being made, so bear with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely. And we can really work together to move the needle to get stuff done.”

    When news of the call broke earlier this month, as ABC News’ Yunji de Nies covered at the time, Sergant was reassigned.

    In a written statement at the time the agency defended the conference call, saying that they had participated in it “with arts organizations to inform them of the president’s call to national service. The White House Office of Public Engagement also participated in the call, which provided information on how the Corporation for National and Community Service can assist groups interested in sponsoring service projects or having their members volunteer on other projects. This call was not a means to promote any legislative agenda and any suggestions to that end are simply false.”

    — jpt

  100. CNN is the LAST “news” outlet that I would trust. All the news outlets are infamous for editing, to suit their purposes. We all observed the selective editing during the primary and election. The same thing is occurring.

  101. Oh, and btw, Daily Kooks was blasting BC for saying that the criticism, was not racially motivated. So, there you go. I guess we hear what we want to hear, depending upon our world view.

  102. mp Says:

    September 22nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm
    Just heard Hannity play a excerpt of Bill Clinton calling “right wing” critics of the Frauds “RACIST” TODAY!!!

    Well there it is. I have lost my faith in BC. HE can not undo this statement in my mind. It makes me sick.


    No matter how Bill said the word racist, it will be
    come out another way. He should know how the media will play this out. Has he not learned from the primary?

    He should have kept his mouth shut on the word racist.

    What is he doing?

  103. Too much hyperventilating over minutiae…not to mention that he’s essentially correct. Hillary WORKS for the administration. Bill was President himself. BO makes a speech everywhere he goes, why not let him generate a few bucks for the CGI while he’s at it? They do good work.
    I stand behind President Clinton and Hillary, foursquare…:)

  104. “In a written statement at the time the agency defended the conference call”


    This is getting to be a bad habit. obama’s buds keep trying to defend the indefensible. The list keeps growing and growing.

  105. Not a fan of Corn’s (I do like his suits) or MJ but interesting stuff on Bill

    Clinton on Gore: “I Thought He Was in Neverland”

    Mon September 21, 2009 9:32 PM PST

    On Monday, USA Today ran a front-page article on the soon-to-be-released book chronicling a series of secret interviews Pulitzer Prize-winning author Taylor Branch held with President Bill Clinton throughout the Clinton presidency. The piece focused on a bizarre episode in which Russian President Boris Yeltsin during a visit to Washington in 1995 ended up in his underwear and drunk on Pennsylvania Avenue, trying to hail a cab. As for the Lewinsky affair, Clinton told Branch, he “just cracked” under political and personal pressures. USA Today also noted that Clinton and Al Gore had an explosive conversation following the 2000 election. But the newspaper provided only a few details on this meeting.

    I’ve obtained a copy of the book, and that encounter, as Clinton recalled it to Branch, was more than dramatic; it was also weird.

    During the discussion, Clinton told his vice president that he was disappointed that Gore had not used him in the last ten days of the 2000 campaign in strategically significant states–Arkansas, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Missouri. But Clinton said he could understand that. What was more upsetting for him, Clinton remarked to Gore, was that Gore had not crafted a more winning message during the campaign, that he had not campaigned on any grand themes. Clinton insisted to Gore that he hadn’t cared about how Gore had referred to Clinton—and his personal scandal—during the campaign. Paraphasing this portion of the conversation, Branch writes that Clinton told Gore, “To gain votes, he would let Gore cut off his ear and mail it to reporter Michael Isikoff of Newsweek, the Monica Lewinsky expert.”

    At one point in the conversation, Gore told Clinton that he was still traumatized by having been caught up in the fundraising scandals of the 1996 Clinton reelection campaign, and he indicated that he blamed Clinton. Clinton could hardly believe this, and he told Branch that Gore was probably in shock from the election or unhinged, remarking, “I thought he was in Neverland.”

    In this same conversation, Gore pressed Clinton for an explanation of his affair with Lewinsky, noting that Gore had stood by him throughout the ordeal without Clinton ever confiding in him. There was little to say, Clinton replied. But Clinton did say that he was sorry. Gore responded that that this was the first time Clinton had apologized to him personally. This angered Clinton, who countered that he was only repeating what he had already said publicly. Moreover, Clinton noted, Hillary had more to resent that Gore did, and she had just campaigned successfully for Senate by unabashedly citing the Clinton-Gore record—not running away from it. Gore responded with his own anger, insisting that Clinton’s character had been at the root of his failure to win the White House. Clinton acknowledged that he had not confessed to those closest to him, but that he was glad he had not talked more about the affair, for that would have made the controversy even worse.

    The 707-page book, titled The Clinton Tapes: Wrestling History with the President, is a fascinating read, full of the most inside information on the policy fights, political tussles, and personal controversies of the Clinton years. I haven’t finished the book, but here are other intriguing portions that caught my attention:

    * In an interview with Branch shortly after he left office, Clinton passionately defended his last-minute pardon of Marc Rich, the fugitive financier. Summing up Clinton’s outrage over the dust-up caused by the pardon, Branch describes the now ex-president’s rant: “They said Clinton had a conflict because Rich’s ex-wife was a donor to his library. Lord have mercy, he cried, Papa Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others before the Iran-contra prosecutions may have targeted Bush himself. Nobody fussed.” Clinton showed no remorse to Branch about this pardon.

    * In 1996, when Washington author Sally Quinn was telling people that Hillary had not written her book, It Takes a Village, Branch suggested to the First Lady that she invite Quinn and her husband Ben Bradlee to the White House. “You know,” Hillary shot back, “she has been hostile since the moment we got here. Why would we invite somebody like that into our home. How could she expect us to.” Branch writes, Hillary “said Quinn and her friends simply invented gossip for their dinner circuit. They had launched one juicy affair between Hillary and a female veterinarian attending Socks, the Clinton family cat, with tales about how somebody discovered them in flagrante on a bedroom floor in the White House.”

    * After the 1998 congressional elections, Clinton bemoaned the fact that GOP Rep. Jim Bunning had narrowly won a Senate seat in Kentucky. Branch writes, “He said Bunning, a former baseball player, was so mean-spirited that he repulsed even his fellow know-nothings. ‘I tried to work with him a couple times,’ said Clinton, ‘and he just sent shivers up my spine….I know you’re a baseball fan and everything, and you don’t like to hear it, but this guy is beyond the pale.'”

    * When Clinton prepared for military strikes against Iraq in 1998, he griped about former President Jimmy Carter. “[Republican Senator Bob] Dole will support me,” he told Branch. “Carter will probably criticize me. Carter always criticizes, but he doesn’t have much positive to say.”

    * In 1997, when Senate Republicans were opposing Clinton’s pick for CIA chief, Anthony Lake, Clinton told Branch he considered Senator Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican (who had once been a Democrat) and a leading Lake detractor, to be a dogged and spiteful man. Clinton added that Shelby was supported by two GOP “know-nothings” on his Senate committee, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma.

    * In 1996, Esquire magazine was looking for a writer to contribute a pro-Clinton article to its election issue. After Clinton hit snags with Texas columnist Molly Ivins, Harvard professor Thomas Patterson, and bestselling crime author John Grisham, Branch took on the assignment.

    * In 1994, after Bob Woodward’s book on the budget battles of Clinton’s first year in office, The Agenda, came out, Clinton told Branch he suspected that the major sources for Woodward were George Stephanopoulos, Paul Begala, and Alan Greenspan.

    * In 1994, Hillary Clinton told Branch that a year earlier she had been at a dinner party where Henry Kissinger had whispered to her that if her health care plan became law he would never be allowed to see his personal physician again. Hillary had tried to explain to Kissinger why this was not true. But, Branch writes, “she said Kissinger merely scowled and growled behind his ‘game face’ of impregnable secret knowledge.” Hillary also disclosed to Branch that she had dreamed of being at a banquet with Kissinger and telling him that her health care reform effort was not dead and “there’s always light at the end of the tunnel.”

    * In 1995, Clinton predicted to his confidantes that Colin Powell would challenge him in 1996, while Hillary and Gore contended that the retired general would not. After Powell declared he would not run, Branch writes, the president did not call Powell, fearing this would “advertise his relief.” Clinton’s “mistaken prediction about Powell,” Branch adds, “seemed to gnaw at Clinton.”

    * Toward the end of 1995, when Japan was in the midst of political and economic crises, Gore urged Clinton to visit Japan. Clinton, though, nixed the dates Gore suggested, saying, “Al, I am not going to Japan and leave Chelsea by herself to take” her junior-year midterm exams. This caused a big fight between the two.

    * Following his 1996 reelection victory, Clinton was mad about revelations of Democratic Party campaign finance irregularities. He feared—after Whitewater—that this could be a legitimate scandal. He was annoyed that Democratic Party officials could not provide him answers about what had gone wrong. But, Branch writes, “he thought fund-raiser Terry McAuliffe vaguely knew.” Referring to antagonism toward him within the press at this time—especially at The Washington Post and The New York Times—Clinton declared, “I am bitter about it.”

    * In 1997, after New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an acerbic column about Clinton and golfer Tiger Woods—maintaining that the the two green-eyed hucksters deserved each other—Clinton told Branch, “She must live in mortal fear that there’s somebody in the world living a healthy and productive life.”

  106. TheRealist Says:

    September 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm


    I’m not a fan either, but I have to admit to reading the article you posted with a bit of morbid curiosity. Very interesting.

  107. September 22nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
    “I believe that some of the right-wing extremists which oppose President Obama are also racially prejudiced and would prefer not to have an African-American president,” Clinton told CNN’s Larry King in an interview to air Monday evening.


    That is the last I have to say on the matter.

  108. Google Clinton Obama and the top news result is;

    The Associated Press – ‎8 hours ago‎
    WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton says he believes President Barack Obama is wise to step back and rethink US policy in Afghanistan before …

    2nd place;

    New York Daily News – Kenneth Lovett – ‎5 hours ago‎
    First, President Obama sent word to Gov. Paterson that maybe he shouldn’t run for election next year. Now, former President Bill Clinton is weighing in

    3rd place;
    USA Today – ‎1 hour ago‎
    President Obama will kick off the annual Clinton Global Initiative meeting with a speech at 5:15 pm ET. The Oval will also cover this event live. …

  109. Middle East talks fail to produce hope for new negotiations

    Barack Obama’s call for halt to Israeli settlements on West Bank rebuffed by Binyamin Netanyahu

    Ewen MacAskill in New York
    guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 September 2009

    Barack Obama failed to achieve a hoped-for breakthrough aimed at a resumption of Middle East negotiations today at a three-way meeting with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in New York. The president had only one success to show for months of effort – a handshake between the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, meeting for the first time since the Israeli leader was elected in February.

    The two appeared reluctant to shake hands, smiling hesitantly and having to be coaxed by Obama. A final burst of White House activity over the preceding 24 hours failed to close the diplomatic gap between Abbas and Netanyahu. The Israeli prime minister rebuffed a US call for a total freeze on Jewish settlement on the West Bank. Abbas refused to resume negotiations without such a freeze.

    Both blamed the other for the failure of the US peace initiative.

    US frustration showed when Obama told reporters: “Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. It is past time to talk about starting negotiations. It is time to move forward.” The US negotiator, George Mitchell, who spent a fruitless week in the Middle East last week shuttling between the Israeli and Palestinian sides, is to return next week to the region for further talks.

    The failure to have anything significant to announce today was a major setback for Obama, who hoped for a diplomatic triumph after weeks on the defensive on domestic policy. However, it represents a success – at least in the short term – for Netanyahu, who had been resisting US efforts for a settlement freeze.

    It was also a setback for Abbas, who had been reluctant even to attend the tripartite talks without a settlement freeze. By attending, he opens himself to attack from opponents such as Hamas, who had already criticised him for taking part in a photo opportunity without receiving anything in return.

    Although Obama stressed today that he was in for the long haul, it was an inauspicious start failing to secure even a confidence-building deal that would have opened the way for the resumption of negotiations. Obama, speaking at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, where he has set up temporary headquarters, said that since his administration took office in January there has been progress toward laying a foundation for the resumption of peace talks “but we still have much further to go”.
    He called on the antagonists to show “the flexibility, common sense and compromise which is necessary to achieve our goals”.

    As part of the confidence-building deal, Obama had wrung concessions from Arab states in the Gulf and northern Africa, primarily allowing Israeli flights over their territory, allowing entry to people with Israeli stamps on their passports and the opening of trade office. But the US was frustrated that more Arab states had not signed up and that the concessions were relatively small. Reflecting this, Obama said: “It remains important for the Arab states to take steps to promote peace in the region.”

    Obama first met separately with Netanayahu, who was late, held up by tough security that had blocked traffic, and then with Abbas, before bring them together for the handshake.


  110. in the previous hour…for Clinton Obama

    1-FOXNews – ‎54 minutes ago‎
    President Obama will address the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting in New York City at 5:15p. Watch it here LIVE: Watch Now! …

    2-Does Michelle Obama really mind that so many people, er, women, want to touch her husband? A new book says she does. I can’t wait to read this one. …

    3-America’s UN Ambassador Susan Rice will be joined by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week for an ambitious agenda at the UN …

    4-Foreign Policy – ‎55 minutes ago‎
    The Clinton Global Initiative … and a host of other side shows for good measure. But with most of the activities featuring little more than the foreign …

    If it’s THE story, not many outlets are pushing it. The racist thing has had it’s 15 minutes…Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan…it’s gonna be a big ‘un and IT will be the story as we move into the next couple weeks…

  111. SEPTEMBER 20, 2009

    Lazio to Enter N.Y. Governor’s Race


    Rick Lazio, a former Republican congressman from Long Island, N.Y., will announce on Tuesday that he’s running for governor, a spokesman said.

    Mr. Lazio, who served four terms in Congress, chose in 2000 to run for Senate. He lost to Hillary Clinton, who is now secretary of state.

    Mr. Lazio, 51, is on leave from J.P. Morgan Chase where he is a managing director. He will seek to unseat Gov. David Paterson, a Democrat who is struggling in the polls. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, has said he is considering running for the job.


  112. Gonzotx, when did ‘we’ start listening to or believing the fringe media like CNN….mcnbc,nbc,new york times, cbs, abc, etc….and even Fox’s Hannity when it comes to the Clintons? Hannity has always spewed bias and hate toward the Clinton’s, especially Hillary hate. I have witnessed him do it just for the sake of doing it, even now that Hillary is NOT an elected official and neither Clinton is in office.
    It reminds me of The Fraud ‘sticking a knife’ to Hillary and twisting it, of having a scratch just so that he HAD to use his middle finger to scratch it, and brushing his shoulder to rid himself of HER [wrong woman, of course] and of using the song “I Have 99 Problems, but a B!tch ain’t one.” First reactions must be, it is not TRUE, it must be construed, and as always another hit job on the ones we love to love, Hill and Bill.

    All of this is so sophomorish and only diminishes the messenger in mature eyes. It is baloney, sold by the smidgent so as to make more profit.This is amateur hour that only the inexperienced, unlearned, and inept will swallow hook, line, and sinker. We, Hillary supporters, are safe.

  113. Our friend Chris Hedges is back with a report from Pittsburgh which is the site the G-20 meeting later this week. He speaks with an organizer who is there from New York to protest. At the end of the article there is an interesting–and accurate assessment of good old Barack.

    Our global economy, like our political system, has been hijacked by a tiny oligarchy, composed mostly of wealthy white men who serve corporations. They have pledged or raised a staggering $18 trillion, looted largely from state treasuries, to prop up banks and other financial institutions that engaged in suicidal acts of speculation and ruined the world economy. They have formulated trade deals so corporations can speculate across borders with currency, food and natural resources even as, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, 1.02 billion people on the planet struggle with hunger. Globalization has obliterated the ability of many poor countries to protect food staples such as corn, rice, beans and wheat with subsidies or taxes on imported staples. The abolishment of these protections has permitted the giant mechanized farms to wipe out tens of millions of small farmers—2 million in Mexico alone—bankrupting many and driving them off their land. Those who could once feed themselves can no longer find enough food, and the wealthiest governments use institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization like pit bulls to establish economic supremacy. There is little that most governments seem able to do to fight back. (snip)

    But the game is up. The utopian dreams of globalization have been exposed as a sham. Force is all the elite have left. We are living through one of civilization’s great seismic reversals. The ideology of globalization, like all utopias that are sold as inevitable and irreversible, has become a farce. The power elite, perplexed and confused, cling to the disastrous principles of globalization and its outdated language to mask the political and economic vacuum before us. The absurd idea that the marketplace alone should determine economic and political constructs caused the crisis. It led the G-20 to sacrifice other areas of human importance—from working conditions, to taxation, to child labor, to hunger, to health and pollution—on the altar of free trade. It left the world’s poor worse off and the United States with the largest deficits in human history. Globalization has become an excuse to ignore the mess. It has left a mediocre elite desperately trying to save a system that cannot be saved and, more important, trying to save itself. “Speculation,” then-President Jacques Chirac of France once warned, “is the AIDS of our economies.” We have reached the terminal stage. (snip)

    The best thing that happened to the Establishment is the election of a black president,” Holmes said. “It will contain people for a given period of time, but time is running out. Suppose something else happens? Suppose another straw breaks? What happens when there is a credit card crisis or a collapse in commercial real estate? The financial system is very, very fragile. The legs are being kicked out from underneath it.”

    “Obama is in trouble,” Holmes went on. “The economic crisis is a structural crisis. The recovery is only a recovery for Wall Street. It can’t be sustained, and Obama will be blamed for it. He is doing everything Wall Street demands. But this will be a dead end. It is a prescription for disaster, not only for Obama but the Democratic Party. It is only groups like ours that provide hope. If labor unions will get off their ass and stop focusing on narrow legislation for their members, if they will go back to being social unions that embrace broad causes, we have a chance of effecting change. If this does not happen it will be a right-wing disaster.”

  114. I think Barack is growing weaker by the day. Soros must be worried. From an 155 lb rail to a 98 lb weakling. Who’d have thunk it. Bwaaaaak. He had done the talk show circuit, the late nights, this week its off to Pittsburg for G-20, next week he chairs the UN, lots of speeches and no governing. Used to be I’d walk a mile for a camel, now its I would fly a million miles in Airforce 1 to duck responsibility. Gotta keep the Soros agenda moving forward, come hell or high water.

  115. I have been in and out today and haven’t listened to much of the UN circus but from what I’ve read BO has been trashing the US yet again and announcing his disdain for israel.

    How embarrassing this is and how outrageous that khaddafi, Chavez, Ahmadinijad are held up as admirable while our long time allies such as israel are insulted.

    I really wish my virtual voodoo doll would hurry up and work.

    He is an absolute disgrace.
    BTW – I heard khaddafi spoke for an hour and a half! He gets the prize for long winded bullsh!T. He called BO his son! By the time he finished speaking half the chamber was empty. LOL

Comments are closed.