Hillary Clinton Versus Sarah Palin

If you’re expecting a catfight here, click off. Hillary and Sarah are sisters. We want to discuss the Big Media strategies of Hillary Clinton versus Sarah Palin. Sisterhood first:



Imagine the explosion in the heavens and of camera lights when Hillary and Sarah Palin eventually meet! That eventual meeting is the great fear of Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and the Big Blog Boys.

Sarah Palin will be interviewed today by the treacherous Oprah Winfrey who never met a presidential candidate she could support, never met a woman she could support, but somehow managed to betray her mostly women audience in order to back African-American Barack Obama – while denying that race was her motivating factor.

Sarah Palin in her new book writes (via Margaret Thatcher) that she now knows what Hillary Clinton always knew about Barack Obama and the Big Media Men and Big Blog Boys: “If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.”

Interviewed on two Sunday television chat shows Hillary was asked about meeting Palin and it appears there will be a power summit, the likes of which we have never seen (Hillary supporters should prepare for escalating attacks on Hillary from the Obama thug machine as it grows increasingly weak and fearful):

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin fished for a coffee date with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in her book “Going Rogue” — and one day she will get it.

Clinton, in Singapore with President Obama, was asked about Palin’s hat tip to her in her book, out this week. Clinton, a 2008 presidential candidate, and Palin, John McCain’s running mate, have never met.

Palin writes, “Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we will fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail. A lot of her supporters think she proved what Margaret Thatcher proclaimed. ‘If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.‘”

George Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s This Week asked Clinton if she would sit down with her.

Clinton replied, “Well, you know, I’ve never met her. Look, I’d look forward to sit down and talk with her. Obviously we’re going to hear a lot more from her in the upcoming weeks with her book coming out and I would look forward to having a chance to actually get to meet her.”

Hillary replied to the Stephanopoulous question as to whether Big Media was fair to her with a veiled storm cloud, a threat we hope she delivers on, “Well, you know George, I’ll leave that for my book if I ever write another one.

On NBC, Hillary raised a battle standard reply that Palin and her will likely meet:

Over at NBC’s Meet the Press, host David Gregory asked Clinton not only if she would have coffee with Palin-but if she would read her book. Clinton was even more enthusiastic about meeting Palin in this reply.

Well, I absolutely would look forward to having coffee. I’ve never met her. And I think it would be, you know, very interesting to sit down and talk with her,” Clinton said.

“And I’ve got more than I could say grace over to read, but obviously in the next week there’s going to be a lot of attention paid to her book. And I’m sure that, you know, I’ll see excerpts printed and, you know, snippets of interviews as I, you know, channel surf in, in Singapore and in Shanghai and in Beijing. But, you know, I’m ready to have a cup of coffee. Maybe I can make a case on some of the issues that we disagree on.

That answer is 100% Hillary – ready to stand her ground and also try to reach common ground.

The waves of fear came from Asia as Obama continued his variation of Austin Powers – Obama, International Man of Boobery.

Big Media took notice of the possible Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin summit with typical sneers about “polarizing” women and coffee “klatch”.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the best known and most polarizing women in American politics, says she’d like to grab a cup of joe and talk shop with another famous female politician who provokes strong opinions: former Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin, in her introductory speech to the nation, praised Hillary and Geraldine Ferraro. The Left Talkers sought to drive Palin out of the presidential race in the same way the Obama thugs tried to coordinate plots to drive Hillary away as she won primary after primary:

The Big Blogs acting as Frank Nitti to Obama’s Al Capone are now degenerate sewers. At one popular PINO Big Blog a woman lawyer who purports to be a progressive is dispensing gifts as a reward to winning a perverse lottery betting on when Sarah Palin will be driven out of the presidential race. The demand for Hillary Clinton be driven out of the presidential race is now a demand for Sarah Palin to be driven out of the national ticket. The “Democratic” Big Blogs are accusing Palin and her family of faked pregnancies, incest, and being white trash – mere variations of the accusations against Hillary. This time the victim is Sarah Palin. These pitchfork progressives are why we created the category of PINO (progressive in name only).

Big Media is all of a sudden concerned about “experience”. Big Media boosted the unqualified Obama and ignored the issue of experience during the primary. But now, experience is all. The attacks on the latest woman candidate is due to the power of that candidacy:

The “gun-packing, hockey-playing woman,” as the Republican strategist Karl Rove described her, instantly bolstered Mr. McCain’s wobbly conservative base, which rejoiced over the selection of an anti-abortion evangelical Christian.

* * * * *

Sarah Palin’s Big Media strategy is to fight. We agree with her. Big Media is not a conduit of information but rather a self interested political party determined to enforce its will and it must be fought ferociously.

In Hillary Clinton Vs. Big Media we detailed the stakes:

We audaciously hope that Hillary will speak out against Big Media power. We audaciously hope that Hillary will, for once, put aside some of her wonderful graciousness and point out the inciting and exploitation of sexism and woman-hating by Barack Obama himself and the Obama campaign.

Big Media must be confronted. Hillary knows the malignant power of Big Media:

“There’s a reason for the resentment. The level of dismissive and condescending comments, not just about me—what do I care?—but about the people who support me and in particular the women who support me, has been shocking. Shocking to women and to fair-minded men. But what has really been more disappointing to me is how few voices that have a platform have spoken out against it. And that’s really why you seen this enormous grassroots outrage. There is no outlet. It is rare that you have anybody on these shows or in a position of responsibility at major publications who really says, ‘Wait a minute! What are we talking about here? I have a wife! I have a daughter! I want the best for them.’ ”

The Big Media Party must be confronted.

The Big Media Party must be fought and democratic rights restored to the people. The Big Media Party is a menace that must be fought:

Political campaigns used to desire “free media” by speaking to issues and policies. The goal was to run a good campaign, with good policies, and the best candidate thereby garnering “free media” coverage of their campaigns. This is no longer true.

Big Media, as represented by the Tim Russerts and Chris Matthews and many others, is no longer just a referree. Big Media wants to be paid homage. Big Media wants their agenda adopted as policy by the candidates.

A shameless candidate like Barack Obama goes on Meet The Press not to appeal to the voters, but to appeal to Tim Russert.

Hillary Clinton tried to fight Big Media but she was handicapped by a unified Big Media determined to tear her down and because of a campaign that stuck to the old truism that you don’t pick fights with those “who buy ink by the barrel”. But the old truism is not the new truism in the age of Youtube and the internet. Big Media can be fought because there are alternative media which can be marshaled against the Big Media Party.

Sarah Palin too wants to fight Big Media and she actually has a chance to do so and win.

Why did Hillary fail in the fight against the Big Media Party and why can Palin succeed where Hillary failed?



Hillary gently took on Chris Matthews to great effect (“I don’t know what to do with men who are obsessed with me”) and mocked Tim Russert on a televised event that echoed a Saturday Night Live sketch which featured Big Media “personalities” at debates asking Hillary tough questions (and the first question on an issue usually so that Obama could get a clue from her as to how to answer) and asking Obama if he needed more pillows or fluffed pillows.

Hillary failed to win the fight against the Big Media Party because Hillary was under attack from all corners. Hillary was attacked by the PINO Big Blog Boys as well as their masters at Big Media. Ironically, Hillary received the fairest and most balanced coverage from Fox News. But the Fox News fair and balanced treatment of Hillary had ulterior motives in wanting to keep the Democratic fight going.

Fox News is not a Hillary friend, but rather a constant enemy, even though during the primaries it was mostly fair and balanced. Fox News is increasingly up to its old tricks and attacks against Hillary. We have suggested that Republicans and Fox News (particularly Sean Hannity and increasingly Glenn Beck) realize that Hillary is The Republican Secret Weapon but the Hillary hate does not die easily at Fox News and other right wing outlets.

Hillary has close to no Big Media allies. Hillary also, during the primaries had few allies on websites. Other than HillaryIs44 there were no other Hillary support sites. There were a few websites which tried to be fair and eventually became Hillary friendly websites but for too long Big Pink was all alone. We were right and strong but outnumbered by the PINO Big Blog Boys and the Big Media outlets on the internet.

Sarah Palin might succeed in her fight with Big Media. Sarah Palin does have allies in the right wing of the Big Media Party. Sarah Palin still has enemies within the right wing of the Big Media Party but they are mostly useless to stop her. David Frum, who coined the term “Axis of Evil” for George W. Bush, is an example of a Palin right wing enemy:

Clinton plunged back to work in Arkansas, winning re-election in 1990 to an unprecedented fifth term in the governor’s office. He honed his credentials as an effective chief executive, and sat for interviews with the country’s toughest journalists. In January 1992, on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, a cover story on Bill Clinton proclaimed: “The first primary has been about IQ rather than cash — and Clinton is the easy winner.”

The rest, as they say, is history.

Now it’s Palin’s turn. In a recent Gallup poll, 63% of Americans said they would “never” consider voting for her for President. A candidate for president would normally wish to counteract such a negative impression. Palin’s post-campaign actions have reinforced them.

Instead of attending to her job as Alaska governor, she quit halfway through her first term.

Instead of following Charles Krauthammer’s advice to “go home and study and spend a lot of time on issues,” she has cashed in on the paid speaking circuit, always off the record.

She has declined to face questioning from the press. She has been drawn into an unseemly public flame war with the father of her grandchild.

She did no fundraising for the two Republican gubernatorial candidates on the ballot in November. She has had little of substance to say about the huge public decisions of the first Obama year. What she has said has been inflammatory and untrue: especially her accusation that the Obama plan would haul Down’s syndrome children before “death panels” empowered to deny them life-saving medical care.

Now come the book and the book tour. According to an AP report about the book (which hasn’t been released yet), anyone who hoped it would reveal a more thoughtful side to Palin is in for disappointment. The book is a folksy personal story, spiced by score-settling against her campaign colleagues and the media.

Unburdening yourself of grievances can feel good. But given that Palin’s detractors have depicted her as thin-skinned, aggrieved, and vindictive, it hardly seems smart to publish a book that confirms the negative impression.

Frum attempts to depict Palin’s enemies as benign “campaign colleagues and the media.” Palin should not listen to Frum. The “campaign colleagues and the media” Frum wants to protect by advising Palin to ignore want to kill Palin politically. It’s kill or be killed. Palin does not need that type of “colleague” and she certainly does not need to fear Big Media.

Palin took on David Letterman when all advised her against it. Palin substantively won and now Letterman faces a future of divorce proceedings and scandal.

Andy Barr at Politico tries to play campaign advisor to Sarah Palin. Barr prescribes “Five Book Tour Goals”:

Here are five goals that Palin’s tour and media blitz could help her achieve:

Reconnect with her base [snip]

Major cities are not the focus of her tour—in fact, she is flat out ignoring most of the biggest metropolitan markets in the nation. After kicking off Wednesday in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Palin heads to places like Fort Wayne and Noblesville, Indiana, Roanoke, Virginia, and Birmingham, Alabama, communities that resemble the kinds of towns where she electrified crowds as a vice presidential candidate.[snip]

“This is going to help build her machine for whatever she intends to do with it,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, a Palin supporter who serves as the president of Susan B. Anthony list, a group that supports candidates who oppose abortion rights.

Payback

The limited book excerpts that have surfaced so far suggest that Palin feels wronged by the McCain campaign and that she finally intends to go public with her grievances.

One chief target appears to be Nicolle Wallace, a former communications aide to McCain’s campaign who is thought to be behind several extremely unflattering blind quotes disparaging Palin shortly before Election Day.

According to excerpts, Palin also holds Wallace responsible for orchestrating an extremely damaging interview with CBS’s Katie Couric and the McCain campaign and for choosing to isolate the former governor from the press.

Republicans who consider themselves Palin fans are hoping she’ll be careful to avoid engaging in a public war with former staffers and others she perceives to have wronged her.[snip]

Stick it to the media

There’s been one consistent theme in the public remarks Palin has made since the campaign ended—the mainstream media is biased and unfair.

Send a message to the establishment

Palin has never been close to establishment elites and has a rocky relationship even with Republican Party leaders. And there are few signs that she needs their affirmation to remain relevant.

The book tour gives her an opportunity to flaunt that independence, as well as flex her political muscle by attracting huge, friendly crowds that will serve as a reminder of her popularity.

Burnish her image as a serious figure [snip]

The former Alaska governor has taken steps of late to show more sophisticated policy credentials, writing op-eds and detailed criticisms of the House and Senate health care bills on her Facebook page.

Big Media types want to paint a portrait of a crazed woman seeking payback against those who “wronged” her. But what Palin is doing is making sure that the “campaign colleagues” and Big Media are seen for what they are: Palin enemies whose critiques should be dismissed. We wish Hillary would have discussed forthrightly former “campaign colleagues” like Donna Brazile who pretended to be impartial while trashing Hillary and speaking Obama campaign talking points.

With unflattering pictures Big Media will try to destroy Sarah Palin and she is right to fight. It’s not Glenn Close acting as a crazy woman, as Hillary was portrayed, but Palin will be painted as a bimbo sex pot object who is a total air head.

Sarah Palin is right to fight back and call out the garbage which is Big Media.

Hillary Clinton grows stronger.

Big Pink is no longer alone as the single website defending Hillary.

Big Media continues to die, and no Big Media health care plan bailout will save it now that Big Media has lost its credibility.

Hillary Clinton we expect will one day join Big Pink fully, and fight Big Media alongside Sarah Palin.

Share

101 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Versus Sarah Palin

  1. Jarrett and others must be nervous:

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Scott-Linked-to-Several-70184157.html

    Michael Scott’s suicide marks the third suicide among prominent public officials in the last two years — and each of the men were being investigated by authorities or already convicted of wrongdoing.

    Scott, former Balgojevich aide Chris Kelly and former Stroger aide Orlando Jones all died by their own hand.

    Scott, who was found with an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound Monday morning, was a mover and shaker in Chicago politics and a prominent member of the African-American community here.

    Earlier this year, Scott was scrutinized over Olympics-related real estate dealings.

    A key member of Mayor Daley’s Olympic committee, Scott also served as a consultant to a major condominium developer who proposed to build near the Olympic Village site.

    Earlier this summer, Scott moved to sever his ties to another developer after the Tribune revealed his plans to build a retail and housing project near the proposed Olympic cycling venue on the West Side.

    Scott’s business dealings led residents to suspect that Mayor Daley’s friends would profit the most from the proposed 2016 Olympic games, which of course Chicago failed to win.

    Also recently, Scott made news when he was subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury looking into the admissions practices of Chicago’s elite schools.

    Asked at the time whether he was aware of students being unfairly “clouted” into elite schools, Scott said he had no comment, but looked forward to answering any questions.

    If Scott did indeed kill himself, he’s the second prominent public official with ties to development contracts to commit suicide in recent months.

    Former Blagojevich aide Chris Kelly plead guilty in September for participating in an O’Hare kickback scheme. Days later, Kelly overdosed on pain medication.

    Kelly was originally indicted on tax charges related to gambling debts.

    Kelly and Scott were preceded by Orlando Jones.

    Jones, a 52-year-old godson of ex-County Board President John Stroger and former top Stroger aide, shot himself in the head after a business lunch in 2007.

    Jones had been under criminal investigation for real estate dealings in Las Vegas. He was approached by FBI agents two days before his death, but declined to speak with them.

  2. EXCELLENT article on HRC and Palin. I believe Sarah Palin could HELP Hillary with positive coverage on outlets, such as Fox News. By elevating the conversation about two UNDERSTANDING women coming together and finding common ground, she could help to NEGATE Obama in the minds of lost sheep Dimocrats, and give the Marxists cause for GREAT concern.

  3. admin, What a wonderful post, I really enjoyed it. Lets all hope in the coming months that the news media finds some other past time than to be harassing women candidates.

    Your right, Fox is up to their old tricks again, I can’t hardly watch Beck anymore, he really tricked the Pumas in to trusting him.

    Lots of so-called suicides in Chicago lately. What a horrible life these criminals lead, having to constantly worry who is going to stab them in the back. I suspect they are falling on their swords to protect the thug in the WH.

  4. I am at a loss whether I should watch that blank today and see Sarah Palin. I haven’t watched the “One’s” woman since she stabbed Hillary in the back, I’m not sure my television plays her station anymore.

  5. Great article, Admin!

    ——————

    confloyd,

    not even Ms. Palin would make me turn the television on to that misfit.

  6. I look forward to this summit of unusually talented women, who have shared the sticks and stones of US Politics, where the parties give only lip service to supporting women and women’s issues.

    I also wonder what they think about the women in their party, and those in the outside world that have decided to support the party over women.

  7. awesome article.

    would be great to see the two who were defamed my the MSM fight them and win.

    palin is doing it right by using avoiding the media filters and going straight to the people via facebook and the web.

    found this on one of the other sites forget which one: http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7863:owens-in-office-illegally&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175.

    Owens In Office Illegally?
    Northern NY News
    Written by Nathan Barker
    Friday, 13 November 2009 08:54

    Candidate sworn-in even though election was contested.

    “GOUVERNEUR, NY – The New York State Board of Elections was unable to present a “clear decision” to the House of Representatives in the NY-23 Congressional Special Election. John Conklin, Communications Director for the Board of Elections, said that the board could not even have declared an unofficial winner in the race had Doug Hoffman not conceded on Election Night.

    The letter that was sent to the Clerk of the House of Representatives by the Board of Elections and entered into House record on Nov. 6th shows that only 3,026 votes separated the candidates according to the unofficial results submitted. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, as the most senior member of New York’s Congressional Delegation, put forth Bill Owens for swearing-in to the 111th Congress. In doing so, he indicated that “His Certificate of Election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to his election.”

    This statement, however, was not entirely true. Representatives for Bill Owens’ campaign had contested the election results on November 2nd, 2009 and ordered the vote impounded according to officials.

    The move, regardless of Owens’ standing with respect to the results, was a clear indicator to the Board of Elections that the election result was contested. The votes were impounded and the official result delayed until sometime in mid-December when the final counts will be certified”… more at the website.
    —————
    I wonder how much voter fraud was in the NY-23 election? without paper trails its impossible to know these days. I no longer trust any voting mechanisms or results.

    my apologies for the full link. I havent been active post wise since the bozo stole the election.

  8. Much as I love this website, I hope you will pardon my dust for mentioning that No Quarter is a huge Hillary support site. We have been touting her fabulous qualifications for two years. We also called Obama out on the carpet at every conceivable opportunity for his many gaffes, false statements and bad behavior. BitterPoliticz did the same. You are not alone.

  9. The term/word “racist” in the original sense will soon be over blown…..

    Bo just made it possible to hide real racist feelings with their obscure, overuse, misuse of that term and real racist can sit back and take charge without having to do anything underhanded.

  10. That brazillo thinks that the japanese royal bow was an act of “kindness”!!!!!

    Kindness – what ever that is in diplomatic meetings!!

  11. Some good points here about TARPS for bankers but cutting Medicare and SS, but I’d like to see it with less nasty rhetoric and a higher level connecting of the dots.

    h/w
    globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16108

  12. Ani, no offense meant to the good work you do and have done. However, No Quarter and other such sites are sites which comment on many topics. NoQuarter and other sites such as TM (again, no offense meant with such company), supported Hillary, after the New Hampshire primary, but they were not specifically Hillary support sites established for the purpose of and focusing solely on the presidential campaign.

    Indeed, Larry Johnson, who runs NoQuarter and presumably speaks for the website, began to focus on the presidential campaign after Joe Wilson endorsed Hillary (Johnson was hitherto focused on the Valerie Plame case and other intelligence issues which played to his expertise). Larry Johnson is to be commended for lashing Obama in November 2007 with an article published on NoQuarter and DailyKooks (the article was also based on intelligence matters and a Robert Novak column).

    Larry Johnson, who we presume is the editorial voice of NoQuarter, announced he was “all in for Hillary” on January 12, 2008 – after the New Hampshire primary. Here is what Larry Johnson said:

    http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/12/all-in-for-hillary/

    Until the New Hampshire primary I was keeping my powder dry and my options open when it came to supporting a Democrat for the Presidency of the United States. I was open to both Edwards and Clinton, but Tuesday pushed me over the edge. I will support Hillary Clinton for President and am now a financial donor to her campaign.

    During 2007, Big Pink was essentially alone. BitterPoliticz which you also cite is a wonderful addition to the internet but we are not sure when they started publishing. As far as we can tell their first publication date was in 2008, but in either case they do good work and hopefully we are wrong and they were strong Hillary supporters which preexisted us.

    The Obama campaign on the other hand could rely on hundreds, if not thousands of sites attacking Hillary and worshiping Obama even earlier than Big Pink in 2007.

    When Big Pink came on line in April 2007 (we researched heavily and surveyed the landscape) there were some Hillary support sites which mostly imitated her official campaign website and reprinted articles found on her campaign website but they offered little commentary on their own and mostly restricted themselves to praise of Hillary. The also published sporadically.

    But there were no other websites when we started which were established for the purpose of defending Hillary and supporting her candidacy.

    We remember 2007 well because we received many emails, from Hillary supporters, angry with us because we did not restrict ourselves to praising Hillary but also wrote about Obama in unflattering terms. We also remember the Big Media attacks on Big Pink on shows such as Meet the Press who were stunned and suspicious that there were actually Hillary supporters who dared speak up.

    We write this because it is important to understand what exactly happened during the presidential campaign. There was little, and it was usually very timid, support for Hillary in any organized fashion during 2007. We even ran a series at the time called the “Hall of Fame” to praise Hillary supporters on other sites who wrote forcefully and without apology on behalf of Hillary. We wanted to encourage Hillary supporters to start websites and to speak up without fear. Now we are no longer lonely and there are many websites which defend Hillary and expose Obama and we are grateful every day for the company.

  13. admin said:
    BitterPoliticz which you also cite is a wonderful addition to the internet but we are not sure when they started publishing. As far as we can tell their first publication date was in 2008, but in either case they do good work and hopefully we are wrong and they were strong Hillary supporters which preexisted us.

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

    I can tell you about that, I was there.

    Camille and the other people who became Bitterpolitiz were long Hillary supporters who had been at TM. When TM went Obama and threw us out (May/June 2008?), Camille offered an existing blog of hers as a sort of referral place to whatever new major Hillary site someone might create. Sort of a temporary refugee refreshment canteen. 😉

    Instead a bunch of us simply settled down at Camille’s and made it a new major Hillary site, to her surprise. She quickly coined the name Bitterpoliticz.

    I was there (as well as here) as 1950democrat until Camille made the site password only, and I never managed to get registered.

  14. Also a bunch of Hillary people moved out from the official Hillary site and joined up again somewhere — perhaps at Bitterpoliticz and perhaps somewhere else, I don’t remember.

  15. JanH: snicker, snicker.

    Here’s an excellent deja vu for Obama; I’m including just one of the things that make me snort … check the article for more!
    …Mr. Obama is slated to meet Chinese President Hu Jintao on Tuesday, after which the two will make statements to be broadcast live on Chinese television. But that is likely to be the only chance he has to address the Chinese people directly. A town-hall event Monday that was supposed to highlight Mr. Obama’s common touch ended up being a tightly scripted affair.

    online dot wsj.com/article/SB125835068967050099.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

  16. I remember now, many people from the offiical Hillary site gathered at Pumapac. That was summer 2008, I can look up the url registration date of Pumapac if you like.

  17. ani
    November 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
    Much as I love this website, I hope you will pardon my dust for mentioning that No Quarter is a huge Hillary support site. We have been touting her fabulous qualifications for two years. We also called Obama out on the carpet at every conceivable opportunity for his many gaffes, false statements and bad behavior. BitterPoliticz did the same. You are not alone.
    **********************

    I do post @ Bitterpol, as many of you know, but it did come after this site and though pro Hill, it is more social @ times. This was the first and I had a hard time posting here, for like a year.

  18. TurndownObama, BitterPoliticz is a good site and you should be proud of your contributions. Our recollection was that the site started sometime in 2008 but we did not know of the TM connection and that it started midyear 2008.

  19. Don’t read this if you have high blood pressure. Via Women State a hypocrisy filled letter from Donna Brazille (another one who attacked this website and particularly the comments) to Sarah Palin (excerpt, read the whole disgusting letter at Women State):

    http://womenstate.blogspot.com/2009/11/donna-brazile-wrote-letter-to-sarah.html

    Governor, despite our many political differences, I would like to encourage you to use your book tour not just to sell books but to also motivate women to run for office and help set a new tone in American politics. You can make a difference. Although women are the majority of voters, we continue to lag behind and are underrepresented in American politics. In fact, American women rank an embarrassing 71st in the world when it comes to holding elected positions. It’s time we hurry history to encourage more women to enter politics.

    My point, governor, is that this is not just your moment to be heard and to set the record straight, this is our moment as women to inspire and be inspired to step up and get involved in governing our diverse country.

  20. “this is our moment as women to inspire and be inspired to step up and get involved in governing our diverse country.”

    ————————–

    I hope Sara Palin sends a blistering reply to this disgusting liar.

  21. Thanks for video Jan H…..Bill may have pressured Israel, but his love for our homeland is unequivocal, unlike the Muslim currently occupying the whitehouse.

  22. admin
    November 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    ————————————————

    Brazile is a hypocrite of the first order. Enough said.

  23. so happy to see Hillary take the high road…

    the bottom line is the goal of the MSM in politics these days is not to inform, it is to define…the media and blogs during Bill Clinton’s presidency did everything they could to define who he was…to this day, you won’t hear the media citing all the positive things he did…just the scandals…then they went on to Hillary Clinton and started in with the ‘the most polarizing figure’ bla, bla, bla…even if Hillary was Miss Popularity, the media was going to tell us she was polarizing and subliminally we should hate her…and don’t forget to hate that husband of hers…too bad, the people didn’t buy into it…

    …and now they have their target set firmly on Sarah Palin…’she’s stupid, she’s a joke, she isn’t the mother of her kids, she is a quitter, she is an hunter, no she never hunted, she’s not qualified to do anything, bla, bla, bla…’

    …the best thing all of us can do is continue to ignore the MSM and the Big Blogs…who cares what they have to say…in fact, they can say whatever they want, because fewer and fewer people are reading and/or listening…they are losing their power to define and in the meantime look petty, mean spirited, jealous and out of touch…and foolish…because some of the things that they say are not believable…kind of like O’s claim on job creation…and when the nastiness and attempt to define comes from other women, it really makes them look bad…women who once sounded so insightful now sound silly and petty, shout out to Hillary Rosen and Stephanie Miller as an example…right back at ya!…they aren’t even funny anymore…

  24. Admin,

    I still remember the relief of finding your site in Dec 2007 after reading politico’s article:
    politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/The_mystery_of_HillaryIs44.html

    After the October debate media coverage for Hillary went downhill so fast enough to dismay any Hillary supporter. It was the NY driver’s license question for illegal immigrants. We need tell all books from the principals and the insiders on what happened in the primary. Incidentally when asked her opinion about how she and Palin were treated, Hillary answered (in her recent interviews) that she will reserve her response to her book if she ever writes one.

  25. A year has passed since Obama was elected. His poll numbers have fallen from the stratospheric heights they were at then. His approval rating is now below 50%. Pundits and pollsters alike are setting off warning flares. And they have found just the right nostrum: Mr. Obama must adopt a more conservative fiscal policy or else his party will suffer dire consequences in the 2010 election. That is the position of pollster Scott Rasmussen and political advisor Doug Schoen. Newsweek writer Scott Trende makes essentially the same argument when he says the Jacksonians and the suburban voters are deserting Obama because they know they will pay dearly for Obama’s destructive largesse. (Note: Scott also boasts that he and Jay Cost invented the term “Jacksonian” to describe the working class coalition that believes in traditional American values. Unless I am mistaken, that term was coined by the estimable Walter Russell Meade.) To complete the folly, Republicans are reading the tea leaves the exact same way. Suffice it to say, a good strategist could run circles around these tacticians.

    Soros is a strategist of the first order. He knew when he installed Obama that there would come a time when the hopium would wear off and in the morning after the American People would awaken to the inescapable fact that they are being robbed. Furthermore, he knew that when that happened a substantial anti-Obama coalition would form, and if that coalition could hang together then his man would be defeated in 2012. He will soon be 80 and might not live to see his plan for a New World Order come to fruition. Therefore, he needed an answer.
    The answer to his problem was as old as the Roman Empire: If the opposing army is superior in numbers then you create a crisis in its ranks, and then you divide and conquer. Obama does not need a majority to win in 2012. All he needs is to get more votes than the other candidate. And for Soros that is the trump card.

    The Soros strategy is in three (3) parts. The first part is to push for so-called Immigration Reform. This will be done in the name of national security, fighting terrorism, interdicting drug cartels and enhancing cross border economic activity. Those are all legitimate issues. Time will tell whether they are effectively addressed or get lost in the shuffle. At this point it is an imponderable. But the political objective is clear: to game the 2012 election. Amnesty will be the cutting edge issue. More than 12 million people are in this country today illegally, and the prospect of legalizing them while 17.5% of the American labor force is out of work is incendiary. That issue will ignite controversy and the word racist will be redeployed. It will galvanize Hispanic activists, antagonize unemployed Americans, and drive a wedge into the body politic including the anti-Obama coalition. Also, it facilitates the open borders position of Soros.

    Second, Soros can see the fissures within the Republican Party. Perhaps a better word would be schisms. Perhaps an ever better word would be great divide. Today, the Republican Party is a coalition of small government libertarians, religious conservatives and neo-con business interests. They agree on certain issues, disagree on others and if the candidate the party puts forward does not appeal to them they will either vote for a third party candidate as they did with Ross Perot in 1992, or else they will stay home as they did in 2008. We saw that as well in the 23d Congressional District of New York. As a result, the Democratic candidate won in 1992, and the Dimocratic candidate won in 2008. And in each case, those uncompromising Republican voters told themselves that in the moment of truth they stood for principle. A better interpretation would be that they formed a circular firing squad and blasted away—just like Soros wanted.

    Soros knows this and that is why he is starting to fund politicians and groups within the Republican coalition who press positions which divide the Party and/or the electorate. For example, Soros will be inclined to fund a “Republican in Name Only” (RINO) like Florida Governor Christ in his Senate run because he knows that conservatives will not vote for him for ideological reasons and if they show any inclination to do so then can tell them about the Night of the Green Iguana—sans Ava Gardner. Similarly, he is making a large contribution the Catholic Church knowing that they will support candidates who oppose abortion. Meanwhile, his man Obama courts anti-gay spiritual leaders. Again, this is a concerted attempt to pull voters away from the Republican Family Values Coalition and antagonize the Log Cabin Republicans. He knows can proceed with impunity in the Democratic Party. Organizations like NARL, Planned Parenthood, and others endorsed Mr. Obama in the primary and refuse to criticize him when he fails to support their values. It seems like they are taking member contributions under false pretenses.

    Third, Soros is a practitioner of shock doctrine. He knows that whenever there is a crisis the majority of people will rally around the nominal leader, and forget everything else. Hollywood did a movie on this called Wag the Dog. Soros also knows if that leader can seize control of food, energy and the money supply then his power will become absolute. That is why his man Obama tells us that everything is a crisis. It is also why he has moved aggressively to take over the economy. And it may also explain why Mr. Obama has decided to prosecute the mastermind of 9/11 in U.S. District Court as a civilian with the full protection of the U.S. Constitution, rather than a military tribunal as enemy combatant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This serves the interests of both Soros and Obama because it will keep the issue of interrogation techniques in the forefront of the nation and world. It will energize the radical left wing base of the Democratic Party in preparation for 2010 and it will ingratiate Obama to the Muslim world but at the expense of America. If it leads to acquittal as well it could then mainstream media can blame Bush and Obama can profess disappointment. It could also lead to a bonus round for Soros if the Bush officials who authorized the extreme interrogation techniques which prevented a second al Qaeda attack on U.S. Soil are charged with violation of domestic or international law. In that case there could be a follow up trial and a Second Judgment at Nuremberg. Soros has a pathological hatred for Bush and this would delight him to no end. If the Republicans have any heavy hitters left like Ted Olsen then now would be a good time to start rolling them out. This is an extremely provocative move by Soros.

    Someone asked me why Obama seems so ebullient when the problems of our country are so dire. I told him the answer is clear. Obama’s primary concern is to implement the Soros Agenda of creative destruction, and on that front he is succeeding admirably. What he does to the country in the process is of no concern. As in Chicago, he is: a politician who stays bought. He then asked me whether I thought Obama is soft on terrorism. I told him that Obama’s: i) failure to deal with Afghanistan, ii) failure to support the democracy movement in Iran, iii) failure to insist that Iran relinquish its nuclear weapons program, iv) failure protect our borders, v) support for illegal amnesty proposal, vi) refusal to call a jihadist army officer who slaughters 13 Americans a terrorist, vii) failure to prosecute terrorist suspects before military tribunals–all taken together as pattern and viii) support for the prosecution of American whose interrogation techniques reportedly prevented a second 9/11 attack on American soil– might cause some people to conclude that Mr. Obama is soft on terrorism. If you took each of those incidents independently, then you or I could easily imagine reasons why he refused or failed to act. But when you look at the pattern the conclusion that Obama is soft on terrorism becomes obvious.

    Good God! Enough!! Be off with you Irving Berlin!! Try the benign explanation first! Isn’t it true that Soros could fund the Catholic Church for perfectly legitimate reasons such as a detached and disinterested generosity? Isn’t it possible that Soros heard the flute music of the Gospel of Wealth? How can you be so sure his motive is Machiavellian? How can you criticize this wonderful altruistic man? Oh, but that is not the worst of it. No siree! Why you even have the audacity to criticize the Messiah himself! How dare you accuse My Barack Obama of base motives? He has given so much HOPE to everyone in the world—especially unemployed Americans. Just you wait Henry Higgins! By the end of his fourth term everything will be perfect!!! Right now, he is showing the world that he is an open minded president who is willing to accord enemy combatants who murdered 4000 Americans in New York City the presumption of innocence and the full protection of our laws. Why just last week he told us not to jump to conclusions about the murder of 13 Americans by a jihadist army officer at Fort Hood. He did it with humor and panache. He always knows the perfect thing to say–like dumb white cop. The three little things people in small towns cling to. A more tolerant man never lived. A more decent one never existed. (Swoon). He is always thinking of me– I mean us, and never about himself. And he is there when you need him– on bus placards, street cameras, art posters, magazine covers, mugs, key chains, sweat shirts, bloomers, body tattoos and everywhere else you look– grinning like a possum. Oh, blessed are we that Obama came to this Earth in our lifetime. (Tearing up). How can he produce a birth certificate when he is the product of Immaculate Conception? Those birthers never thought about that, now did they? How can you presume to criticize him after all he had done for mankind? (Choke) How can you say mean things about his avuncular Godfather? (Fortissimo) I hate you! You are delusional! (Sobbing convulsively, music rises from the orchestra pit, camera moves in, long close-up, fade to black, print.)

    Thank you for the Selznick production. You ask me why I say these things. I say them because they are true. And people need to know the truth. You ask me how I know they are true. I know because I have studied the record, and if you have paid any attention to what I have said then this should come as no surprise. How do I know that these irreproachable men have an ulterior political motive which is not in the interests of the American People? I know because I know the nature of the beast, the devil’s coup d’ etat, and the brave new world of George Soros. Trust me. You do not need to be clairvoyant. And it does not require inside information. All you need to do is get on their wave length. Then, you can watch them closely and see for yourself what they are doing to our country. Trust your own eyes. Ignore mainstream media. They are not an honest broker. To know more about the grand scheme which is enfolding right now before your eyes, you would need to be inside the Soros organization. I am not, but you may be. If so then you have my profound sympathies. If you are an American or just a decent human being then there will be times when your conscience troubles you deeply, and you wonder if the paycheck is really worth it. But there is more than one lawful way to defend our country and humanity in these trying times.

  26. Nice profile of Hillary in Vogue.

    style.com/vogue/feature/2009_December_Jonathan_Van_Meter_Profile_of_Hillary_Clinton/

  27. Heres something interesting that really shows the fact that Hillary will be President someday. I think they are bullshitting about Palin but CNN changing their tune about Hillary is something else. The simple fact is HILLARY CLINTON IS NOW THE MOST POPULAR DEMOCRATIC PARTY INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN GOVT MEMBER IN THE UNITED STATES.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) – Fewer than three in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin’s qualified to be president, according to a new national poll – the least of any of the five potential candidates included in the survey.

    But another woman tops that list in the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday: two-thirds of the public thinks that Secretary of State HIllary Clinton’s qualified for the Oval Office. That’s more than Vice President Joe Biden, who’s currently next in line for the presidency.

    The CNN survey indicates that 67 percent of people questioned say that Clinton is qualified to serve in the Oval Office, 17 points higher than the 50 percent of Americans who think that Biden’s qualified to take over as president.

    Biden’s low number may be attributable to negative feelings about the Obama/Biden administration rather than views of Biden personally.

    “In the past, poll respondents who dislike an administration have sometimes taken it out on the vice president,” say Holland. Polls from the late 1990s showed that Americans felt Al Gore was qualified to be president, but only if respondents were given the chance to say something negative about Gore that was unrelated to his qualifications, he adds. In the Bush administration, the number who thought Dick Cheney was qualified to be president dropped as the administration grew more unpopular. “Cheney’s experience in office didn’t change during that period – attitudes toward the Bush/Cheney administration did,” he says.

    Hillary Clinton also has the advantage of having been able to stay out of domestic policy debates, including health care, the economic stimulus, and other controversial matters, while adding almost daily to her experience in foreign policy, Holland adds, while Biden has been involved in the domestic policy disputes – “which might explain why some respondents were looking for a reason to say something negative about the veep.”

  28. Norm Coleman is now the absolute the frontrunner for the Governorship of minnesota in 2010, now that would be ironic if it turned out that with all the dirty vote business in 2008 in pushing him out of the senate, they handed him the Gov mansion.

  29. I really like Sarah Palin. She isn’t Hillary, but she seems honest to me in a time when Barry the LIAR & his filth run rampant. I would love to see both Hillary & Sarah become partners on Womens Issues.

  30. I forced myself to watch Sarah and Oprah today and I thought I saw a little irritation in Sarah’s voice when she was forced to say that Obama had to the press that the kids were off limits and what he really meant is that Sarah’s kids were off limits. She cringed a little, but Oprah was persistent and made her say it.
    Sarah did get the needle in back when she said women, Hillary and herself had a extra baggage to carry with the misogny and she also said that the opposition researchers were sent to Alaska after the election by the Obama campaign. Oprah winced on that one. Oprah is a racist beoch!

  31. she also said that the opposition researchers were sent to Alaska after the election by the Obama campaign.
    ——————————————————–

    We knew that was true. It was painfully obvious. Palin isn’t my cup of tea, but she doesn’t deserve the derision of the press that she has been receiving.

  32. Governor Paterson of New York is getting to be an interesting man:

    http://wcbstv.com/politics/911.trial.paterson.2.1316155.html

    Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.

    “This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.

    Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.

    “Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”

  33. That Vogue article on Hillary is pretty delightful (and sad) to read. Sad thinking what could have been. The author looks like a big fan of hers now (if not before — don’t know his history). Why didn’t she get this kind of press coverage before? I saw that Andrea Mitchell in one of the pictures on his slide show. Obviously many of them (from what he says) share similar view of Hillary but they don’t write/talk about it. Bastards!

  34. Good for Paterson, as usual.

    Another factor I haven’t seen anyone mentioning. If Khalid and others are getting a full US civilian style trial, the first move will be their lawyer requesting a change of venue.

    Maybe to Chicago? :-/

  35. pm317
    November 16th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
    ———————————————-

    The article just made me love her all the more. 🙂

  36. Dear Reader: this chapter discusses what the New Rome would like. We can turn to history and political science for partial answers. But those answers are destined to be imperfect, because other factors come into play. Two of them seem are salient to me. One is the fact that in this New Rome a unitary view of the world would emerge. The paradigmatic expression of this comes from Cicero: “there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and one ruler, that is God, over all of us, its promulgator and its enforcer”. The problem with this unitary view of government is that it begets absolute power and thus leads to tyranny as de Montesquieu opined. The other concern is that the relentless march of technology will change human beings in ways that are not entirely predictable. Those of us who did not grow up with the computer look at those who did with a sense of awe and the certain knowledge that they are different from us in ways that have nothing to do with age. Some readers may live to see the New Rome, others will not and 100 years from now fate will know which group was the lucky one. —WB.

    -OBAMA’S GODFATHER-
    CHAPTER 11: THIS NEW ROME
    According to Hobbs, our ancestors found life in the state of nature “nasty, brutish and short”. So they formed Civilization for their mutual aid and comfort. But this entailed a corresponding loss of freedom. When that loss became intolerable they moved on or they revolted. The Exodus is one example of this. The Barons at Runnymede gave us the Magna Carta, Western Europeans gave us the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers of this country gave us the Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect our freedom within certain tolerances. When those rights are violated and a court of competent jurisdiction provides an effective remedy, the fabric of society is maintained. Those rights were bequeathed not only to us, but to all nations who wish to adopt them.

    That is the great edifice which megalomaniacs like Soros aim to tear down. They begin by assuming a unitary view of the world, and arrogate to themselves vast powers to reconstruct it as they see fit. When you have such powers at your disposal the temptation to use them for your own gratification can be irresistible. You become like a maniacal child. The human beings whose lives you are playing with become insignificant, as you become desensitized to their fate. Your perspective is like that of a bombardier flying over enemy territory dropping bombs on people you will never meet this side of the grave. It is no use to have a picture of Rita Hayworth on the bomb. Your quarry will be just as dead when you are through.

    Whether the megalomaniacal Soros, the absurd Chairman Mo or the messianic Obama realize it or not, the New World Order will end in Rome not Athens. It will be a dictatorship as opposed to a democracy. The experience of the last century provides good and sufficient notice of what will occur when a Messianic leader with a cult following takes over the collective mind of a credulous population through mass movement politics, propaganda and scapegoats . . . human nature being what it is. In essence, these fools are dabbling in political black magic and sooner or later the entire proposition comes down to this:

    “The Party seeks power for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We are different from the oligarchies of the past. They pretended and even believed they had seized power unwillingly or for a limited time, and just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seized power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish a dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” (Note: those words were written by George Orwell in the classic book 1984. However, they could just have easily come from the mouth of Rahm Emanuel)

    In this New Rome, the American People would be disenfranchised- again- as they were the 2008 Democratic Primary. And the words of the Poet Juvenal in the 1st Century AD would ring true: “Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the people have abdicated their duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out high civic office, military command, Roman legions-everything, now restrains itself and hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”
    The New World Order would preserve the fiction of the nation state for a period of time, but as the forces of global consolidation accelerated the nation state would be superseded, except for those matters which were local and had no global impact. The argument for global consolidation would be we must now do X in order to save the planet, to rectify global imbalances of one kind or another, and/or to promote global harmony. We would become Citizens of the World and a new set of legal rights and responsibilities would attach. Most likely, our existing rights would diminish and our obligations would increase. International courts would assert jurisdiction over matters now considered to be national in scope. The Constitutional structure we have in the United States would not be the model because it limits government and gives the individual power to challenge its edicts. The UN Charter and the tenets of International Law would not work either because they are predicated on the continuity of the sovereign state which would lapse over the course of time. The Bill of Rights would become a dead letter with respect to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to sovereignty, the right to fully participate in the process. Political power would be vested in what Learned Hand called “a Bevy of Platonic Guardians”.

    The countervailing argument in favor of the unitary view was given to us by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1913. It suggests among other things genetic engineering and population control. Mr. Justice Holmes, Civil War veteran, Captain in the Massachusetts Regiment Union Army, left for dead on the defeated battlefield of Antietam, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, appointed the Supreme Court of the United States by President Theodore Roosevelt is widely regarded as the best legal mind this country has produced, and-dare I say it- better than even. . . Sotomayor. Yes, I know, that is hard to believe. In any event, here is what Holmes told us a hundred years ago:
    “If I am right, it will be a slow process for our people to reach rational views, assuming that we are allowed to work peacefully toward that end. But as I grow older I grow calm. If I feel what are perhaps an old man’s apprehensions, that competition from new races will cut deeper than working men’s disputes and will test whether we can hang together and fight; if I fear that we are running through the world’s resources at a pace we cannot keep, I do not lose my hopes. I do not pin my dreams for the future to either my country or even my race. I think it probable that civilization will last as long as I care to look ahead—perhaps in smaller numbers but perhaps also bred to greatness and splendor by science. I think it not improbable that man, like the grub that prepares a chamber for the winged thing it has never seen but is to be—that man may have cosmic destinies that he does not understand. And so beyond the vision of battling races and an impoverished earth I catch the dreaming glimpse of peace.”

  37. wbboei
    November 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    “As in Chicago, he is: a politician who stays bought.”

    ———————
    Bravo, wbboei! Another great article from you.

    I am seeing whispers here and there of obama and his dims promising to attack the deficit in 2010 and bring it down. You know the one they bankrupted America with in the first place???

  38. birdgal, I may even buy that issue. If fairness and intellectual honesty do not motivate them, money might to write/tell it like it is. But I don’t think there is much hope for the likes of Andrea Mitchell.

  39. one other piece I wrote that may interest you. It talks in one paragraph about the 2008 primary, and expressed a sentiment which most on this blog will identify with. This is addendum to something I posted here a couple weeks back:
    ———————————————————
    Finally, in 2006 Soros inter alia established an organization called the Secretary of State Project. The purpose of that project was to elect Democratic Candidates to Secretary of State position in key battleground states. The Secretary of State is responsible for the interpretation and application of State Election Laws. The Democrats blamed Gore’s loss in 2000 to Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (the recount) and Kerry’s loss in 2004 to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell (the rejection of provisional ballots) both of whom were Republicans and made rulings adverse to the Democratic Candidates.

    The two parties have fundamentally different views of how the process should work. The Republicans believe that registered voters only should vote therefore they are often accused of voter suppression. Conversely, the Democrats believe that everyone should vote therefore they are often accused of voter fraud. But no one ever put a finer point on that distinction than the founder of The Secretary of State Project than Matthew Vadim: “voter fraud is largely a myth . . . and anyone who demands that a voter produce a photo identification before pulling the lever is a racist, democracy hating fascist”

    I can appreciate the sentiment—if not the characterization. This is the battle cry of a warrior who had an election stolen from him based on cheating. I know from my own experience what that feels like. As a matter of fact, it happened to me and my friends in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary. It leaves a sense of bitterness that does not go away—and a determination to fight on until the culprit is finally defeated. But, the bitterness grows worse when you realize that Soros is the master architect and Obama is simply the instrument. A proposition which seemed fanciful in the beginning becomes plausible as you study the record and inevitable as you reflect on it. Finally, the bitterness turns to a stronger sentiment when you realize that future of this country is being stolen right from under our noses. In the fine words of Obama’s spiritual advisor the chickens are coming home to roost. China is accusing this Administration of financial mismanagement, building unsustainable debt, lowering the interest rates to basically zero and creating speculative bubbles that will precipitate a deeper crisis.

    However, Matthew goes too far in his position. In effect, he is saying that ANYONE who shows up at a voting place should be entitled to vote and anyone who asks them to prove that they are eligible to vote is a holocaust denier. The problem with that proposition, apart from the hyperbole, is that the vote is a legal act and its purpose is to determine the electoral choice of a defined group—namely the citizens of that state. Thus, when Obama thugs flood across the Iowa border into Iowa and overwhelm the caucuses and Soros funded Secretaries of State fail to determine their eligibility, you cannot know what the voters of Illinois wanted. And when you add to the voter fraud and intimidation which Obama thugs utilized in the caucus states to “win”, the entire electoral system is undermined. And when that happens get you get a president whose mandate is too fragile to endure in a time of deepening economic crisis. It will unravel.

    The Secretary of State Project succeeded in its defined mission. It targeted seven states in the 2006 mid-election and the Democrats won five of them. It targeted four more in the 2008 presidential election and the Democrats won all four of them. This was partially attributable to the rising anger against Bush, which was valid to a point. But it was also attributable to the malfeasance of the Secretaries of State that Soros funded. Jennifer Bruner of Ohio who replaced Kenneth Blackwell is the paradigmatic example.

    As David Horowitz notes, Bruner tried to invalidate one million absentee ballot applications that the McCain campaign had issued. Obviously, these were intended for Republican voters. The fig leaf justification she presented was an unnecessary box was printed on the form and she reserved the right to reject any signed form where that box was not signed. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected that hyper partisan position. But Bruner’s finest moment came in October when she refused to provide county election boards 200,000 voter registration forms in which the name did not match the driver’s license or social security number. It was not the voter’s fault that the forms were wrong. Yet she wanted to disenfranchise them.

  40. Above: correction flooded over Illinois borders into Iowa . . . impossible to determine what voters of Iowa wanted,

    Sorry.

  41. pm317
    November 16th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
    birdgal, I may even buy that issue. If fairness and intellectual honesty do not motivate them, money might to write/tell it like it is.
    ——————————————————–

    I was thinking the same thing.

  42. Heres something interesting that really shows the fact that Hillary will be President someday.
    ———————————————–
    yes, but if and only if–

    1. we rid the party of Soros

    2. we rid the country of this generation of journalists

    3. if we still have a country

    4. by 2012

  43. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67997-hoffman-unconcedes-in-ny-23

    Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman has “unconceded” in New York’s special House election after reports that the vote margin between him and Rep. Bill Owens (D) has narrowed.

    Hoffman conceded the race on Election Night after learning he trailed Owens by 5,335 votes. But the Syracuse Post-Standard reported last week that the margin had shrunk to 3,026 votes after recanvassing. [snip]

    Officials in the upstate New York district are still counting over 10,000 absentee ballots, which also had Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava’s name on them. Scozzafava dropped out of the race three days before election day citing poor fundraising and polling returns. She then backed Owens.

    Owens was sworn into Congress on Nov. 6, just before Democrats voted on the healthcare reform bill on Saturday. Should Hoffman come away with more votes, a highly unlikely possibility, Owens would have to be removed from office, according to the House Clerk.

    Hoffman would have to take over 65 percent of the absentee ballots in order to eclipse Owens. In the interview, Hoffman admitted his victory would be a “long shot.”

  44. Senators reject unilateral PA moves

    Nov. 16, 2009
    Tovah Lazaroff and gil hoffman ,

    A visiting delegation of US lawmakers on Monday slammed the Palestinian plan to pursue unilateral statehood at the UN as a “waste of time” and said America would likely veto such a proposal should it come before the Security Council. They called on the leaders of the Arab world not to support the measure, and to get behind the United States in its call for both Israelis and Palestinians to return to the bargaining table.

    “I presume the American delegation to the Security Council would veto such a resolution,” Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Connecticut) told reporters in Jerusalem, at a press event organized by the Saban Forum.

    “The proposal is dead on arrival, it is going nowhere,” said Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Delaware).

    Lieberman added, “I call on our allies in the Arab world to stop this now. It is going be a destructive waste of time. Let us do everything we can to get Israel and the Palestinian Authority back to the negotiating table; that is the way to make progress here.”

    He spoke as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas started lobbying abroad this week for recognition of an independent Palestinian state at the United Nations, his adviser Saeb Erekat said.

    Abbas will consult in Cairo with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Tuesday and then travel across Latin America to pitch a bid for UN acceptance of Palestinian statehood, Erekat said at a news conference in Ramallah. He plans to visit Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.

    “The Palestinian leadership calls on the world to support this step,” Erekat said, adding that letters had been sent seeking support from members of the European Union.

    Abbas has turned to the UN after Israel and the US failed to heed his demand that Israel freeze settlement construction as a precondition to restarting the negotiations, which have been stalled since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu took office in March.

    Netanyahu has said that he is prepared to begin talks immediately, without preconditions. It was a statement he repeated at the Saban Forum on Sunday night. He threatened that should the Palestinians unilaterally declare statehood, Israel would know how to respond.
    At the Likud faction meeting on Monday in the Knesset, the prime minister ducked a question by MK Danny Danon on what unilateral moves he might be planning in response to a Palestinian declaration, and instead repeated his objection to it.

    “A unilateral Palestinian declaration establishing a state would have no significance and would be an additional mistake on the part of the Palestinian leadership, who never miss an opportunity to make a mistake,” Netanyahu said. “Israel is not obligated to respond to irrelevant declarations, but it is clear that it breaks all ground rules, and it would open to Israel a whole range of possible responses.”

    A source in the Prime Minister’s Office said that Netanyahu has been deliberately vague in his statements about unilateral countermeasures, because at this point he just wanted the Palestinians to know that he would respond.

    Also on Monday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said “Israel has an interest in making an agreement with the Palestinians” that would end the conflict, and the “occupation” that began in 1967, “so that Israel will not control another people.” He added that, “Israel is strong enough to make tough decisions, even if they are not easy.”

    Sen. Lieberman, who along with other US lawmakers met with Netanyahu on Monday, said the prime minister, “seemed forward-leaning about wanting to get back to the negotiations.”

    Rep. Howard Berman (D-California), who also chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said that the Palestinians’ pursuit of unilateral statehood gives the impression that they have given up.

    Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-South Carolina) said there is a “window of opportunity, if people would step up to the plate and exercise leadership.” He added that a state, so necessary to ensure a better life for the Palestinian people, would not be secured by a unilateral resolution “that would take a desperate situation and make it more chaotic than it already is.”

    As they spoke, Jordan’s King Abdullah affirmed his support for a two-state vision, according to the Monsters and Critics news blog. He told a visiting delegation from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that Israel should choose between peace and continuing to live with a “fortress mentality,” according to a royal court statement.

    “The king underscored the importance of support by all parties, including the US Jewish organizations, for current efforts aimed at accomplishing the two-state solution which represents the cornerstone for peace and guarantees the rights of all parties in the region,” the statement said.

    “Israel should choose between peace that ensures its security and recognition in accordance with the Arab peace initiative, and sticking to the fortress mentality in a region that faces the potential of continuous conflicts,” the monarch was quoted as telling the AIPAC delegation.

    Lieberman also said that Iran has “failed the test” for positive engagement with the West. He called for the US to impose stiffer economic sanctions on Iran at the start of 2010 and to move away from diplomatic overtures. Lieberman is a strong backer of a bill before the US Congress that seeks to block Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum. He said he had supported US President Barack Obama’s attempts to use diplomacy to thwart Iran’s push for nuclear weapons.

    Iran has responded to the US “with a clenched fist” and has continued to enrich uranium, Lieberman said.

    The time had come to move onto “phase 2,” in America’s approach to Iran, Lieberman said.
    Phase 2 is “more pressure on Iran quickly. My own conclusion is that the only thing that Iran’s regime wants more than nuclear weapons is the survival of its regime. I hope through economic sanctions we can bring them to the table,” said Lieberman.

    Graham said that there is a “short time clock” with which to act and that the Obama administration takes the issue very seriously. He added that, “we understand pretty clearly that [Iran] is cheating,” in its reporting of its nuclear capability.

    From the perspective of American security, this is very serious, said Lieberman. “If Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be world-transforming. It will destabilize the Middle East,” he said. “It will start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East because it will end the non-proliferation regime globally. It will be a tremendous boost to Islamic terrorism. So trust me, take this matter very seriously,” said Lieberman.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027304563&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

  45. White House won’t provide witnesses for Fort Hood hearing

    By Ben Pershing

    The first public congressional hearing on the Fort Hood attack will not include testimony from any current federal law enforcement, military or intelligence officials because the Obama administration “declined to provide any” such witnesses, according to a Senate committee source.

    The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has released the witness list for its hearing “The Fort Hood Attack: A Preliminary Assessment,” scheduled for Thursday at 10 a.m. ET. The list includes four experts on terrorism and intelligence issues: retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former U.S. Army vice chief of staff; Brian Jenkins, a senior advisor at the Rand Corp.; Mitchell Silber, the director of analysis for the New York City Police Department’s Intelligence Division; and Juan Zarate, a senior advisor for the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    But the list does not include anyone actively involved in investigating the Fort Hood attack, or anyone who might have been responsible for decisions made by various government agencies before the attack about whether to investigate the shooting suspect, Nidal Hasan. The Senate committee source said HSGAC Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) had hoped to have witnesses from the FBI and the U.S. Army, but was rebuffed in his requests.

    Asked for comment Monday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said: “Tomorrow morning, an inter-agency briefing team will go to the Hill to brief House and Senate leaders and committee chairs and ranking members. This is the latest in a series of engagements with the Hill since the horrific events at Fort Hood, and further evidence of the Administration’s commitment to appropriately inform Congress without interfering in the prosecution of this case.”

    Vietor did not address the specific question of why witnesses would not be provided for Thursday’s hearing.

    President Obama has already ordered a federal review of the circumstances that led up to the Fort Hood attack, and how government agencies handled intelligence related to Hasan. But in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Obama urged caution on Capitol Hill.

    “I know there will also be inquiries by Congress, and there should,” Obama said. “But all of us should resist the temptation to turn this tragic event into the political theater that sometimes dominates the discussion here in Washington. The stakes are far too high.”

    While most lawmakers have said they will wait for the results of the Fort Hood criminal investigation and Obama’s announced review before rendering judgment, some have already been critical of the Obama administration’s handling of both the prelude to the attack and its aftermath. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, has been particularly sharp in his criticism.

    Lieberman, for his part, has said the Fort Hood attack appeared to be the work of a “self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist,” and he and Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the panel’s top Republican, have vowed to cooperate with the administration if it returns the favor.

    “To carry out our investigation, Congress will require the prompt and full cooperation of the Executive Branch — cooperation that must start as soon as possible,” Lieberman and Collins said Saturday. “We totally agree with the President that this inquiry must not turn into ‘political theater’ and it will not.”

    Separately, a closed-door Senate Armed Services Committee briefing on the status of the Fort Hood investigation has been postponed, after initially being scheduled for Monday afternoon. That session was scheduled to feature top officials, including Army Secretary John McHugh and Arrny Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. Committee aides aid the session was postponed only to assure that everyone Senators wanted to hear from could attend, and would likely be rescheduled for later this week.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/11/fort_hood_hearing_wont_include.html

  46. Admin, Hoffman has now also stated today on tv that the vote margin was now under 2000, with approximately 10000 ballot not counted yet.

    Pelosi may get egg on her face yet.

  47. yeah, moononpluto…and all those blathering, pontificating pundits that gave their analysis last week about NY, the parties, palin and what the win meant for the dims…
    *********************************

    Paula…nice piece on Hill in Vogue…thx…

    Hillary’s no nonesense, solve problems and get things down attitude would have been so constructive and productive for our country now as President…no showboating, no running around the country and the world looking for adulation and talking about herself and WASTING VALUABLE TIME…but just hunkering down and coming up with positive solutions for jobs, economy, foreclosures…a direct line to the American people…

    …instead we have ‘the first Pacific President’…and his cabal of thugs…

  48. From BP
    ********************

    New advice: Skip mammograms in 40s, start at 50

    Most women don’t need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It’s a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society’s long-standing position.

    Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn’t be taught to do them.

    For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.

    But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.

    “The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.

    The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/11/16/national/a140032S72.DTL

    ***
    Are they joking with this?? Help us all.

  49. Vogue
    ***********

    Were they not pro fraud during the nomination? Even with Hillary as the center piece, like Oprah, I refuse to give any viewership.

  50. gonzotx
    November 16th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
    ————————————————————-

    It is a wonderful and fascinating article about Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is well worth the read. Great pics. The writer is quite enthralled with her.

  51. turndown, The change of venue would be good to have it be Chicago, after poor things missed the Olympics, and they have so many terrorist sympathizers, it only fitting it goes there.

  52. gonzotx, Sarah got in a few jabs at Oprah and Obama, so I was proud of her. I also could see just how much hatred Oprah has for her and I believe Sarah could see that too. Lets all hope she gets her own talk show, maybe with Lou Dobbs and they can fry those bastards everyday. Clearly Oprah did not want Sarah to bring up Hillary. I think she knows that would be a losing battle, she has lost lots of viewership and prestige by slapping down Hillary as she did. The Clinton’s have been good for black Americans as well as those all over the world. The bitch will never acknowledge that.

  53. What got me is that Oprah wanted to make sure that everyone knew that Obama was trying to get the media to stop bothering Sarah’s kids and yet she asks all kinds of questions about Bristol, the baby and the ex-boyfriend. I thought it was ironic that she agreed the children should be off limits and then continued to ask questions. She is a royal POS.

  54. Even had the audacity to ask about experience when the dumbass in office has less that Sarah does. SHe also asked how she could be vp and have 5 children, even though they don’t ask the men that. Oprah asked the same stupid questions they did in the primary.

    The bitch even defend that idiot Katy Couric. I will always dislike Couric when she asked Hillary why the boys in her school called her refrigerator. She herself is a sexist, the idiot.

  55. Oprah is a racist pig. The racist part comes from insiders in her show. People who know what she says about white people when the cameras are off. A pig because she throws demands a special shopping spree at Herods London which is closed to the public. A pig because she invites a woman to come on her show and then tries to trash her. Why anyone listens to her is beyond my comprehension. Whey they follow her advice on anything is an even bigger mystery.

  56. Jan: this was the writers note to my comment above. It answers his malarky about addressing the deficit.
    —————————————————–
    this chapter looks at Mr. Obama through the lens of history, and shows that he is a business oriented politician—to put it charitably. To put it bluntly, he is a politician who will sell his constituents down the river to suit the interests of Big Business. Thus, it is hardly surprising that he is pushing the Soros Agenda full throttle, and burying our nation in debt. But it is not so ginger peachy when you he traipses around the world telling bureaucrats who want our sovereignty and nations that want our wealth—Yes We Can! We love him-with a love that is more than a love. But there comes a point where we have to look him in the eye and say darlin’ we love you but we can’t afford you. Or, if that is not good enough, we can say Barack we can have you or we can have a middle class—but not both

  57. JanH
    November 16th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    JanH —

    Thanks for your reply. Sorry I was just doing a drive by earlier. I agree with you and plan to do just that. I always appreciate the wonderful posts here.

  58. birdgal — many thanks for your comment! 🙂

    Admin,

    I so appreciate this site and thank you for your detailed response. NQ still carries the flag high for Hill, even though she is not the only topic covered there. As someone who campaigned for Hillary, it was the first time I had gotten so involved. Obviously, I was so inspired by her, I HAD to do this. I know your site was dedicated to Hillary before anywhere else. I had never blogged before and was moved to do so by the events I saw unfolding and then became a regular writer for NQ in June 2008, so by comparison — I’m a jane-come-lately. I never thought I’d be doing any of this.

    I’ve been working on a book on the subject and hope I can keep you all posted as I work to bring this to fruition.

    I certainly took no offense at the comment earlier. Just wanted to chime in and let you know we’re with you and our gal Hill.

  59. admin
    November 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
    TurndownObama, BitterPoliticz is a good site and you should be proud of your contributions. Our recollection was that the site started sometime in 2008 but we did not know of the TM connection and that it started midyear 2008.
    *****************
    FYI, Camille formed BitterPoliticz to create a refuge for those of us who used to blog over at Taylor Marsh. Right after the mugging at the RBC on May 31st, Marsh complained about it, then two days later, turned TM into a pro-Obama site and we all felt chased away so we went over to BitterPoliticz. I think it was formed the first week in June 2008 but might have bene a little sooner.

  60. The Pretender when to China and met with his counterpart. They pledged cooperation. The news release the day before tells you the real story.

  61. yes, wbboei, we owe China over $800 BILLION…guess who is lecturing who…O can keep his nose way up in the air…and read his teleprompter till the cows come home…just more words…talk about the ’emperor’ with no clothes…

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

    on another topic, by chance i tuned into larry king tonight and the topic was…what else? sarah palin…can Katrina Van whatever and Naomi Wolf be any more annoying…there sat Katrina putting down SP – and I thought…you boring snob…you who come from a wealthy connected family are going to preach about SP who came from humble beginnings and is making her way completely on her own while having five children, including a son in Iraq and a mentally challenged child…pleaasse…

    and then Naomi Wolf starts in with her aloof pedantic ramblings while flipping her hair (I thought she was going to get whiplash)…and Stephanie Miller throws in her gratitous nastiness just for good measure…and i ask myself, was i really that blind not to see thru these people in the past…they are insufferable and so removed from the reality of average people’s lives…i never fully understood the ‘elite’ label until i started really zeroing in on these detached theorists…

    …i will say, like her or not, agree with her or not, Sarah Palin is so much more down to earth and genuine than half the PINO liberal women I see and hear out there pontificating…they are not even likeable…that is what scares them…SP is likeable and real…her critics want to take every low blow shot at her and then criticize her for being a whiner because she breaks free and decides to speak for herself…and what i really like about her is that her attitude is almost “this is me, take it or leave it, but this is me” and if people don’t like it…tough…she is doing things her way and she is centered and happy in her own universe…she drives them crazy…

  62. For what it’s worth, it’s CNN, but interesting stats about Hillary…

    November 16, 2009

    CNN Poll: Most Americans say Palin not qualified to serve as president

    November 16th, 2009
    From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

    WASHINGTON (CNN) – Fewer than three in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin’s qualified to be president, according to a new national poll – the least of any of the five potential candidates included in the survey.

    But another woman tops that list in the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday: two-thirds of the public thinks that Secretary of State HIllary Clinton’s qualified for the Oval Office. That’s more than Vice President Joe Biden, who’s currently next in line for the presidency.

    According to the poll, 28 percent of Americans say Palin is qualified to run the White House, with seven in 10 saying the former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee is not qualified.

    The survey indicates that a majority of Republicans, 54 percent, feel Palin is qualified, with 44 percent indicating she isn’t. But only 29 percent of independent voters questioned feel she is qualified to serve as president, with 68 percent disagreeing. According to the poll, nine in 10 Democrats feel Palin is not qualified.

    The poll’s release comes one day before the release of Palin’s book, “Going Rogue: An American Life.”

    “The perception that Palin is not qualified to be president puts her significantly behind two potential rivals for the GOP nomination in 2012 – Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

    According to the survey, nearly half of all Americans think Romney is qualified to be president, with 43 percent feeling the same way about Huckabee. Among Republicans, Palin is still lagging other potential 2012 primary candidates: 63 percent of GOPers think that Romney and Huckabee are qualified, 9 points higher than the number that say the same of Palin.

    “Palin has many strengths – recent CNN polls indicate that Americans believe that she is not a typical politician, that she cares about average Americans, and that she is honest and trustworthy,” says Holland. “But the perception that she is not qualified for the White House is her biggest Achilles heel.”

    An ABC News/Washington Post poll also released Monday indicates that 38 percent of Americans say Palin’s qualified to serve as president, with six in 10 saying she’s not qualified.

    The CNN survey indicates that 67 percent of people questioned say that Clinton is qualified to serve in the Oval Office, 17 points higher than the 50 percent of Americans who think that Biden’s qualified to take over as president.

    Biden’s low number may be attributable to negative feelings about the Obama/Biden administration rather than views of Biden personally.

    “In the past, poll respondents who dislike an administration have sometimes taken it out on the vice president,” say Holland. Polls from the late 1990s showed that Americans felt Al Gore was qualified to be president, but only if respondents were given the chance to say something negative about Gore that was unrelated to his qualifications, he adds. In the Bush administration, the number who thought Dick Cheney was qualified to be president dropped as the administration grew more unpopular. “Cheney’s experience in office didn’t change during that period – attitudes toward the Bush/Cheney administration did,” he says.

    Hillary Clinton also has the advantage of having been able to stay out of domestic policy debates, including health care, the economic stimulus, and other controversial matters, while adding almost daily to her experience in foreign policy, Holland adds, while Biden has been involved in the domestic policy disputes – “which might explain why some respondents were looking for a reason to say something negative about the veep.”

    The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted November 13-15, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey’s sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for the overall sample.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/16/cnn-poll-most-americans-say-palin-not-qualified-to-serve-as-president/

  63. Obama’s three fateful tests

    By the middle of next month, the die will be cast on the economy, health-care reform and Afghanistan. These are the tests that will decide Obama’s presidency.

    THE BULLPEN
    November 16, 2009
    Robert Shrum

    For Barack Obama and the Democrats, three tests in the last month of this year will cast the fate of both president and party. The first — on the economy — is largely decided, although we don’t yet know the outcome. To Obama’s left, critics argue he hasn’t done enough — that is, spent enough — to end the recession and boost job growth. To his right, the Republicans claim the opposite: that deficits are too high and that the nation ought to move swiftly to cut spending. The latter course would likely push the economy back to the brink, but the truth of the competing critiques is largely beside the point.

    To push through major initiatives on climate control and energy, financial regulation, immigration and equal rights, Obama needs a gathering sense of confidence among Americans that the economy is on track. The December unemployment numbers, which will be reported in January, before the State of the Union message, won’t be vigorous enough to achieve that on their own; but they will be a signal of impending job creation or of persistent job losses in the coming months. If the prognosis is bleak, fearful Democrats will desert the Administration next year, and Republicans will dominate the midterm election and go on to block Obama at every turn in the following two years.

    The President will probably propose more stimulus, in the guise of bigger outlays, even as he sounds the trumpet for deficit reduction over time. But it will take time for the effects of more spending to be felt — likely more time than the months remaining before next summer, when voters will settle on the economic verdict they will deliver in November. December will also reveal whether Democrats in power, in both the White House and the Congress, are good for more than cleaning up Republican messes. The test, of course, is health reform. By now, enough Democrats have concluded they will pay a high electoral price if they don’t pass a bill. But they still have to navigate the perils of abortion, the public option, taxing the wealthy and offending interests like the insurance companies that contribute to many of their campaigns. As difficult as this is, the alternative — bleakly envisioned in the Democratic cloakrooms of Capitol Hill — is a “Mini-Me” rerun of the 1994 Gingrich counter-revolution. Democrats would probably keep control of the Congress, but many of their members, including Blue Dogs who slink away on health care, would be swept away at the polls.

    The final stage of the health reform battle will require an all out effort from Obama himself. At stake is more than a landmark achievement and the president’s subsequent capacity to pursue change across the board. At stake is also his capacity to hold the Democratic Party together. The sights and sounds of liberal dissatisfaction abound — in nightly commentaries on MSNBC, in last month’s 200,000-strong gay rights march in Washington, and across hundreds of different blogs. What modulates the protests, and contains the criticism, is not merely the president’s personal appeal, but a shared commitment to finally realizing health care as a right and not just a costly privilege.

    Devotion to that cause has tempered the unease of the Democratic base, giving the White House leeway on decisions ranging from delayed action on global warming to “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the defenestration of White House Counsel Greg Craig, who was smeared for trying to keep the President’s pledge to close Guantanamo. If health reform falls short in December, however, not even White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel will be able to bar the door. Like Congressional Democrats, the President can’t afford to lose this one (which is also another reason the bill is likely to pass).

    By the Ides of December, Obama must answer a third critical test — on Afghanistan. The process has sprung more leaks than a colander; most appear designed to force Obama into escalation while a few warn of an endless, perhaps futile, war, at a cost of $100 billion a year.

    The proponents of escalation in Afghanistan now seem to be selling it as another Vietnam. Hopefully Obama, who is said to be asking tough questions, has disdained the preposterous revisionism that we were winning in Vietnam until a congressional stab in the back transformed victory into defeat. If Gen. McChrystal truly believes that fantasy, what can his recommendations be worth?

    From the Bay of Pigs, John Kennedy learned to be wary of experts and generals. He disdained their reckless and bellicose advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis — and it is tragedy that he didn’t live to reject it in Vietnam, as he told several associates he would after the 1964 election. Kennedy intended to wait until after the election because he understood the potential political backlash — as Obama no doubt understands it now. But if Obama magnifies the U.S. commitment in Afghanistan, he has to be satisfied that this war is winnable, at a reasonable price, within a reasonable time. Then he must persuade a skeptical American public. Otherwise, he must reject his generals request and manage the political risk.

    The decision isn’t easy, in terms of policy or politics. But if Obama plunges ahead and the conflict still has no end in sight, the Republicans will simply shift their partisan attack to “Obama’s war.” Inconceivable as it now seems, the President could also face a challenge for renomination from within a fractured Democratic Party. Worst of all, the cause of change at home could be consumed by the casualties and costs of conflict abroad.

    The cold months have usually been good to Barack Obama — from the freezing day of his announcement in Springfield, Ill., to the snowy caucuses of Iowa and on to the unusually temperate night of his soaring victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park. He prevailed then because he was calm, deliberate, unruffled by the pressure. What he faced then was a test of his politics. What he faces in the fateful month ahead is a test of his Presidency.

    By the Ides of December, the die will be cast.

    http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/102950/Obamas_three_fateful_tests

  64. The cold months have usually been good to Barack Obama — from the freezing day of his announcement in Springfield, Ill., to the snowy caucuses of Iowa and on to the unusually temperate night of his soaring victory speech in Chicago’s Grant Park. He prevailed then because he was calm, deliberate, unruffled by the pressure. What he faced then was a test of his politics. What he faces in the fateful month ahead is a test of his Presidency.
    ———————————
    The cold months are good for him? What kind of nonsense is that? Any month is a good month for him, as long as he can lie cheat and steal–and nobody calls him for that. Any month will do. There is only one problem with this day of reckoning scenario. Big media wont reckon. It will be just like the debates. He loses 24 out of 26 and msnbc cnn and nyt will say he won them all. Meanwhile things will get worse. Big media has got to be eliminated root and branch. The way to do that is a nationwide boycott for one full week. I would target NBC one week CNN the next. There will always be those fools who do not get it and rush to watch them. So it would have to be done at the right time in response to some really egregious act of overreaching.

  65. CNN is good at running polls on other people. They put their thumb on the scale now and then–but only when it counts. And while they are running polls on other people the public is running a poll on them and that poll looks terrible. This guy Klein who asked Dobbs to leave is a 14 carrot prick. Lou was careful because in these situations they have severance agreements which include gag rules in exchange for lucrative severance. Lou decided to leave after he had a discussion with Klein and Klein said he wanted to be more centrist. Read that sentence again word for word and you will see what is really going on. He was asked to leave because they want to worship Obama. Being centrist has nothing to do with it. Expressing views critical of the thief–there is the rub. They are going to do away with opinion journalism and just report the facts? Then fire Campbell Brown. She is an opinionated journalist as well. But then again she is a fool and an Obama supporter so they will keep her. Which gets back to my original point: Klein is a prick, no ifs ands or buts about it.

  66. I don’t think that Palin should have gone on Oprah. I am sure it was a great boost to Oprah’s ratings, but I wouldn’t give her 2 cents. Palin can reach the same audience thru other venues. Needless to say, I did not turn it on. As someone wrote earlier, my TV can find that show.

  67. We have come to the point where it is counterproductive to listen to what big media in this country says about any major event because they are promoting a pro Obama agenda. The only thing we can do is turn elsewhere for the news. If it is something as momentum as a trip by this would be president of ours to China, I turn not to the New York Times but to the Chinese newspapers–something that would have been unthinkable for me a decade ago–but that is how far their credibility as a purveyor of truth has fallen. Is there a bottom below bottom? If so they will find it.

    The succeeding article is larded with the kind of cultural respect the Chinese are famous for, but as Stillwell discovered in his dealings with Madame Chiang there is always the hook. Here there are two of them at least: trade and financial mismanagement by the Obama Administration, and the one before it. In the end, he will dump his problem on the American people and we will pay again and again for his incompetence. There is but one answer if we survive that long: regime change which means throw out the thugs obama included.

  68. admin, have you looked at the Plouffe’s book?

    tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/campaign-tactics-they-could-believe-in-obama-08-pushed-early-state-pledge.php

    tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/plouffe-shocker-edwards-camp-offered-to-endorse-if-obama-would-pick-him-as-vp.php

    I bet they agreed to give him the VP and then got rid of him by leaking the affair to NE. Was she sent to seduce him in the first place? Do things like that still happen?

  69. don’t think that Palin should have gone on Oprah. I am sure it was a great boost to Oprah’s ratings, but I wouldn’t give her 2 cents. Palin can reach the same audience thru other venues. Needless to say, I did not turn it on. As someone wrote earlier, my TV can find that show.
    ——————————-
    I dont understand it either. Whoever said she should do it for the audience was ignorant. An audience that regards Oprah worth listening to is not the right audience for Palins message. Plus you have to deal with that tub of lard sitting next to you.

  70. Well, I broke my own rule and went over to the rag that used to be called the NYT. It is apparent that the bambi trip was light on issues and big on vague rhetoric which, if I am not mistaken, is his stock and trade. Good old bambi–a mile wide and six inches deep he will never change. How many people did he bring with him–how big was the caravan. I have low expectations for Obama really–he is just an instrument. The question that arises is whom will do the heavy lifting that Bambi himself is not predisposed to doing? If it is that jackass Steinberg who worked for Clinton and betrayed Hillary then I wish him all the luck in the world–bad luck. Get that bastard out of there and get Holbrooke or Ross in there–someone we can trust. I know Steinberg is a deputy sos but he is a traitor and that for me is the issue.

  71. wbboei,

    I haven’t watched O’Reilly on Fox for years but made an exception last night as Lou Dobbs was his guest. O’Reilly still likes to talk over his guests but Lou Dobbs got in some great answers. The most significant one in my opinion was when he stated how no one in the network minded when he went after Bush during his presidency for poor decision making…but that now that obama is king, it is a completely different story.

    ———————-

    I didn’t watch oprah, but I agree that Sarah Palin should stay away from losers like her.

  72. Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive…
    ————
    Book: Edwards tried to trade Obama endorsement for VP nod

    By Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
    November 17, 2009

    WASHINGTON — Democrat John Edwards tried to cut a secret deal with both Barack Obama and perhaps Hillary Clinton during last year’s presidential primaries, offering his endorsement in exchange for the vice presidential nomination, according to a new book by Obama’s campaign manager.

    Edwards’ camp made the offer shortly before the South Carolina primary, when Obama and Clinton had split early contests and Edwards apparently believed he had “maximum leverage” to help deliver Southern white votes to whoever would give him the number two spot on the ticket, according to David Plouffe in his book, “The Audacity to Win.”

    Plouffe said that Obama ruled out any deals. Obama went on to win the South Carolina primary anyway, and got Edwards’ endorsement in May 2008. The campaign manager did not mention in his book that the National Enquirer already had reported that Edwards had had an affair with former campaign aide Reille Hunter and that she had given birth to his child. Edwards later admitted the affair, but denied that he’d fathered the baby.

    Whether the Obama campaign knew about the affair, they wanted Edwards support heading into South Carolina. Obama had won the Iowa caucuses, but Clinton had bounced back to win the New Hampshire primary.

    Though Edwards hopes were fading fast to win the nomination himself, he hoped to parlay support in South Carolina into a shot at the vice presidency _ four years after he’d been John Kerry’s 2004 general election running mate.“Publicly his team insisted they could resuscitate his campaign in South Carolina. But privately, it soon became clear they knew otherwise, and some time after the debate, I got a call from a senior Edwards adviser,” Plouffe wrote in his book. “This was the pitch: ‘Listen. It’s clear unless the race is shaken up, Hillary is going to win. You guys might not even win South Carolina. What would shake the race up is John ending his campaign, but not simply to endorse another candidate. All things being equal, John prefers Barack. They should announce they are joining forces and will run as a ticket. Edwards can vouch for Obama with blue-collar and Southern whites and is running on a change message.’”

    The Edwards adviser told Plouffe that Obama and Edwards would be a “perfect fit” and that the pre-nomination announcement of a ticket would knock Clinton off stride, if not out of the race. “It has to be something that big to slow down Hillary. You need a big shakeup in the race and this could be it,” the Edwards adviser told Plouffe, according to Plouffe’s account.

    “I listened intently,” Plouffe said, “and replied that obviously this was something I would need to discuss with my boss. `Am I authorized to raise this offer with him?’ I asked.

    “`Yes,’ came the reply. But then right at the end of the conversation, the Edwards rep added a new wrinkle: `Just to be clear, we’re going to talk to the Clinton people too. That’s not where John’s heart is, but he is at a point of maximum leverage now. We want to see what each of you is thinking.’

    “My initial reaction was that this was a nonstarter. Of course we wanted Edwards’s support and his message was certainly closer in spirit to ours than it was to Hillary’s. But political deals like this rarely work: people see right through them. “Plus I couldn’t imagine Obama agreeing this far out to lock in his running mate without going through any process or even being certain that we would be the ones making a selection.

    “Obama’s answer was quick and firm: he would cut no deals. If he won, he did not want to be locked in to any personnel matters, and he had little interest in deciding on a vice presidential pick in the heat of the primary campaign.
    Obama spoke directly with Edwards, Plouffe said, and reiterated that there would be no promises or deals in exchange for an endorsement, Plouffe said.

    “Clearly there could be a potential role for him down the line. But if he endorsed us now, there could be no hint of something concrete in the future.”

    When Plouffe spoke later with the Edwards adviser, it was “clear” that Edwards had briefed him on the Obama talk. Plouffe said the Edwards camp pressed again that they were still talking to Clinton’s campaign as well. “The contact said that while John’s inclination was to be with Obama, it seemed the Clinton folks were more intent on gaining his support,” Plouffe said. “He did not allude to specifics, but the message was that Hillary might offer specific commitments,” Plouffe said.

    “I strongly doubted that Clinton was offering Edwards anything concrete, and certainly not the VP slot. She knew better than most how important decisions like this were, and I had a hard time believing that even a crucial endorsement on on this level, days before South Carolina, would warrant much more than a thank-you and a promise to talk further down the line.” Plouffe added that he does not know if Edwards personally sanctioned the talk of a backroom deal for the vice presidency.

    Edwards could not be reached for comment.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/washington/story/79016.html

  73. Was she sent to seduce [Edwards] in the first place? Do things like that still happen?

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

    Edwards’ affair began years ago iirc.

  74. Yawn! Here we go again…
    ——————————————————
    November 17, 2009

    Obama to Launch Cross – Country Economic Tour

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama will hold a forum on job creation with U.S. business leaders on December 3 and then embark on a cross-country tour to discuss economic recovery, the White House said on Monday.

    Obama, who is currently traveling in Asia, said last week he would host the forum to devise ways to combat double-digit unemployment — but did not announce a date.

    The conference aims to bring chief executives, small business owners and financial experts to the White House to exchange ideas on putting unemployed Americans back to work. “We have a responsibility to consider all good ideas to encourage and accelerate job creation in this country,” Obama said in a statement. “I am looking forward to hearing from the private sector, from CEOs and small business owners and from Americans struggling to make ends meet on how we can work together to create jobs and get this economy moving again.”

    With unemployment at 10.2 percent in October, a 26-1/2 year high, Obama is under pressure to act. An administration official said last week, however, that the president was not weighing a second stimulus package, on top of a $787 billion emergency government spending bill signed earlier this year.

    The day after the forum, Obama will embark on a “White House to Main Street Tour” in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The tour will be spread out over a few months. Obama wanted to get out of Washington and “take the temperature on what Americans are experiencing during these challenging economic times,” the White House said.

    On Capitol Hill, a leading Democrat said lawmakers were determined to pass measures this year to spur more job growth. “A jobless recovery is simply unacceptable to us,” said Representative John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Richard Trumka, president of the labor union group AFL-CIO.

    Republicans have criticized Obama’s economic programs and view the stimulus package as too expensive.

    The jobs conference and tour will aim to highlight Obama’s intention of responding to Americans’ concerns about unemployment ahead of mid-term elections in 2010. The president hopes to hold on to Democratic majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress.

    The U.S. economy began growing again in the third quarter after the worst recession since the Great Depression, but unemployment has continued to climb.

    The White House has warned that it could go even higher before falling back because many employers delay hiring new workers for several months after economic growth resumes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/11/17/news/news-us-obama-jobs-forum.html

    ————-

    hard to “get out of Washington” when you’re rarely there in the first place.

  75. wbboei
    November 17th, 2009 at 10:39 am
    “An audience that regards Oprah worth listening to is not the right audience for Palins message”

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

    perhaps there was bigger message if palin going on oprah….perhaps that she is tough enough to face her enemies face to face one on one, can work across the isle with any foe and doesn’t let personal feelings get in her way.

  76. I concede, I am no big Sarah Palin fan as her views on abortion simply are an affrront to me. With that said, the unrelenting attacks upon her by MSM are at best piling it on , and at worst, another case of deep rooted misogyny.

  77. jbstonesfan,

    I agree. I also am not a huge fan for the same reason but am angry with the dims and media’s treatment of her.

  78. Hillary Clinton’s Lighter Side

    Vogue’s Jonathan Van Meter Followed the Secretary of State for 12 Days, and Shares His Impressions

    (CBS) It’s been almost a year since President Obama nominated his former rival in the presidential race of 2008, Hillary Clinton, to be Secretary of State. Now that she’s no longer running for office, the rest of the world is getting to see what Clinton is really like. In the December issue of Vogue magazine, contributing editor Jonathan Van Meter tells of his experiences following Clinton for twelve days.

    By Joy Lin

    Were it not for Barack Obama’s persistence, Hillary Clinton would never have been Secretary of State, writes Jonathan Van Meter, contributing editor for Vogue. He interviewed her for the December issue, which hits stands November 24.

    “She said she was completely ‘stunned’ when Barack Obama asked her,” Van Meter told “The Early Show.” “She didn’t want to do the job.”

    After traveling with her on her trip to Africa, Van Meter had lunch with Clinton in her private dining room at the State Department. With two aides at her side, Clinton recalled the span of ten days during which then-elect President Obama courted her for the position. “He kept calling her and calling her and, at the end of the day, he was the one who sold the deal,” said Van Meter.

    Van Meter said he was most surprised by her stamina and demeanor while traveling with Secretary Clinton during her seven-nation tour of Africa. She attracted crowds wherever she went. “She’s a flirt, she teases people,” he recalled. “She’s a charmer. Maybe it has to do with the fact she’s no longer running for office. She can relax. I may be encountering her at the very moment in her life that she’s finally able to be herself and not worry about the scrutiny to win an election.”

    There was an exception, however, to all the fanfare surrounding her visit to the continent. Van Meter was with Clinton at Kinshasa University when she made a remark heard around the world. When a question from the audience was mistranslated to, “What does Mr. Clinton think, through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, about the weighty issue of Chinese trade in Africa?” she took off her earphones and said, “Wait, you want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not Secretary of State. I am.”

    “The audience was uniformly hostile,” recalled Van Meter. “The crowd was filled with suspicion of Westerners and their policies. … She was really surprised, I think, by how hostile the questions were.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/17/earlyshow/main5681130.shtml

    ——————-

    Miliband’s so vibrant – Clinton

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has lavished praise on her UK counterpart David Miliband in an interview with Vogue magazine. Mrs Clinton described the 44-year-old foreign secretary as “vibrant, vital, attractive, smart”.

    The two politicians have met several times since Mrs Clinton took up her role January.

    The article also quotes Mr Miliband as returning the compliment, saying Mrs Clinton was “delightful to deal with”.

    In a lengthy piece in Vogue the interviewer jokes at one stage about having a crush on Mr Miliband after talking to him on the phone because of his British accent.

    “Well, if you saw him it would be a big crush. I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s really a good guy. And he’s so young,” Mrs Clinton replied.

    Mrs Clinton’s first visit to the UK in her new role, in February, saw much being made in the British press of the fact she has referred to the “special relationship” between Britain and the US.

    Speaking to Sky News at the time Mr Miliband said she “couldn’t have been warmer” and praised Mrs Clinton’s “remarkable record”.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8364750.stm

  79. djia
    November 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
    wbboei
    November 17th, 2009 at 10:39 am
    “An audience that regards Oprah worth listening to is not the right audience for Palins message”

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

    perhaps there was bigger message if palin going on oprah….perhaps that she is tough enough to face her enemies face to face one on one, can work across the isle with any foe and doesn’t let personal feelings get in her way.
    *************************************

    djia…agree with your POV…she is doing it her ‘own’ way…and smiling and upbeat while she is at it…they want to hurt her so bad and bring her down…but she marches on with a very full life and leaves them in her dust…very Hillaryesque!

    I hope that she will shut them down and start talking about relevant topics and show she has not only beauty…but brains…it is up to her…

  80. AMEN:

    ——————————————————————

    Finally, someone said it, plan & simple.

    Australian Prime Minister does it again!!

    This man should be appointed King of the World. Truer words have never been spoken.
    This should be a world wide rule. If you want to move to any country and become part of that country…WELCOME, But if want to change anything in that new country you wish to live in …..GOODBYE

    It took a lot of courage for this man to speak what he had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least he was willing to take a stand on his and Austrilia’s beliefs. Yes, allow those that want to come, to come. But understand that if you want to go to a country not of your birth, you should expect to live by their rules and respect their ways of life. This doesn’t mean you have to give up yours. I think he explains it very well.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Whole world Needs A Leader Like This!

    Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – Australia

    Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..

    Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote:

    ‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. ‘

    ‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’

    ‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’

    ‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

    ‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

    ‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’

    ‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’

  81. I would like to know when this anti-militry POTUS is going to make a tough decision on the troops..much like his Chicago legilature dats, seems like he can’t make a decision and simply wants to again vote “present”. What the big liars in MSM portray as careful thought and analysis, is a cover up for his utter incompetence. He has a team that he is heavily relying on and still can’t make up his mind. Same as to when he is going to put sanctions in action against Iran…The only thing he is good at is humiliating our allies like Israel, UK, France, Germany, Poland and a few other….he has no problems making decisons supporting dictators and or Arab/Muslim terrorosts whom he asks us to “not rush to conclusions ” about(unlike his conclusion that the Boston cop probably acted “stupidly”)..anyway, he’s a shout out to you homey…

Comments are closed.