Tinkerbell In Trouble

Guzzle the Hopium! Fire up the Hope! Jingle the Change! Tinkerbell Obama is in Trouble!

Do you believe? If you believe, applaud! Keep applauding, Tinkerbell Obama is in Trouble!

If you really, really believe, applaud! Louder! Tinkerbell Obama is in Trouble!

Do you believe? Oh, Please, please believe! If you believe, wherever you are clap your hands! Clap! Clap! Don’t let Tink die!

* * * * *

There are more of us than there are of them. Today, Gallup joins other polls with empirical evidence that Tinkerbell Obama’s light is fading. .

The latest Gallup Daily tracking results show 49% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, putting him below the majority approval level for the first time in his presidency.

Although the current decline below 50% has symbolic significance, most of the recent decline in support for Obama occurred in July and August. He began July at 60% approval. The ongoing, contentious debate over national healthcare reform has likely served as a drag on his public support, as have continuing economic problems. Americans are also concerned about the Obama administration’s reliance on government spending to solve the nation’s problems and the growing federal budget deficit. Since September, Obama’s approval rating had been holding in the low 50s and, although it has reached 50% numerous times, it had never dropped below 50% until now.

Unlike the heroic and deserving Tink of Barrie, Obama’s light is flickering, fading, and not to return.

Gallup suggests that most presidents dip below 50% but then recover and sometimes get reelected. However, Obama’s looting economic policies, foreign policy dithering and applause seeking, and domestic scams and flim-flams are sure to continue a downward trend no matter what momentary bobs up and down occur. The downward trajectory is clear.

So clear is the downward trajectory that even Obama’s Big Media masters continue to turn on him. Indeed the current rebukes of Obama by Big Media are ones that strike at the very idea of Obama. The current Big Media assessment of Obama is deadly because, like Big Pink has written since our first publication date, the problem with Obama is his character, history, and friends.

Obama’s professed policies scams are bad enough but the problem with Obama is his character, history, and friends.

Renown longtime Washington, D.C. fixture and regurgitator of conventional wisdom Elizabeth Drew delivers the bad news to the D.C. Big Media clan. Elizabeth Drew is agitated about the Greg Craig backstabbing by Obama.

Yes, Elizabeth Drew is making excuses (“we didn’t know” cried the Germans as the ovens darkened the skies) for Big Media not investigating Obama and selling Obama to Americans. Yes, Sarah Palin’s book gets 11 Associated Press “fact checkers”. Yes, Obama’s books get no fact checking and when mis-truths and fictions galore arise Big Media prepares excuses.

But let no one doubt, Elizabeth Drew is attacking Obama’s character, history, and friends in an unprecedented manner. Drew draws the Obama portrait:

President Barack Obama is returning from his trek to Asia Thursday to a capital that is a considerably more dangerous place for him than when he departed.

While he was abroad, there was a palpable sense at home of something gone wrong. A critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man. Most significant, these doubters now find themselves with a new reluctance to defend Obama at a phase of his presidency when he needs defenders more urgently than ever.

This is the price Obama has paid with his complicity and most likely his active participation, in the shabbiest episode of his presidency: The firing by leaks of White House counsel Gregory Craig, a well-respected Washington veteran and influential early supporter of Obama.

Elizabeth Drew does not forget, nor does any serious observer, that there are a lot of Hillary supporters “bitter” and “clingy” and not forgetting the misogyny and sexism of Barack Obama. Drew does not blame us Hillary supporters for Greg Craig’s demise. Drew instead does the innocent “we didn’t know” routine to explain the traitor Craig’s demise:

The people who are most aghast by the handling of the Craig departure can’t be dismissed by the White House as Republican partisans, or still-embittered Hillary Clinton supporters. They are not naïve activists who don’t understand that the exercise of power can be a rough business and that trade-offs and personal disappointments are inevitable. Instead, they are people, either in politics or close observers, who once held an unromantically high opinion of Obama. They were important to his rise, and are likely more important to the success or failure of his presidency than Obama or his distressingly insular and small-minded West Wing team appreciate.

This Drew critique is an entirely different timbre and quality of attack. Now, Obama and his team are “insular” and “small-minded”. Too bad Americans never heard that analysis from Big Media when it mattered. We called Obama and his “team” what they really are, “thugs” in a Chicago Circus of Corruption long ago, so it is not a new set of facts that we see Big Media Drew finally acknowledge. Something deeper is going on. Drew also describes Obama’s character and lack of integrity:

The Craig embarrassment gives these people a new reason – not the first or only reason – to conclude that he wasn’t the person of integrity and even classiness they had thought, and, more fundamentally, that his ability to move people and actually lead a fractured and troubled country (the reason many preferred him over Hillary Clinton) is not what had been promised in the campaign.

Elizabeth Drew belatedly signals to her cohort clowns in Big Media that Obama lacks integrity and class, and is basically a creep. Isn’t that what we have been saying all along? Yup! Youbetcha!

Elizabeth Drew correctly details the treachery and foolishness committed by Greg Craig. Greg Craig lent credibility to Obama and his Chicago thugs and also hurt Hillary’s credibility. Greg Craig can go to hell as far as we are concerned. In fact, hell is the White House these days and Craig got deservedly burned. Rot in your personal hell, Judas Craig

Craig, who had known the Clintons since they were all at Yale Law School together, had served as a senior adviser to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but in 1998 gave up that job to help defend Bill Clinton against impeachment. Yet in 2008, he supported Obama for the nomination – not so much a turning against Hillary Clinton as being impressed early, as were some other prominent Washingtonians, by the then-state senator but would-be U.S. Senate candidate at a fundraiser held by Vernon Jordan, seeing Obama as the first potentially inspiring Democratic figure since Robert Kennedy. In the course of the campaign, Craig wrote a highly publicized memo questioning some of Hillary Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience, such as coming under enemy fire in Tuzla, Bosnia. During the campaign, Craig coached Obama for the debates (playing McCain), and praised him highly. Craig’s imprimatur helped the neophyte Obama in certain influential circles.

Go to Hell Greg Craig and take Rezko Obama with you. (“someone is nervous about what is going on” says another “influential to the American Spectator..

It’s clear from the Elizabeth Drew article that the source of the article is Greg Craig himself. Craig is the one who is now acknowledging that Obama is a creep. It is Craig who tries to excuse his betrayal of Bill and Hillary Clinton with an “I was fooled” defense. It is Craig who provides hitherto unknown details of his firing and the events that have led to disaster in the Obama out house. Craig provides detail after detail to defend himself. Drew and other “influentials” will weep at the sad song Craig sings. “Go to Hell Greg Craig” is what we say.

Drew and Craig defend Craig by calling into question, in an unprecedented degree by Big Media, Obama’s Chicago Circus of Corruption:

But along the way, Craig fell out of favor with the president’s political aides and, apparently, the president himself. Whether he was simply being made the fall guy, or the tight circle of Chicagoans in the White House didn’t care for this outsider, or he committed some unknown errors, suddenly, in August, leaks began to surface that his job was in danger. Non-denial denials were issued from the White House. The leaks became a pattern, a systematic, anonymous, tipping off of reporters that Craig would soon be gone. [snip]

But the leaks continued, and Craig decided that his situation was untenable, and he had to leave.

To make sure he did, he was leaked his way out, up to the day before he planned to resign. [snip] Even some Hillary Clinton supporters, who still hold no brief for Craig, think he was treated shabbily.

Not us. Go to Hell Greg Craig.

“There’s a lot of concern among a lot of lawyers in this town, especially those who were supporting Obama, that somebody this bright, this respected, this good, and with this integrity, was treated in such a way.”

Yes, we knew, or should have, during the campaign that the supposed idealist Obama had a bit of the Chicago cut-throat in him, but there was little sign that he could be as brutal and heedless of loyalty as he was in the Craig affair. An unexpected climate of fear emanates from the Obama White House.

Go to Hell Greg Craig. You were the one who vouched for Obama. Now you, via mouthpiece Elizabeth Drew, call Obama a “cut-throat” who is “brutal” and “heedless”. Go to Hell Greg Craig.

Drew draws out the Chicago Thugs, now that it is too late:

The incident underscored worries that several had held about the Obama White House for some time: that it was too tightly controlled and narrowly focused by the Chicago crowd; that it seemed from the outset to need an older, wiser head, someone with a bit more detachment.

The current crowd displays a certain impulsiveness and vindictiveness that do it no good – as in the silly war-let on Fox News that it is now trying to back out of. Even if Craig was making a hash of his job – and there’s no independent evidence of this – it just wasn’t smart to treat someone widely held in such high respect in this manner; once again, the impulsiveness backfired. [snip]

The Obamas themselves hang tight with a small Chicago crowd. Yes, he talks to others, and yes, a president’s time is very limited, but the Obama’s themselves seem as closed-off and unto themselves as does his inner White House circle. (Is this a coincidence? What is all this wariness about?) When the Obama’s go to someone’s house for dinner, almost invariably it’s to that of Valerie Jarrett, the old friend from Chicago who serves as a counselor and whom they see all day. Old Chicago friends fly in for weekends frequently. Old friends, who had helped launch him, helped them personally, have been left behind.

Don’t miss that parenthetical comment by Drew. “What is all this wariness about? writes Drew. What Drew is signaling is that something very wrong, something very Chicago, something very Rezko, something very slippery is underfoot.

One of the biggest mistakes ever in the annals of treachery is when Tom Cruise dumped his agent, the woman who created Tom Cruise (Pat Kingsley). Soon thereafter a lot of stories and hidden truths began to emerge about Tommy boy. Tom Cruise never recovered. Greg Craig knows where some of the Obama bodies are buried and Craig along with a lot of those other Obama “Old friends, who had helped lauch him, helped them personally” have stories to tell and have begun to tell them.

Drew is obviously seeking to resurrect her “journalism” career by committing journalism. Drew is talking to some “influentials”:

At the same time as the Craig imbroglio happened, many people who had defended Obama against charges that he wasn’t what he’d been cracked up to be were now becoming concerned themselves: though it was a relief to have a president who thought through crucial decisions about sending the country’s young to war, it was taking him awfully long to make up his mind about what to do about Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the decision-making was bafflingly leak-ridden (was this a deliberate airing of ideas or a loss of control over the process?); that the health care debate had in fact careened out of his control and it seemed less and less likely that, having used up almost a year of his presidency on it (his “deadlines” had become irrelevant, and so, in a way, had he), he would end up with a bill, if at all, that did enough net good. [snip]

He’s been lucky before; maybe he’ll get lucky again. Meanwhile, serious people who had a lot of hope about him and who defended him are more worried than ever, and in this if anything over-communicative society the White House can’t write them off as “a bunch of Washington insiders.” So meanwhile, there’s a palpable mood change in Washington that could signify that Barack Obama is in deeper trouble than he was even a week ago.

Tinkerbell is in trouble. The Hopium dispensers are getting fired and the Hopium is running out. Obama must be run out of Washington and a 2012 candidate for the Hillary Clinton coalition must be nominated.

Tinkerbell Obama’s light is out.