Repeat After Us: Obama The Liar

Big Media will attack us for being churlish because, with the magic of YouTube, we are able to remember Obama’s lies. What is amazing to us is why Big Media does not likewise utilize the magic of YouTube and call Obama what he is: A Liar.

It’s not that difficult to do. Let’s go to the tape:

“The public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made. So if a member of congress is carrying water for the drug companies and says “Well, we can’t negotiate for the cheapest available price on drugs because we need the money for R & D research” we will have a discussion right there in front of the American people.



Politico published an article today but somehow missed out on calling Obama a Liar. “Liar” is the missing word.

At a meeting last April with corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.

The role Baucus’s chief of staff, Jon Selib, and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina played in launching the groups was part of a successful effort by Democrats to enlist traditional enemies of health care reform to their side. No quid pro quo was involved, they insist, as do the lobbyists themselves.

Lobbyists “involved”??? Lobbyists??? Didn’t Obama ban lobbyists? Liar!

Instead of using the short and accurate word “Liar”, Politico runs around in circles:

The result has been a somewhat unlikely alliance between an administration that came into power criticizing George W. Bush for his closeness to Big Business and groups such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association.

The previously undisclosed meeting April 15 at the offices of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee led to the creation of two groups — Americans for Stable Quality Care and a now-defunct predecessor group called Healthy Economy Now — that have spent tens of millions of dollars on TV advertising supporting health reform efforts.

In the most recent ad sponsored by Americans for Stable Quality Care, Obama speaks directly into the camera for 60 seconds, extolling the virtues of health care reform, while text at the bottom of the screen encourages viewers to visit the websites of the White House and the Finance Committee, which this week approved a 10-year, $829 billion health overhaul.

Both coalitions operate independently of the administration and Senate Democrats, and spokesmen for both the White House and Baucus said that no pressure — implicit or otherwise — to join the pro-health-care reform groups was applied to industry representatives at the meeting.

“Liar”, it’s that simple. Why can’t Big Media use the appropriate word? Why won’t Big Blogs use the appropriate word? Instead of focusing on the reptiles and the “balloon boy”, Big Blogs and Other Blogs should use the appropriate word for Obama: Liar.

If the Mafia did this it would be called “using muscle” in a “protection racket”. But when Thug Obama and the Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter B.O.T.s) use muscle it is called “a more subtle dynamic”:

Indeed, attendees describe a more subtle dynamic: The Democratic officials made no overt demands. Rather, they brought together the players and laid the groundwork for the creation of the coalition, and that was followed by more direct solicitations from an outside Democratic consultant, Nick Baldick, retained by Healthy Economy Now, asking attendees at the meeting to join the coalition and contribute to its ad campaigns.

One ethics expert, however, said the meeting still raises issues. No matter how careful Messina and Selib were to avoid conversation about Healthy Economy Now, their mere presence at what proved to be the coalition’s creation raises questions, said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group that advocates for greater transparency and ethics in government.

“There’s no problem with sitting down at the table and talking,” said Allison. “But if they are signaling that they would really like these groups to support health care reform and trying to tell the groups how they’ll benefit from the plan, they’re laying a ‘quid’ on the table, and — even if they don’t discuss dollar amounts or advertising strategies — they’re suggesting what the ‘quo’ is, which is the groups’ support for the plan.”


“Liar”. It’s real easy Big Media – “Liar”.

Days after the meeting, Healthy Economy Now’s website address was registered, and meeting attendees began receiving unsolicited calls asking for cash for the coalition from Baldick, whose firm — Hilltop Public Solutions — had been hired to run Healthy Economy Now.

In addition to PhRMA and the American Medical Association, the strange-bedfellows coalition included AARP, the American Cancer Society, the Business Roundtable, the advocacy group Families USA and the Service Employees International Union, as well as trade groups for biotech and medical device firms.

The supposedly more hatedful lobbyists are the ones which lived up to Obama campaign promises and refused to participate in secret meetings with B.O.T.s.

Other attendees opted out. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and America’s Health Insurance Plans refused to participate in a group backing a plan that they would ultimately oppose — and the insurance group this week emerged as the most aggressive opponent to the bill Baucus shepherded through his committee.

Where was C-SPAN??? Where was the public in this “conversation”? Darn it, we are being churlish by comparing words with actions. Where was the public which also had “a great deal at stake in health care legislation”? Where is Big Media and Big Blogs asking these questions?

Many participants in the meeting had a great deal at stake in health care legislation. At the time Healthy Economy Now launched the first of its ads May 12, PhRMA was negotiating with Baucus and the White House a complex deal in which drug makers would contribute $80 billion to lower costs in exchange for avoiding downward pressure on drug prices.

Isn’t that “in exchange for avoiding downward pressure on drug prices” exactly what Obama said he would oppose when Obama attacked those who are carrying water for the drug companies? It turns out that Barack Obama, once again, is the one carrying water for the drug companies. No surprise to us, Obama is a repeat “water carrier” for the drug companies.

More from the Politico story:

The Associated Press later revealed that PhRMA had agreed to spend a whopping $150 million pushing the health overhaul — a sum that included its contributions to Healthy Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care.

Some participants said they felt distinct pressure to sign on to the coalitions. “What were we supposed to say? No?” asked a participant who represented a group that joined the coalition but who did not want to be identified discussing the meeting for fear of jeopardizing the group’s position in ongoing talks.

The Mafia “muscles”, Obama Thugs. The difference is Obama is protected by Big Media and Big Blogs and Dimocrats. Use the word fellas: Liar.

Allison said that it is not only the April meeting that troubles him but also the whole approach Baucus and the White House have taken in attempting to negotiate with potential adversaries.

“What you’ve had was the Senate and the White House sitting down and cutting deals with special interests,” he said. “I don’t think that’s quite what the American people signed up for when the Obama campaign said that they were going to limit the influence of special interests in this White House.”

And Axelrod stink is wafting through the air:

And congressional Republicans distributed talking points asserting the PhRMA deal raised “serious questions as to whether the drug lobby is helping to bankroll a multimillion-dollar severance package for one of the president’s senior advisers.”

Such a series of Big Public Lies, but Big Media and Big Blogs continue to protect the Big Liar(s). How many other lies is Obama pushing if he can so imperiously wave off this Big Lie?

How many lies in the following YouTube Big Media? – when one of your own did her best to call Obama a liar but the Big Media boys did not dare follow-up with the magic word: Liar!



How many lies Big Media before you call a liar, a Liar?

The answer is blowing in the wind, along with your “profession”.

Share

83 thoughts on “Repeat After Us: Obama The Liar

  1. Awesome post.
    Telling it like it is.
    Big Pink using TRUTH to lead the land we have always loved away from the morass of Obama.
    And yes, BO, in your case, the truth is bound to be painful.

  2. politico.com/news/stories/1009/28368.html

    ‘You lie!’ worth $2.7M for Joe Wilson
    =========================

    The words “you lie!” earned Joe Wilson a resolution of disapproval on the House floor last month.

    But the outburst has certainly had its upside, netting him $2.7 million in third quarter political donations — with most of the money raised after his Sept. 9 outburst, according to Federal Election Commission reports filed Thursday evening.

    Wilson’s $2.7 million quarter is a fundraising anomaly — better than many Senate candidates and even some presidential candidates could hope for.

    Democrats hope a simultaneous fundraising boost for Wilson’s challenger, Rob Miller, will position him to make a viable run next November. But Wilson’s newly stocked war chest will give him plenty of resources to defend himself.

    Most of Wilson’s contributions came in amounts so small they don’t meet the $200 threshold for reporting the names of the donors.

    Of the big-dollar contributions he got, about $45,000 came before Sept. 9 and a little bit more than $593,000 came after.

    The post-outburst checks, numbering nearly 1,200, came from all across the country.Wilson’s challenger, Rob Miller, had not yet reported his third-quarter fundraising reports

  3. EMOLUMENT THIS

    politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1009/WH_legal_claim_on_Obama_Nobel_flat_out_wrong.html#

    W.H.: Legal claim on Obama Nobel ‘flat out wrong’
    ===================================

    The White House is sharply rejecting arguments by two legal scholars that it would be unconstitutional for President Barack Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize without approval from Congress.

    “This argument is flat out wrong. The Constitution talks about kings and princes and foreign states. Here, Alfred Nobel, a private citizen, set up a private foundation — the Nobel Foundation — that awards the money,” said a White House aide, who asked not to be named. “Furthermore, President Obama has already indicated that he does not intend to keep the money.”

    In a Washington Post op-ed Friday, Chapman University law professor Ron Rotunda and Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Peter Pham argue that Obama would run afoul of a little-known clause of the Constitution barring U.S. officials from accepting foreign titles, gifts and the like unless authorized by Congress.

    The White House notes that the Constitution’s limits apply only to awards from foreign governments and the $1.4 million prize money comes from Alfred Nobel’s foundation. But the winner of the prize is chosen by a committee handpicked by the Norwegian Parliament — in fact the panel was known for some time as a Parliament committee.

    Adam Blickstein makes a good argument here that Congress has already consented to receipt of the award itself by Obama via a statute that’s on the books. However, that law doesn’t explicitly approve of the idea of Obama directing the cash portion of the prize to charities.

    For the record, in light of Rotunda and Pham’s claim that the questions they raise were “not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else,” I feel compelled to point out that I raised both the tax issue and the emolument issue a week ago, on the same day Obama won the prize. So did J.P. Friere at the Examiner.

    While some call the constitutional clause at issue with the Nobel the emolument clause, that’s confusing because that label is more commonly used to refer to another clause that prohibits an individual from taking an executive branch job if they voted to create or increase pay for the job while in Congress. The clause was in the news earlier this year when then-Sen. Hillary Clinton was nominated to serve as secretary of state. The problem is commonly fixed, as it was in this instance, by passing a law to drop the pay to an earlier level.

  4. W.H.: Legal claim on Obama Nobel ‘flat out wrong’

    ———————-

    LMAO! This just won’t go away. And the deeper it gets the worse obama looks.

  5. Admin,

    You are brave souls to continue your righteous battle while all around you are calling for your heads.

    Well done.

  6. Repeating after Admin: Obama the Liar

    Another completely BRILLIANT post, Admin.

    Yes, truly LIAR, LIAR – if only Obama could indeed “become” afflicted ala the actor Jim Carrey.

    THAT should be the NEXT SNL skit Any (under the bus) SNL writers out there?

    Now THAT would be a youtube for the AGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. HILL’S DEBT ALMOST GONE; OBAMA’S PILE O’ CASH STILL READY TO BUY MORE VOTES FROM DEAD VOTERS

    politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1009/Obama_campaign_still_loaded.html

    October 16, 2009

    Obama campaign still loaded
    ====================

    Ken Vogel looks through the filing and reports:

    Even though Obama has transferred his political operation to the DNC, his presidential campaign – which hasn’t accepted a contribution in months – continues to function as a skeleton administrative organization, and was actually in the black in the third quarter of the year.

    A report filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission shows that from July through the end of last month, Obama for America spent $858,000 on salaries and other administrative costs, while pulling in nearly $900,000.

    More than 80 percent of those receipts appear to be from refunds for media buys, including payments of $487,000 from GMMB, one of Obama’s main ad firms, and $112,000 from BET Interactive.

    Neither the DNC nor Obama’s campaign lawyer answered questions about the payments.

    But Jason Torchinsky, a lawyer for Rudy Giuliani’s campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, explained that “what happens with television, is they schedule your ads for rotation and if they don’t get on the air as much as you paid for them, you get your money back. And often happens six to 12 months after a campaign, because that’s how long it takes the vendors to audit what people paid for versus what actually aired.”

    The campaign curiously spent $9,000 on domain names. It also made a slew of charitable contributions and transferred $70,000 to the DNC last month. Yet it still ended last month with nearly $9 million in the bank – a staggering total compared to past presidential campaigns, but a fraction of the $750 million it raised.

    Hillary, meanwhile, is nearly done paying off her debt, with Mark Penn her sole creditor.

  8. I am going to make plans to have extraordinary Thanksgiving this year as it might be the last we have as a sovereign nation. Don’t believe me? Check out the Obama file today. Obama is set to sign it over in December in Copenhagen. I guess that why he was here in Texas with the original “One World GOvernment ” POTUS. HW BUSHtoday.

    Admin: GReat article! He is pants on fire liar!!

  9. MORE “ROUSING SUCCESS” FOR MR. HISTORICAL

    usatoday.com/money/economy/2009-10-15-cola-wages-drop-recession_N.htm

    Wages could hit steepest plunge in 18 years
    ===============================

    By Dennis Cauchon and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY
    A bad economy and low inflation are starting to drag down wages for millions of everyday workers and freeze benefits for millions of retirees.
    Average weekly wages have fallen 1.4% this year for private-sector workers through September, after adjusting for inflation, to $616.11, a USA TODAY analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data found. If that trend holds, it will mark the biggest annual decline in real wages since 1991.

    The bureau’s data cover 82% of private-sector workers but exclude managers and some higher-paid professionals.

    “Wages are usually the last thing to deteriorate in a recession,” says economist Heidi Shierholz of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “But it’s happening now, and wages are probably going to be held down for a long time.”

    SOCIAL SECURITY: Stop-gap debate revs up
    401(k) PLANS: Maximum contributions to stay the same in 2010

    Colorado announced this week it will become the first state to lower its minimum wage since the federal minimum wage law was passed in 1938. The state will cut its rate by 4 cents to $7.24 an hour Jan. 1, to reflect a drop in the consumer price index.

    Retirees are also feeling some pain. Social Security announced Thursday that it will not give cost-of-living increases to beneficiaries next year because prices have fallen in the past year.

    Weekly wages have tumbled largely because employees are working fewer hours — an average of 30 per week — than at anytime since the government began tracking the data in 1964.

    Hourly wages are stagnant or declining, too. After adjusting for inflation, average hourly wages have dipped a half-percent this year to $18.67 an hour in September.

    Prices measured by the CPI are down 1.8% from their peak in July 2008. For seven months, the CPI has declined from the same month a year earlier — the longest stretch since 1955.

    That trend is upsetting a wide range of wage-and-benefit packages in this recession.

    Nearly 80 million people have wages or benefits tied to changes in the consumer price index. Those include contracts for 2 million unionized workers, food stamp payments and some child support checks. The Labor Department announced Thursday that federal pensions won’t increase next year.

    The consumer price index fell 3.3% in the last quarter of 2008. Most cost-of-living adjustments include the end of last year in changes that take effect Jan. 1.

    Ten states link minimum wages to inflation. But, unlike Colorado, most states do not cut minimum wages when prices fall.

    Ohio recorded a 0.2% drop in prices in the past year, says Dennis Ginty of the Ohio Department of Commerce. Like Social Security rules, Ohio’s law permits only cost-of-living increases, never decreases, Ginty says.

    Business groups say this one-sided inflation adjustment is unfair. “The bar should move both ways, up and down, if you’re going to have a cost-of-living adjustment,” says Shawn Cleave, a lobbyist for the Oregon Farm Bureau.

  10. latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/afghanistan-robert-byrd-obama.html

    Sen. Robert Byrd launches Afghan war warning blast at Obama
    ============================================

    Anyone who’s ever been anywhere near military combat knows that if you hear an incoming shell, it’s likely too late to duck. President Obama and his senior staff, contemplating the latest new military strategy to correct the mess in Afghanistan, might want to prepare to duck down there in the White House bunker.

    There’s a large-caliber shell incoming from Capitol Hill, and it was launched Wednesday by none other than the frail man who has served in the Senate longer than any other person in American history. (UPDATE: An early version of this item said Congress instead of the Senate.)

    Sen. Robert C. Byrd, the 91-year-old Democratic institution from West Virginia, has been in the hospital more in the last year than he’s been on the Senate floor. He rarely votes anymore. He rarely speaks there either. But Wednesday he got himself there with the help of aides.

    And he had a lot to say.

    Seated at his desk, speaking slowly from a prepared text and waving his right arm for emphasis (see C-SPAN video above), Byrd delivered an as-yet little-noticed 13-minute speech on the Afghanistan conflict that history may show was the first shot in a politically divisive struggle within….

    …the Democrat party — and perhaps the country — over-investing much more in the eight-year war there that the U.S. and its allies are losing to the forces of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

    Byrd made many points, slowly but firmly. “I am compelled to ask,” he said, “does it really take 100,000 (U.S.) troops to find Osama bin Laden? If Al Qaeda has moved to Pakistan, will these troops in Afghanistan add what to the effort to defeat Al Qaeda?”

    He added angrily: “And how much will this cost? How much in terms of more dollars? How much in terms of American blood?”

    He criticized, not Obama, but generals Petraeus and McChrystal, who Byrd said had bought into the “mission creep” of Afghan nation-building. “These generals,” Byrd said, “have lost sight of America’s primary strategic objective to disrupt and defang — in other words, pull the teeth right out of the bone — of Al Qaeda.”

    Byrd spoke powerfully for a growing segment of the president’s party that is at least skeptical of continued involvement there, let alone escalation as reportedly recommended in a Pentagon report. While he’d rather focus on driving domestic healthcare reform, Afghanistan and Byrd’s booming warning shot place the president in a difficult position.

    For nearly three years now Obama has said that Afghanistan is a “war of necessity” to deny terrorists the safe haven they used to train for the 9/11 attacks that seem dimmer in the American mind nowadays.

    After incorrectly predicting that President’s Bush’s 2007 troop surge in Iraq would worsen that war, Obama ordered his own troop surge into Afghanistan last spring, bringing the U.S. total to about 68,000 with another 30,000-40,000 now being requested to avoid defeat.

    The president is expected to announce his decision in the next couple of weeks, likely before his long Asian trip next month.

    Obama has given no public indication of his leanings on the latest Pentagon requests, although his recent public statements on the conflict have omitted mention of the Taliban and Afghan nation-building. This would make an exit definition of victory significantly easier someday.

    However, Obama’s obviously aware of polls showing war support waning and barely a quarter of Americans favoring any increased troop commitments. Opposition to the war is also mounting on Obama’s political left, already impatient with his lack of progress to believe in on such issues as gay rights and healthcare.

    And there have been repeated reports that Vice President Joe Biden opposes any more troops. In fact, at least one prominent blogger, Arianna Huffington, suggests that if Obama does dispatch reinforcements, Biden should resign the vice presidency.

    That would make sense. Biden was a senator when Obama was in sixth grade and seared into the VP’s political mind is the memory of Vietnam and Democratic President Lyndon Johnson’s controversial pouring of American troops into that distant guerrilla war that resulted in Johnson’s forcible surrender of any attempt at a second elected term.

    That nationally divisive war under a Democratic president also helped bring about Republican presidencies for 20 of the next 24 years.

    Here’s something else little noticed. In recent weeks, Biden aides and allies have assisted or helped foment stories in various media — most recently the Associated Press and Newsweek — that describe Biden as invisibly influential with the rookie chief executive, powerfully and persuasively using his long D.C. political experience to help the 47-year-old president, who never finished his first U.S. Senate term after sitting in a state Legislature.

    In the past, such public puffing up of the No. 2 would usually be snappily snuffed by presidential staffs behind the scenes and through anonymous counter-leaks. No such things this time. That implies approval.

    As it happens, having a Washington veteran with long foreign policy experience seen as internally influential and opposed to an enlarged U.S. Afghan commitment against the terrorists would give any inexperienced president very helpful political cover if that president should decide to follow such advice.

  11. WASHINGTON – The federal budget deficit has surged to an all-time high of $1.42 trillion as the recession caused tax revenues to plunge while the government was spending massive amounts to stabilize the financial system and jump-start the economy.

    The imbalance for the budget year ended Sept. 30, more than tripled last year’s record. The Obama administration projects deficits will total $9.1 trillion over the next decade unless corrective action is taken.

    As a portion of the economy, the budget deficit stood at 10 percent, the highest since World War II, according to government data released Friday.

    —————-

    DON”T blame this on Bush II…BO this is your mess now…you have done ZILCH in 10 months!!!1

  12. Clinton to attend Berlin Wall anniversary: German official

    BERLIN — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a ceremony in Germany marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, a German government official said on Friday.

    She will join a host of world leaders for celebrations in Berlin on November 9, dubbed the “freedom party”, which will take place at the capital’s Brandenburg Gate.

    Festivities will open with orchestral music, followed by thousands of gigantic dominoes being knocked down in the centre of the capital to symbolise the fall of the wall.

    US President Barack Obama has already said he will not attend the celebrations as he will be in Asia.

    British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are among those expected in Berlin for the ceremony.

    google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jZ2WK9KGiOn4TZFPCL5rRwx-rW1A

  13. Madame Secretary,

    by Cynthia McFadden

    It was a confident, relaxed and very focused Hillary Clinton I met up with in Moscow this week, her first trip to Russia since becoming secretary of state. She was there to help – as she calls it, “restart” – the relationship between the two super-powers. The relationship had become increasingly rocky during the final years of the Bush administration.

    “I will be the first to tell you,” she said to students at Moscow State University, “that we have people in our government and you have people in your government who are still living in the past … They do not believe the United States and Russia can cooperate to this extent. They do not trust each other and we have to prove them wrong. That is our goal.”

    On her agenda with the Russians: Iran, Afghanistan and missile defense. She expressed satisfaction with her closed-door meetings and told me she believes the Russians will support sanctions against Iran if there is proof that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons.

    While emphasizing the improvement in understanding between the two nations and urging mutual respect, she did not shrink from directly confronting areas of concern. She attacked head-on the thorny issue of human rights: “People must be free to take unpopular positions, disagree with conventional wisdom, know they are safe to peacefully challenge accepted practice and authority,” she said at Moscow State. “That’s why attacks on journalists and human-rights defenders here in Russia is such a great concern, because it is a threat to progress.”

    Clinton is the only secretary of state in the past 60 years, besides Ed Muskie, who comes from a political background. Sometimes that helps, she told me. “I think it gives me a perspective. I’m able to put myself in the position of the leaders. Obviously in some settings it’s easier than others. But if you’re an elected leader, you have to care about politics, so when I’m talking to someone I can say I’m not a bureaucrat, I come from a political world, so I understand that this is hard, but here’s how we can do it.”

    Clinton appears to have an endless reserve of energy for a truly grueling schedule. She routinely begins her days before seven o’clock AM and ends them long after midnight. Veteran state department officials in Moscow told me they had never seen a more ambitious series of meetings in a shorter period of time. Consider Tuesday: a meeting with the Russian foreign minister, a series of meetings at the U.S. Ambassador’s residence, a meeting with officials at Boeing, a meeting with the Russian president and, as if that wasn’t enough, the opera. We joined her for the first two acts but we slipped out at intermission. Clinton hung in there until the bitter end.

    I spent a good deal of time with Clinton during the campaign last year but have never seen her, well, dare I say it, quite so happy. There is a certain ease about her – an openness that was often missing in the past. We commiserated about what a pain it is to get your hair looking right on the road; she joked about having vodka shots “for America” at lunch with the foreign minister. She was, it seemed to me – in the midst of all the pressure of her job – relaxed. For this super-charged intellectual, Iowa was tougher than Moscow. Maybe it’s the difference between “running” for office and governing. Maybe it is simply a new stage of life for her.
    As for her much-speculated-upon relationship with the president, I could not detect a whiff of frustration. With complete confidence she told me she has “no doubt” she is President Obama’s chief adviser on foreign affairs. “Was she considering stepping down,” as has been widely reported? ” No,” she said. “I am neither frustrated nor planning anything other than being the best secretary of state I could be.”

    She seemed bemused by all the interest in whether she will ever run for president again. “I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None. I mean I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just, I gave it all I had. I am giving this job all I have. I try to live in the present, so it just seems, you know, that’s not in my future.”

    But crystal balls are sometimes cloudy. It’s hard to imagine “retirement” follows the role she is now playing on the world stage.

    wowowow.com/politics/cynthia-mcfadden-hillary-clinton-moscow-nightline-interview-395915

  14. U.N. panel backs Gaza war-crimes report, but cites only Israel

    usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/10/un-panel-backs-gaza-warcrimes-report-but-cites-only-israel.html

    —————————–

    According to U.N. bias, I guess Hamas and Hezbollah walk on water

  15. so getting ready for the yankees game tonight and went over to the NY post to see what they were saying about the game. Clicked on an article and the first sentence says…. it’s gonna to be as cold as Hillary Clinton’s freeze face tonight in NY when the yankees take on the angels. Why? what does Hillary have to do with baseball they just had to get a dig in somewhere.

  16. JINOS!

    That’s what they are!

    JINOS in NAME ONLY! Fraudulent cowardly POS’s!

    BTWm confloyd – I posted about that Climate Summit yesterday. Now that’s scary.
    But I am intuitively feeling confident Squat isn’t going to succeed. He and the dimwit dims have awakened the sleeping giant and we’re not going away.

  17. admin: Great article!
    You don’t pull any punches. We need more articles coming from “straight shooters” like yourself, calling Obama’s campaign promises and his actions as president exactly what they are…. LIES!
    ~~~~~~~~
    rgb44hrc Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
    “Hillary, meanwhile, is nearly done paying off her debt, with Mark Penn her sole creditor.”
    ~~~~~
    I would frame Mark Penn’s Bill and hang it in the downstairs Lav over the porcelain commode for the service he gave the Hillary campaign. Above a framed incantation “So Sueme”

  18. OMG, no doubt someone is spoon feeding the elderly gent on what to say. Robert Byrd needs to retire. No doubt they are keeping him alive to manipulate him. This is disgusting, like how in the world could I maintain a job in that condition. For heavens sake, go home and retire!!!

  19. This is a post by peggy in the Politico comment section:

    she expresses exactly what we are all thinking….

    This is why no one trusts this Administration. They say one thing and do just the opposite. All that high-flying campaign rhetoric about “transparency” and “lobbyists will NOT be in my administration” and “I will sit down and go line by line….blah, blah, blah…” Such unbelievable and blatant hypocrisy!

    The Democrats are, at the present time, behind closed doors putting all their little “pay-off’s and perks” to their Union buddies, in a Trillion dollar Health Care “Reform” Bill that no one wants!

    At least the majority of the people in this country are dead set against it. Yes, we need real reform, but you can’t have it without limiting the phony junk malpractice lawsuits against our doctor’s!

    What Obama is trying to hammer out is just a Redistribution of Wealth and “Social Justice” boondoggle, at the taxpayers expense. Of course his own and Congress’ gold Cadillac Health Plan will not be disturbed! Neither will those of the UNION Bosses.

    This is corruption in action and will not be tolerated by the American people.

    Vote ALL these parasites OUT in 2010 and 2012!

  20. basil 9, we have but all castrated the young POTUS, he will accomplish nothing except for winning meaningless trophies that “Who’s your daddy Soros” has bought for his young protege.

  21. # confloyd Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    For all Mark Penn did, I would make sloooow monthly payments.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Penn deserves zero- -O- for his shoddy work. Plus he agreed to do a job for the Columbian government while he was working for Hillary. No, you do not pay people for work they never produced. If he thinks he deserves to be paid, tell him to sue you for payment.

  22. Mrs. Smith, Did you watch Beck today?? There was one DR. who I feel nailed it. He said “this is nothing but a hostile takeover of our healthcare system”. It is one of the few assets that is left in this country for the elitest’s to steal. THey have figured out a way to do it.

  23. “The Democrats are, at the present time, behind closed doors putting all their little “pay-off’s and perks” to their Union buddies, in a Trillion dollar Health Care “Reform” Bill that no one wants!”

    —————————-

    And wasn’t this exactly what obama solemnly promised not to do when he got in power? Didn’t he rake over the Republicans for all the pork?

  24. confloyd,

    POTUS ain’t so young. He looks greyer and gaunter with each passing by the day. I heard a bit of some speech he gave today or yesterday and he sounded shrill – very much like a castrati. He was repeating the same BS from the campaign, all the same stupid slogans and meaningless drivel and he did not sound convinced of his power anymore.

    And notice the sleeveless one has disappeared again? Hope they keep her put of sight for the next few years.

    This, OTOH, is great to hear. “I spent a good deal of time with Clinton during the campaign last year but have never seen her, well, dare I say it, quite so happy. There is a certain ease about her….”

    HRC is a woman at peace with herself, her past her present and her future. Like her, I also “try to live in the present.” She has the strength of her convictions and the courage that comes from knowing what one has done was the right thing. Squat has squandered his chance for real self-respect. From the tone of his voice it sounds like he’s beginning to doubt his own press. Oh, he’ll never admit it but that trace of doubt is audible.

  25. confloyd Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    “He said “this is nothing but a hostile takeover of our healthcare system”. It is one of the few assets that is left in this country for the elitest’s to steal.”

    ~~~~~~~~~~

    People ARE starting to realize Obama is NOT all that- and the America I know, will NOT stand for this pissant politician running the People and the country into the ground at the direction of Soros and the elites. They almost got it right; but didn’t go far enough- It’s not just HC is our Government and our way of life they are trying to dismantle.

  26. Paybacks In Obama World Can Be Sweet
    October 16, 2009

    It’s not often that a plum ambassadorship goes to someone who isn’t a career foreign service officer or a big bucks campaign contributor, but Pres. Obama has nominated Anne Slaughter Andrew to be the ambassador to the Republic of Costa Rica.

    Hmmm.

    The prospective diplomat is an Indiana Univ. trained atty who currently is Principal of New Energy Nexus, LLC, and, according to the WH release on her nomination, “advises companies and entrepreneurs on investments and strategies to capitalize on the New Energy Economy.”

    But Andrew is also wife of ex-IN Dem chair Joe Andrew, who was tapped by Bill Clinton to be DNC from ’99 to ’01 who also was a big backer of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton in her ’08 bid — until five days before the must-win IN Dem primary last year, when Andrew with great fan-fare threw Clinton under the bus, endorsed Obama, urged all his fellow Hoosiers to vote for Obama and called up party leaders and fellow superdelegates (Andrew had that status to the Dem convo because he was an ex-DNC chair) to basically shut the nominating contest down after the IN primary and get behind Obama.

    In a public letter that at times was melodramatic and angst-ridden, Andrew wrote: “Why call for superdelegates to come together now to constructively pick a president? The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late.”

    Well, the contest did run until June and Obama still somehow made it to the WH. But for Joe, this was a selfless act: “My endorsement of Senator Obama will not be welcome news to my friends and family at the Clinton campaign… If the campaign’s surrogates called Governor Bill Richardson, a respected former member of President Clinton’s cabinet, a ‘Judas’ for endorsing Senator Obama, we can all imagine how they will treat somebody like me.”

    Geee, somehow he managed to survive and somehow the current Sec/State must have an amazing amount of equanimity and grace not to have choked on this administration nomination.

    A colleague found this You Tube video from May ’08 of Andrew talking about his switch from team Clinton to team Obama and its impact on his family.

    youtube.com/watch?v=RijG9CYv2DA&feature=player_embedded

    hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2009/10/paybacks_in_oba.php

  27. # JanH Says:
    October 16th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    “The Democrats are, at the present time, behind closed doors putting all their little “pay-off’s and perks” to their Union buddies, in a Trillion dollar Health Care “Reform” Bill that no one wants!”
    —————————-
    And wasn’t this exactly what obama solemnly promised not to do when he got in power? Didn’t he rake over the Republicans for all the pork?

    ~~~~~~~~~

    Hillary was right again!

    “The skies were going to open up and the celestial choirs were going to sing… and everything will be alright!” quote by Hillary Rodham Clinton

  28. Portion of Obama’s speech yesterday at the DNC Fundraiser in San Francisco

    the Leftys think “Grab a Mop” is mining political gold:

    10-15-2009

    GRAB A MOP

    “What I reject is when some folks say we should go back to the past policies when it was those very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. Another way of putting it is when, you know, I’m busy and Nancy is busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else’s mess — we don’t want somebody sitting back saying, you’re not holding the mop the right way. Why don’t you grab a mop, why don’t you help clean up. (Applause.) You’re not mopping fast enough. (Laughter.) That’s a socialist mop. (Laughter and applause.) Grab a mop — let’s get to work,” – Barack Obama.

    It’s an inspired three-word challenge to the GOP. Devastating, actually – because it both reminds people of the damage the GOP did while not seeming to dwell on the past or to score partisan points (while actually doing both).

    Meep. Meep …

  29. “I’m busy and Nancy is busy with our mop cleaning up somebody else’s mess”

    ———————
    There goes the whine and cheese party again. Always blaming someone else…poor twit.

    If they are both so good with mops, maybe they should go into the janitorial business and quit destroying America.

  30. His analogies are very tiresome and inappropriate. Jeez. Couldn’t his speechwriter think of a better analogy, than a mop?

  31. admin: (for safe keeping)🙂

    here is a compendium of vids election night 1992

    a little nostalgia from the last duly elected president

    President William Jefferson Clinton

    Part 1
    youtube.com/watch?v=ZXTg5Wxym1Y
    Part 2
    youtube.com/watch?v=qGDvkRDQQgI&feature=rela…
    Part 3
    youtube.com/watch?v=uxyk3BLe4ts&feature=rela…
    Part 4
    youtube.com/watch?v=N466SdGOT8A&feature=rela…
    Part 5
    youtube.com/watch?v=NGH7PL344Do&feature=rela…
    Part 6
    youtube.com/watch?v=46NC0iQ0mzM&feature=rela…
    Part 7
    youtube.com/watch?v=iTo_mNzZLdA&feature=rela…
    Part 8
    youtube.com/watch?v=5IxGjLb2rqM&feature=rela…
    Part 9
    youtube.com/watch?v=iF5DL8TTKeM&feature=rela…

  32. ADMIN… the limp Big Boy Blogs may be afraid to speak the truth and call a lie a lie…and a liar a liar…but SHOUT IT OUT for all to hear…

    I will join you in shouting out “Obama, the Liar…Obama is a LIAR”…there, that felt good…come on Big Boys…join in…’the TRUTH will set you free’

    ******************************

    btw…

    latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-health-massachusetts17-2009oct17,0,3965598.story

    Lessons from the Massachusetts healthcare experiment

    Thanks to the state’s major overhaul three years ago, 96% of residents are covered. But lawmakers avoided taking on cost controls, and people are paying the price.

    article continues…

    …suffice to say…the cost for the middle class in the MASSACHUSETTS EXPERIMENT is going UP, UP, UP and with BIG, EXPENSIVE DEDUCTIBLES…MASS has the most EXPENSIVE health insurance in the country…just like what is being enabled by the O admin and this Dimocratic congress…all wheel and insider dealing…just keep sticking it to the people…

  33. That Joe Andrew has the same virus that the rest of the Obamanation has it called the ability to be manipulated into treason. So if he could turn on Hillary, he could very definitely commit treason or any other crime this administration has asked him to do. RIGHT???

    ABM90, I was wondering if we knew if Hillary is back in the states yet? They just work like a dog.

  34. More about the lying traitor and hc:

    …Media outlets dutifully carried the Democratic story line: Four important Republicans are backing Obama, but GOP lawmakers remain in lockstep for partisan political readings.

    Obama, along with ABC News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and nearly everyone who reported on the GOP support for Obamacare, left out the salient detail that these pro-“reform” Republicans are lobbyists, consultants and directors for the drug companies, hospitals and other health care corporations that stand to profit from Obama’s reform….

    www dot washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Pro-Obamacare-Republicans-in-the-pay-of-the-health-industry-8379285-64125832.html

  35. Good morning confloyd.Yes Hillary is back and busy a
    s ever.She truly is the “Wonder President 24/7”

    =================================Dipnote – Offical Blog of the U.S. State Dept.

    ——————————————————————————–
    Travel Diary: Secretary Clinton Returns From Europe
    Travel Diary: Secretary Clinton Unveils Walt Whitman Statue …In Moscow
    AYM 2009: Viral Change, Growing the Movement
    International Counter Piracy Effort Confronts Criminals on the High Seas
    Secretary Clinton Delivers Video Message for Alliance of Youth Movements Summit
    Spotlight on Change Agents: AYM 2009
    Travel Diary: Secretary Clinton Returns From Europe

    Posted: 16 Oct 2009 05:21 PM PDT

    Interactive Travel Map | Text the Secretary Answers

  36. I know this comment on Hillbuzz is long but so revealing of the great crime commited by the DNC traitors that should be posted over and over and might just be revealed by some member of the “Fringe Media” and the forked tongue FOX Clinton haters.Glenn Beck keep your back to a wall,your jealous subversive media team of O’Reilly,Hannity,Morris and the scum bags that wtite their scripts are dangerous.

    =================================

    his is a questions we’re asking ourselves more and more lately, upon witnessing the utter travesty that’s taking place in Washington these days.

    What Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing in Congress is illegal, criminal, treasonous, and unconstitutional. We’re talking, of course, about the plot to ram through Utopiacare using backdoor, secret, reconcilliation means instead of voting this important, world-changing legislation up or down properly in the House and Senate.

    We’re lifelong Democrats around here…whose faith in the party was first shaken by the way the DNC backed Dr. Utopia and used all its resources to bring down Hillary Clinton last year. The final straw broke our backs on May 31st, 2008 around 5pm or so when we heard news the DNC had awarded Dr. Utopia some of Hillary Clinton’s Michigan delegates. That outrage will never be forgotten. They actually TOOK delegates away from a woman who earned them because they wanted to give them to a black man who did absolutely nothing for them. How the Democrats have behaved since taking over all three branches of government has been stomach-turning. If it weren’t for the Clintons, who we will always be loyal to, we’d no longer call ourselves Democrats. We’d be independents, or members of the new Tea Party that’s forming…whatever that ultimately turns out to be. Not Green, not Libertarian, not anything that exists currently, but something else…something PUMA-flavored that’s still brewing.

    But, as long as the Clintons are Dems, we’re right there with them. Some of you out there can’t understand our loyalty to them, but the Clintons have always been good to all of us, and we believe in them like no other family on the planet. Bill, Chelsea, and most of all Hillary, will ALWAYS be the public figures we support most and back no matter what. Many of us year spent every cent we had in 2008 helping them, and never regret one bit of that. It is our most sincere hope in this world one of them runs for elected office again so we can once more be boots on the ground under their banner. The three of them wake up every morning doing whatever they can to make this country stronger and life here better for all Americans…and for that, we can get up each day and work hard following their example as best we can too.

    So, in reality, we’re more Clintonites than we are Democrats.

    And we hope to Olympus on high that what Pelosi and Reid are trying to pull with reconciliation leads to massive liberal defeat in 2010. We want all the moderate Dems siding with the Clintons to win, but all the Kool-Aid Kids in Dr. Utopia’s fold to go down with Harry Reid and lose re-election. We want it to be an absolute ROUTE. And we want that to lead to a full-on Democrat Civil War to take back our party from the loony left.

    We hope moderate Dems and independents team up with Republicans in 2010 and create a tidal wave that makes the Contract with America rebuff of 1994 look like a Kool-Aid backwash.

    It would be best, in terms of defeating Dr. Utopia in 2012, if Democrats just barely retain the House and Senate. This way, Pelosi and new-Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin have two years to make fools of themselves before the 2012 elections. If Republicans win the House and Senate, or either of the two, then Democrats have someone to blame for things for two years. We don’t want to see that happen. Harry Reid seems likely to be defeated no matter what, but it would take a miracle for San Franciscans to vote out Pelosi. It’s a safe bet she’ll remain Speaker, making cat videos or whatever it is she does all day, and that’s a large part of what’s needed to ensure Dr. Utopia’s a loser of a one-term president.

    It was an odd position being Chicagoans who rooted for our city to lose the 2016 Olympics. We strongly feel that by losing those games, and suffering that humiliating Oprah and Mrs. Utopia-related defeat, that the city is stronger and better able to face the challenges of the future.

    We also believe that as Democrats, true Democrats of the moderate vein, a strong defeat of the liberal agenda in 2010 and 2012 is needed if the party’s ever going to come back to the Clintonian center.

    The DNC has moved so far into the alien territory of the Alinsky-Obama-Ayers Left that it’s unrecognizable to us.

    The ONLY thing that’s keeping us around is that we can use the defeats in 2010 as an opening to take back the party and return Clinton centrists as our focus.

    We don’t know how others out there feel, but that’s where we sit here in Boystown.

  37. Yes, I guess that describes us best=Clintonistas, of coarse that is a derogative term given by the Republicans to tie us the Santanistas. I guess what would be the best description would be Clintonians.

    Thanks ABM90, I hope she’s home resting today, while the fraud in out playing basketball 24/7.

    I find it somewhat unusual that he (Obama) was with Bush Sr. pushing this Points of Light Institute, which is a group front for there youth corp movement. I did not know Bush Sr. was into a youth movement, but he does. THERE’S NOT MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. They somehow find little things to fight about to make us believe there is a difference. THey are all crooks, just red crooks or blue crooks==well at least we have a choice of color.

  38. MUST SEE CLIP!
    Confloyd, here is the entire Christopher Mockton speech talking about the Copemhagen treaty and how it turns ovr US control to a World Government which can not be overthrown.
    Now this is frigging chilling. I’ve read the text of his remarks but his delivery is ever so much more ominous.

    ADMIN! Please embed.
    www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40&feature=player_embedded

  39. Hillary Reborn

    At State, as in the Senate, she often talks softly—but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t carry a big stick.

    By John Heilemann
    New York Magazine
    October 16, 2009

    Hillary Clinton was on the trot again this week, with an itinerary that took her from Zurich to London to Dublin to Belfast to Moscow and a nonstop schedule of diplomatizing on topics ranging from the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations to the Iranian nuclear crisis. But the headlines Hillary generated back home—and there were plenty of them—had precious little to do with her official duties as secretary of State.

    They were about her disclamation of any interest in a future presidential bid. About her insistence that she really (really!) is Barack Obama’s foreign-policy supremo. About the new Gallup numbers showing that Hillary is now more popular than Obama, which represents a truly stunning nineteen-point swing since the start of the year. About Hillary qua Hillary, in other words.

    Clinton clamor in the media strikes the ear as especially cacophonous in light of how quiet she has been for most of her nine months in her new job. And the sound of silence out of State, in turn, has given rise to a clear conventional wisdom about Hillary’s role in Obamaville, which is part of what she was reacting to in her interviews with NBC and ABC this week. The CW, put succinctly, is that Hillary is a virtual nonentity in the administration: that in terms of political status, she ranks in the second tier, and that when it comes to policy sway, she has been out-barked and out-bitten by the pack of alpha dogs that the president has installed around her.

    It’s easy enough to understand this interpretation of Clinton’s standing. After her soap-operatic campaign, the absence of drama around HRC creates cognitive dissonance for the punditocracy and other Beltway tea-leaf readers. Yet the truth is that the conventional wisdom is wrong, I think, in both its particulars and its overall verdict. And not just wrong but illustrative of a set of misapprehensions about how the woman thinks and operates—or, at least, how she’s learned to do so, especially with respect to the navigation of new terrain. Indeed, one need only look back as far as her time in the Senate to understand how she now sees and plays the game, and why, on everything from the battle over U.S. policy in Afghanistan to the shaping of her future, she’s perfectly likely to win.

    To get a fuller sense of the Clinton CW in Washington, it helps to start by taking a gander at GQ. In its new issue, the magazine offers a list of “the 50 most powerful people in D.C.,” on which Hillary ranks eighteenth. That might not sound so bad, all in all, except it puts her in tenth place in the administration, behind Rahm Emanuel, Bob Gates, Peter Orszag, David Axelrod, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Eric Holder, Valerie Jarrett, and Leon Panetta. Worse, the list slots six players on Capitol Hill (Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, David Obey, Henry Waxman, and Barney Frank) ahead of Clinton, too—at least three of whom she would certainly have outranked had she remained in the Senate.

    The matriarch of the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits probably doesn’t give two whits about what such a magazine has to say about her mojo. But not so the perception that her influence over foreign policy is de minimis—a view summed up by a recent piece in the Washington Post, which argued that Hillary is “largely invisible on the big issues that dominate the foreign-policy agenda, including the war in Afghanistan, the attempt to engage Iran, and efforts to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

    When NBC’s Ann Curry, citing that assessment, asked Clinton this week on the Today show if she’d been “marginalized,” Hillary deemed the suggestion “absurd” and then went on: “I’m not one of these people who feels like I have to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on the TV every moment of the day. I would be irresponsible and negligent were I to say, ‘Oh, no. Everything must come to me.’ Now, maybe that is a woman’s thing. Maybe I’m totally secure and feel absolutely no need to go running around in order for people to see what I’m doing.”

    It’s possible, of course, that gender studies is the appropriate prism through which Clinton’s behavior should be viewed. But for my money, history provides more insight—in particular, the history of Hillary’s ascension to the upper chamber on the Hill in 2001.

    Though it wasn’t all that long ago, people still often forget just how peculiar and challenging her insinuation into that world was. After eight years in the skin-blanching spotlight, she arrived with a degree of fame far greater than any of her peers—and also totally out of proportion to her official status as a freshman in a body where seniority is all. How did she deal with it? By scrupulously avoiding the cameras. By being wonky and learning the ropes. By enacting a degree of deference and obeisance to her colleagues, almost all of them male, that must have been painfully hard for her to swallow. (Remember, please, the stories about how she ritually poured the coffee for other senators, always recalling who took cream or sugar.) By establishing an image, as Robert Byrd famously put it, as a “workhorse, not a showhorse.”

    As it was then and there, so it is here and now. At the start of the year, Clinton found herself deposited in a realm—Foggy Bottom in particular, the diplomatic orbit in general—just as cloistered and clubby, hidebound and testosterone-fueled, as the Senate. (And one, it should be noted, she never expected or particularly aspired to enter.) Her approach to the task has been nearly identical. She has steered clear of the press and put her nose to the grindstone, studying furiously and doggedly to get on top of her brief. She has delved deep into the managerial mess at the State Department left behind by her predecessors. She has quietly built relationships and alliances with Gates and national-security adviser Jim Jones. She has uncomplainingly—in fact, gladly, I’m told—delegated responsibility to megawatt envoys Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, and Dennis Ross.

    To the outside world, all this laying low has made Clinton look like less of a player. But the reality is almost exactly the opposite. From the outset, Hillary recognized that she could only exercise influence inside the administration if she were trusted by Obama and the people close to him. And although the president himself and Emanuel never had much doubt that she could be a team player, many others in the Obamasphere were supremely skeptical. But no longer. “In terms of loyalty, discretion, and collegiality,” says a senior White House official, “she’s been everything we could have asked or hoped for.”

    The unfolding debate over Afghanistan is maybe the most conspicuous example of Hillary’s adroitness at working the inside game. Compared with Joe Biden and General Stanley McChrystal, her position has been opaque. But now comes word that Clinton and Gates are lining up on the same side in favor of a middle course in the region—not the full-blown troop surge that the general advocates nor the bare-bones approach that the V.P. favors. By all accounts, the likeliest outcome is that Obama will wind up pursuing the Gates-Clinton split-the-difference strategy. And while no one will ever call it the Hillary doctrine, it will be the kind of quiet win that leads to greater internal power for her in the future.

    Playing the inside game works to Clinton’s advantage in other ways as well. It’s no coincidence, I’d argue, that her popularity has sharply risen in these months when her profile has been lower, when she’s been perceived as selflessly working on behalf of her boss. Hillary’s greatest political vulnerability has always been the sense among many voters that she is ambition incarnate. That she’s forever shimmying up the greasy pole. That everything she does and says is all about her own advancement.

    But now Obama has put her in the perfect position to play the good soldier. To say with (almost) a straight face that she’s looking forward to retirement, that her White House aspirations are behind her. That all she cares about is doing a good job and serving her new master. And as she does, her approval ratings seem to climb by the day.

    Has Clinton seriously ruled out another presidential run? I have no idea. What I do know is that her statements on the matter are perfectly meaningless. In the old days, of course, going back on such unequivocal renouncements carried a high political price. But Obama—who renounced his own renouncement of any chance he would run for president in the space of nine months in 2006 and incurred no penalty—may have put an end to that convention. If he has, it may be yet another thing for which Hillary, by an irony, finds herself tossing a bouquet to her former rival, oh, around 2015.

    nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/60123/?imw=Y&f=most-emailed-24h5

  40. basil 9, thanks, I will watch it.

    Did you notice that they arrested a hedge funder today?? He is connected to Soros thru the Harlem childrens fund. I hope they are watching these people like Soros before we have NO USA.

  41. I’ve just skimmed the news today – gotta get outta here to cover 2 stories.

    I hope you check that vid by the timeIi get back and tell me what you think.

  42. Federal deficit hits all-time high $1.42 trillion

    By MARTIN CRUTSINGER

    WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit has surged to an all-time high of $1.42 trillion as the recession caused tax revenues to plunge while the government was spending massive amounts to stabilize the financial system and jump-start the economy.

    The imbalance for the budget year ended Sept. 30, more than tripled last year’s record. The Obama administration projects deficits will total $9.1 trillion over the next decade unless corrective action is taken.

    As a portion of the economy, the budget deficit stood at 10 percent, the highest since World War II, according to government data released Friday.

    President Barack Obama has pledged to reduce the deficit once the Great Recession ends and the unemployment rate starts falling. But economists worry the government lacks the will to make the hard political choices to cut spending and raise taxes to get control of the imbalances.

    For 2009, the government collected $2.10 trillion in revenues, a 16.6 percent drop from 2008. That was the largest percentage decline on records going back nearly seven decades. The plunge reflected declining income tax collections as millions of Americans lost their jobs or saw their wages cut. Corporate taxes also plummeted as the recession squeezed companies’ profit margins.

    Government spending last year jumped to $3.52 trillion, up 18.2 percent over 2008, the biggest percentage increase since a 23.4 percent jump in 1975, another year in which the country was struggling with a painful recession. The $700 billion financial bailout fund and increased spending and tax relief from the $787 billion economic stimulus program that Obama pushed through Congress in February drove the 2009 increase.

    Republicans seized on the new figures as evidence of their contention that the Democrats in Congress and the White House are acting irresponsibly.

    “Today’s deficit numbers are yet another troubling reminder that our nation is on a dangerous and unsustainable fiscal path,” House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a statement.

    For September, a month when the government usually records surpluses, the deficit totaled $46.6 billion. That’s a sharp contrast to the $45.7 billion surplus in September 2008, the last time the government’s books were in the black.

    In issuing the final budget figures, top administration officials said the president was determined to get control of the deficits in coming years. “It was critical that we acted to bring the economy back from the brink earlier this year,” White House budget director Peter Orszag said in a statement. “The president recognizes that we need to put the nation back on a fiscally sustainable path.”

    Administration officials noted that as large as the $1.42 trillion deficit was, it had been projected to be even higher. The administration forecast a $1.75 trillion deficit when Obama sent his first budget proposal to Congress in February, a figure that had been trimmed to $1.58 trillion in an administration update issued in August.

    The lower figures reflected in large part the fact that spending from the $700 billion bailout package turned out to lower than originally anticipated. Noting this fact, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, “This year’s deficit is lower than we had projected earlier this year, in part because we are managing to repair the financial system at a lower cost to taxpayers.”

    Failure to curb runaway deficits could trigger a financial train wreck that would push interest rates and inflation higher, and send the dollar crashing if foreigners suddenly started dumping their holdings of Treasury securities.

    None of those problems are evident now as the worst recession since the 1930s has depressed borrowing by consumers and businesses, giving the government a break on the interest it paid this year on the record debt. Net interest payments actually fell by about $10 billion in 2009 from 2008.

    But economists worry investors will grow fearful of the nation’s ability to repay all the debt unless the administration and Congress begin developing credible plans to deal with the deficit problem once the recession has ended and unemployment has begun to come down.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iPlbcTnWEfuKimEaDq0UdU2Uxk1gD9BCEGF01

  43. Here’s the story on that Hedge Funder

    NEW YORK — One of America’s wealthiest men was among six hedge fund managers and corporate executives arrested Friday in a hedge fund insider trading case that authorities say generated more than $25 million in illegal profits and was a wake-up call for Wall Street.

    Raj Rajaratnam, a portfolio manager for Galleon Group, a hedge fund with up to $7 billion in assets under management, was accused of conspiring with others to use insider information to trade securities in several publicly traded companies, including Google Inc.

    U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton set bail at $100 million to be secured by $20 million in collateral despite a request by prosecutors to deny bail. He also ordered Rajaratnam, who has both U.S. and Sri Lankan citizenship, to stay within 110 miles of New York City.

    U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara told a news conference it was the largest hedge fund case ever prosecuted and marked the first use of court-authorized wiretaps to capture conversations by suspects in an insider trading case.

    He said the case should cause financial professionals considering insider trades in the future to wonder whether law enforcement is listening.

    “Greed is not good,” Bharara said. “This case should be a wake-up call for Wall Street.”

    Joseph Demarest Jr., the head of the New York FBI office, said it was clear that “the $20 million in illicit profits come at the expense of the average public investor.”

    The Securities and Exchange Commission, which brought separate civil charges, said the scheme generated more than $25 million in illegal profits.

    Story continues below Robert Khuzami, director of enforcement at the SEC, said the charges show Rajaratnam’s “secret of success was not genius trading strategies.”

    “He is not the master of the universe. He is a master of the Rolodex,” Khuzami said.

    Galleon Group LLP said in a statement it was shocked to learn of Rajaratnam’s arrest at his apartment. “We had no knowledge of the investigation before it was made public and we intend to cooperate fully with the relevant authorities,” the statement said.

    The firm added that Galleon “continues to operate and is highly liquid.”

    Rajaratnam, 52, was ranked No. 559 by Forbes magazine this year among the world’s wealthiest billionaires, with a $1.3 billion net worth.

    According to the Federal Election Commission, he is a generous contributor to Democratic candidates and causes. The FEC said he made over $87,000 in contributions to President Barack Obama’s campaign, the Democratic National Committee and various campaigns on behalf of Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer and New Jersey U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez in the past five years. The Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, said he has given a total of $118,000 since 2004 – all but one contribution, for $5,000, to Democrats.

    The Associated Press has learned that even before his arrest, Rajaratnam was under scrutiny for helping bankroll Sri Lankan militants notorious for suicide bombings.

    Papers filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn allege that Rajaratnam worked closely with a phony charity that channeled funds to the Tamil Tiger terrorist organization. Those papers refer to him only as “Individual B.” But U.S. law enforcement and government officials familiar with the case have confirmed that the individual is Rajaratnam.

    At an initial court appearance in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Assistant U.S. Attorney Josh Klein sought detention for Rajaratnam, saying there was “a grave concern about flight risk” given Rajaratnam’s wealth and his frequent travels around the world.

    His lawyer, Jim Walden, called his client a “citizen of the world,” who has made more than $20 million in charitable donations in the last five years and had risen from humble beginnings in the finance profession to oversee hedge funds responsible for nearly $8 billion.

    Walden promised “there’s a lot more to this case” and his client was ready to prepare for it from home. Rajaratnam lives in a $10 million condominium with his wife of 20 years, their three children and two elderly parents. Walden noted that many of his employees were in court ready to sign a bail package on his behalf.

    Rajaratnam – born in Sri Lanka and a graduate of University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business – has been described as a savvy manager of billions of dollars in technology and health care hedge funds at Galleon, which he started in 1996. The firm is based in New York City with offices in California, China, Taiwan and India. He lives in New York.

    According to a criminal complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Rajaratnam obtained insider information and then caused the Galleon Technology Funds to execute trades that earned a profit of more than $12.7 million between January 2006 and July 2007. Other schemes garnered millions more and continued into this year, authorities said.

    Bharara said the defendants benefited from tips about the earnings, earnings guidance and acquisition plans of various companies. Sometimes, those who provided tips received financial benefits and sometimes they just traded tips for more inside information, he added.

    The timing of the arrests might be explained by a footnote in the complaint against Rajaratnam. In it, an FBI agent said he had learned that Rajaratnam had been warned to be careful and that Rajaratnam, in response, had said that a former employee of the Galleon Group was likely to be wearing a “wire.”

    The agent said he learned from federal authorities that Rajaratnam had a ticket to fly from Kennedy International Airport to London on Friday and to return to New York from Geneva, Switzerland next Thursday.

    Also charged in the scheme are Rajiv Goel, 51, of Los Altos, Calif., a director of strategic investments at Intel Capital, the investment arm of Intel Corp., Anil Kumar, 51, of Santa Clara, Calif., a director at McKinsey & Co. Inc., a global management consulting firm, and Robert Moffat, 53, of Ridgefield, Conn., senior vice president and group executive at International Business Machines Corp.’s Systems and Technology Group.

    The others charged in the case were identified as Danielle Chiesi, 43, of New York City, and Mark Kurland, 60, also of New York City.

    According to court papers, Chiesi worked for New Castle, the equity hedge fund group of Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc. that had assets worth about $1 billion under management. Kurland is a top executive at New Castle.

    Kumar’s lawyer, Isabelle Kirshner, said of her client: “He’s distraught.” He was freed on $5 million bail, secured in part by his $2.5 million California home.

    Kerry Lawrence, an attorney representing Moffat, said: “He’s shocked by the charges.”

    Bail for Kurland was set at $3 million while bail for Moffat and Chiesi was set at $2 million each. Lawyers for Moffat and Chiesi said their clients will plead not guilty. The law firm representing Kurland did not immediately return a phone call for comment.

    A message left at Goel’s residence was not immediately returned. He was released on bail after an appearance in California.

    A criminal complaint filed in the case shows that an unidentified person involved in the insider trading scheme began cooperating and authorities obtained wiretaps of conversations between the defendants.

    In one conversation about a pending deal that was described in a criminal complaint, Chiesi is quoted as saying: “I’m dead if this leaks. I really am. … and my career is over. I’ll be like Martha (expletive) Stewart.”

    Stewart, the homemaking maven, was convicted in 2004 of lying to the government about the sale of her shares in a friend’s company whose stock plummeted after a negative public announcement. She served five months in prison and five months of home confinement.

    Prosecutors charged those arrested Friday with conspiracy and securities fraud.

    A separate criminal complaint in the case said Chiesi and Moffat conspired to engage in insider trading in the securities of International Business Machines Corp.

    According to another criminal complaint in the case, Chiesi and Rajaratnam were heard on a government wiretap of a Sept. 26, 2008, phone conversation discussing whether Chiesi’s friend Moffat should move from IBM to a different technology company to aid the scheme.

    “Put him in some company where we can trade well,” Rajaratnam was quoted in the court papers as saying.

    The complaint said Chiesi replied: “I know, I know. I’m thinking that too. Or just keep him at IBM, you know, because this guy is giving me more information. … I’d like to keep him at IBM right now because that’s a very powerful place for him. For us, too.”

    According to the court papers, Rajaratnam replied: “Only if he becomes CEO.” And Chiesi was quoted as replying: “Well, not really. I mean, come on. … you know, we nailed it.”

    The criminal complaints in the case also captured what authorities said were efforts by the defendants to hide their conversations from authorities.

    .

    .

    .

    .

  44. Right here is where it says insuring more diminishes all:

    Senators would tax high-value health insurance plans to pay for covering the uninsured, an approach supporters say would curb health costs because it would lead to employers offering less generous benefits.

    www dot washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101700710_pf.html

  45. One of the greatest triumphs of the Hillary SoS reign will soon be seen and heard around the world.She will be in Berlin to represent the US in the celebration of the the tearing down of the infamous Berlin Wall.The messiah will not be there and this stupid mistake will cost him dearly worldwide.Perhaps
    the Germans did not invite him.Hillary is loved and respected by the young and old of our friends around the Globe.
    The great pretender is finished and on his way to being yesterdays bad news.Just look into his eyes as he speaks and shouts at his ever growing list of public speaking stops.I see “Panic” not confidence there.He is greasing his own skids into the portrait of
    “A BIG MISTAKE” A self portrait if I might add.

    BY ABM91. The results of our efforts to expose this fraud are paying off and none too soon.

  46. …one teeny bit of advice I would suggest to Hillary is to please stop talking about retirement…and since she introduced into the dialogue now all the correspondents feel the need to ask her about it…as in Jill Dougherty and the rest of them…

    …Hillary, please just quickly deflect the question and get on to something you are currently working on…

    …Hillary cannot allow any ‘retirement’ or ‘she will be this age or that age’ or ‘she is getting old’ meme to start…just do not even talk about anything of that nature…the men don’t…just keep moving forward, girlfriend…and do not let the ‘age’ thing take hold…

  47. S
    We let the kds pick the last President, and look how that is working out. It is time for Parents, Grand Parents and G Grant parents etc, to step up and not worship the youth, but respect the experience and age of wisdom that we have in this country. Can you imagine if OO would have been our first President, vs GW.

  48. ABM90 Says:

    October 17th, 2009 at 10:31 am
    —————————

    Actually, obama was invited to the Berlin Wall ceremony, but he backed out of it so he could go to the Asian conference being held at the same time.

    Personally, I would much rather Hillary be at the Berlin Wall anyway. Obama’s history lessons have sadly been neglected and he doesn’t have a clue at the significance of this moment.

    On another personal note, I remember going through Checkpoint Charlie when I was barely twenty years old and noting the stark differences between a democratic West Germany and a communist East Germany at the time. And yet there were still many similarities.

  49. S,

    I don’t see a problem with the “retirement” message. Everything she says is “damned if she does” and “damned if she doesn’t.” The media spawns are going to twist and speculate on each and every word no matter what she says.

    Of course she will retire some day. And honestly, her phrases are vague enough that she can change her mind or not. It is her decision and hers alone and the speculation about the Clintons is 99% usually wrong anyway.

  50. NewMexicoFan Says:

    October 17th, 2009 at 11:07 am
    ********************************

    NMF…I agree with you…I simply do not want to give the MSM any opportunites or quotes for them to use against her as the next few years go by…

    frankly, I think Hillary looks amazing and as we know from the primaries and her current travels…she never sleeps…she has limitless energy…however I think you know what I mean…just don’t give the MSM any excuse to start in on her age and defining her…

  51. What’s even more interesting is that I believe I read some time ago that it was Hillary that was orginally going to go to the Asian conference and obama to the Berlin Wall.

    Wonder why the switch occured.

  52. What I can’t understand why no one is interested in this treaty that is to be signed by Obama in December 09′.

  53. Of course he would never be too busy to waste taxpayers money and go collect the Nobel Peace Prize, one he should never have received let alone be nominated for…

    ———————

    Barack is Too Busy

    Obama Cancels Plans to Attend Berlin Wall Anniversary

    US President Barack Obama has shelved his plans to attend festivities marking the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will reportedly take his place at the Nov. 9 celebrations.

    Germany is going to have to wait longer than expected for US President Barack Obama’s first official visit. Citing government sources in Berlin, Reuters reported on Friday that Obama will not attend the anniversary festivities marking two decades since the fall of the Berlin Wall. The event will take place on Nov. 9 — just two days before Obama embarks on a long-planned trip to Asia on Nov. 11.

    According to the German television channel n-tv, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will stand in for the president. It is considered unlikely that her husband, the former President Bill Clinton, will accompany her.

    Berlin is going all out for the anniversary, with such luminaries as Kofi Annan, Mikhail Gorbachev and Lech Walesa expected to be in attendance. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is pushing hard to complete ongoing coalition negotiations soon so that her government is fully formed in time for the festivities.

    Despite Obama’s absence, however, Merkel will get some face time with the US president in early November. She is planning to travel to Washington and will be addressing a joint session of US Congress on Nov. 3.

    Obama has not visited Berlin since taking power. He was in Germany briefly in June, when he made stops in Dresden and at the Buchenwald concentration camp memorial. It was during that trip that Merkel extended the invitation for Obama to help Germany celebrate the fall of the Wall.

    Merkel’s government expressed understanding with Obama’s scheduling difficulties, Reuters reported. Obama’s first state visit to Berlin is now expected to take place in 2010.

    spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,655632,00.html

  54. Medicare backs off on order about lobbying seniors

    By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

    WASHINGTON — The Obama administration Friday backed away from a ban on insurance company mailings to seniors warning of dire Medicare cuts if health care overhaul legislation is approved.

    In a late afternoon memo to health plans, Medicare said insurance companies may lobby seniors, provided they first get permission from beneficiaries, and no federal funds or data are used. Last month, Medicare had ordered a halt to such mailings after a Democratic lawmaker complained about a misleading flyer.

    The controversy quickly escalated, with Republicans calling the ban a “gag order” that violated free speech rights. GOP senators threatened to block Obama’s health nominees unless Medicare withdrew the ban.

    Medicare officials say no gag order was ever issued. They said their directive Friday only clarifies a long-standing policy that protects seniors from nuisance mailings and abusive marketing.

    But Republicans claimed a political victory.
    “Basically, they are reversing the gag order,” said Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee. “They had blocked all the plans from communicating with beneficiaries. I think they overstepped their bounds.”

    In the background are concerns among seniors about using Medicare cuts to finance Obama’s health care overhaul plan. Specifically at issue are benefits for more than 11 million seniors enrolled in private insurance plans through a popular program called Medicare Advantage. Because of a funding formula dating from when Republicans controlled Congress, the plans are paid more than it costs to care for seniors in traditional Medicare. Insurers use the money to provide more comprehensive benefits than regular Medicare.

    Obama has called for trimming the extra payments to help pay for providing coverage to uninsured workers and their families. But the insurance industry is determined to block the cuts, which would lead to lower profits for industry, and higher costs and fewer benefits for seniors in private plans. About one-fourth of all Medicare beneficiaries are signed up in private plans, and lawmakers are sensitive to the potential backlash.

    Medicare officials said Friday that Republicans were wrong to call their previous directive a “gag order.” “We are not lifting anything. Nothing was imposed,” said Timothy Hill, deputy director of the Medicare division that deals with private plans. “What we issued today is very clear guidance about what plans can and can’t do.”

    Camp said he still has questions on whether Medicare was pressured into issuing the original order. “There was no pressure, there was no political agenda,” said Hill, adding that Medicare was only following through on its obligation to protect seniors.

    Medicare also issued a warning letter Friday to Humana, the insurer whose mailer to seniors started the furor. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., had accused the company of trying to scare seniors as he was putting the finishing touches on his version of the legislation. The warning letter — called a “notice of noncompliance” — is considered a mild reprimand.

    google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gm9ljtJtDJrrAPQPk8tsggrt7L9wD9BCFK001

  55. nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/blank_screen_VRgK9QYpvI7vsOWaEyUxnM

    O’s ‘blank screen’Why he’s losing credibilityBy LYNN FORESTER DE ROTHSCHILD

    Last Updated: 4:37 AM, October 17, 2009

    IN “The Audacity of Hope,” Barack Obama described himself as “a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” This is a powerful tool in elections and explains why liberals, moderates, Democrats, Independents and Republicans joined together to give him 53 percent of the vote last November.

    Since his election, this “blank screen” has been an asset, allowing the new president to maintain an illusion of progress, even as he has avoided the hard choices necessary for progress. But, as Americans ponder the unavoidable consequences of the president’s policies — particularly health-care reform — the illusion is wearing thin.

    The government has spent $3 trillion to prop up Wall Street and take over the big insurance and auto industries — yet the middle class and small businesses continue to suffer. Fifteen million workers remain without jobs; 32 percent of Americans’ homes are worth less than their mortgages — and a whopping 61 percent of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck.

    For these reasons, the American people have begun to judge President Obama on his record, not his rhetoric; on his policies, not his narrative — and on his ability to govern, not on his campaign machine.

    The cool and reasonable candidate who gave hope to his voters, who promised to rise above the ugly politics and big money of Washington, is turning out to be as conventional a politician as any other. Indeed, as he runs a permanent campaign from the White House, he is proving to be more committed to protecting the vested interests of his party than standing up for actual change.

    A gentleman I met recently in Washington, DC, could well be the poster child for Obama’s problems. Like many Americans, he greeted Obama’s entry to the White House with high expectations. But increasingly, he finds himself at odds with the president. He came to the United States from Haiti in the ’80s with nothing; he was able to learn English, get a job as a driver and put two children through college.

    I asked him if he would not have preferred if our country had guaranteed him a job, a pension, health care and a college education for his children. He told me no — and gave three reasons.

    First, he said, he takes pride in knowing what he has done for his family. Second, he knows that the government does not, cannot, know what he wants for himself and his family. Third, he knows that what government gives, it can take away.

    Having lived the American dream, he realizes that the individualism at the heart of American democracy is what is actually at stake in the present debates over the president’s many policies.

    Immigrant or native-born, it’s written in the American DNA: A paternalistic government threatens our independence, our individuality and our right to self-determination. It’s why Jefferson sang praise to the yeoman farmer and Jackson to the common man. It’s the principle that Reagan placed at the heart of his presidency, and that Clinton built on by advancing policies that empowered individuals — not policies that made individuals beholden to the state.

    In contrast, President Obama’s praise for the free market and individual liberty just doesn’t ring true — because his record does not reflect his rhetoric. His actions show a fundamental disconnect with American values — a disconnect that won’t be dispelled with captivating speeches, no matter how masterfully delivered.

    It is for this reason that so many Americans are uneasy about Obama’s health-care plan. The promised benefits don’t add up. It’s just not possiblefor the government to simultaneously a) provide care for 30 million more people, b) not increase the budget deficit and c) allow anyone who is satisfied with their health care package to experience no change.

    In repeatedly insisting that he’ll deliver all three results at once, Obama has lost credibility: 80 percent of Americans polled said that his health-care reform will raise costs or diminish quality of care.

    On the back of total federal debt that is already over 70 percent of our total GDP, and in light of $34 trillion of existing unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the president’s lack of actual, as opposed to rhetorical, fiscal discipline further erodes his authority.

    In light of all the political capital that true and sensible health-care reform would cost him, it is most likely that President Obama will accept legislation that fails in all but name. In such a case, the president will claim victory — but not solve our health-care problems. It will be another empty triumph of his “blank screen” politics.

    And voters will find that they elected not another FDR, but another Jimmy Carter.

    Lynn Forester de Rothschild is CEO of E.L. Rothschild Ltd. and founder of Together4Us.com, a political Web site

    *************************************

    you got that right! blank scree equal to a big 0 + zero!

  56. JanH, Its my understanding that the backers of Obama don’t like Germany. I am not sure why or where I found that, but its something I understand. The backers are much more aligned with the asians.

  57. Thanks for posting this article. NY Mag had a good article in May or June 08 also.

    This one is catty and presents the facts in a twisted way, but imo the facts are worth reading.
    nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/60123/?imw=Y&f=most-emailed-24h5

    As to quotes that might be used against her — there will always be things said against her. (And wasn’t there also a quote from early 2000’s about her not wanting to move back to the WH?) Playing possum is probably her best strategy all around.

    She will be the same age whether the media talks about it now or later.

  58. ABM90 Says:

    October 17th, 2009 at 8:18 am
    I know this comment on Hillbuzz is long but so revealing of the great crime commited by the DNC traitors that should be posted over and over and might just be revealed by some member of the “Fringe Media” and the forked tongue FOX Clinton haters.

    [snip]

    So, in reality, we’re more Clintonites than we are Democrats.
    &&&&&

    That would now seem to hold true of about 50% of the people who are “life long Democrats”. and 100% of the folks here.

  59. JanH Says:
    October 17th, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Actually, obama was invited to the Berlin Wall ceremony, but he backed out of it so he could go to the Asian conference being held at the same time.
    &&&&&&&&&&

    Maybe he is saddened by the wall being torn down, that East Germany with its “progressive socialism” and its outstanding Olympics athletes was exposed to the tawdry capitalism of West Germany.

    Obama:”Mr. Gorbachev, please keep up this wall”.

  60. Here is a website that even has a countdown clock until the treaty is to be signed,, so I guess this is a big deal for all the elites that have wanted a One World GOvernment.

    h t t p:/ /un fccc .int/2860 .php

  61. Worth reading to rebut:

    h / no w’s

    tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/democracy-corps-republican-base-voters-living-in-another-world.php?ref=dcblt

  62. “the American people have begun to judge President Obama on his record, not his rhetoric; on his policies, not his narrative — and on his ability to govern, not on his campaign machine.”

    —————————
    So what does he do now? Spend until he drops? Bribe with the taxpayer’s last cent? Start “rigging” the elections forever more?

    In other words, he will never ever deserve a “peace prize” what he will deserve is an orange jumpsuit and solitary confinement…him and his wife and his thugs.

  63. turndown,

    What was your take on that article? I admit to rolling my eyes through most of the conjecture and thinking neither dim or republican spin is honest in nature.

  64. Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton to Keynote at TD Ameritrade

    Fri. October 16, 2009

    TD Ameritrade Institutional, a division of TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. has announced that former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton will appear together for a special keynote presentation at the 14th annual National Conference.

    In a release, the Company noted that the two world leaders will offer their perspective on the challenges and opportunities facing the financial services industry, our nation and our world. TD Ameritrade Institutional President Tom Bradley will moderate the hour-long discussion with Presidents Bush and Clinton on Thursday, February 4, 2010.

    Scheduled to take place in Orlando, Fla., from February 3-6, 2010, the conference brings together industry thought-leaders and top registered investment advisors (RIAs) from across the country. In addition to professional expertise on industry trends and outstanding networking opportunities, attending advisors can benefit from practice management workshops, all designed to specifically meet the needs of independent RIAs.

    “This will be a rare and exceptional opportunity to hear a candid dialog between two former presidents of the United States,” said Tom Bradley, president of TD Ameritrade Institutional. “We are thrilled to be able to bring such distinguished leaders to our national conference and offer advisors a balanced discussion on global issues impacting their business and their clients.”

    Expected to be the largest ever, the Company said that the event will showcase the strength of both the RIA industry and TD Ameritrade Institutional, while providing advisors access to these two great world leaders. Last year’s conference welcomed over 1,000 advisor attendees.

    tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/2585462/

  65. JanH, Oh my, George will be outclassed bigtime. I don’t think he can keep up with Bill’s knowledge and ability to speak on any.

  66. Democrats chastise Snowe over health care ‘influence

    October 15, 2009

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — There was candid frustration Thursday coming from rank-and-file congressional Democrats about the influence of Maine’s Republican senator in the health care reform debate.

    The way Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe sees it, she’s just using the power any senator has: the power of one. “The brilliance of our Founding Fathers was this: that they gave power equally to every member of the United States Senate, whether you represented a large state or a small state, and exercising that authority in a positive way,” she said.

    But the challenge now for Democrats is that Snowe opposes what most of them support: a government-sponsored health care option. Since Snowe is the only Republican so far to back a Democratic plan, that carries a lot of weight with the White House and Senate Democratic leaders.

    President Obama has singled out Snowe “for both the political courage and the seriousness of purpose that she’s demonstrated throughout this process.”

    But Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Virginia, said he understands how important it is to President Obama to be able to call his health care bill bipartisan. “It looks as though the way the White House is maneuvering right now, that it is incredibly important to them to get at least one Republican, that being Olympia Snowe.”

    When asked whether Snowe has more influence than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on how the final bill will shape up, Pelosi responded: “I respect Sen. Snowe and the role she has constructed, the role she has played in the deliberations for the Senate Finance Committee.”

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that his hope is for more Republicans to work with Democrats and not just “one senator from Maine.”

    Senate Democrats gathered behind closed doors Thursday for what Democratic sources say was a spirited and at times tense meeting on how to proceed on health care. Progressive Democrats, sources say, used Thursday’s meeting to make a passionate plea for a Senate bill with a public option. But the struggle for Democratic leaders is that the public option will unlikely fly with some conservative Democrats and Snowe.

    House Democrats, meanwhile, wasted no time in blasting Snowe’s recent influence in the controversial debate. “This is the United States of America. This is not the United States of Maine,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-California. “I mean that one senator cannot hold the entire nation’s health care plan hostage.”

    Snowe believes that a public option should be “triggered” down the road only if market reforms fail to bring health care costs down.

    Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, blasted the idea of a trigger option. “The idea that we are going to succumb to the insurance industry’s fears and then do a trigger, which means that our constituency — the American people — will delay in getting a public option, that’s like the house of cards just collapsing on top of us,” she said.

    Republican colleagues, however, have remained mostly silent on Snowe’s vote. “Sen. Snowe called me this morning to let me know that while she continues to have serious, substantive policy reservations with this proposal, she wanted to keep the process moving,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a news release Tuesday. “I share her concerns about the direction of this bill once it leaves the committee, and her call for transparency before we vote to proceed to any bill on the floor.”

    House Republican Leader John Boehner, who did not criticize Snowe in a statement after the vote, blasted Democratic plans, such as the one coming from the Senate Finance Committee.
    “Republicans have offered common-sense solutions to lower health care costs and increase access to affordable insurance — all without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, or putting bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions that should be made by doctors and patients,” he said in a statement Tuesday. “It’s time for Democrats to scrap all of these big government-run plans and work with Republicans to make health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans.”

    Snowe says that at the end of the day, it’s about “doing the best thing for the American people, what’s in the best interests of this country.” Her stance on health care is hardly the first time the moderate senator has broken ranks with her party. This year, she was one of just three Republicans to support the president’s $787 billion economic stimulus package. She also broke ranks with Republicans on social issues like stem cell research and abortion.

    Although her liberal leanings have the possibility of putting her at odds with her party, Snowe’s constituents don’t seem to mind. Voters re-elected her to the Senate with 74 percent of the vote in 2006, compared with her Democratic opponent’s 21 percent. In 2000, she won with 69 percent of the vote.

    edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/15/snowe.backlash/

  67. October 17, 2009 , 1:17 pm

    Sunday Breakfast Menu

    Oct. 18, 2009
    By Ashley Southall

    They’re ba-aaack! President Obama’s advisers are back on the Sunday talk shows this week to discuss the myriad issues facing the administration. About a dozen senators and public figures also take seats on the Sunday sofas to discuss their thoughts on Afghanistan, health care, and the economy.

    Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, does a double-take on the airwaves, appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” and CBS’s “Face the Nation” to discuss the administration’s agenda.

    Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is beamed to CNN from Afghanistan to discuss the situation on the ground there. On that same show, Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire, sits down to discuss Afghanistan and health care.

    On ABC’s “This Week” George Stephanopoulos talks to David Axelrod, a senior advisor to the president, about the economic recovery, the progress of health care reform, and the possible effect of the election audit in Afghanistan on the president’s counterinsurgency strategy there. The two also discuss the governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia and the 2010 mid-term elections.

    Valerie Jarrett, the White House’s liaison to the public, will discuss how the administration is trying to build support for a health care overhaul and the controversy surrounding Wall Street bonuses on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” She’ll also join Maria Shriver, the wife of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, and John Podesta, an Obama adviser and the president of the Center for American Progress, in a discussion about how women’s progress in the workforce has affected the nation.

    Later, David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” talks about health care reform with Senators Christopher J. Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat on the Health Committee, and Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican on the Finance Committee.

    On “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace assesses some of the concerns over health care reform, and how those might affect Democrats’ chance to secure enough votes to pass an overhaul. He get help from Senators Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, Arlen Specter, Democrat of Pennsylvania, and John Thune, Republican of South Dakota. Mr. Wallace also veers into that unfriendly dialogue between the White House and Fox with Karl Rove, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, and Terry McAuliffe, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

    Finally, on C-Span’s “Newsmakers,” Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the ranking Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, talks about climate change legislation pending in the Senate.

    thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/sunday-breakfast-menu-oct-18/

  68. Music to my ears!

    Squat now at 45% approval, down 4 points in the past month despite the Ignoble.

    From Harris;
    In September, U.S. adults were split almost evenly on the job the President has been doing – 49% gave him positive ratings and 51% gave him negative ratings. This month, the number giving him positive ratings drops to 45% while over half of Americans (55%) give him negative ratings. ….

Comments are closed.