Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart)

The increasingly wounded animal which is Barack Obama and his Dimocrats are waging a secret war on Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is more popular that Barack Obama and his sleeve yanking wife. Dimocrats are terrified of what the voters will do in November 2010.

The fear of Hillary Clinton is growing. Hillary Clinton is increasingly viewed as a threat because she can be the 44th person to take the oath of office (Grover Cleveland had two non-consecutive terms, so Hillary can be the 44th person to take the oath of office and be 44 still). The secret war has begun.

* * * * *

On Tuesday, January 5, 2010, Sean Hannity on his television show interviewed Andrew Breitbart. Andrew Breitbart has an interesting history and series of powerful current projects. Breitbart helped courtesan Arriana Huffington start her Hillary-hating-Republican-posing-as-Democrat website. Breitbart, has little to do now with Huffington.

Breitbart was a major force in distributing (via Big Government) the ACORN videos which have flattened that organization. Breitbart also has started several website organizations such as Big Government, Big Hollywood, and the most recent, Big Journalism (we think he should join with us and rename that site with our scornful epithet – “Big Media”).

On Tuesday, Sean Hannity was still up to his Hillary Hating ways. But Andrew Breitbart came to the sensible rescue. We warned Hannity on May 7, 2009 to stop the attacks on Hillary. But Hannity persists in his stupidity. Here’s what we wrote back then in an article called The Republican Secret Weapon – Hillary Clinton:

Republicans and Conservatives should take a clue from Ms Tantaros – utilize the history of the 2008 primaries and what was done to Hillary Clinton to expose the intolerant bullies who pose as progressives.

Sean Hannity in particular constantly attacks Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in ugly, gratuitous ways. Hannity is living in the 1990s. Even the biggest Bill and Hillary haters, such as Richard Mellon Scaife, now recognize they were fools drunk with destructive Clinton hate. Hannity would make a stronger case against Barack Obama if he would invoke the nastiness of the Obama campaign against Hillary and stop the nastiness against Hillary himself.

Some Republicans will fan the flames of Hillary hatred. These are Republicans who are afraid of Sarah Palin and do not want to do anything that might help women, such as attack sexism and misogyny.

But Hannity has rejected our advice. On Tuesday he was attempting to smear Hillary, again. Like David Letterman with his decades stale Bill Clinton intern jokes, which masked his own interns situation, Sean Hannity cannot let go of his Hillary hate. Hannity tried again on Tuesday night.

But Andrew Breitbart is no fool. Andrew Breitbart had some sensible analysis that night.

Sean Hannity began with a tedious recitation of a Washington Post story published that very day. The Washington Post story was a hit piece against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hannity saw the article as another opportunity to bash and beat the Clintons. Andrew Breitbart was not a fool however. Breitbart saw the hit for what it was.

Here is a rush transcript from the Hannity show with most of the rubbish about Riady removed so we can get to the Breitbart analysis. Here is the obtuse Hannity parroting the Washington Post hit job:

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: Now, there is a story in today’s Washington Post that former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sure hope that you missed. Now, it is a story that shows that it pays to have friends in high places. [snip]

But as The Washington Post reports today, Riady visited the United States twice during 2009 after receiving a special waiver from the State Department, a State Department that is now run by Hillary Clinton.

A State Department spokesman denies that Secretary Clinton had any knowledge of Riady’s return. Maybe the documents were filed along with the Rose law firm records.

HANNITY: And joining me now from Los Angeles with more on the story is the founder of BigGovernment.com, the one and only Andrew Breitbart.

Happy New Year, sir.

ANDREW BREITBART, BIGGOVERNMENT.COM: Happy New Year to you, too.

Hannity acted the boob. Andrew Brietbart did not play the monkey for Hannity however. Breitbart deflated Hannity and his Hillary hate balloon immediately:

HANNITY: All right, Breitbart, Hillary knew nothing. A conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, you get back in, no problem.

BREITBART: Well, I find it strange that this is coming out after the — what happened with the plane bomber over Christmas. I think what you have here is a case of finger-pointing within the administration. And perhaps some — some turmoil going on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is a huge piece. It’s written very negatively against Hillary Clinton, and there’s innuendo and implications in there that somehow she knew something when it looks like it was the Department of Homeland security that issued this waiver.

Hannity tried, but Brietbart refused to play. Instead of listening to Breitbart’s interesting, and to us accurate analysis, Hannity continued to play the scripted fool.

Hannity did not display much sense. Andrew Breitbart, knew he was on Fox News and expected by Sean Hannity to bash and beat and berate and belittle Hillary Clinton, but Breitbart refused to play the fool and delude the audience.

Sean Hannity tried again, but Andrew Breitbart instead – said smart things about Hillary Clinton and about Barack Obama:

HANNITY: Well, I think something is wrong with the system. But here’s — here’s the big question, and it’s a tough one.

Do we have a president that just doesn’t have a clue about where we are? That we have an enemy that’s out to destroy us? Do we have an administration that’s clueless? Do we have an administration that is endangering the American people?

BREITBART: Well, I think the answer is yes to that, but I think that in terms of pure symbolism, this was a guy who was supposed to come in take over where the supposedly inept George Bush, you know, left off.

This is a guy who treated a surf board accident with his kid more seriously than he treated the underwear bomber. He went out to play golf once he found out about, you know, what had occurred. But when he found out that a friend’s kid’s chin got a cut on it, he quit his golf outing.

HANNITY: Well, all right, so the question is, you know, who is responsible? And, you know, Gibbs wouldn’t say earlier today whether or not people should be fired over this.

In your opinion, because I think Napolitano should go. I don’t think she has any experience. Leon Panetta doesn’t have any experience. You know, I mean, the whole list of people that are not qualified for the positions they have is staggering.

So should anybody be fired? Will anybody be fired? Or are they just tone deaf to the fact that we have a War on Terror?

BREITBART: That’s the answer, is that they all come from that basic orientation. I think that, quite frankly, Hillary Clinton, if she were in charge, would actually be a hell of a lot tougher than Barack Obama is. And perhaps that’s what this entire article in The Washington Post is about, is that she’s been standing off to the side and allowing for these people to hang themselves with their inept behavior.

Andrew Breitbart is right when he says “THAT’S WHAT THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE IN THE WASHINGTON POST IS ABOUT”. Someone, from Chicago, put a hit job out on Hillary Clinton and the Washington Post willingly published. It’s a secret war we are witnessing, not in Afghanistan or Iraq or Pakistan – but in Washington, D.C. as Obama thugs try to take down the qualified and experienced on Day 1 Hillary Clinton.



Sean Hannity, blinded by his Hillary hate missed a big story stinking up right under his nose. Andrew Breitbart provided an important story but Hannity is so prejudiced and blinded he can’t smell or see a big story when it bites him.

Sean Hannity ignored a big story in order to parrot an obvious hit piece authored at the White House and published in the Washington Post.

There is a secret war of attacks by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton but Hannity is too busy hating to see it. The more Obama attacks, the more coy Hillary Clinton becomes. Her laughter can be heard throughout Washington.

On healthcare, Bill and Hillary say as little as possible and issue bland emails. Barack Obama would like a massive publicity tour of support but Bill and Hillary only say the obvious – a defeat on healthcare will bring the White House columns down on Obama’s already scarred head.

When disaster strikes, Hillary dances away to work her magic. She keeps her distance while doing her job and saving the world from the Obama boobery. When Obama has a publicity stunt to unveil, Hillary dances to work in Europe or Asia or anywhere but near the ground zero which is the big zero at 1600 Pennsylvania. Obama and other Hillary haters are beginning to take notice:

Nile Gardiner at the Daily Telegraph writes: “The White House should send a search party to track down Hillary Clinton. America’s foreign policy chief has been missing from the world stage for several days, and has become as elusive as the Scarlet Pimpernel at the height of the French Revolution.” [snip]

Maybe she is hiding at home, assuming, correctly, that anyone who shows up on camera (e.g., Janet Napolitano, the president) gets savaged. Maybe she is the fall-gal when we get the “how we messed up” report. (Prediction: It won’t say that treating terrorists like criminal defendants or releasing terrorists to Yemen is a problem.) Or perhaps she is studying up on the 2010 senate and gubernatorial races. There must be a race in some state she could run in and win, right? After all, she is the most admired woman in America (well, she’s in a statistical tie with Sarah Palin). She might not stay that way if she hangs out with the Obami much longer.

Even through the hate, they can see Hillary is immune from the catastrophe which are “the Obami”.

Even long time Hillary hater Michael Godwin at the New York Post understands the significance of recent events as they relate to the Obama war on Hillary. Yes, Hillary was right:

Someday, somebody not from Hollywood will make a movie about President Obama’s disastrous vacation. About how his aides waited for nearly three hours after the Christmas airliner attack to wake him. About how he waited three more days to appear publicly. About how even then, he didn’t grasp the seriousness of the situation, racing through a bloodless speech so he could play golf.

Until that film is made, reality is frightening enough. Even the true believers in the White House now realize they blew the response to a potentially catastrophic attack by an al Qaeda-trained terrorist.

When the alarm first went off — the 3 a.m. phone call — they hit the snooze button, putting the president’s personal comfort ahead of the country‘s.



Yes, we were right. Yes, Hillary Clinton was right. Obama is not ready on Day 1 or even one year later. That 3:00 a.m. call came and the country needed Hillary, not the sleepy, stinky, unqualified, inexperienced, boob to pick up. Obama knows:

If America gets hit again, it’s on him. All of it.

So Obama will try to drag Hillary down with him. Obama will try to shift the blame to Hillary. Obama will not take responsibility – he never has. We expect Hillary to leave the Obami after the disastrous November elections – a time frame which will allow her to avoid getting embroiled in the Dimocratic mess campaigns.

We were right. Hillary was right, and that is why Obama will now wage a not so secret war – against Hillary Clinton, and coddle America’s enemies.

Share

170 thoughts on “Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart)

  1. Andrew Breitbart greatly helped to circulate this video, which is a compilation of lies Obama began to tell in the primary race against Hillary:



  2. Nile Gardiner should go after the “Obami” for muzzling Hillary on Iran — making friends with Iran was never Hillary’s idea and it would not have been her policy were she in charge. Looks like they are again hiding her away in the attic.

  3. admin: Good article, lots of thought provoking. Wow! I’m impressed by what Breitbart says, not all republicans are neanderthols after all. Some can see the forest and the trees. I hope so, because I don’t want to another open season on Hillary.

    Obama is one sneaky SOB. You should see the pic of Obama, Rahm, Biden and Hillary walking in to what looking like some sort of a state building. It tells the whole story. This pic can be seen at the DNC website under blogs.

  4. Carol
    January 6th, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    If you want Hillary to have any chance in 2010 then we need to see Dems in Hillary’s camp get elected.

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

    Yes. Who are they?

  5. Wow admin; you are really rolling out the hard-hitting posts. Thanks.
    I’d been a life-long Democrat, and as I soon enough approach the age of 70, I was party-faithful for a very long time. However, I opted out after the Denver coronation. Sure enough, though I will return to vote against Bob Casey who has just sent me a Season’s Greeting card paid for by the ‘Bob Casey for Senate Committee.”
    I’ve consistently found good information at several conservative sites and have frequented them for quite some time. However, I do not hang around when they are writing about Bill or Hillary.
    Right now, those of us who see the dark side of this administration need to band together. (Obama is a uniter after all.) And in that vein I offer the following, a comment associated with Newt Gingrich on GatewayPundit:

    Obama’s staff just approved 1100 “diversity” visas for YEMEN immigrants to come into the US! great. It just gets better & better. These people are all on crack. We have brought America to her knees with these demo–nuts.
    Instead of focusing are the economy, security all the killings across the US, they foscus on friggin healthcare which will tax, tax, tax and kill more jobs! And he brings more to ISLAMIC TERRORISTS to America-attends CAIR meetings, and brags how wonderful the ISLAMIC contributions have been??? geez and apoligizes for America and bows to an Arab King (oops forgot AL Monsour paid for his coolege degree).CLOSED door meetings, no repu, no American people—lies, lies, lies!! Impeach them ALL!!!!!! 40% middleclass taxes out the roof-then CAP&TAX what’s left???????

    The original source for the diversity visa claim was not given there. I’ve googled (sorry) ‘diversity visas yemen’ and come up with may CNS sites, one at Michelle Malkin, as well as official sites for applying for the visas.

    Also found this gem: If you receive a diversity visa through the random selection Program DV 2012, you will be authorized to live and work permanently in the United States as long as you wish. You will also be allowed to bring your spouse and any unmarried children under the age of 21 to the United States, by winning this DV 2012 visa lottery and qualified to obtain a visa. Later you can apply for American Citizenship if you are eligible. http://www.dvlotteryhelp.com/DVLottery/

  6. This ‘reform’ is fake too. Obama named this committee and instructed them to take power away from the superdelegates.

    He is setting things up to make it easier for himself or other Acorn types in future.

    Probably it will not be about actual popular vote but about ‘elected’ or ‘pledged’ delegates — gained by packing caucuses or shifting rules as they were last time. (EG black districts getting more delegates.)

    The purpose of the superdelegates was to have human oversight to keep someone from stealing the nomination by gaming the system as Obama did. Obama managed to corrupt enough supers this time. He wants to weaken them so they will not be able to do their job in future either.


    birdgal
    January 6th, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Okie,

    BTW- Did you guys see thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/dem-group-recommends-presidential-nomination-changes/ ??

    Funny now superdelegates will go based on popular vote as opposed to threats, bribes and coercion.
    —————————————

    Isn’t that the biggest bunch of hooey you have heard? If the superdelegates had to vote as their constituents voted, Hillary would have won last year.

    Now, if they were talking about getting rid of the caucuses and proportional voting, then I might be impressed.

  7. holdthemaccountable, This visa lottery stinks to high heaven. How are we going to get this out to the average citizen. No regular person knows this, there too busy thinking of other things that this administration throws out for the worriers.

    I just watched GlennBeck and its all so depressing, I worry about my children and esp. my grandchildren, what kind of life are they going to have?

  8. “There is a secret war of attacks by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton but Hannity is too busy hating to see it.”

    —————

    Thank you, Admin, for this very important article. I don’t watch Hannity for this very reason, but I believe the attacks will continue and grow as time goes on. Hillary bests obama is the polling and the knives come out even more.

  9. Theres more info on Obama young life and his first job at Cannonfire. Its really freaking interesting. Even more info in the comments

    Hannity is a pig!

  10. Great aerrticle, admin!

    I tune into Hannity less and less frequently as his HDS seems incurable but I did catch Breitbart on the show last night and Andrew didn’t flinch from telling it like it is.

    Hannity seems to respect Breitbart so maybe he got through, just a little?

    I still think it’s Dick Morris who stokes the HRC hatred on the show.

  11. confloyd,

    Unfortunately this guy Madsen doesn’t seem to have credible sources although the article is very interesting.

    “please recall that we’re dealing with a claim, not a fact. Madsen’s source is unnamed. That’s a common problem in Madsen-land.’

  12. Okay, so I usually cruise over to the rightie blogs in the morning, to see what the other side is saying. I found this gem, and it made me laugh (in a sad way.)
    Sometimes the enemy sees the truth very clearly. This person is all in favor of keeping Gitmo, but has this to say about Obama’s waffling:

    Quit whining about closing Guantanamo, and close the damn thing. It either is useful or not. The American people are getting sick and tired of this sort of “Bush made me keep it open even though it is counter-productive” whining. If Guantanamo is a recruiting tool, then by all means stop the recruiting tool. Instead, we get the impression that these incredibly directionless people have discovered that Guantanamo has both utility and yet is a political liability among their more fervent supporters, and therefore they wish to continue its usefulness while blaming Bush for its unpopularity.

    Dead on.

  13. Great post admin. I wasn’t aware….which is why I read all your posts.

    Is that true above about the diversity visas?

  14. Notyoursweetie0
    January 7th, 2010 at 10:36 am
    I don’t see how Hillary can emerge with her reputation intact after this.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Then you don’t know Hillary.
    Maya Angelou knows Hillary:
    You may write me down in history
    With your bitter, twisted lies,
    You may tread me in the very dirt
    But still, like dust, I’ll rise.
    This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits’ end, but she has always risen, always risen, don’t forget she has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.
    Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.
    There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you’re born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to be what it can become.
    She declares she wants to see more smiles in the family, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. She is the prayer of every woman and man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.
    She means to rise.
    Don’t give up on Hillary. In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country the wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety and without crippling fear.
    Rise, Hillary.
    Rise.

  15. Hillary is playing the hand she was dealt brilliantly–and far better than I ever could. I agree with Breitbart’s analysis and will be sending him some material to back up what he is saying. The strategy is simple enough and relies on these factors:

    1. doing her job brilliantly and offering him sound advice.

    2. not becoming enmeshed in his follies, or identified with them

    3. people with a microphone calling the game on WashPo hitpieces

    4. charm the snakes, moral degenerates and traitors in big media

    5. protecting herself and the country from the chicago crew in w. wing

    6. let the chicago crew overreach–

    Obama will self destruct. There are many variables in the equation, but there is one constant: he is a flake.

    A couple months ago, big media was writing its fictional accounts of Obamas first year and it sounded like Camelot revisted. The warning signals were in the wind but they paid no heed to them. They believed that they could alter reality through their purple prose and intellectually dishonest essays.

    But then we got his decision on Afgranistan which please no one and betrayed his campaign promises, followed by his health care deform which pleased no one and betrayed his campaign promises, followed by his I would rather play golf than confront terroism video which will be the best Christmas gift he could have given Republicans, especially after Fort Hood.

    Krathammer is right when he says the sin was not merely incompetence but incomprehension. Obama is permanently marked with weakness in the war on terrorism–a surrender monkey. If there is another attack he is flat finished.

    There is a poem written by a retired naval officer which Hillary lives by and Obama will never live up to. It is based on Kiplings poem The Law of The Wolf Pack. It goes like this:

    These are the laws of the Navy
    Unwritten and varied they be
    And he who is wise will observe them
    Going down in his ship to the sea

    On the strength of one link in the cable
    Dependeth the might of the chain
    WHO KNOWS WHEN THOU MAYEST BE TESTED
    SO LIVE THAT THOU BEAREST THE STRAIN

    The other problem he has is his own party. At this point, it is best to proceed on the assumption that he owns them. But if he has no coattails, and if his policies are inimical to the welfare of their constituents, how many times can he get people like Jim Webb, a patriot, to fall on his sword for someone he knows in his heart is not a leader and quite possibly a traitor to the middle class and this county.

    Party loyalty goes only so far, and no rational human being least of all a polician will pursue it to the point of self destruction. The caveat of course is those two crazies from Maine. But if they can be induced to hold the line, and if we can keep McCain and Graham on the reservation re. immigration–and remember McCain is in a tough race with an opponent who is focused like a laser on that issue, then they can fillabuster the bill introduced by Guterriez the little thug from Illinois which is reasonable calculated destroy our country.

  16. lil ole grape
    January 7th, 2010 at 11:32 am

    ————————–

    Well said!

    The knives are out again today. One article by an idiot NZ wannabe writer asking if Hillary is going to freak out again when she visits next week (an obvious dig at her comment in Africa when asked what “Bill” thought of the situation. Another U.S. media idiot attacking her world development speech yesterday. And yet another twit dragging up the global warming summit and fingerpointing at her.

    All three articles are totally out to lunch. I guess bobo isn’t flexing his golf or beach muscles today. Must be a slow news day.

  17. IF IT AIN’T BROKE…BREAK IT.

    From this past Saturday’s NYT:

    nytimes.com/2010/01/02/business/economy/02modify.html

    U.S. Loan Effort Is Seen as Adding to Housing Woes
    ===================

    By PETER S. GOODMAN
    Published: January 1, 2010

    The Obama administration’s $75 billion program to protect homeowners from foreclosure has been widely pronounced a disappointment, and some economists and real estate experts now contend it has done more harm than good.

    Since President Obama announced the program in February, it has lowered mortgage payments on a trial basis for hundreds of thousands of people but has largely failed to provide permanent relief. Critics increasingly argue that the program, Making Home Affordable, has raised false hopes among people who simply cannot afford their homes.

    As a result, desperate homeowners have sent payments to banks in often-futile efforts to keep their homes, which some see as wasting dollars they could have saved in preparation for moving to cheaper rental residences. Some borrowers have seen their credit tarnished while falsely assuming that loan modifications involved no negative reports to credit agencies.

    Some experts argue the program has impeded economic recovery by delaying a wrenching yet cleansing process through which borrowers give up unaffordable homes and banks fully reckon with their disastrous bets on real estate, enabling money to flow more freely through the financial system.

    “The choice we appear to be making is trying to modify our way out of this, which has the effect of lengthening the crisis,” said Kevin Katari, managing member of Watershed Asset Management, a San Francisco-based hedge fund. “We have simply slowed the foreclosure pipeline, with people staying in houses they are ultimately not going to be able to afford anyway.”

    Mr. Katari contends that banks have been using temporary loan modifications under the Obama plan as justification to avoid an honest accounting of the mortgage losses still on their books. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.

    “Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”

    The Treasury Department publicly maintains that its program is on track. “The program is meeting its intended goal of providing immediate relief to homeowners across the country,” a department spokeswoman, Meg Reilly, wrote in an e-mail message.

    But behind the scenes, Treasury officials appear to have concluded that growing numbers of delinquent borrowers simply lack enough income to afford their homes and must be eased out.

    In late November, with scant public disclosure, the Treasury Department started the Foreclosure Alternatives Program, through which it will encourage arrangements that result in distressed borrowers surrendering their homes. The program will pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow homeowners to sell properties for less than they owe on their mortgages — short sales, in real estate parlance. The government will also pay incentives to mortgage companies that allow delinquent borrowers to hand over their deeds in lieu of foreclosing.

    Ms. Reilly, the Treasury spokeswoman, said the foreclosure alternatives program did not represent a new policy. “We have said from the start that modifications will not be the solution for all homeowners and will not solve the housing crisis alone,” Ms. Reilly said by e-mail. “This has always been a multi-pronged effort.”

    Whatever the merits of its plans, the administration has clearly failed to reverse the foreclosure crisis.

    In 2008, more than 1.7 million homes were “lost” through foreclosures, short sales or deeds in lieu of foreclosure, according to Moody’s Economy.com. Last year, more than two million homes were lost, and Economy.com expects that this year’s number will swell to 2.4 million.

    “I don’t think there’s any way for Treasury to tweak their plan, or to cajole, pressure or entice servicers to do more to address the crisis,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com. “For some folks, it is doing more harm than good, because ultimately, at the end of the day, they are going back into the foreclosure morass.”

    Mr. Zandi argues that the administration needs a new initiative that attacks a primary source of foreclosures: the roughly 15 million American homeowners who are underwater, meaning they owe the bank more than their home is worth.

    Increasingly, such borrowers are inclined to walk away and accept foreclosure, rather than continuing to make payments on properties in which they own no equity. A paper by researchers at the Amherst Securities Group suggests that being underwater “is a far more important predictor of defaults than unemployment.”

    From its inception, the Obama plan has drawn criticism for failing to compel banks to write down the size of outstanding mortgage balances, which would restore equity for underwater borrowers, giving them greater incentive to make payments. A vast majority of modifications merely decrease monthly payments by lowering the interest rate.

    Mr. Zandi proposes that the Treasury Department push banks to write down some loan balances by reimbursing the companies for their losses. He pointedly rejects the notion that government ought to get out of the way and let foreclosures work their way through the market, saying that course risks a surge of foreclosures and declining house prices that could pull the economy back into recession.

    “We want to overwhelm this problem,” he said. “If we do go back into recession, it will be very difficult to get out.”

    Under the current program, the government provides cash incentives to mortgage companies that lower monthly payments for borrowers facing hardships. The Treasury Department set a goal of three to four million permanent loan modifications by 2012.

    “That’s overly optimistic at this stage,” said Richard H. Neiman, the superintendent of banks for New York State and an appointee to the Congressional Oversight Panel, a body created to keep tabs on taxpayer bailout funds. “There’s a great deal of frustration and disappointment.”

    As of mid-December, some 759,000 homeowners had received loan modifications on a trial basis typically lasting three to five months. But only about 31,000 had received permanent modifications — a step that requires borrowers to make timely trial payments and submit paperwork verifying their financial situation.

    The government has pressured mortgage companies to move faster. Still, it argues that trial modifications are themselves a considerable help.

    “Almost three-quarters of a million Americans now are benefiting from modification programs that reduce their monthly payments dramatically, on average $550 a month,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said last month at a hearing before the Congressional Oversight Panel. “That is a meaningful amount of support.”

    But mortgage experts and lawyers who represent borrowers facing foreclosure argue that recipients of trial loan modifications often wind up worse off.

    In Lakeland, Fla., Jaimie S. Smith, 29, called her mortgage company, then Washington Mutual, in October 2008, when she realized she would get a smaller bonus from her employer, a furniture company, threatening her ability to continue the $1,250 monthly mortgage payments on her three-bedroom house.

    In April, Chase, which had taken over Washington Mutual, lowered her payment to $1,033.62 in a trial that was supposed to last three months.

    Ms. Smith made all three payments on time and submitted required documents, Chase confirms. She called the bank almost weekly to inquire about a permanent loan modification. Each time, she says, Chase told her to continue making trial payments and await word on a permanent modification.

    Then, in October, a startling legal notice arrived in the mail: Chase had foreclosed on her house and sold it at auction for $100. (The purchaser? Chase.)

    “I cried,” she said. “I was hysterical. I bawled my eyes out.”

    Later that week came another letter from Chase: “Congratulations on qualifying for a Making Home Affordable loan modification!”

    When Ms. Smith frantically called the bank to try to overturn the sale, she was told that the house was no longer hers. Chase would not tell her how long she could remain there, she says. She feared the sheriff would show up at her door with eviction papers, or that she would return home to find her belongings piled on the curb. So Ms. Smith anxiously set about looking for a new place to live.

    She had been planning to continue an online graduate school program in supply chain management, and she had about $4,000 in borrowed funds to pay tuition. She scrapped her studies and used the money to pay the security deposit and first month’s rent on an apartment.

    Later, she hired a lawyer, who is seeking compensation from Chase. A judge later vacated the sale. Chase is still offering to make her loan modification permanent, but Ms. Smith has already moved out and is conflicted about what to do.

    “I could have just walked away,” said Ms. Smith. “If they had said, ‘We can’t work with you,’ I’d have said: ‘What are my options? Short sale?’ None of this would have happened. God knows, I never would have wanted to go through this. I’d still be in grad school. I would not have paid all that money to them. I could have saved that money.”

    A Chase spokeswoman, Christine Holevas, confirmed that the bank mistakenly foreclosed on Ms. Smith’s house and sold it at the same time it was extending the loan modification offer.

    “There was a systems glitch,” Ms. Holevas said. “We are sorry that an error happened. We’re trying very hard to do what we can to keep folks in their homes. We are dealing with many, many individuals.”

    Many borrowers complain they were told by mortgage companies their credit would not be damaged by accepting a loan modification, only to discover otherwise.

    In a telephone conference with reporters, Jack Schakett, Bank of America’s credit loss mitigation executive, confirmed that even borrowers who were current before agreeing to loan modifications and who then made timely payments were reported to credit rating agencies as making only partial payments.

    The biggest source of concern remains the growing numbers of underwater borrowers — now about one-third of all American homeowners with mortgages, according to Economy.com. The Obama administration clearly grasped the threat as it created its program, yet opted not to focus on writing down loan balances.

    “This is a conscious choice we made, not to start with principal reduction,” Mr. Geithner told the Congressional Oversight Panel. “We thought it would be dramatically more expensive for the American taxpayer, harder to justify, create much greater risk of unfairness.”

    Mr. Geithner’s explanation did not satisfy the panel’s chairwoman, Elizabeth Warren.

    “Are we creating a program in which we’re talking about potentially spending $75 billion to try to modify people into mortgages that will reduce the number of foreclosures in the short term, but just kick the can down the road?” she asked, raising the prospect “that we’ll be looking at an economy with elevated mortgage foreclosures not just for a year or two, but for many years. How do you deal with that problem, Mr. Secretary?”

    A good question, Mr. Geithner conceded.

    “What to do about it,” he said. “That’s a hard thing.”

  18. Clinton welcomes weapons decommission by N.Ireland’s loyalist paramilitary group

    2010-01-07

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 (Xinhua) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed Wednesday the decommissioning of weapons by Northern Ireland’s Ulster Defense Association, the last loyalist paramilitary group to do so.

    Clinton praised the move as a positive step toward securing lasting peace in Northern Ireland, saying the people of Northern Ireland have “traveled a long way” since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, which ended violence between loyalists and republicans.

    However, Clinton said “the journey is not over,” and reaffirmed U.S. commitment to supporting Northern Ireland in its progress towards a future of peace and prosperity.

    The UDA emerged in Northern Ireland in 1971. The outlawed group was blamed for more than 400 deaths from 1971 to 1994, mostly Catholic civilians. It announced earlier Wednesday it has fully disarmed, meeting the key requirement of the 1998 peace accord. Two prominent witnesses confirmed they observed the surrender and destruction of UDA weapons in recent weeks.

    The Irish Republican Army (IRA), the main republican paramilitary group, finished destroying its weapons four years ago.

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/07/content_12769836.htm

  19. Japan Seeks Clinton Meeting to Discuss Okinawa Base Dispute

    By Sachiko Sakamaki and Takashi Hirokawa

    Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) — Japan’s government is trying to arrange a meeting between Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as the two countries try to resolve a dispute over American troop deployments in Okinawa.

    “I’d like a foreign ministers’ meeting to be held as soon as possible,” Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama told reporters today in Tokyo. “No meeting has been set yet.” Clinton visits Hawaii, Australia and New Zealand next week.

    Hatoyama last month postponed resolving where to relocate the Marine Corps Futenma Air Base on Okinawa until May. He has resisted American pressure to implement a 2006 agreement to keep the base on the island, while declining to commit to another location in response to local complaints of crime and noise.

    The dispute threatens to delay a $10.3 billion plan to build replacement facilities for a new base and relocate 8,000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam. President Barack Obama in November called on Japan to resolve the matter “expeditiously.”

    Jan. 19 marks the 50th anniversary since the two countries signed a security treaty, under which almost 50,000 American military personnel are stationed in Japan providing for its defense.

    “I hope the foreign ministers can discuss the future of the Japan-U.S. alliance because this is an important year to start that,” Hatoyama said.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aeeNIzOJ321M

  20. January 7, 2010

    Obama to Meet With Former Pres. Clinton

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will meet with former President Bill Clinton at the White House Thursday.

    A White House official says the meeting is a ”check-in” visit between the former Democratic president and Obama. Clinton is also expected to see his former White House employee, Rahm Emanuel, who serves as Obama’s chief of staff.

    The Oval Office meeting is closed to the press. Obama will meet separately with the former president’s wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, later in the day.

    http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/07/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Clinton.html

  21. President Obama’s counterterror chief, Michael Leiter, could be taking the fall after report surfaces that he stayed on the ski slopes after the Christmas Day attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound jetliner in midair
    ———————————————————————————-
    Well okay. If this brilliant appointee is to be terminated because he stayed on the ski slopes after the terrorist attack then it is axiomatic that the bamboozling commander in chief who stayed on the golf course after the terrorist attack should follow him out the door.

    End of the wonderful one horse shay
    Logic is logic that’s all I say.

    Oh, and now one of Bambis henchmen gives us this teaser. Shocking report forthcoming on terrorism. More blame bush, absolve Obama, and let us see what they say about the State Department. Forgive me but at this point the only thing that shocks us is that Obama turned his back on the nation in the moment of crisis, and he cannot blame Bush for that.

  22. 2010 Could Be Democrats’ Last Chance for ‘Change’

    FOXNews.com

    Though moderate Democrats are expected to be extra cautious in supporting their party’s agenda this year because of the political peril they face at home, the likelihood that 2010 will be the party’s last best shot at passing the reforms President Obama campaigned on could make this year a veritable derby of “change” legislation.

    print email share recommend (0)

    Shown here are House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, left, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, right, and President Obama. (AP/Reuters Photos)
    Now or never.

    That could be the rallying cry in the months ahead for Democrats looking to push through sweeping policy changes ahead of an election widely expected to cut into their majority in Congress.

    Even if Republicans fail to make significant gains in the House, they need to net just one seat in the Senate to break the Democrats’ 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority. And the announcements this week by Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Chris Dodd of Connecticut that they will not seek re-election have given the GOP two more Democratic seats to target in November.

    Though moderate Democrats are expected to be extra cautious in supporting agenda items like climate change legislation because of the political peril some face at home, the likelihood that 2010 will be the party’s last best shot at passing the reforms President Obama campaigned on could make this year a veritable derby of “change” legislation.

    “The Obama administration has known for a long time that they will never, and I mean never, have 60 votes in the Senate again,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “They will never, and I mean never, have a 40-seat majority in the House again. This is as good as it’s ever going to get for them. They’re going to get as much as they can get while they can get it.”

    related links
    Advantage GOP? Republicans Cautiously Optimistic About Senate Seats
    Assuming Congress can clear health care reform off its plate in the coming weeks, Democratic leaders will be faced with a host of other agenda items to address, including economic stimulus, financial regulation, climate change legislation and immigration reform.

    Some analysts expect Obama to choose his battles carefully, keeping a focus on the economy and national security, which has taken on fresh urgency in the wake of the failed Christmas Day terror attack on a Northwest Airlines flight.

    Richard Socarides, former White House adviser to President Clinton, said Democrats will be faced with a choice — to tread cautiously out of sensitivity toward the election, or to barrel full-speed-ahead because the party’s over in November.

    “Democrats would do well to focus like a laser beam on (the economy) between now and the midterms,” he said. But he added that Democrats do best when they have an “ambitious agenda.”

    Socarides said Democrats might end up splitting the difference, focusing on the economy after health care, but also making “some effort” to reach an agreement on issues like climate change legislation and immigration reform. It’s just a matter of how hard they push those other issues, he said.

    “This effort on health care has taken its toll,” he said.

    A case in point is Sen. Ben Nelson — the moderate Nebraska Democrat who was his party’s last holdout on health care before the Senate passed the bill before Christmas. Nelson said this week that Obama should have delayed taking up health care to focus on the economy.

    “I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” Nelson told the Fremont Tribune. “I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move.”

    This kind of sentiment among moderates could make it difficult for Democratic leaders to push anything that’s not economy-related.

    Obama said in August that he expects Congress to tackle immigration in 2010. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is trying to forge a compromise package on climate change legislation with other lawmakers, said after the U.N. conference in Copenhagen last month that the summit “sets the stage for … Senate passage this spring of major legislation at home.”

    Yet before the international deal, Kerry warned about the hurdles at home in Washington. He said that without a solid international agreement, it would be “exceedingly difficult” to persuade moderates to get on board with the kind of emissions-curbing legislation that passed the House months ago.

    Obama, in an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” last month, said he expects financial regulatory reform to get done in early 2010, and he pressed hard for a new jobs-creation package. There was no mention of immigration or climate change or any other issue that hovers over his head — like the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy barring gays from announcing their sexuality while serving.

    Some Republicans say that no matter how hard Democrats try, issues like climate change and immigration legislation are dead in the water in an election year.

    Sabato said that even health care reform is not a lock.

    “A single Democratic switch could sink health care,” he said. “It’s possible that some of the more moderate Democrats will be asking themselves, ‘Is this what I really want to run on?'”

    FoxNews.com’s Judson Berger contributed to this report.

    Leave a Comment Sort: Newest Sort: Oldest Subscribe to CommentsSort: Newest Sort: Oldest Email
    * not displayed
    Comment Required
    Comment
    FOX News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, please be sure to review our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
    Leave a CommentYou must be logged in to comment. Please login or register below.
    Already a member of FOXNews.com?

    Log in now

    Username or Email Address
    Password
    Remember me on this computer Forgot your password? or login using a third-party account

  23. Obama to Meet With Former Pres. Clinton

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will meet with former President Bill Clinton at the White House Thursday.

    A White House official says the meeting is a ”check-in” visit between the former Democratic president and Obama. Clinton is also expected to see his former White House employee, Rahm Emanuel, who serves as Obama’s chief of staff.

    The Oval Office meeting is closed to the press. Obama will meet separately with the former president’s wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, later in the day.
    —————————
    If, as seems likely, the chicago thugs who have taken over the west wing are feeding false negative stories on Hillary to the press, WJC will address that issue with Mr. Obama. The article is not clear on who asked for this meeting, and even if it was clear it would be hearsay offered up by the propagndists in his administration and would be inherently untrustworthy.

  24. Obama is desperate for Bill Clinton to help with health care. All Bill will say is if the Dims do not pass the Obamination there will be ugly consequences for the party that spent a whole year coming up with a mess of a bill that does not even pass. Things are getting worse for the bill even as it gets close to passage because the political bills are coming due early. Already Dims like Nelson are waking up to the consequences of voting for passage.

    The latest videos noting Obama’s lies on transparency are the latest cost the bill is piling on the Dims.

    Here’s Sestak:

    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_661036.html

    Rep. Joe Sestak blames Democratic leaders for the plunge in public support for overhauling the health care system, saying Wednesday they failed to defend proposals that helped carry the party to victories in 2008.

    They said it would be transparent. Why isn’t it?” said Sestak, a Delaware County Democrat, in a meeting with Tribune-Review editors and reporters. “At times, I find the caucus is a real disappointment. We aren’t transparent, not just to the public but at times to the members.”

    Sestak is challenging Sen. Arlen Specter in the May 18 primary, as is Dravosburg’s state Rep. Bill Kortz. Former Rep. Pat Toomey of the Lehigh Valley and Peg Luksik, a Johnstown activist, are seeking the Republican nomination for the seat. [snip]

    Sestak said political deals that Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and others cut in closing the health care bill were a disgrace: “To think that you would hold out to close a deal for a special interest is absolutely wrong.” [snip]

    Sestak points to that move as one reason Americans are uneasy about Democrats. “They should be,” he said. “I think that Democrats have failed as much as Republicans as erstwhile servants.”

  25. Jack Cafferty was one of the worst Hillary hatemongers out there. I guess his koolaid addiction went sour.

    Bitter much?

  26. Admiral Sestak is on my very short list of great Americans in Congress. The list of traitors is much much much longer. Traitors now run the dimocratic party. Cowards are running the Republican Party. Who speaks for the American People? Joe Sestak–who was a strong Hillary supporter.

    I did not know he was from Delaware County. I know that county well. It is a bedroom community of Philadelphia. It has always been Republican. I know the Republican leaders who run that country–some of the best you will find, and they have an excellent habit of supporting good Democrats as well as Republicans. I think Joe will beat Specter.

  27. if Cafferty is jumping ship, does that mean obama’s television CNN is turning on him? Or does it mean that Cafferty will be the next one to get a pink slip for daring to tarnish their master’s reputation?

  28. Jack Cafferty was one of the worst Hillary hatemongers out there. I guess his koolaid addiction went sour.
    ——————————
    He is an insufferable ass and a crank. It is a tipping point when he goes after bambi jan because as you say he was a rabid Hillary hater, and Obama cheerleader once upon a time.

  29. if Cafferty is jumping ship, does that mean obama’s television CNN is turning on him? Or does it mean that Cafferty will be the next one to get a pink slip for daring to tarnish their master’s reputation?
    ———————————————————————-
    I think they are losing audience. That has to hurt. Will be objective about Obama? Never. Not them. They will let Cafferty sound off because unlike Dobbs nobody in their right mind takes him seriously. If what he says on one of those rare occasions happens to be true people will say it is true not because of him but inspite of him. Also, do note there was nothing new in his rant. He was simply connecting the obvious dots that most of us connected long before he opened his mouth. Remember, this is the station that hired marketing experts to come up with words like polarizing and divisive to describe Hillary and had their talking heads utter those words over and over each night, just like they previously uttered the words weapons of mass destruction. Their parent company–AOL Time Warner wants a puppet in the oval office to advance their business interests.

  30. “I think Joe will beat Specter.”

    ———————————————

    That would be great. Specter needs to go by the wayside.

  31. There is a contradiction in my last two posts. The first post is what I hope. The second is what I believe.

  32. The incestuous relationship between the White House does not stop with the Little Greek holding weekly meetings with White House staff to advise them on their media strategy, or goofball Linda Douglas being the gestapo agent for Obamacare, or Soros buying a huge stake in the enterprise, now we see this–from the White House Budget Director who is a contrarian on projections and usually off by a decimal point on the low side.
    ——————————————-
    Article comments (80) /static/all/img
    f07a834eb2806210VgnVCM10000086c1a8c0RCRD
    /politics/2010/01/07/white-house-budget-director-asks-privacy-reported-love-child
    Updated January 07, 2010
    White House Budget Director Asks for ‘Privacy’ for Love Child

    FOXNews.com

    Sources told the New York Post that Budget Director Peter Orszag dumped his ex, Claire Milonas, to marry ABC reporter Bianna Golodryga. Let us hope the little tyke did not get her brains and his looks.
    ———————————————————————–
    The White House budget director, who recently announced his engagement to an ABC News reporter, is the father of a baby girl born to his EX girlfriend less than two months ago, the New York Post reported, citing unnamed inside sources.

    Sources told the Post that Budget Director Peter Orszag dumped his ex, Claire Milonas, to marry ABC reporter Bianna Golodryga, though another source said he and Milonas were no longer together when he met Golodryga at the White House correspondents dinner.

    Milonas, a Greek shipping heiress, gave birth to Tatiana Zoe on Nov. 17 in New York.

    Orszag and Milonas responded to the rumors about the baby with a written statement to the New York Post: “We were in a committed relationship until the spring of 2009. In November, Claire gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. Although we are no longer together, we are both thrilled she is happy and healthy, and we would hope that everyone will respect her privacy.”

    A source close to Orszag told the Post that Milonas and Orszag’s relationship was over in March — more than a month before the dinner where he and Gologyrga met.

  33. Quit whining about closing Guantanamo, and close the damn thing. It either is useful or not. The American people are getting sick and tired of this sort of “Bush made me keep it open even though it is counter-productive” whining. If Guantanamo is a recruiting tool, then by all means stop the recruiting tool. Instead, we get the impression that these incredibly directionless people have discovered that Guantanamo has both utility and yet is a political liability among their more fervent supporters, and therefore they wish to continue its usefulness while blaming Bush for its unpopularity.

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

    It is kind of surprising that Obama hasn’t done his usual fake: publically close this prison but privately take the captives to some new place and continue Bush policies in secret.

  34. Only after banks are forced to acknowledge losses and the real estate market absorbs a now pent-up surge of foreclosed properties will housing prices drop to levels at which enough Americans can afford to buy, he argues.

    “Then the carpenters can go back to work,” Mr. Katari said. “The roofers can go back to work, and we start building housing again. If this drips out over the next few years, that whole sector of the economy isn’t going to recover.”

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

    So who is going to buy these current or new houses, with so many out of work?

  35. wbboei
    January 7th, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Obama to Meet With Former Pres. Clinton

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama will meet with former President Bill Clinton at the White House Thursday.

    …………………………
    His poll numbers are tanking and everything is falling apart all around him. Bill Clinton would be the last person that bambi would seek advise from so it must be really BAD right now for Obama. I’m guessing Bill will let it be known how he really feels about Obama playing the race card on him during the campaign?

    Bill should just tell him to go swing in the wind and sort his own mess out, and we all know how well the Dem party backs Presidents when their backs are against the wall.

    Maybe Bill is extracting his price and hopefully it is Obama not running for re-election and Obama’s endorsement of Hillary for her rightful place in 2012. (i can dream)

  36. If I am reading this thing right–and I may not be–but if I am then Bill will lean on Obama and Rambo to stop feeding hit pieces on Hillary to their journalistic whores–or else. The Chicago group is probably behind this, they have achieved de facto control of the party and the country and they are desperate and worried that they will lose it. Somebody needs to dress down little rambo because his health care scheme to steal republican donors has cost his boss major public trust, support in the base and forced dims to fall on their swords for him. This guy is a total liability more so than Erlichman and Hadelman and he will give Obama a Watergate as well. Now wouldnt that be a shame.

  37. Bill does not have to deliver any kind of ultimatim to Obama. All he needs to do is point out that the Republicans have figured out Emanuel (and Messina’s) little game and they will use it to divide the party if it continues. That is the way I would handle it. And I would not invite Rambo into that meeting. I would make him wait outside and sweat. Then I would have Obama call him in and advise him to cease and desist, promulagate the message and fire anyone who does not comply. Of course this may all be a fantasy on my part. I am not like AP who presents their fantasies as if they were fact.

  38. Rhoades, Shultz, Mathews, Shuster, Olberman, etc., savaged Hillary during th eprimary…they are allnow irrelevant. ….Hannity was and remains an idiot with no depth whatsoever…Breitbart is smart and has a wide audience …..hopefully Hillary is setting things up for either 21012 or 2016…..

  39. Shorttermer,

    Not to worry.
    It’s just a lover’s spat.
    Squat is on TV now doing the backtrack pimp roll, solemnly announcing the terrorist buck stops with him so I’m sure Cadaverdy will forgive all those lies about transparency.

  40. Obama’s publicity stunt announcement was late today. He said nothing much. A bunch of words, little action. The publicity stunt ended a short while ago. People need to be fired for what happened with the Detroit airplane bomber. Obama should fire himself.

  41. I wonder what took so long for the President to come on the air to tell us all this shocking failures from these agencies involved with the Christmas bomber? I know Bill Clinton was due at the White House today, I wonder if he was already there or on his way.

    The speech gave no details, it was another stupid say nothing speech, like he always gives.

  42. Confloyd, some Big Media “personalities” are amazed and super happy that Obama at today’s publicity stunt said “the buck stops with me.” It is amazing that Obama finds it a noble gesture and necessary to say he himself is responsible. Obama says he takes blame but then cut and ran from the publicity stunt.

  43. The only people who are shocked are those who are unprepared.

    The cardinal rule is never let your boss be surprised and if you are the boss see to it that you are not surpised.

    With Obama it is all just words.

    The corollary is if you cannot stand the heat stay in the golf cart.

    The buck stops with me. I bet they ran that one by 10 focus groups.

    The guy is pathetic.

  44. Agreed, he looked like he ran out of the room. He tried so hard to act like he was being tough and all he did was make everyone wonder where all these details went he was supposed announce.

    Admin: Do you think this meeting with BC and Hillary is about HC?? I don’t think so or why would BC be meeting with Rahm too? So many secrets, so little time to disguise them. THe guy is totally NUTS! I thought Bush was crazy, but this guy takes the cake.

  45. Well, I am going to take a nap and get ready for the BCS championship tonight!! HOOK EM HORNS!!!!

    Gonzotex, Hope we win tonight, I want all those commentators to eat their words about Colt McCoy.

  46. Rhoades, Shultz, Mathews, Shuster, Olberman, etc., savaged Hillary during th eprimary…they are allnow irrelevant. ….Hannity was and remains an idiot with no depth whatsoever…Breitbart is smart and has a wide audience …..hopefully Hillary is setting things up for either 21012
    ———————-
    Yes. These assholes are between a rock and a hard place. The question for them becomes more urgent with each passing day. To what should they be true: Their values or their messiah? They cannot do both. These boot lickers will try to avoid the question by attacking the Republicans and if the Republicans had half a brain they would throw that question right back in their faces at the most opportune moment, and when they sputtered charge them for the hypocrites they are. Hannity is an ideologue and a one trick pony. There are other conservatives recognize Hillary for the great leader she is–staring with Sarah Palin.

    “Shocking” they said. I guess it was a shock after all. Obama said the buck stops here. He did not read the full text however. It reads I have been wrong about national security from the beginning and the chickens have come home to roost. So by his own words, if we have another terrorist attack which is not interdicted he is responsible. That is fine. I will take that. Of course it is no more credible than anything else he says so you cannot take the statement seriously.

  47. Back in the skies;

    A Detroit bound Northwest flight out of Miami had to return to the gate after a Palestinian Muslim started shouting “I want to kill all the Jews.”

    And there was another problem with a disturbance on a Hawaii flight.

  48. Well, I am going to take a nap and get ready for the BCS championship tonight!! HOOK EM HORNS!!!!
    ———————————
    I am glad to see you are feeling better. Darrel Royal and I have been worried. You know he coached up here before he went down your way. This was in the late 50s before we got Ownens, who was an Okahoma Indian, a real leader and one of the best coaches in the country. As good as Bear Bryant,Woodie Hayes or Joe Pateno.

  49. You know Connie, I have an acquaintance (notice I did not say a friend, or business associate) who is an avid A&M fan. He is particularly partisan shall we say when it comes to the Longhorns. Nine years ago he was sent to federal prison in Texas for securities fraud in a ten million dollar scheme that was alot like what madoff did. A dear friend of mine who was defrauded was told that the bad guy is doing just fine in stir but for one minor detail. The prison smoks are orange–like the Longhorne uniforns and for a bitter partisan like him it is the death of a thousand cuts. Good luck to your team.

  50. Today is turning into another major day of Obama boobery. His publicity stunt did not go well. The early news leaks that the report would be “shocking” leads to the conclusion that everything has been heavily edited because there has been no shocking revelation. Brennan is not doing well at all at the press conference – he inspires no confidence and appears to be a complete boob in need of supervision. Napolitano is not doing well at the press conference. – she seems imperious and not very forthcoming. Robert Gibbs appears angry and worried.

    There have been no clear explanations of what happened. There are a lot of excuses. This is not going well at all for Napolitano and Brennan. Big Media will focus headlines on Obama “taking blame” but today’s events are closer to Brownie doing a heckava job. Brownie, er, Brennan and Napolitano should not be allowed near cameras because they convey boobery not competence.

    Today is a big day for boobery. Today will not help Obama.

  51. Publicity stunt, exactly! I saw Brennan for a couple of seconds and turned the channel. Who is this joker?

  52. Today is turning into another major day of Obama boobery. His publicity stunt did not go well. The early news leaks that the report would be “shocking” leads to the conclusion that everything has been heavily edited because there has been no shocking revelation. Brennan is not doing well at all at the press conference – he inspires no confidence and appears to be a complete boob in need of supervision. Napolitano is not doing well at the press conference. – she seems imperious and not very forthcoming. Robert Gibbs appears angry and worried.
    ————————————
    The security of this country is a non negotiable issue. Obama has made light of it in the past, by refusing to connect the dots on fort hood, vilifying the United States, and minimizing the latest near catastrophe so he could continue his golfing vacation. And now, after all this, he expects us to take him seriously? Give me a break. It was shocking that there was nothing shocking after they said it would be shocking and was not. I agree wholeheartedly something got edited as the last minute.

    By the way Admin, I forgot to tell you the above post is truly a masterpiece. You could read Time, Newsweek and NYT for a year and not get this kind of insight. Great work.

  53. Did Obama not assert once before that the buck stops with him? I’m fairly sure this is a repeat performance. Perhaps the first time was around the time of the GE?

  54. admin,

    Where are you watching the press conference?

    And what was the ‘shocking’ revelation?

    (sorry but I cannot bear to watch or listen to that squat).

  55. What really irks me about squat and his ‘overseas contingency operations’ BS is the way Nappy accused Americans ofbeing the terrorists back in the spring of 2008.

    Remember when she said something to the effect that Americans who weren’t dims should be feared?

    And then she ignored all the jihadi plots in the northeast – the three in NYS, the one in Arkansas.

  56. Every single time a national/international security incident takes place, it takes this guy at least a week to get involved.

    What the hell is wrong with him???

  57. I am up and running again and it is good to be back ready to blog.Storms winds cold and mt computer crashed.Had to get a familymember and an expert to do the repairs and re-installations.I must catch up on the news about our Hillary.Yhank God she is out of that political cess-pool called Congress.Hope you all enjoyed the holidays and looking ahead for a fabulous Hillary year ahead.

  58. Basil9, the cable channels carried the publicity stunts today. As to “shocking”, the boobery was shocking to witness, but there were no revelations.

  59. JanH
    January 7th, 2010 at 11:46 am

    ————————–

    Well said!

    The knives are out again today. One article by an idiot NZ wannabe writer asking if Hillary is going to freak out again when she visits next week

    ——
    I don’t know the article you mentioned, but I apologise for my countryman. Our press corps took longer to become addicted to the hopium, but unfortunately they are still high on it. However I can assure you that New Zealanders in general (and I believe Australians) preferred Hillary to Obama and we are absolutely delighted Hillary is headed our way. The news item on national television last night began “why the most powerful woman in the world is coming to NZ”. Perhaps someone should tell that to Nancy Pelosi, Michelle or Oprah.

    Below is a tongue in cheek article when Hillary’s trip was still rumoured. It’s supposed to be a “Dear Abby” type letter to our Minister of Foreign Affairs. You will like the final sentence, I think:

    “…
    The most urgent was a short note from Cabinet Minister Murray McCully. “Dear Fran,” Murray asks, “what should I say to the yet-to-be-disclosed high-standing member of the Obama Administration who may have lunch with me (and several tens of members of the Auckland business community) on January 15?”

    In reply: “Dear Murray, very little. I broke the ‘open secret’ of Hillary Clinton’s visit months ago. Your quiet adoration and extreme sensitivity to the reading of all things Clinton has resulted in a major diplomatic triumph. It is unfortunate that many of New Zealand’s finest womenfolk will be hanging out to see if the man who once described himself to me as potentially the ‘first man to be married to the first female president of the US’ will accompany your visitor.
    “Your visitor will wow Kiwis (at least those of an intelligent persuasion).
    …”

    I’ve found the article you mentioned now. Tim Wilson says it himself – he is “slow witted”. He is also the man who said “most PUMA’s held their nose and voted for Obama”. He doesn’t have a clue!

  60. Linda192
    January 7th, 2010 at 6:51 pm

    ——————-

    Thank you so much for your reply! I am really looking forward to the coverage for Hillary when she is over in your neck of the woods.

  61. admin
    January 7th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    Today is turning into another major day of Obama boobery. His publicity stunt did not go well. The early news leaks that the report would be “shocking” leads to the conclusion that everything has been heavily edited because there has been no shocking revelation. Brennan is not doing well at all at the press conference – he inspires no confidence and appears to be a complete boob in need of supervision. Napolitano is not doing well at the press conference. – she seems imperious and not very forthcoming. Robert Gibbs appears angry and worried.

    There have been no clear explanations of what happened. There are a lot of excuses. This is not going well at all for Napolitano and Brennan. Big Media will focus headlines on Obama “taking blame” but today’s events are closer to Brownie doing a heckava job. Brownie, er, Brennan and Napolitano should not be allowed near cameras because they convey boobery not competence.

    Today is a big day for boobery. Today will not help Obama.

    I love your sense of humor….it really keeps me going when otherwise I think I would just cry over this disaster that has befallen my country.

  62. What the heck was Napolitano looking up at? She looked crazed! Was she just trying to read the telepromter? If so, she is dumber than dumbo for the poor thing can’t even read off the telepromter. Those two looked like they’d been hit by that battery they used at Gitmo one too many times!! What a waste of air time.

    THe real shocker would be the info that was going on between BC,Boob,Rahm and Hillary. Oh to be a fly on the wall!

  63. I love your sense of humor….it really keeps me going when otherwise I think I would just cry over this disaster that has befallen my country.
    —————————–
    well said carol.

  64. The republicans are making me laugh, even they are begging and wishing that Hillary had won over Bambi.

    They should have thought about that when they played their primary games on her.

  65. JanH
    January 7th, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Obama: ‘Buck Stops With Me’ in Handling Terror Threats

    …………………..

    oh he’s so gonna regret saying that one.

  66. mop, Those rethugs sure did play games during the primary, I certainly hope some of them have lost the only thing they care about which is money. Talking about keeping the nation safe, what were they thinking letting this boob run the country over our gal Hill? How about they talk about political games, they are masters at it, it needs to come back and bite them in the butt bigtime.

  67. Obama: ‘Buck Stops With Me’ in Handling Terror Threats
    ————————————
    Nixon: are you running for something Dan?

    Rather: no Mr. President. Are you?

    Obama: I am the only hope for the world?

    White House Reporter: oh yes you are Mr. President. It must be very challenging to be the first AA president.

    (Note: I did not make that last one up. Softballs from those bastards. Always soft balls. Where is Dan Rather when we need him?)

    Investigative Journalist: you claim that there was a failure here? And the system did not work? And the buck stops with you? What do you feel you should have done before the fact to have prevented this near catastrophe? What do you feel you should have done after the fact to have shown appropriate leadership? Would you agree that your lack of leadership has enboldened al Qaeda? If there is another attack will you still say the buck stops with you, or will you seek to blame others? Has your golf handicap gone down and if so will you ask for less strokes from your playing partners?

  68. oh he’s so gonna regret saying that one
    —————————————
    He will. Even Houdini could not get out of that one. On the other hand that statement may be the precursor for a fascist assault on our civil liberties. This guy works for the global elites not the American People.

  69. Admin says:

    Today is a big day for boobery. Today will not help Obama.

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

    all he did was compile the phrases he has heard in the MSM in the last few days about what he should have done and said and come before the cameras and read those phrases…”the buck stops with me” bla, bla, bla…the only thing transparent about O and his admin is that he waits to see the reaction to his ‘boobery and mistakes’ and then finally comes around and parrots what he has heard people expect to hear from him…nothing new…we have seen this pattern with him over and over again…he thinks he is fooling us with his belated tough guy persona…don’t think so…

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

    btw…on the last thread, I stand corrected, the mayor I was referring to that took a shot at Bill during the primaries was Shirley Franklin of Atlanta…confused her with the embezzler (?Dixon) of yesterday…

  70. Will you sleep sounder now knowing that where the issue of terrorism is concerned the buck stops with Obama? With one stupid remark he has created a nation of insomniacs.

  71. There is an article at FOX News entitled the president finally wakes up. That title is absurd on its face. All we hear from him is words, and we know from experience that whatever he says today will be contradicted later. Words from him, even when conveyed as promises, mean absolutely nothing.

    Unless he is willing to say that his approach to terrorism has been fundamentally wrong, that there is such a thing as jihad, that this is a war not a policing action, that there is no substitute for victory, that he will no longer play cheap politics over it, that tyrants have played him like a fiddle, that he will stop scapegoating the CIA and then act upon each of these principles boldly, openly and with conviction then I shall not scruple to say this is nothing more than cheap campaign talk not to be taken seriously.

  72. S: thanks. Everyone I talk to says the same thing. Not sleeping well these days. We all thought it was the flu. We now know it is something far worse– an Obamanation.

  73. Wbboei, the “insomniacs” line was very funny. We sleep with toothpicks holding open our eyes, afraid to sleep, afraid of new boobery from Obama. 🙂

  74. Thanks admin. If anyone has any extra money in these lean times, the tooth pick futures market could be a very good investment.

  75. Honestly, I don’t have the stomach to watch the Bloviator’s press conference again but how many times did he refer to himself as being president. Is he trying to convince himself? We are all painfully aware that he is president. Gimme a freakin’ break.

  76. As I was flipping through channels, I accidently landed on Campbell Brown interviewing Anne Kornblut who has apparently written a book about the glass ceiling and how soon a woman might be president.

    Poor ol’ Anne surely does not like Hillary and I was beginning to get mad. She thinks it will be years before any woman will be president. Among others she mentioned for a possible future run is Clarie McCaskill. Smoke poured out my ears and I almost threw something at the disgusting Anne on the screen.

    That woman is vile and I hope none of you buy her new book.

  77. Southern Born, I had a similar experience listening to satellite radio about two weeks ago. Kornblut was being interviewed about her new book and she said the exact same thing, only the second woman she mentioned was none other than Janet Neopolitan (no error). I was yelling at my radio. McCaskill and Neopolitan are two of the most incompetent women politicians that I can think of, and they are definitely not presidential material. Why do people hate the Clintons so much?

    Tonight on the Lehrer report, Richard Clark took a swipe at Bill Clinton and how terrorism was handled during his administration. What is it with these people who worship Obama and hate the Clintons? It does not compute. I don’t see what they see in the Boob.

  78. Another well-written article, Admin!

    Andrew Breitbart is a pretty cool guy. A few months ago, I was on Twitter really late at night and he was there too. He was posting links to British postpunk videos from the 1980s and early 1990s on YouTube, so I started posting some too– the Stone Roses, Echo & the Bunnymen, the Chameleons UK, that kind of music. We went back and forth for quite some time. I never imagined a conservative would like the same kind of music that I do. Most of them are into country and heavy metal.

  79. Wbboei, That game was heartbreaker. I don’t think it would have turned out the way it did if Colt McCoy had not injured his right shoulder on the third play of the game. He was hot and rolled it goal quickly.

    They say he can’t feel his arm, I hope he has not re-injured his neck.

  80. Confloyd
    It was heartbreaking about Colt. I am no longhorn fan, originally from Wisconsin, and my husband drives me nuts about UT, but I have ALWAYS loved me some Colt. He is a dream. Mature, kind, always a positive word for the opponent. The commensurate football player, and if ANYONE was born to be the quarterback of the University of Texas, it was Colt McCoy..he would have killed Bama… I want him to marry my daughter. They would have beautiful athletic children. She played Division one basketball, not @ Texas, but alas, he has a sweetheart..High school no less. The usual cute tiny blond. Mine is 6 feet tall but a true Latino (half) beauty…Ah, a mothers dream.

  81. Campbell Brown interviewing Anne Kornblut
    —————————————–
    Two complete dullards.

  82. If there was ever a case of garbage in garbage out it is that pair. Throw in mitchell and you have the opening scene in McBeth,

  83. David Frum in The Atlantic magazine, “Bring Back the Mugwumps.” “Mostly northeastern, well educated, and comfortably affluent, these reformers formed a type that has always rubbed Americans the wrong way: a self-conscious political elite that claims to speak for the public good.
    [….]
    “This highly ritualized approach to politics, this pretense of great disagreement, is familiar in our own time. A quarter century ago, Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale offered Americans substantial policy alternatives. In 2010, by contrast, we see the parties hammering each other over differences barely more perceptible than those of 1880. Republicans rage against the Democrats’ bailouts, takeovers, deficits—yet all three commenced under George W. Bush, not Barack Obama. Almost every concept in Obama’s intensely controversial health plan has at one point or another been advanced by a senior Republican, from Bob Dole to Mitt Romney. I type these words having just watched Fox News’s Glenn Beck liken President Obama’s call for voluntary national service to something out of Maoist China. Obama’s service program barely differs in form, content, and rhetoric from Bush’s program, which in turn was almost identical to the program created by the elder President Bush in 1989.
    “Reading a speech like Ingersoll’s—or listening to today’s talk radio—you almost wonder whether strident rhetoric, then as now, functions more as a substitute for policy differences than as their expression.”

  84. During the campaign those two idiots misled the public into believing that Obama was a god, and now that he is proving to be an incompetent they are coming under fire. Their reputations are now at risk, as the situation grows worse. If they think they can escape responsibility by attacking the Clintons they are wrong. It aint about the Clintons and it aint about Bush. It is about a corrupt incompetent pretender to the throne and the journalistic rodents who put him there. There is no reason whatsoever to read Korbuts fiction. Anyone who thinks McCaskill is presidential is not worth listening to.

    Ah but there is good news in all this. Ben Bernake is Time Magazines Person of the Year. Why? Because he saved the economy. To that I say wunderbar, but not for the reason you suspect. Yes, I realize he is a shill for the banks and an enemy of the American People. What makes me happy about this is if he is the savior of the economy, then Bambi is will be hard pressed to claim that he did it. Remember Richard Cohen yesterday suggested that Bambi may have saved the economy. Well we now have the rebuttal evidence to prove that it never was Bambi it was Bernake. And when someone says how can that be we can say look at the front cover of Time Magazine–an unimpeachable source.

  85. David Frum in The Atlantic magazine, “Bring Back the Mugwumps.” “Mostly northeastern, well educated, and comfortably affluent, these reformers formed a type that has always rubbed Americans the wrong way: a self-conscious political elite that claims to speak for the public good.
    —————————
    Turndown, I liked David’s mother Barbara Frum. She was an estimable Canadian journalist, and she died young. But David, I never connected with him. If he is saying that both parties are controlled by the same people then he is stating the obvious. If he is saying we need a party that represents the American People as opposed to the elites then once again he states the obvious. The trick is how do we get there? There is a big difference in party philosophy particularly now and I hope he is not attempting to deny that. I mean conservatives have the tragic view of life which is part and parcel of western religion. This includes notions of scarcity, limits on time, moral choices and the fallibility of human beings. Liberals tend to believe that all problems are solveable if we just had good people working them and that human beings are prefectable and human nature can be overcome. History tells us which view is right. If David is still a conservative then he understands that distinction. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with party label.

  86. To me liberalism is what they say of second marriages–a triumph of hope over experience, with the essential caveat that sometimes they really do work.

  87. Wikki: The Mugwumps were Republican political activists who supported Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland in the United States presidential election of 1884. They switched parties because they rejected the financial corruption associated with Republican candidate James G. Blaine. …
    ——————————————-
    Well, maybe there is something to what he says after all. Maybe centrist patriots from both political parties will do this. Now that I understand what he is saying. I can think of another example which was when Teddy Roosevelt snatched the Republican Party and the financial interests that controlled it. He became a trust buster and went after that scumbag Rockafeller Standard Oil. Of course, it did not last, he ended up forming the Bull Moose Party and they lost in 1912. Judge Learned Hand as a young man was a staunch bull mooser and favored reform after the Gilded Age. He used to quote a poem by Goldsmith which summed up his concerns:

    Ill fares the land
    To hastening ills aprey
    Where wealth accumulates
    And men decay.

  88. Connie: I have been trying to reach Mrs. Smith for two days now and have gotten no answer. I will keep trying.

  89. Jen the Michigander: Jen do you have any idea how to get ahold of Brietbart? A private email or something like that?

  90. Admin> this is a very important series of conversations which I found at 2am this morning. Pacific John is the writer, and he is a great Democrat and a truth teller. This is long as hell, but I need to post it here and will save it on my hard drive too. I am doing this because this discussion is too valuable to lose and the bots have scrubbed some of the other blogs he has written exposing the treachery of the Obama people. The base is ripe for this discussion now that more and more people see Obama for the lying, deceptive, propped up corporate shill he truly is. Like a mackrel in the moonlight–he shines but he stinks.
    —————————————————————————————————
    ALEGRE’S CORNER
    We’re not finished folks – not by a long shot!

    Ms. Hamsher, Tear Down This Rationalization
    by: Pacific John
    Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 17:05:46 PM EST

    Riverdaughter’s side of the spat with Jane Hamsher is pure gold, and needs to be seen by all in these two posts (one, two).
    I jotted the following reaction at lambert’s:

    My favorite line:
    Instead of Clinton III, we got Bush III. Tell me, Jane, which one would have been worse?

    The Janes of the world know they are having problems admitting their sins. In terms of policy, the base knew that the Hillary health reform platform, where everyone was guaranteed access to a public plan, was greatly superior to whatever pro-industry bamboozle BHO was selling with Harry and Louise. It’s not that the base is brilliant, but that the “prog”-osphere was made dumb by a marketing campaign. Let’s break it down: women and most workers voted for Hillary by about 70/30 on concrete promises. African Americans did not vote based on superior policy merit like their brethren of the same class, so they really aren’t wrong, and didn’t pretend that Obama was the superior candidate to deliver Democratic legislation.

    That leaves the 30% or so of the party, the Janes and the the MoveOn demo, that advanced elaborate, specific promises that BHO, the con. law prof. would be the anti-Bush, that he was the singular hope for reform of the financial system, and that the cherry-picked prog wishlist on his website would be delivered in the saddle bags of unicorns.

    I argued strenuously that our only hope for a guaranteed public option was flowcharted on Hillary’s platform document, and swamped by what can only be likened to religious fanaticism. The kind Jane encouraged.

    Here’s the thing: we knew this was Bush III a long time ago, when Wall St. and big money backed a nobody from Il over two hometown powerhouses, Rudy and Hillary. That should have set off alarm bells, but instead, the party gleefully raked in more cash than it could figure out how to spend. Overwhelming media bias, never a friend to real Democrats, should have set off bells. Absence of moral definition should have set off alarm bells. Caucus and party games that trumped state run primaries should have set off alarm bells among the very same Michael Moore demo that was obsessed with far smaller vote theft in 2000.

    The thing is, the Jane of 2006 and earlier was right. For ’08, she, and all the other Janes, dismissed everything they said they stood for.

    In stark terms, they are the 1/3 of the party who was wrong, and bear the sort of blame that Ralph Nader owns for the disasters of the Bush years.

    But I believe in redemption, and would welcome back everyone this side of Markos. All it takes is a simple admission – to themselves and to the base of the party – “We were wrong.”

    It would be cleansing to the soul and the liberation that comes from the truth. Surely a few of the Janes have the integrity to utter those three words.

    It would be really, really nice if the Janes examined that they acted to nullify the primary votes of the bulk of people who are the most vulnerable, and say to working class Dems, you know what? You deserved a lot better than this, and you were right about Hillary’s concrete health care platform. The chart on the second page of her plan was really, really, right, and the “left,” was really, really wrong.

    Pacific John :: Ms. Hamsher, Tear Down This Rationalization
    Tags: (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email
    Ms. Hamsher, Tear Down This Rationalization | 51 comments
    Riverdaughter, of course, is right (4.00 / 2)

    about 2008, but I am thrilled that Jane Hamsher is speaking out so forcefully right now for real health care reform. Let’s not fight old battles and demand admission of “guilt”. Right now Hamsher is being labeled a traitor for going after the guys in power. I say KUDOS to Jane; she has my full support.
    by: Sharyn @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 18:21:22 PM CST
    We can and should have both (4.00 / 5)
    Yes, we should always welcome allies in a cause, but what happened in ’08 was a coup, and the people who usurped power from the base of the party need to come to grips with what they did.
    For the country to succeed, we need to recognize and empower regular people, and that won’t happen unless we admit that average Dems are currently ignored by people like Jane, and the entire wired movement. We need do define any successful movement as democratic, with power shared in proportion to the numbers, not concentrated in some concocted creative class elite.

    And the other thing is, criticism from the base, from the FDR left, should in fact be useful – to Jane and for ourselves. The idea that we need to subsume our advocacy within a grand alliance is sort of how we got in this disaster in the first place.

    by: Pacific John @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 18:51:02 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    bamboozled: (4.00 / 1)

    I just want to distinguish between the bamboozlERS and the bamboozlED. The bamboozlers in the 08 election were the DNC in “seeming” collaboration with the Obama Campaign. (Plouffe himself references the role he played in this.) The buck stops with them. I myself had some heated exchanges with some of my progressive koolaid-drinking friends in the primary. I am glad now that some of them are realizing they were had. (although to some degree they bamboozled themselves, I don’t classlify them as the ‘boozlers). And now that they’re waking up a bit (seeing clouds in their coffee?), maybe this will lead to a willingness to address the egregious anti-democratic behavior of the DNC and fraud of the caucuses. (leaving hope aside)
    by: Sharyn @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 14:48:33 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Yes and no. (4.00 / 2)
    We are talking about a nominee who could not claim a popular majority, so everything that broke his way, by definition, caused the result. OFA’s Alinsky caucus tactics, early media bias, DNC shell games with cast votes, Wall St. campaign cash, Pelosi’s quid pro quo donations that went overwhelmingly to superdels who opposed their local voters, the noise machine that early and often painted Hillary as a racist, all of this was necessary to win, er, almost win the majority of votes. Pull out one element, and it all crashes down, and OFA was just another unsuccessful campaign, like Howard Dean or Bill Bradley. The bad blood is because elements of ’08 point to unprecedented illegitimacy in a DP primary.
    That was my seminal moment, that in the middle of a hurricane of caucus irregularites, I had never seen nor heard of a Dem presidential that broke such taboos, that made our side worse than the GOP.

    And that’s what the Janes have to live with. Their extreme situational ethics make them no better than, and probably worse than, the GOP. I can’t recall of the GOP running a crooked presidential primary. Can anyone else?
    by: Pacific John @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 15:29:18 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    even Barbara (4.00 / 2)

    Ehrenreich (the Nickel and Dimed author) was duped by the change we can believe in mantra. I wonder what Barbara is thninking about Wall St. bailout and everything else now.
    If she’s had a strong reality check, maybe she’d be a good one to write something up on caucus fraud. She actually does real research (which is rare these days). Maybe you ought to give her a call!
    ……….
    btw, didn’t the Republicans cut their Florida delegates in half as “punishment” — I guess a half vote is better than none. (FL primary didn’t affect Repub results anyway) And it was the Repubs in FL that cleverly pushed their state into changing the primary date (probably some kind of Rovian tactic, knowing it would create some chaos for Dems down the pike)
    by: Sharyn @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:22:02 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    A timely “Golden” Oldie. (0.00 / 0)
    http://www.openleft.com/diary/
    Well, at least we know it’s an oldie…but golden?
    by: CoyoteCreek @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 17:13:25 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    W-e-e-l-l (4.00 / 4)
    I’m a little dubious. Of course, when Jane momentarily flipped to single payer, she began by purging a bunch of single payer activists, apparently for the sin of being prematurely correct, so I might be… bitter? (Hilariously, she was also trying to get a fundraiser off the ground, and actually returned on single payer activist’s contribution.
    And given the clusterf*ck with [a|the][strong|robust|triggered] public [health insurance]? [option|plan] I could almost wish she’d focus her undeniable energy somewhere else. (“Is not a Patron, my Lord, one who looks with unconcern on a man struggling for life in the water, and, when he has reached ground, encumbers him with help?”)

    If Jane wants credibility, she could axe paid HCAN shill Jason Rosenbaum and put somebody from PNHP in there. Na ga happen.
    by: lambert @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 22:12:19 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Although I, too, was happy to see (4.00 / 3)
    Hamsher break from the Bot ranks over HC, I totally agree with you, John. The Jane-Bots need to stop their revisionism about the primaries and admit the truth about BO and the primary fraud.
    by: trixta @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 21:45:19 PM CST
    That won’t happen either (4.00 / 4)
    How could it?
    The access bloggers need to preserve access, and bringing up inconvenient facts like the TX caucus fraud would make that impossible. So the revisionism is a necessary part of their business model. Bowers is running his “greatest hits” right now, and do you think his famous “creative class” post is going to make it onto the list? Not a chance.

    Since, just like the mainstream press, access bloggers like Jane will always preserve their business model first, and only then do the right thing on policy, they are always to be mistrusted, just like the legacy parties whose interests they serve.

    NOTE John, for the record, could Corrente get a link? Thanks!
    by: lambert @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 22:15:59 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    It won’t happen (4.00 / 1)
    They don’t really have to admit anything but they do need to stop polishing that turd of a decision they made in 2008. Relitigating the primaries will haunt them until they just stop and go with the truth now.
    Trying to make rational explanations for themselves is just stupid at this point.
    by: RalphB @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 23:31:13 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    I’d like it if they would find the courage (0.00 / 0)
    to come forward and tell what they were threatened with if they didn’t switch to a cheerleading site for Obama.
    by: webfooteddem @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 13:55:58 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    The threat happened on national television (4.00 / 1)
    with a huge audience. Jesse Jackson Jr. said in front of God and everyone, that if you didn’t join Obama, you might be lookin’ at a primary. They didn’t have to say it in private meetings. it had already been said.
    It’s the fundraising list what is the problem here. What pols are terrified of is that the massive Obama email list will be put to work raising funds for alternative candidates. But that list is lookin’ like it had a short shelf life. Believe me, that’s being noticed as well.
    by: lorelynn @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 15:57:21 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Link me at (4.00 / 1)
    will, lambert.
    by: Pacific John @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 23:47:57 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Your post (0.00 / 0)
    lacks a link to Lambert’s post.
    by: ghost2 @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 16:20:19 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Fixed (0.00 / 0)
    thanks.
    by: Pacific John @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 18:52:17 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    And ftr (0.00 / 0)
    the caucus fraud was everywhere. I did not have time to pursue all of the leads, but I spoke with a state senator from Hawaii and one of her staffers who related the same stories: suppression of HRC votes and fabrication of BHO votes by people who appeared to be outsiders. If there was a caucus, it happened. I’ve never dug into one where there wasn’t a pile of dead bodies.
    by: Pacific John @ Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 23:56:14 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Check out Jane conveniently reaching for the race card on C-Span (4.00 / 3)
    when she was confronted by the caller from Tennessee who accused her and Markos of destroying the Democratic Party.
    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/pro
    The call is at the 25:50 mark

    Jane didn’t have a real response so she, as all Obots did during the primaries, quickly reached for the race card and said she met a “certain class of women” Clinton supporters “who would not elect a black man”. Classy. So in one swoop she accuses women like the caller from Tennessee of being racists and of a certain (lower?) class.

    Also funny that she says she didn’t support the anti-choice, pro-war candidate. You did, Jane. You did.
    by: BotoxicPelosi @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 00:22:41 AM CST
    hahahaha (4.00 / 2)
    I just got it to trickle through my aircard connection.
    She must hate having that on the record.

    It would have been so easy for her to get out from under that without showing that she’s a race baiting snob. All she had to do was acknowledge that the Internet was a hostile environment controlled by Obama people, and use the Digby excuse that she was too timid to face down the mob.
    by: Pacific John @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 00:46:49 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    I’d also like to see Jane’s alleged video of Harriet Christian saying she wouldn’t support a black man (0.00 / 0)
    I’ve never seen such a video on youtube. Even if the video exists, why would one Hillary Clinton supporter speak for the rest of us? Why does Jane think offhand comments at a heated RBC meeting defines millions of Clinton supporters or justifies the Clinton bashing at her blog, DailyKos, and other progblogs during the primaries? It is because Jane doesn’t want to admit she was wrong and that her site was part of the problem. Judging from her proud demeanor on C-Span, she’s not the type of person to admit to being too timid to do the right thing in 2008. She’d rather call us racist before admitting to any wrongdoing.
    by: BotoxicPelosi @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 01:19:17 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Right. It would be odd to be tarred (4.00 / 3)
    …by one woman, but it is worse than that. I bumped into Harriet Christian, and filmed her account of the infamous Hamsher YouTube. Her side of the story is that she regrets the way her words came out, but that her actual ideas were fair.
    Hamsher tried to tar a “class of women” with Christian’s line calling Obama an “inadequate black man.” Classy.

    That aside, Christian’s three word verbal train wreck, according to her, was from two concepts, one that Obama is inadequate, and two that his major advantage with white liberals was that he’s black. Someone with Sunday talk show skills could express the same ideas today and be taken seriously. My exchange with her amounted to a short exchange of pleasantries, and two questions: “What happened at the RBC meeting,” and “What was the aftermath?” She spoke extemporaneously for about 10 minutes, and did not express the language or ideas of a racist. My read is that she is exactly who you might expect, a NYC waitress, filled with passion from the RBC vote theft, who fumbled in front of the cameras.

    Jane had to strain really hard to use this one interview to dismiss the caller from TN, and her certain “class” of women.
    by: Pacific John @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 10:46:11 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of “class”, (0.00 / 0)
    I merrily referred to the impeccably well-groomed and dressed Christiansen as “our bit o’ Bloomingdales”, to which she looked at me and replied in her cigarette voice, “Lord and Taylor, darling, Lord and Taylor.”
    by: lorelynn @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 13:01:14 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Harriet diminished herself (4.00 / 1)
    when she was leaving the roolz committee arena by including race in the rant. I remember being very disappointed in her for giving the media that soundbite that would end up defining the democrats who had been thrown under the bus by the Obama campaign. It was just the distraction the party wanted.
    by: webfooteddem @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 14:00:21 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    A fig leaf (0.00 / 0)
    the party desperately grouped for?
    These sorts of moments in a campaign take on inflated meaning, especially on a campaign that has been starved of momentum by every major force in political culture. No amount of perfection can overcome a fatal lack of momentum.

    The really profound lesson is that the voters resoundingly supported Hillary after the RBC debacle. They defied otherwise overwhelming corporate media bias, class bias, misogyny and a torrent of OFA paid media.

    We know that far worse was regularly said of Hillary. A quick Google shows a comment at the orange cess pool that “Hillary is a disgrace to womanhood.” Try to flip that around by substituting race!

    Back in 1976 when the GOP nominated Ford over Reagan, Reagan gave a passionate convention speech saying that the US could never allow a nuclear exchange, and in that moment, it’s said, the GOP realized they had nominated the wrong person. You can safely bet that there have been a number of those moments on our side since the RBC theft.

    by: Pacific John @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 15:07:31 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    BostonBoomer has an excellent takedown of Jane’s response on C-Span (4.00 / 1)
    It’s a must read and articulates everything I mentioned last night about Jane condescendingly calling women like the Tennessee caller of a certain class and racist:
    http://riverdaughter.wordpress
    BostonBoomer transcribed the call and Jane’s response as well:
    Elizabeth (the caller from Tennessee):

    To Jane Hamsher, I have been a lifelong Democrat, I was very involved in the health care battles of the 90’s. I was involved in actual implementing of town hall meetings back then in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois; so I don’t take a back seat to you.
    But in the area of February of 2008, I discontinued reading your blog and also the dailykos blog altogether because of your extreme hatred and villification of another Democratic candidate, and that was Senator Hillary Clinton. [Jane Hamsher rolls her eyes at this point]

    I don’t know how much you are aware [of]…how much damage you did and how much damage Markos did-

    Hamsher interrupts the caller: “Are you sure you’re talking about our blog? We had Hillary Clinton on [patronizing laughter] …

    Elizabeth says: I’m talking about your blog, ma’m, and you should know it. If anyone wants to know they should go read…from that time. [interviewer breaks in and asks when this was, but Elizabeth goes on with her points.]

    “You mentioned today that Obama was an anti-war candidate. He was no such thing. In fact, throughout the campaign, he continued to say that Afghanistan was a good war…. ”

    [Jane Hamsher breaks in to agree with Elizabeth on this point.]

    Elizabeth says: “You really caused a lot of people to leave the Democratic party during the 2008 campaign. And I’m telling you now, I’m sorry that you’re sick, I’m sorry that you’ve had three bouts with the cancer, but I’m gonna say this. You are going to be shown exactly what damage you caused our party last primary season, and I will never forgive you for that.”

    Jane’s response:

    I know that there was a certain class of women who decided that they would start supporting John McCain over what they thought was bad treatment of Hillary Clinton. In fact…I took a video at the Rules Committee meeting, a woman, Harriet Christian who said that…she was not going to support a party who would have an inept black man as a candidate, and that became a…rallying point for some people.
    We didn’t take a position…in the primaries. We said that we would support whoever was the winner and in fact had Senator Clinton as a guest on the blog, so I think we represented all viewpoints. I think there were people their who were Hillary Clinton partisans; I think that there were people there who were Barack Obama partisans, and I think that each side…collectively saw the other side as the issue. But I don’t think we were unfair to Senator Clinton, and I don’t believe that the people who left the party to vote for John McCain, who was very much an anti-choice candidate, a pro-war candidate, reflect the same values that I have anyway, or reflect the values of Senator Clinton.

    For the record, Harriet Christian allegedly said she wouldn’t support an INEPT black man (again, I haven’t seen any video of this so who knows what Christian really said). But it’s obvious Jane is trying to twist Christian’s words to make her into a racist.
    by: BotoxicPelosi @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 10:27:08 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Here is the Harriet Christian video (4.00 / 1)
    As someone on The Confluence said, Christian “speaks best for herself”.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
    by: BotoxicPelosi @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 10:36:58 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    The biggest irony (4.00 / 2)

    The biggest irony, to me, of the used-to-love-Obama reformers is this:
    They were the biggest complainers that after the reasons to attack Iraq were shown to be lies, those who said they were lies BEFORE the invasion were STILL banned from the “serious” media.

    Similarly, they were the biggest complainers that after the financial meltdown, those who saw it coming are STILL banned from the “serious” media.

    So how hypocritical is it that they STILL ban those of us who saw Obama early on for the fake that he is?

    And how ironical is it that Lambert has also banned me from Corrente?

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com
    by: Caro @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 05:53:47 AM CST
    Why were you banned from Corrente? (0.00 / 0)
    I didn’t know that – and it seems strange because Corrente – like Alegre’s Corner – has consistently been one of the safe sane spots on the “internets”.
    by: CoyoteCreek @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 08:42:50 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    I remember that wave (0.00 / 0)
    and reading on various sites that people were being banned at Corrente for continuing to support Clinton.
    I really enjoyed lambert’s posts and comments on other sites, but he made it so difficult to get registered to comment on his site, that I stopped even going over there to read.

    Maybe he can share what the motivation or payoff was to all the HRC supporting sites converting with such aggression to Obama all the time and only if you were into the koolaid.
    by: webfooteddem @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 13:52:32 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but if you dare to criticize Obama … (0.00 / 0)
    … in a way that, although true, is also being touted on the right-wing blogs, you are banned. You may not say true things about Obama that the right wingers are also saying.
    Since I don’t know what the right wingers are saying, as I never read their blogs, I was at a distinct disadvantage.

    Also, if you’ll notice, everyone who posts on Corrente sounds exactly like Lambert. Not exactly what a group blog claims to be about.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com
    by: Caro @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 14:08:16 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    I consider it hypocritical (0.00 / 0)
    to ban someone from your blog and then expect them to let you comment on theirs.
    But I’m an asshole, what do I know?
    by: myiq2xu @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 17:21:35 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, me too. (0.00 / 0)
    Assholes of the world, unite!
    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com
    by: Caro @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 16:20:38 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    I don’t want guilt (0.00 / 0)
    What I want from Hamsher and all the rest of them is an understanding of WHY they failed. And the ensuing commitment to NOT do it again. (That is, from the ones who are in some sense genuine and not agents of the corporations.)
    They failed in their RESPONSIBILITY to back the best person because they failed to research and pay attention to the FACTS. Who Obama is was evident to anyone who spent even an hour doing simple research.

    And to anyone who knows a fraud and a crook when they see one. And who knows just how corrupt our system is.

    The thing that is probably hardest for them to admit is that they were foolish and ignorant.

    And really we should just not be paying any attention to them. They don’t deserve it.
    by: foxx @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 12:47:19 PM CST
    But the hump they need to scale is: (4.00 / 1)
    “We failed because…”
    Everything else flows from that.
    by: Pacific John @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 15:14:34 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Thx PJ (4.00 / 1)
    Great addition to what RD said. And as far as Jane now going after the power guys, I have a problem with some one that would snuggle up to Grover Norquist over Democrats–like us–that said this would happen all along during the primary.
    This was my last stand 18 months ago on FDL where Jane Clearly says to us:

    “Absolutely right. Fuck ’em. Who needs to win? Let’s stand on principle here.”
    I’d like an answer to what the principle here was first?

    http://firedoglake.com/2008/05

    Interestingly enough, Jeralyn Merritt posts on that thread too. They didn’t want us then and they don’t want us now. They’d rather have Norquist and the like. We remind them of what it really means to take principled stands and they don’t like it.
    by: Dakinikat @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 16:33:53 PM CST
    Exactly. (4.00 / 2)
    Unfortunately, at the end of the day, both are access bloggers. Jerlayn is a groupie as well.
    by: ghost2 @ Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 18:32:21 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Why are we letting… (4.00 / 2)
    …the Jane and the Markos scumbag dominate the dialogue? O’bomber is a freakin’ disaster for the ‘Democrat’ Party and she did everything in her power to get him ‘selected’.
    Rather than ‘welcoming her back…’ why not ‘MoveOn’ and start building for the ugly blowback from 2010 and beyond. Then O’Bomb and Co’s. sellout to the insurance pirates becomes clear to the voters they are going to destroy the current elected scum masquerading as ‘Democrat’. For when it becomes crystal clear that O’Bomber is no more than another pimp for the MIC. Honestly his stupidity in The ‘Stans alone is reason for his removal from power. We are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars thousands of lies and commit hundreds of war crimes to reduce a nation whose GDP is 12 Billion! Really!

    Progressives need to be ready with a sensible narrative that points a viable way forward or the nation is looking at another ReThug hegemony after the roof falls in on O’ButtHaid.

    The Hell With Jane.

    Let’s get after some real support for real Progressives.

    And yeah, I was banned at the following sites for criticizing the O’Bummer. Nothing else just saying that IN MY OPINION he, O’Bomber, would govern in essentially the same way as McSame.

    FDL
    OpenLeft
    TalkLeft
    Corrente…recently had a comment removed and have vowed to never return..
    Crooks & Liars
    MyDD
    Drinking Liberally, now wimpized as ‘Living Liberally’f or which I wrote over 2500 posts over four years only to be told that my attitudes about O’ButtHaid were ‘divisive…’

    I lived through the ‘New Left’ debacle of the early 70s and the same thing is happening. Fascistii, like Jane and Markos and Jeralyn and BTD etc. having gotten a hold of what they see as a good thing, today the ‘progressive blogosphere’, just as their fellow travelers at RedState and in the MSM want to, and have, pull up the drawbridge so that their ‘position’ is safe. They are now the ‘experts’ you and I can just STFU, eh?

    An honest appraisal of the chief bloggers at the sites listed above and many others on the ‘left’ shows that the primary can barely write their way out of a paper bag and really knows very little of the social, economic and moral history of our nation. Don’t agree?

    I give you Ezra Klein…

    Enough said, eh? I’m with Mr. Twain on this and a whole lot of folks would be way better off if they were too.

    Kudos to Allegre & Co. for having the gall to do their own thing despite the Janes and Moulitas’s of this scene.
    by: A.Citizen @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 00:05:04 AM CST
    I’m with you. I have no intention of returning…. (4.00 / 2)
    So now what? How do we get Alegre’s Corner and The Confluence, et al out there speaking what has to be said?
    by: CoyoteCreek @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:07:27 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    What I mean is….what is our “business” plan? (0.00 / 0)
    Or, how do we expand the one we currently are using?
    by: CoyoteCreek @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:08:48 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    way forward? (4.00 / 1)
    Dr Socks over at Reclusive Leftist has started some planning for a new Justice Party and it’s pretty good.
    My question is would a 3rd party effort be doomed or do we try to establish a voting bloc similar to the religious right and use that to influence the current legacy partiess?
    by: RalphB @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:21:45 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    My plan (4.00 / 3)
    is to keep running around screaming like my hair is on fire.
    First and foremost we need to keep speaking out. We might be able to forgive (some things) but we can’t ever forget or allow history to be rewritten or whitewashed.
    by: myiq2xu @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:02:00 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Can we get all of our individual screaming…. (4.00 / 1)
    into one major loud continuing shriek?
    I know it’s better to light just one little candle….but that’s just not enough.
    by: CoyoteCreek @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:05:02 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    If we screan loud enough (4.00 / 2)
    it might just lead to a voting bloc in November. Good plan.
    And the history can’t be forgotten or whitewashed, else it’ll just happen again next time.
    by: RalphB @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:22:07 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Ralphb…..Invite Your Friends Over To Join Us (4.00 / 1)
    It certainly won’t hurt to get a few more sane voices over to SWYW. The “we’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore” group is growing and we all need to stick together.
    BTW…..Happy Birthday

    “Say What You Will…It Feels So Good”
    by: PssttCmere @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 20:13:34 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    I read Dr. Socks and agree that it’s a good plan (4.00 / 3)
    Now what I want to know is how/when/who will get the ball off the ground. I’m happy if Dr. Socks does – I’ll join her – but there needs to be a groundswell of movement – in some direction – soon – to make sure that we move this thing along.
    I still consider myself a PUMA – in the original form – Party Unity My Ass – before it was taken over by who-knows-what.

    Let’s go!

    Time is of the essence!

    Strike while the iron is hot!

    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    (Oh, and I’M READY!)
    by: CoyoteCreek @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:02:47 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    HillBuzz is moving forward….. (0.00 / 0)
    PUMA meets the Tea Party <—which is not wingnut as I learned from them at the 9-12 D.C. march, it's an independent movement mad at both parties. I met many "former" PUMAs there. Many "former" N.O.W. members too 😉
    Don't let the blogs on the left choose the crayons to color your world….as a Yearly Kos alum, I had to move as far away from them to clear my head….and it's fabulous!
    by: diggins @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:44:17 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    I like Dr Socks' proposal for a 3rd party but realistically…. (0.00 / 0)
    Third party efforts are doomed. We might be able to win a few local elections like the Greens and Libertarians but we aren't going to see any Justice Party candidates in the House, Senate, or White House in our lifetimes…
    I've always been an advocate for working with REAL Democrats at the grassroots level and maybe the Justice Party can be an offshoot of that or become something like MoveOn used to be…There are so many Hillary Clinton supporters, former Edwards supporters, Reagan Dems, and Independents out there who don't use the internet or read the progblogs and could give a shit about what Jane and Markos thinks. These are the folks who will be easily swayed to vote Republican in 2010 and 2012.

    The Democrats at the national level have been bought and don't have a leader in the White House who know or cares about using his bargaining chips to get at least a few concessions from corporate America that will appease these traditionally Democratic voters who have gone to the Republicans. Someone with time and money needs to build their own Democratic grassroots organization both online and on the ground to get these Democrats in Exile mobilized into one powerful voice large enough for the Democrats at the top to take notice.

    Jane sees the writing on the wall which is why she is starting to mobilize against Obama and the health care bill right now. She's trying to do the exact same thing Dr Socks and the people here and at the Confluence have been trying to do but without the money and insider influence she has. This is why she continues to ignore and undermine us and use the race card to keep her followers from ever thinking about joining our REAL grassroots movement.
    by: BotoxicPelosi @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:59:51 AM CST
    [ Parent ]
    There hasn't been a time of discontent (4.00 / 1)
    like this one since the '30s and Obama isn't FDR to hold it all together and move it forward. Under these circumstances a 3rd party might have a window of opportunity. To attain critical mass I think it would have to include populists from the Right as well as from the Left. That would really be worse than herding cats, though not that different from the New Deal coalition.
    by: RalphB @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 13:04:29 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Ms. Hamsher, Tear Down This Rationalization (4.00 / 4)
    Hi Everyone! This is my first posting after reading your site for more than 2 years, so forgive any wordiness.
    I am Elizabeth from Tennessee, originally from Madison, WI and I was the one who was shown to be "one of those class of women"…you know…uneducated, bigots who voted for John McCain.
    I am educated, not masters prepared, as our Jane, but I'll let Jane think what ever she wants. I am sorry to say that I was shocked by her attitude and her response.
    For the first time since 1972, I didn't vote in 2008. I could not consider voting for John McCain nor any republican, for that matter.
    I have left the Democratic party for good and hope that we all can come together and define a new party that will look out for the common man. I have the energy and the will to take on the Janes wherever I find them.
    Thanks for this wonderful New Years Gift!
    by: TENLIB10 @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 15:37:15 PM CST
    You're awesome, Elizabeth! (0.00 / 0)
    Please comment more often. We need educated and articulate voices like yours representing us. Boy, I sure hope Jane is reading this because she automatically assumed that you MUST have been a racist who voted for McCain.
    by: BotoxicPelosi @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 15:53:53 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Hello – and WELCOME! (0.00 / 0)

    by: CoyoteCreek @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 17:10:15 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    You rock, Elizabeth! (4.00 / 2)
    You provided a golden service exposing Jane's snobbery. Like you said, you don't take a back seat to her.
    And thank you TN! (And AR and WV and KY)
    by: Pacific John @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 18:35:04 PM CST
    [ Parent ]
    Ms. Hamsher, Tear Down This Rationalization | 51 comments

  91. Admin: this is something I would like to send to breitbart. If shows a number of things: first, that we are dealing with cannibals–as if we didnt know that; second that members of the hard left who dissed Hillary are waking up; third, that these people are seeing only now that Obama is a Wall Street shill; riverdaughter skins jane hamsher alive for her anti hillary attitude and her elitist contempt for the base whereas others welcome her back, and anyone else except for kos. The moderator of this discussion is Pacific John who filed complaints over caucus fraud and he blog he posted at mydd was scrubbed shortly after I referenced it in the Soros paper–correlation or causation I dont know; but in this case. If they scrub this I have saved it on hard drive.

    http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=3875

    ps: tried to post the article here but spam filter blocked it.

  92. Fort Hood Intel Lapse Mirrors Detroit Case – CBS Evening News
    (CBS) Less than a month after major Nidal Hasan allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, the Pentagon’s top intelligence officer sent the White House a report detailing an earlier failure to connect the dots. It reads like a dress rehearsal for the Detroit bomber case, reports CBS News chief national security correspondent David Martin.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/07/eveningnews/main6069298.shtml?tag=stack

    Fox has comparable story:
    Shortly after alleged gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood and killed 13 people, the Pentagon’s top intelligence officer reportedly sent a classified report to the White House detailing a prior failure to connect the dots.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582540,00.html

  93. Gonzotex, No doubt Colt would have kicked some Alabama bottom. The few plays he was in they were scared out of their minds.

    Your daughter sounds beautiful, I too would of liked a match up with my daughters, Colt McCoy is a class act. I feel it in my bones, he’s the next Troy Aikman. Lets hope he heels quick. I will be watching for the draft in April to see where he goes, hopefully somewhere where he will play. I would like to see him go to Minnesota and work under Favre for a year or two. Whatever happens Colt will be a legend.

  94. wbboei, Oh no! You said she had pneumonia, she’s probably still in the hospital. It took my daughter who is 31 y.o. over 7 days to get over it in the hospital. Do you know anyone else who can check for us??

    I did not know they scrubbed the caucas fraud off the internet after your article. Well, at least they are paying attention to what you write.

  95. Obama’s Guantanamo obsession

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, January 8, 2010

    On Wednesday, Nigerian would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was indicted by a Michigan grand jury for attempted murder and sundry other criminal charges. The previous day, the State Department announced that his visa had been revoked. The system worked.

    Well, it did for Abdulmutallab. What he lost in flying privileges he gained in Miranda rights. He was singing quite freely when seized after trying to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit. But the Obama administration decided to give him a lawyer and the right to remain silent. We are now forced to purchase information from this attempted terrorist in the coin of leniency. Absurdly, Abdulmutallab is now in control.

    And this is no ordinary information. He was trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen, and just days after he was lawyered up and shut up, the United States was forced to close its embassy in Yemen because of active threats from the same people who had trained and sent Abdulmutallab.

    This is nuts. Even if you wanted ultimately to try him as an ordinary criminal, he could have been detained in military custody — and thus subject to military interrogation — without prejudicing his ultimate disposition. After all, every Guantanamo detainee was first treated as an enemy combatant and presumably interrogated. But some (most notoriously Khalid Sheik Mohammed) are going to civilian trial. That determination can be made later.

    John Brennan, President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, professes an inability to see any “downsides” to treating Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal — with a right to remain silent — a view with which 71 percent of likely voters sensibly disagree.

    The administration likes to defend itself by invoking a Bush precedent: Wasn’t the shoe bomber treated the same way? Yes. And it was a mistake, but in the context of the time understandable. That context does not remotely exist today.

    Richard Reid struck three months after 9/11. The current anti-terror apparatus was not in place. Remember: This was barely a month after President Bush authorized the creation of military commissions and before that system had been even set up. Moreover, the Pentagon at the time was preoccupied with the Afghan campaign that brought down the Taliban in two months. The last major Taliban city, Kandahar, fell just two weeks before Reid tried to ignite his shoe on an airplane.

    To be sure, after a few initial misguided statements, Obama did get somewhat serious about the Christmas Day attack. First, he instituted high-level special screening for passengers from 14 countries, the vast majority of which are Muslim with significant Islamist elements. This is the first rational step away from today’s idiotic random screening and toward, yes, a measure of profiling — i.e., focusing on the population most overwhelmingly likely to be harboring a suicide bomber.

    Obama also sensibly suspended all transfers of Yemenis from Guantanamo. Nonetheless, Obama insisted on repeating his determination to close the prison, invoking his usual rationale of eliminating a rallying cry and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

    Imagine that Guantanamo were to disappear tomorrow, swallowed in a giant tsunami. Do you think there’d be any less recruiting for al-Qaeda in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, London? Jihadism’s list of grievances against the West is not only self-replenishing but endlessly creative. Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa commanding universal jihad against America cited as its two top grievances our stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia and Iraqi suffering under anti-Saddam sanctions.

    Today, there are virtually no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. And the sanctions regime against Iraq was abolished years ago. Has al-Qaeda stopped recruiting? Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s No. 2, often invokes Andalusia in his speeches. For those not steeped in the multivolume lexicon of Islamist grievances, Andalusia refers to Iberia, lost by Islam to Christendom — in 1492.

    This is a fanatical religious sect dedicated to establishing the most oppressive medieval theocracy and therefore committed to unending war with America not just because it is infidel but because it represents modernity with its individual liberty, social equality (especially for women) and profound tolerance (religious, sexual, philosophical). You going to change that by evacuating Guantanamo?

    Nevertheless, Obama will not change his determination to close Guantanamo. He is too politically committed. The only hope is that perhaps now he is offering his “recruiting” rationale out of political expediency rather than real belief. With suicide bombers in the air, cynicism is far less dangerous to the country than naivete.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703245.html?sub=AR

  96. Clinton and Rudd to talk climate change

    PETER VENESS
    January 8, 2010

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wants to talk climate change with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd when she arrives in Australia later this month.

    Mrs Clinton is coming for the annual Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations and will be accompanied by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

    “Prime Minister Rudd was here before Copenhagen, they had a meeting at Copenhagen, and I’m sure they will follow up on how to operationalise the Copenhagen accord as quickly as possible,” State Department assistant secretary Philip Crowley told reporters in Washington DC today.

    On her way to Australia, Mrs Clinton will visit Papua New Guinea, the first secretary of state to do so since 1998.
    Women’s empowerment, HIV/AIDS, climate change and renewable energy are all on the agenda for discussions in PNG.

    From there, Mrs Clinton flies to New Zealand where she will meet with Prime Minister John Key, Opposition Leader Phil Goff and business and community leaders in Auckland. She will touch down in Canberra on Sunday, January 17.

    The following day she and Dr Gates will meet with Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Minister John Faulkner for AUSMIN. The US State Department has said they’ll discuss “key global and regional security challenges”.

    Mr Smith says the talks will address “shared global and regional interests”.

    “Following closely President Obama’s recently announced revised strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Australia and the United States will discuss their commitment to both countries,” the foreign minister said in a statement.

    Joint counter-terrorism efforts will also be discussed “in the wake of the failed terrorist attack on a US airliner”.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clinton-and-rudd-to-talk-climate-change-20100108-lxzb.html

  97. Reposted without links which are in spam filter:
    Fort Hood Intel Lapse Mirrors Detroit Case – CBS Evening News
    (CBS) Less than a month after major Nidal Hasan allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, the Pentagon’s top intelligence officer sent the White House a report detailing an earlier failure to connect the dots. It reads like a dress rehearsal for the Detroit bomber case, reports CBS News chief national security correspondent David Martin.

    Fox has comparable story:
    Shortly after alleged gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood and killed 13 people, the Pentagon’s top intelligence officer reportedly sent a classified report to the White House detailing a prior failure to connect the dots.

  98. So Gov Sarah Palin will speak at the Tea Party convention, according to an AOL feed. That cannot be good news for OO. They are looking for a leader. If Gov Palin decided to take that position, which is speculated in the same article, it would be very bad news for OO. He really won with the Independents. They have turned away from him. If Gov SP became a strong leader of the Independents, I would think the Dims are in more trouble.

  99. Hillary was right! O fails the ‘3 a.m. phone’ test

    WASHINGTON — Turns out Hillary Rodham Clinton was right all along.

    During the nastiest battle of the entire 2008 presidential race, she aired an alarming television commercial warning voters that they would come to regret nominating Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

    If — in a national security crisis — the “red phone” rang at 3 a.m., the ad intoned, Obama would not hear it.

    Or he would fail to answer it.

    Or he would be on vacation.

    In any case, an Obama White House would so diminish the threat of terrorism that the government’s focus would shift away from the harsh and determined tactics used to protect the homeland.”

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/hillary_was_right_fails_the_phone_OOkY1azIMVGzykoVWCCozM

  100. IF THE “BUCK STOPS WITH ME” ABOUT ONE THING…

    then it should about unemployment.

    Heck of a job, Obami.

    cnbc.com/id/34764587

    Job-Creation Hopes Dashed; 85,000 Shed in December
    =========================

    U.S. employers unexpectedly cut 85,000 jobs in December, government data showed on Friday, cooling optimism on the labor market’s recovery and keeping pressure on President Barack Obama.

    The Labor Department said November payrolls were revised to show the economy actually added 4,000 jobs rather than losing 11,000 as initially reported. With revisions to October, however, the economy lost 1,000 more jobs than previously estimated over the two months.

    The unemployment rate was unchanged at 10 percent in December. Analysts polled by Reuters had expected nonfarm payrolls to be unchanged last month and the unemployment rate to edge up to 10.1 percent.

    “The American economy is clearly not going to burst out of the gate with growth and job creation but it will perform better than its major competitors in Europe and Japan,” said Joseph Trevisani, chief market analyst at FX Solutions in Ridgewood, N.J.

    U.S. stock futures turned negative on the data, while government bond prices erased losses. The U.S. dollar fell against the euro.

    High unemployment is one of the toughest domestic challenges facing Obama. The administration’s success in getting people back to work will shape prospects for Obama’s political future.

    Obama’s popularity has steadily fallen, knocking his approval ratings down to around 50 percent. This could dim the election prospects for his Democratic Party in the November congressional elections. Obama is scheduled to make a statement on the economy at 2:40 p.m.

    RELATED LINKS
    Current DateTime: 06:24:27 08 Jan 2010
    LinksList Documentid: 34764649
    Where Jobs Were LostCan Moving Get You a Job?Easiest Cities to Find a JobHardest Cities to Find a JobMore Economic News
    Unemployment remains the Achilles heel of the economic recovery, which started in the third quarter of 2009 following the worst recession in 70 years. Creating jobs is critical to sustaining the economic recovery when government stimulus fades.

    For the whole of 2009, the economy shed 4.2 million jobs, the department said.

    Still the job market continued to show broad improvements last month, with a number of sectors showing gains.

    Professional and business services added 50,000 positions, while education and health services increased payrolls by 35,000. Temporary help employment rose by 47,000.

    Manufacturing payrolls fell 27,000 after dropping 35,000 in November. The construction sector lost 53,000 jobs, while the service-providing sector shed only 4,000 workers.

    The average workweek was unchanged at 33.2 hours, while average hourly earnings increased by $18.80 from $18.77 in November.

    The state of the job market is among the key factors that will determine the timing of the Federal Reserve’s first interest rate increase since cutting benchmark overnight borrowing costs to near zero percent in December 2008.

    The U.S. central bank has vowed to keep rates low for an extended period, and the jobs data supported that expectation.

  101. Just heard on Fox a couple of guys arguing, the capitalists want to send the rest of our manufacturing jobs to China! WTF!! Haven’t we given them enough work???

  102. SSSSH…DON’T WAKE HIM. HE’S HAD A LONG DAY BODY SURFING

    nypost.com/p/news/national/hillary_was_right_fails_the_phone_OOkY1azIMVGzykoVWCCozM

    Hillary was right! O fails the ‘3 a.m. phone’ test
    ================

    By Charles Hurt

    WASHINGTON — Turns out Hillary Rodham Clinton was right all along.

    During the nastiest battle of the entire 2008 presidential race, she aired an alarming television commercial warning voters that they would come to regret nominating Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

    If — in a national security crisis — the “red phone” rang at 3 a.m., the ad intoned, Obama would not hear it.

    Or he would fail to answer it.

    Or he would be on vacation.

    In any case, an Obama White House would so diminish the threat of terrorism that the government’s focus would shift away from the harsh and determined tactics used to protect the homeland.

    Instead, Obama would turn his attention to becoming more popular in the world and stress negotiations over hardball tactics.

    This attitude from the commander in chief would trickle down to every corner of the federal government responsible for national security.

    Obama lashed out at Clinton, dismissing her and accusing her of desperation and playing upon people’s fears.

    “Sen. Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign, we’re trying to scare people,” replied Clinton, appropriately mystified.

    Well, yesterday those chickens came home to roost.

    On a day when the administration desperately hoped to calm America’s fears that a soft-headed, bumbling raft of politically correct peaceniks had taken over and fallen asleep at the national security switch, there wasn’t much to see in the White House other than bungling of previous bungles.

    These guys could not even settle on a time for Obama to address the country without rescheduling four times.

    When he finally did speak — in the late afternoon — Obama offered a crushing analysis.

    Evaluating all the ways in which his administration failed leading up to the attempted crotch-bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, Obama declared it a “systemic failure.”

    Yes, indeed.

    Far more terrifying was how basic and fundamental these breakdowns were.

    In the future, Obama said, “we must follow the leads that we get.”

    You think?

    “We can’t sit on information that could protect the American people.”

    Seriously?

    “We must do better in keeping dangerous people off of airplanes.”

    You don’t say!

    Is anyone else feeling a little less than reassured right about now?

    Not that any of this should have come as much of a surprise.

    It is certainly not the first piece of evidence that Obama would rather be liked in the world than pursue the tactics proven to beat this evil and unceasing enemy.

    Never will be forgotten Obama’s trip to Cairo last year to address the Muslim world, when he said that he believes it is “part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

    Forget for a moment that such folly appears nowhere in the American president’s job description.

    If you have time for such nonsense, then you are not spending enough time thinking about how to thwart this enemy.

    But it is not like we weren’t warned by Hillary Clinton.

    There was, however, a glint of good news yesterday. Obama invited former President Bill Clinton into the White House for an unexpected private chat.

    Let’s hope Obama asked him where the red phone is and how to answer it.

  103. NY TIMES “NOT REASSURED” BY REHASHED SECURITY SPEECH

    Excerpt below is from lead op-ed piece, “Eight Years Later”.

    nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08fri1.html

    [snip]
    President Obama has now ordered a raft of immediate improvements in the handling of intelligence and in border security.

    We would feel more reassured if these steps weren’t so basic and self-evident: improve intelligence analysis; clarify the responsibilities of different agencies; upgrade computer technology; ensure faster distribution of intelligence reports; train National Security Agency personnel in watch list procedures; add more people to watch lists; enhance airport screening.

    [snip]

  104. I just read over at CW that Pastor Manning is saying that Obama was in Afganistan between 1980-1983. Isn’t that the time that the Soviets were there? Isn’t that the time he was working for BIC (a front for the CIA)?

    Apparently the birthers are pist at Beck, he belittled them. No wonder Pastor Manning is after Glenn Beck and O’Reilly. He says they work for Obama. Well Beck certainly does cause chaos and uses the Saul Alinsky methods he says everyone else uses but himself. Don’t know, but its interesting. Potus can’t possibly make it much longer. All his lies are catching up with him.

  105. Reposted without links which are in spam filter:
    Fort Hood Intel Lapse Mirrors Detroit Case – CBS Evening News
    (CBS) Less than a month after major Nidal Hasan allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, the Pentagon’s top intelligence officer sent the White House a report detailing an earlier failure to connect the dots. It reads like a dress rehearsal for the Detroit bomber case, reports CBS News chief national security correspondent David Martin.

    Fox has comparable story:
    Shortly after alleged gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood and killed 13 people, the Pentagon’s top intelligence officer reportedly sent a classified report to the White House detailing a prior failure to connect the dots.
    ——————————–
    A very big story if it gains traction.

  106. Was it a prior failure to connect the dots or was it obama refusing to do anything to offend his racist/terrorist buddies and laying down the law to this effect?

  107. Apparently Sarah is going to be the keynote speaker at the tea party in Nashville. She will need to raise millions of dollars in order to get in. Stranger things have happened, she would be truly the people’s party. Regular Americans may be able to raise enough without corporations, but it will be hard.

  108. RealClearPolitics has this opinion piece from USA Today:

    blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/01/debate-on-national-security-our-view-review-of-christmas-attack-shows-disturbing-complacency.html?loc=interstitialskip

    Our view on national security: Review of Christmas attack shows disturbing complacency
    Obama’s bureaucratic directives gloss over deeper problems.
    The more President Obama tries to explain how a terrorist was nearly able to blow up an airliner on Christmas Day, the worse the situation looks and so, increasingly, does his response.

    In his sixth and most sweeping stab at the problem Thursday, the president finally seemed to have diagnosed the basics. The intelligence community collected ample information to pre-empt the attack, but it failed in all sorts of ways to put the clues together.

    That’s old news, though, and Obama’s analysis, while accurate in detail, seemed to miss the essence of the problem. And that leaves great doubt whether his proposed solution — heavy on aspirational bureaucratese — will work.

    To be sure, Obama hit on some essential, if by now obvious, improvements: Better technology to help analysts connect information; wider, faster distribution of intelligence data; smarter guidelines for watch lists and clearer responsibility for running down leads on plots against the USA.

    But he glossed over the underlying problem — a loss of urgency that has set in as years have passed since Sept. 11, 2001, without another calamity. How else to explain that intelligence and counterterrorism agencies now have to be reminded to follow suspicious leads?

    To understand how deep the complacency runs, look no further than Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, created after 9/11 to receive and analyze data from throughout the intelligence system. One day after the Christmas Day fiasco, Leiter — the man at the very center of the supposedly reformed and alert intelligence apparatus, the dot-connector-in-chief — bailed out of the office for a planned six-day ski vacation. Just as telling, the White House gave its blessing then and is defending the vacation now. Think of the message that sends to agency workers about commitment and priorities. Certainly not one of urgency.

    Leiter’s actions might not be so significant except that they are the perfect metaphor for the performance of the agency he heads. The counterterrorism center was created in 2004 to be the Department of Connecting the Dots. And it failed spectacularly, as did the CIA at its similar mission. This happened for a variety of reasons that can be summed up as “bad management.” Information was received but there was no follow-through. Poorly designed systems — both human and technological — assured failure. And all of this occurred even though the agencies have had years to get it right.

    Why then is Obama confident that the people who’ve already failed will now succeed? Lopping off heads is sometimes more of a PR gimmick than a solution, but Obama’s confidence in the current cast appears unjustified by the facts.

    Complacency is natural with the passage of time. It’s as evident in the public as it is in government. Travelers who eight years ago felt the specter of another attack on each plane trip now complain about the cumbersome measures put in place to protect them. But it can’t be allowed in defending the nation, and these leaders failed to keep their team on its toes.

    Obama himself even seemed slow to grasp the importance of the attempted attack. It took him three days to make his first public statement. And by then, his Homeland Security secretary had gone on television to declare, absurdly, that “the system worked.” Even now, some of his proposed fixes sound like things only a bureaucrat could love. The list revealed Thursday prescribes a lot of reviewing, pursuing, reaffirming, clarifying, issuing, strengthening and developing.

    The system needs more of a jolt.

    Had Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab been more deft and passengers less courageous, Americans celebrating Christmas would have been stunned by a terrorist mass murder. Confidence in airline security would be at zero, just as after 9/11. Confidence in the government’s ability to protect the nation would be just as low. The country would have been talking about attacking Yemen. The recovering economy could have suffered a significant blow.

    Perhaps the 23-year-old Nigerian attacker did the nation a favor by providing a wake-up call. What’s needed is a renewed sense of urgency, and that is something Obama has yet to supply.

    (U.S. security surrounds Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day.
    /By Charles Rex Arbogast, AP)

  109. This article begins with commentary on the video posted by PM 17 above by one of Obama’s enablers who is now irate that Obama has broken his campaign promises. These hard left types were like religious fanatics during the campaign and now they know that Obama is a God that failed. Too late for them, too late for us.

    What weight should we accord to this belated outrage? These are not honorable people. If they were they would put the blame where it belongs–on themselves. They are the ones who ignored the facts, fell in love with an illusions– and pulled others along this path of destruction. When we tried to tell them the truth they shouted us down. Even now they cannot bring themselves to blame themselves. They blame Obama. He isn’t the man they voted for in the campaign–that becomes their out. The truth is he was never the man they voted for in the campaign. They were intellectually lazy rubes.

    If that were all, I would be inclined to say something like well okay we live and learn. Except in this case, the price of their folly is far too high to ignore. Mr. Obama is destroying our capitalistic system, opening our borders, stealing our wealth and undermining our civil liberties while enhancing those of terrorists. He is in short the worst of all worlds, and for his erstwhile supporters to be throw these hissey fits now does not absolve them of their sins.

    The only value I see in their non confession confessions is their doubts, misgivings and feelings of betrayal will make it more difficult for Obama and his big media allies to pull the wool over their eyes now. They have been burned. And if they want to know what this is really about, then I will tell them right now: this is class warfare. The upper class and the professional class, who have always been contemptuous of the rest of society, and wish to preserve their perks and privileges can see the sunami and want to throw the rest of us in the path of the tidal wave to save themselves. They will create fault lines in society to get us fighting among themselves–like the race card.

    This following commentary comes from a conservative site, which is why they use the word liberals–a venerable term, rather than hard left–which is the right term since it is a synonym for Bolshevik. That is the word they should be using.
    —————————————————————————————————————-
    ROLLING THE LIBERALS

    When Lee Stranahan, an uninsured father and Huffington Post blogger, who supported President Obama, made calls and worked to elected President Obama launches a youtube video attack on the Trillion Dollar President that chronicles how Obama (in his own words) has violated his promise of not taxing the middle class, violating the promise of allowing you to keep your plan if you like it, and violating his promise not to make a deal with the drug companies — things have gotten really bad. The video below is worth watching.

    Combined with the White House’s sudden urgency on completing their informal, secret non-conference (thank you Senator DeMint) it is clear the health bill is in a heap of trouble. What will happen next depends on whether there is some I’ll-shoot-the-hostage-if-my-demands-are-not-met-leadership, by the House liberals.

    (If you have not seen the “charming liar” attack on Obama for reneging on his health care transparency promises or his drug company promises, pls click here. It is well worth it.)

    From Ben Pershing, in the Washington Post:

    “Liberals are particularly worried that Obama has indicated to negotiators that he wants to preserve the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans, a provision that is included in the Senate bill but not the House measure. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said several members spoke out on the subject during Thursday’s call.

    “That position is going to be difficult in the House, and the White House needs to reconcile that,” Grijalva said in an interview. On that tax and a host of other issues, he added, “merely to rubberstamp what the Senate does is not enough.”

    Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) has enlisted 190 House Democrats to sign a letter declaring their opposition to the tax, which has also been fiercely criticized by labor unions — some of whose members would be exposed to the tax — and by other skeptics who fear the tax could hurt the middle class.”

    The real question is, who cares?

    The White House believes the liberals (just like Senators Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Webb and others) will roll over and vote yes.

    For all the liberals pounding on the bill or on this provision or that provision — the only question that matters is: will the liberals vote NO if they do not get their principles they believe so strongly included in the bill?

    If they do not have the courage or the belief in their principles to vote NO on a bill that shreds them, then who cares that there are 190 Democratic Representative’s signatures on a letter to the Speaker? The Speaker and the White House only care about one thing, will you vote yes? Or will you vote no?

    No one believes the liberals will vote NO, everyone believes they will cave and vote YES in the hours and minutes before the vote, despite the fact that the liberals are given the short end of the stick every time on issue after issue: abortion, public option, Medicare buy-in, banning illegals from getting benefits, imposing a mandate to force Americans to buy insurance from private insurers, taxing health care plans, especially the rich union ones.

    They will be asked, “Do you want to destroy the Obama Presidency?” Are you going to vote “against your President?” Or, “are you going to kill health care reform?” as if they solely are responsible for the bill’s content?

    So, the liberals — unless they play some very uncharacteristic and serious hardball — will not get what they want out of the secret, informal, non-conference, simply because — unlike Senator Lieberman — no one believes they will vote NO. Therefore, the White House can give liberals the middle finger and force them to sign-off on the Senate bill — at no cost.

    Here is what one liberal blogger is writing in one of the liberal’s top websites:

    “I asked Grijalva [Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus] whether the White House’s support for the Senate health care bill’s excise tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance policies is compatible with his promise on the campaign.

    “No, it’s not,” Grijalva said. This is very dangerous territory for the White House. When you have a Democratic congressman saying that the President is advocating raising taxes on the middle class, that’s fodder for campaign commercials against every member of Congress who votes for the health care bill, and against the President himself.”

    Clearly, this is but one of many campaign pledges President Obama has broken about health care, but what are the liberals going to do about it? If history is any guide, they will beat their chests about their concerns, get rolled and fold like a house of cards.

    Until one liberal who has the back-bone and the courage to say I will be the vote that kills the bill — and the credibility to tell the President and Speaker the same when they come calling or when the White House and the House Leadership put the screws to force them to change their vote — expect more of the same — the liberals get rolled, and then vote Yes. (This is called leadership.)

    There is a credible argument to be made that if they did issue a credible threat, that the White House would cave. But in order for it to be credible, the Speaker and the White House would have to know for certain those threatening to vote no, would vote no — just like they knew Stupak’s gang would vote no and just like they knew Senator Lieberman would vote no. House liberals will have to convince the leadership that they are not only willing to take the bill hostage, but shoot-it-in-the head if their demands are not met.

    But, we are no where near that point now. The liberals have not even said they will vote no — let alone stand up to the pressure that will be brought to bear if they do say they will vote no. Bottom line, do the liberals have any serious leadership in their ranks that will do the things necessary to win?

    Is there a Jane Hamsher or a Lee Stranahan in the House?

    If not, the liberals should stop wondering why they keep being rolled and ignored

    He finally wakes up to the to the inescapable fact which escaped him up til now that Obama lies and his campaign promises and now even his governing promises mean nothing.

    then talks about how the hard left are like Rodney Dangerfield to Mr. Obama, in that them “no respect”.

  110. jbstonesfan
    January 8th, 2010 at 12:24 pm

    “The new strategy requires, in their view, accommodating the world’s rising powers, principally China and Russia, rather than attempting to contain the ambitions of those powers. Their accommodation consists in granting China and Russia what rising powers always want: greater respect for their political systems at home and greater hegemony within their respective regions.”

    ——————————

    Yep! And we all know how well that is working. Respect is a two-way street.

  111. Hillary was right! O fails the ‘3 a.m. phone’ test
    Comments: 37

    Last Updated: 11:15 AM, January 8, 2010

    Posted: 3:13 AM, January 8, 2010

    WASHINGTON — Turns out Hillary Rodham Clinton was right all alongDuring the nastiest battle of the entire 2008 presidential race, she aired an alarming television commercial warning voters that they would come to regret nominating Barack Obama to occupy the White HouseIf — in a national security crisis — the “red phone” rang at 3 a.m., the ad intoned, Obama would not hear it

    Or he would fail to answer it
    Or he would be on vacation

    In any case, an Obama White House would so diminish the threat of terrorism that the government’s focus would shift away from the harsh and determined tactics used to protect the homelandInstead, Obama would turn his attention to becoming more popular in the world and stress negotiations over hardball tacticsThis attitude from the commander in chief would trickle down to every corner of the federal government responsible for national securityObama lashed out at Clinton, dismissing her and accusing her of desperation and playing upon people’s fears. “Sen. Obama says that if we talk about national security in this campaign, we’re trying to scare people,” replied Clinton, appropriately mystified. Well, yesterday those chickens came home to roost.

    On a day when the administration desperately hoped to calm America’s fears that a soft-headed, bumbling raft of politically correct peaceniks had taken over and fallen asleep at the national security switch, there wasn’t much to see in the White House other than bungling of previous bungles.

    These guys could not even settle on a time for Obama to address the country without rescheduling four times.

    When he finally did speak — in the late afternoon — Obama offered a crushing analysis.

    Evaluating all the ways in which his administration failed leading up to the attempted crotch-bombing of a US airliner on Christmas Day, Obama declared it a “systemic failure.

    Yes, indeed.

    Far more terrifying was how basic and fundamental these breakdowns were.

    In the future, Obama said, “we must follow the leads that we get”.

    You think?

    “We can’t sit on information that could protect the American people.

    Seriously.

    “We must do better in keeping dangerous people off of airplanes.”

    You don’t say.

    Is anyone else feeling a little less than reassured right about now?

    Not that any of this should have come as much of a surprise.

    It is certainly not the first piece of evidence that Obama would rather be liked in the world than pursue the tactics proven to beat this evil and unceasing enemy.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/hillary_was_right_fails_the_phone_OOkY1azIMVGzykoVWCCozM

  112. Hello JanH…..This is the worst of times for our country, as well as Israel. We have elected a pro Muslim, anti-American President, and the damage just maybe irreversible. I have never been more scared for our countries future and Israel’s ability to survive the world wide conspiracy against her led by our POTUS.

  113. “The White House believes the liberals (just like Senators Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Webb and others) will roll over and vote yes.”

    —————————–
    That should be their mission statement, only broaden it to read: “The White House believes the liberals, all Americans, nations worldwide will roll over and roll over and roll over…

  114. The Obama Administration is larded with Chicago thugs. In fact, Chicago Sun Times reporter compared it to the 51st Ward which is a know cesspool of corruption. Thus this undisclosed conflict of interest is hardly surprising.
    ———————————————————————————–
    Economist Was Under Contract With HHS While Touting Health Reform Bill
    By Judson Berger
    – FOXNews.com

    MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the leading academic defenders of health care reform, is taking heat for failing to disclose consistently that he was under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services while he was touting the Democrats’ health proposals the media.

    print email share recommend (2)

    MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, left, and Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, right, testify on Capitol Hill about health care reform May 12. (AP Photo)
    MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the leading academic defenders of health care reform, is taking heat for failing to disclose consistently that he was under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services while he was touting the Democrats’ health proposals in the media.

    Gruber, according to federal government documents, is under a $297,600 contract until next month to provide “technical assistance” in evaluating health care reform proposals. He was under a $95,000 HHS contract before that.

    But while he was being paid to provide his services to HHS, he was also fending off health care reform critics in the media. Gruber was one of the prominent analysts to rebut an insurance industry report from PricewaterhouseCoopers in October saying premiums would shoot up if a health care bill passes. And he has recently written columns defending specific provisions in the House and Senate bills, particularly the “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans.

    The liberal base of the Democratic Party is widely opposed to that tax, out of fear that it will cut into union benefits — which may explain why the first criticism of Gruber came out of liberal blogs.

    “I have never seen it disclosed that he was a paid consultant to the Obama administration,” a blogger for Firedoglake wrote Friday morning. “For months I have been angry with Gruber because I thought he was simply an exaggerator whose dangerous love of the spotlight was hurting the efforts of progressives to make sure the Senate bill adopted more progressive cost control solutions. … Now it is clear something much more sinister was at play.”

    The Daily Kos declared that, given Gruber’s contract, the “fix was in” for the Cadillac plan.

    Gruber, when contacted by Fox News, acknowledged that he has a contract with HHS, but he said it has nothing to do with his public advocacy.

    “NONE of the work I have done in public, or any public declarations I (have) made, has been in any way funded by the administration,” he wrote in an e-mail. “That funding was strictly for internal work that I did for the administration and, via the administration, for Congress. All externally visible work and comments, such as my editorials or public reports, have been done on my own time.”

    Gruber said he “firmly” believes in the positions he advocates, and he said he has not been secretive about his contract with HHS. “I have told reporters whenever they asked,” he said.

    He noted that he disclosed his relationship with the Obama administration in a Dec. 24 column for The New England Journal of Medicine. Indeed, the “disclosures” link at the bottom of that article online takes the reader to a form showing Gruber is a “paid consultant to the Obama administration.”

    But a column in The Washington Post on the Cadillac tax just a few days later did not disclose his relationship with the administration. Gruber was listed merely as a “professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”

    Government documents explaining the terms of his contract say that he was “uniquely positioned” for providing analysis for the health department’s assistant secretary for planning and evaluation, describing him as a “recognized expert in health policy in economics.”

    Leave a Comment Sort: Newest Sort: Oldest Subscribe to CommentsSort: Newest Sort: Oldest Email
    * not displayed
    Comment Required
    Comment
    FOX News encourages you to participate in this discussion; however, please be sure to review our Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
    Leave a CommentYou must be logged in to comment. Please login or register below.
    Already a member of FOXNews.com?

    Log in now

    Username or Email Address
    Password
    Remember me on this computer Forgot your password? or login using a third-party account

  115. FWIW,

    I just got back from the town hall of a village in south-eastern Albany County i’ve started covering and there is BIG TIME buyer’s remorse up there!
    The town clerk said her husband, a big Squat supporter, screams at the TV whenver he shows his ugly mug and says he didn’t elect a socialist.
    She said that sentiment is shared by her family, friends and neighbors.

    Also, just a thought, if “Mission Accomplished” was bush’s albatross then “The Buck Stops Here” will be Squats’s, IMHO.

  116. Ill fares the land
    To hastening ills aprey
    Where wealth accumulates
    And men decay.

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

    Being a liberal tree-hugger myself, I like GKC’s version. 😉

    When men accumulate
    And wealth decays.

  117. Hillary was right! O fails the ‘3 a.m. phone’ test

    If — in a national security crisis — the “red phone” rang at 3 a.m., the ad intoned,
    Obama would not hear it
    Or he would fail to answer it
    Or he would be on vacation

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

    The ad did not say that. It just said “The phone is ringing” showing a picture of the White House. It may have said “Who do you want to answer it?”

    The words claimed in the article were not in the ad. Iirc it did not say anything negative about Obama. Just mentioned Hillary’s experience iirc.

  118. When men accumulate
    And wealth decays.
    ————————Actually, that is the Rockafeller nightmare–too many eaters, too few plutocrats.

  119. ABM 90 phoned this morning. He is snowed in and his computer has been down. He made a brief post yesterday. He wanted to remind everyone of how busy Hillary is and to look at the State Department website to see how busy Hillary is and what a great American she is, as we all know.

    On a different subject, I have been unable to reach Mrs. Smith–or her mother. It has been three days now. Apparently, the hospital stay is more extensive than I initially believed. I will keep checking.

  120. wbboei
    January 8th, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    When men accumulate
    And wealth decays.
    ————————Actually, that is the Rockafeller nightmare–too many eaters, too few plutocrats.

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

    I’m thinking not just relative wealth=”plutocrats’ wealth” but “national wealth” in larger sense: natural resources, how much food and other products are actually available per capita, etc. I share the familiar enviromentalist concern about over-population and having more people in the country (of any income) than can be comfortably fed, housed, etc.

  121. No one believes the liberals will vote NO, everyone believes they will cave and vote YES in the hours and minutes before the vote, despite the fact that the liberals are given the short end of the stick every time on issue after issue: abortion, public option, Medicare buy-in, banning illegals from getting benefits, imposing a mandate to force Americans to buy insurance from private insurers, taxing health care plans, especially the rich union ones.

    They will be asked, “Do you want to destroy the Obama Presidency?” Are you going to vote “against your President?” Or, “are you going to kill health care reform?” as if they solely are responsible for the bill’s content?

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

    Pelosi said as much openly some weeks ago. She said no liberal would really vote against it.

    Now, why not? Why do the conservatives (GOP or Blue Dogs) have the courage of their convictions but the Liberal Sens and Congressmen not?

    Because they are more scared of what the Conservatives and Pelosi can do to them? Becasue there aren’t enough Liberal voters to matter? Liberal voters did go for Nader in 2000.

  122. NewMexicoFan
    January 8th, 2010 at 9:50 am

    So Gov Sarah Palin will speak at the Tea Party convention, according to an AOL feed. That cannot be good news for OO. They are looking for a leader. If Gov Palin decided to take that position, which is speculated in the same article, it would be very bad news for OO. He really won with the Independents. They have turned away from him. If Gov SP became a strong leader of the Independents, I would think the Dims are in more trouble.

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

    Yay for SArah! But — unless the Tea Party can take control of the GOP and get her the GOP nomination, the result would be just to split the anti-Obama vote.

    Like Nader in 2000 split the anti-Bush vote, so Bush got in.

  123. He was singing quite freely when seized after trying to bring down Northwest Flight 253 over Detroit. But the Obama administration decided to give him a lawyer and the right to remain silent. We are now forced to purchase information from this attempted terrorist in the coin of leniency. Absurdly, Abdulmutallab is now in control.

    And this is no ordinary information. He was trained by al-Qaeda in Yemen, and just days after he was lawyered up and shut up, the United States was forced to close its embassy in Yemen because of active threats from the same people who had trained and sent Abdulmutallab.

    This is nuts. Even if you wanted ultimately to try him as an ordinary criminal, he could have been detained in military custody — and thus subject to military interrogation — without prejudicing his ultimate disposition. After all, every Guantanamo detainee was first treated as an enemy combatant and presumably interrogated. But some (most notoriously Khalid Sheik Mohammed) are going to civilian trial. That determination can be made later.

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

    Giving him status as a civilian ‘suspect’ is ridiculous. With good lawyers he could get off like OJ Simpson on grounds that the authorities failed some details.

    Someone who is caught in the act of such a violent crime, and with clear evidence of a terrorist group behind him, doesn’t deserve ordinary civilian rights.
    (I’m not condoning torture either.)

  124. members of the hard left who dissed Hillary are waking up; third, that these people are seeing only now that Obama is a Wall Street shill; riverdaughter skins jane hamsher alive for her anti hillary attitude and her elitist contempt for the base whereas others welcome her back, and anyone else except for kos.

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

    Unfortunately, the best way to get their votes in future may be to welcome them back.

  125. wbboei
    January 8th, 2010 at 2:24 am

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

    Interesting at the philosophical level. May describe the conservatives but I’m not sure it describes most or all liberals.

  126. In the old days made members of the mafia would sit around those social clubs like the Ravenite social club of the Gambino family and they would drink, watch television, eat pizza, spagetti or purloined filets mignon–and plot their next heist. I would bet my life that some of the Chicago boys who now occupy the west wing of the White House are planning similar schemes for self enrichment at the expense of the taxpayers and when the canaries start singing to people like Bob Woodward it will all come out. You cannot put that many shady characters from a shady town like Chicago together in an open city and expect them to stay honest. Does a cat bark? I bet you Emanuel has had to tell them to be more subtle about it.

  127. Interesting at the philosophical level. May describe the conservatives but I’m not sure it describes most or all liberals.
    —————————-
    Take a look at The Vision of the Annointed, by Thomas Sowell.

  128. Unfortunately, the best way to get their votes in future may be to welcome them back.
    ——————————-
    You are right of course. I am just not sure I am up to it.

  129. Jan- Lou Dobbs is a great American. He is one of the leading proponents of the middle class, and the other one is Hillary. Sometimes the best evidence that you are right is the people you offend. Lou offends all the right people, and for that reason I think he can play a highly useful role in public life, even more so than he has until now.

  130. wbboei
    January 8th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Unfortunately, the best way to get their votes in future may be to welcome them back.
    ——————————-
    You are right of course. I am just not sure I am up to it.

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

    Fortunately, you and I don’t have to do either. They probably don’t read h4 anyway.

    We can drown our sorrows while holding our noses.

  131. Giving him status as a civilian ’suspect’ is ridiculous. With good lawyers he could get off like OJ Simpson on grounds that the authorities failed some details.

    Someone who is caught in the act of such a violent crime, and with clear evidence of a terrorist group behind him, doesn’t deserve ordinary civilian rights.
    (I’m not condoning torture either.)
    —————————–
    Fast forward two years. He gets twenty years in stir and we get no information. Nice work Bwaaaaaaaaaak.

  132. Obama people in Massachusetts up to their old tricks . . . .

    This from another author at another site:

    It’s On – Push Polling “Hate Group” Support for Brown
    I received this e-mail from a Massachusetts resident and businesswoman (and I verified her identity through publicly available sources), regarding a phone call she received last night:

    I got an odd call last night that presented as a survey on the Kennedy election. I was willing to participate in the survey but was left with a bad feeling when it was over. Today I am hoping to let a few people know. I saw your blog.

    They identified themselves as McGrath [sic – see below] from Denver but I was unable to find anything on Google. The questions were obnoxious; for example: “would knowing that hate groups support Scott Brown change you opinion of him?”.

    They did not identify what a hate group was and today I wonder if they might be referring to a group to which I belong (one never knows in this environment when the ground may shift and you are left as a member of a hate group).

    I’m not sure how to proceed, so I am just putting it out there. I’m really sick of politicians doing everything except telling us who they are when they run for office.

    In a follow up, the e-mailer went into more detail about the call. The caller initially asked which candidate best represented the e-mailer’s views. After the e-mailer identified Brown, the caller asked one question about Coakley (whether knowing she was “a tax and spend” liberal would change the e-mailer’s mind) and then a series of negative questions about Brown:

    “After this, there were 6 or 7 questions about Scott Brown that were framed the same way: if you knew he was a supporter of the Bush tax program, if he was supported by hate groups, etc.”
    The e-mailer used *69 on her phone, and the number which came up was 888-327-2771. This is a fairly notorious telemarketing/opinion surveying number.

    Calling the number brings up a fax ring tone. The number at one time belonged to a collection entity called “Northstar Location Services / Northstar Capitol” in Amherst, NY. I spoke with someone there who says they do not do political polling.

    The number also has been attributed to “McGuire Research” of Colorado, which is an opinion surveying firm. The e-mailer thought the caller said “McGrath” but it may be that she misheard the caller, and that it was “McGuire.” McGuire has been accused of push polling in the past. I called McGuire, and I am waiting to hear back from them as to whether they would confirm or deny that they are doing polling in Massachusetts. I will update this post if I hear from them.

    Regardless of who made the call, this technique is called “push polling” where under the guise of a poll the questioner tries to push the interviewee for or against a candidate.

  133. wbboei
    January 8th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Giving him status as a civilian ’suspect’ is ridiculous. With good lawyers he could get off like OJ Simpson on grounds that the authorities failed some details.

    Someone who is caught in the act of such a violent crime, and with clear evidence of a terrorist group behind him, doesn’t deserve ordinary civilian rights.
    (I’m not condoning torture either.)
    —————————–
    Fast forward two years. He gets twenty years in stir and we get no information. Nice work Bwaaaaaaaaaak.

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

    In a US civilian prison, he might have something to fear from the other prisoners.

    Still it was ridiculous of the WH to give away the clear advantage this way! WHY in the world did they do it?

  134. January 8, 2010
    Internet Exposes Obama Chicanery
    By Jay Ambrose

    Maybe, for President Barack Obama, the Internet is a two-edged sword, for it helped him raise money and solidify supporters during the campaign, but is right now revealing him as a political deceiver who preaches idealism and practices a kind of fraud.

    It’s an amazing instrument, this Internet, and is still unfolding awesome powers of communication, such as offering up videos showing such inspiring moments as Obama’s promises as a presidential candidate. Why, there he is in one of them saying on no fewer than eight occasions that any negotiations on health-care legislation in his administration would be nationally televised on C-Span.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/08/internet_exposes_obama_chicanery_99826.html

  135. 9/11 Commission Member “Pissed Off”

    corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yzk3NGZmNjBkZmVlZDY2YTBmY2Q1NThmM2RjMDZlODc=

    Thursday, January 07, 2010

    Lehman: Clueless Obama [Robert Costa]

    After watching President Obama’s remarks on national security this afternoon, John Lehman, the secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and a member of the 9/11 Commission, tells National Review Online that, “frankly, I’m pissed off.”

    “President Obama just doesn’t get it,” says Lehman. “I don’t think he has a clue. It’s all pure spin. He’s ignoring key issues and taking respectable professionals like John Brennan and turning them into hacks and shills. It’s beyond contempt.”

    “The president has ignored the 9/11 Commission’s report,” says Lehman. “This whole idea that we can fix things by jumping higher and faster is ridiculous. The fact is that the system worked just like we said it would work if the president failed to give the Director of National Intelligence the tools he needs: it’s bloated, bureaucratic, layered, and stultified.”

    “President Obama continues to totally ignore one of the important thrusts of our 9/11 recommendations, which is that you have to approach counterterrorism as a multiagency intelligence issue, and not as a law-enforcement issue. He’s made a lot of commission’s members angry for dismissing our report and ignoring key recommendations.” Obama, he adds, has taken a “lawyer-like, politically-correct approach” to national security issues like terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists. “You got to blame the president for enforcing the politically-correct and legalistic policies that led to these failures.”

  136. TheRealist
    January 8th, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    Internet Exposes Obama Chicanery

    (continued)

    …That’s the heart of this guy, isn’t it? He wants democracy in something more than name only. He wants to let everyone see everything that’s going on so corruption won’t raise its ugly head. But wait, because there is another video the public can watch on the Internet, and look, it’s Robert Gibbs, Obama’s press secretary, and he is evading a questions about the secrecy of negotiations on health-care legislation, and even being contemptuous about it, practically nasty.

    This video coverage is of two press conferences. In one, a reporter has told Gibbs that Brian Lamb of C-Span has written a letter saying he would be happy to train cameras on the politicians coming to terms on differing House and Senate versions of passed health bills. The reporter asks whether the same president who wished for such an outcome would go along with it. The pathetic answer is that Gibbs has not read the letter, and when asked more directly whether the president is going to renege on what he had said in the campaign, he repeats that he has not read the letter. In answer to a follow-up question on transparency the next day, Gibbs says he covered that issue the previous day.

    Gibbs, it seems, thinks people can be easily fooled with “haven’t seen the letter” sleight of hand and other tricks of his trade, and the question is whether he is right. Have the citizens of this nation caught on yet that the candidate they saw in the campaign is not the president they got after the election? And on this particular issue, are they aware of how just how cruel a joke the Democratic health plan has become and just how desperately the president and his leftist cohorts want to foist this measure on us, even to the extent of buying Senate votes?

    It’s legal, of course, but nonetheless sleazy to make a special deal with Senator Ben Nelson to give his state an extra $100 million in Medicaid support to gain his support of the Senate measure, and that’s hardly the end of it. Republicans insist there have been still other deals to help finally enact a break-the-bank health care law that will raise premiums, erase liberties, punish the prosperous, lessen profits, inhibit job creation, crack down on the elderly for living too long and improve medical treatment not one whit.

    The few positives in the House and Senate bills could have been achieved by prudent, inexpensive steps, such as gradually shifting federal subsidies for employer-provided insurance to individuals, but those would deny Washington’s philosopher kings the control they want, and so it’s no wonder they have embraced the technique of subterfuge over openness.

    Oh, but hold on, there’s an excuse coming up, namely that a Republican Congress during the Bush years played similar secrecy games, and yes, it’s true, and what are we therefore to conclude — that candidate Obama swore to us that if elected he would be just like his predecessor?

    My own conviction is that two wrongs don’t make a right. I suspect Obama knows the same, and here’s what I hope — that his exposure on the Internet as a say-anything, do-the-opposite, slick con-man of a president will cause him to mend his ways.

  137. Breaking news: Cavuto reports AirTrain Flight 39 going from Atlanta to CA, San Fran iirc, accompanied by two F16 bombers because of ‘unruly passenger’ has landed safely.

    OMG!!!!! We do not need a President who is SOFT ON TERRORISM!!!!!

  138. Cavuto also invoked the 3 am Hillary ad. If it were not a matter of natinal security I would be roflmao.

  139. EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF “CADDILAC HEALTH PLANS”

    huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/weird-science-why-politic_b_415630.html

    Weird Science: Why Politicians and Pundits Cling to the “Cadillac Tax” Idea
    ===========================

    Richard (RJ) Eskow
    Consultant, Writer, Health Analyst

    The theory behind the “Cadillac tax” on health plans is little more than wishful thinking based on dubious research. Advocates believe that forcing employers to cut benefits will lead to cheaper, better care. That’s like preventing rain by outlawing umbrellas. Yet the President has reversed his campaign opposition to the tax and now supports it. John Kerry, who I respect, is defending it too.(1) Why?

    Because they’re poorly served by their advisors, and by pundits who cling to the idea in the face of new evidence. Although the Washington Post got it right, too many analysts and journalists are beholden to ideas that Art Levine rightly dubbed “voodoo economics for the punditocracy.”

    Why do President Obama and his advisors keep touting the tax? And why do journalists like David Leonhardt of the New York Times keep asserting that “health economists” think it’s a good idea? Uwe Reinhardt – the most respected health economist in the country – said the idea that “with high cost-sharing, patients will do the only legitimate … cost-benefit calculus … surely is nonsense.”

    The best-known advocate for the tax is MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who was hyping it as recently as a week ago, without mentioning new and contradictory data.

    The Post described Gruber in 2007 as “possibly the party’s most influential health-care expert and a voice of realism in its internal debates.” How can a “voice of realism” claim that this is “a tax that’s not a tax,” one that affects “generous” plans? That statement was published only nineteen days after a paper in the influential journal Health Affairs (summarized here) disproved it. Using actual benefits data, the authors showed the tax would not target “generous” plans. Instead it would unfairly affect plans whose enrollees were older, worked in the wrong industry, or lived in an area where treatment costs are high. A leading actuary came to a similar conclusion.

    Gruber also claimed that the money employers save (by slashing benefits to avoid the tax) would be returned to workers as wages or other compensation. But two leading health benefits firms (2) had already published surveys in which the vast majority of employers polled insisted they would do no such thing.

    These are intelligent, ethical, dedicated people. So what’s going on? I suspect the problem is an inability to reject an attractive idea, even when confronted with contradictory facts. There is a simple truth in the world of ideas: Theories can be beautiful. Reality can be ugly.

    This “beautiful” idea was born in research. The RAND Corporation published the results of its long-term Health Insurance Experiment (HIE) in the 1980s. Researchers claimed that forcing people to pay more for their medical treatment leads to reduced use of medical services, which saved money without making anyone sicker.

    The HIE suggested that people who had to pay more for their care avoided treatments their doctors considered medically necessary about as much as those considered unnecessary. Yet, surprisingly, it concluded that they were no less healthy. The HIE became the theoretical foundation for 25 years of benefits-cutting, providing moral cover for a generation of analysts as they shifted medical costs back to patients. (I was one of them.) Now it underlies the thinking behind the “Cadillac tax.”

    Here’s Problem #1: The HIE’s been challenged by a number of economists. As University of Minnesota economics professor John Nyman told me, “I don’t believe you can have a reduction of 25% in hospital admissions and not have it show up in any health measures.” While we don’t have space here to tackle the debate, it’s fair to say that the study’s conclusions are controversial at best. Gruber, a RAND defender, described the study as the “gold standard.” Others disagree.

    Problem #2: Even if you accept RAND’s findings, you have to believe they still apply after widespread changes in society, the economy, and employer/employee relations. And then you have to believe Gruber’s assertion, based on long-term wage and benefit trends, that employers will give most of that money back to workers as compensation.

    Even though surveys say they won’t …

    So let’s review this fragile latticework of assumptions: First, that the RAND study is sound. Second, that the tax will only target ‘generous’ plans, despite a very thorough study disproving that. Third, that employers will give much of this money back to workers, although they say they won’t.

    On that thin reed of assumptions the White House, many Senators, some economists, and the tax’s editorial supporters (Leonhardt, Ezra Klein, etc.) are prepared to support a policy that by 2016 will reduce coverage for one American in five with employer insurance. That’s more than eleven million people – and the figure would rise sharply each year.

    What went wrong? I can’t know for sure, but here’s a thought: Experts can have an “aha” moment, a flash of insight, even when the pattern they perceive isn’t really there. They can build models and theories – even reputations – around that pattern. When evidence proves the pattern is false, they literally can’t see it.

    Fortunately, it’s not too late. We can see it. There’s still time for the President, Senator Kerry, and other leaders to change course. Prof. Gruber and other tax advocates can still review these new findings. They and their advisors can discard an attractive but disproved theory and do the right thing for the American people.

  140. Yahoo news is saying that Angela Jolie has lost one of her ads. THey say she was too famous and overshadowed the product. Hmmm, hmmm, didn’t she come out lately and say Obama was a POS??? I think she did. Cafferty who I will not cry for, also leaving after his statements about Obama. Hmmm, hmmm, what/who is our POTUS, Hitler? Is this still America where we have free speech, well, maybe as long as your not bashing Obama, then you have free speech.

  141. Lehman: Clueless Obama [Robert Costa]
    ———————————–
    One of the greatest Americans living today. Secretary of the Navy while he was still in his 30s. Cousin of Princess Grace of Monaco. Comes from an old Pennsylvania family that traces its roots back to the secretary of William Penn. I cannot say enough good things about John. Although he would be the first to give credit to others, this man is more responsible for the defeat of the Soviet Union than ten Soros and Brezezniskis. He is real leader. A great Naval officer. I am thrilled to see him step up to the plate on this. I know he wanted to give Obama a fair chance but he will never sacrifice the security of this nation.

  142. short termer,

    i am so glad flying is not in my future.
    😡

    BTW, can anyone explain the ‘cadillac’ tax to me? How do those with ‘cadillac’plans end up paying more? I mean, does it come out of your paycheck under federal withholding?
    Under FICA?
    Under medicare?
    Is your paycheck decreased?
    I don’t get it.

  143. I think people are just going nuts, there is not jobs. If they watch TV at all the fear mongers like Beck and Hannity have the nation scared to death. I myself am worried, but I am of sound mind, I am not losing my home or my job or anything like that. We had huge inflation with Jimmy Carter and our country stood, of coarse, most of all these catastrophes are govt. made so they can urge the blind citizens in this country to support whatever it is they want done.

    Beck is really a fear monger with his national budget clock ticking away everyday.

  144. Okay. So now you are Jim Webb. You are a loyal marine. You see what Lehman has said. You know in your heart that Obama is no leader. What leader would hang out on the golf course while the nation is being attacked. What leader would think that a New Years party is more important than the security of the nation. I will tell you what kind of a leader. A leader who loses wars. Napoleon was asked what kind of general do you look for. He said the kind who wins battles. Obama need not apply. But back to Webb. You have got this piece of rotten sewage called Obama care which sloshes around and stinks up the joint. You were told unless you support this president will fail. You know this bill is bad for the country. You know your constituents, the people you have written about and admire hate this bill with a passion. What do you do now when they put their arm around you. Do you say my party may she always be right but right or wrong my party. Or do you say duty, honor, country.

    As you can see, I have not given up on Jim–yet.

  145. wbboei, I am worried about Mrs. Smith. I wish we could get in touch. This virus or whatever it is is a bad one. My dad is sick and I’ve taken him to the dR.twice. My daughter that had the pneumonia in October is having Bronchitis relapses about every 3 weeks. I had this 3 times. I am surprised my dad who turned 87 on Monday is hanging on, but I watch him like a hawk, which incidently irritates the hell out of him. He still thinks he is as strong as he was on that battleship in WWII.

  146. The French dream of colonial empire ended in French Viet Nam at the 55 day battle of Dien Bien Phu on March 13, 1954. General de Castries and his entire command were taken, 3000 French troops were killed, 8000 wounded; and they lost 48 aircrafts during 1 019 sorties. It was a massacre. The part you will not get out of Wikki is the fact that the French general in charge– Henri Navarre was the same kind of scatter brained bon vivante as our beloved Mr. Obama. There were no golf courses to wile away his time, but there was no shortage of wine women and song. Let us hope this is not a case of deja vu all over again. Bad generals lose wars.

  147. Please, we do live in fearful times but remember, “The Buck Stops Here” President and his administration is in charge of our freedom and our safety both physical and economic. So I ask, who should we be fearful of? He is soft on terrorism, not much interested in the hard things that will promote and protect the welfare of the citizens, his appointees call American citizens Terrorists [Napolitano]and worse yet, they ‘fail to connect dots’ that were already established to aide in connecting the dots. So, citzens like confloyd and myself are now afraid to fly. He is soft on muslim and Islamic terrorist while USA citizens will be required to relinguish more civil liberties as a result of the attempts to kill our citizenry. And they would not even wake him up for THE 2:00 am call. All that while the counterterrorism appointee went skiing. Nice work, Brownie!
    As for me and my household, I am not served well and am more fearful with the Mackerel President in charge of our safety both economically and physically [thanks wbboei, mackerel in moonlight, shines but stinks!].

  148. We have got some friends of ours who have gone from the blogs to appear on big media. Pauli who used to blog here, our friend Larry Johnson and lately Eric Erickson of Red State who is a conservative but shares many of our values–with notable exceptions. In each case it is interesting to see how entering that world affects them. Since these are solid people they generally tend to do okay.

    Larry was on CNN lately, they gave him the first question, and either he blew it or else he does not understand the ramifications. They asked him if it mattered whether the terrorists were tried in military or civilian court and he said no as long as they were tried. This overlooks the legal salient differences between the two legal systems and the rights accorded to the accused. In fairness, Larry has been a harsh critic of the Bush Administration’s interrogation practices and there surely there is a rational basis for that position, even though I do not necessarily agree with it. But as you can see with the Detroit case, first the suspect was talking, then he lawyered up and he stopped talking consistent with his Miranda rights which are applicable in a civil court but not in a military tribunal. In other words it does matter.

    But CNN also had its resident legal hack Jeffery Toobin on. And as you would expect, he agreed and went even further. I posted my response which incorporated the John Lehman article posted above by rgb44hrc. Here is what I said on Larry blog, if you are interested:

    We have got some friends of ours who have gone from the blogs to appear on big media. Pauli who used to blog here, our friend Larry Johnson and lately Eric Erickson of Red State who is a conservative but shares many of our values–with notable exceptions. In each case it is interesting to see how entering that world affects them. Since these are solid people they generally tend to do okay.

    Larry was on CNN lately, they gave him the first question, and either he blew it or else he does not understand the ramifications. They asked him if it mattered whether the terrorists were tried in military or civilian court and he said no as long as they were tried. This overlooks the legal salient differences between the two legal systems and the rights accorded to the accused. In fairness, Larry has been a harsh critic of the Bush Administration’s interrogation practices and there surely there is a rational basis for that position, even though I do not necessarily agree with it. But as you can see with the Detroit case, first the suspect was talking, then he lawyered up and he stopped talking consistent with his Miranda rights which are applicable in a civil court but not in a military tribunal. In other words it does matter.

    But CNN also had its resident legal hack Jeffery Toobin on. And as you would expect, he agreed and went even further. I posted my response which incorporated the John Lehman article posted above. Here is what I said, if you are interested:

    I have no respect for Toobin. He was and still is a shameless Obama shill, I think his legal analysis has a level of nuance and evasion to it that make me uncomfortable, but supports the narrative of CNN. Worse however he savaged Hillary at the end of the campaign.

    In this instance, he is more interested in hammering on Bush than addressing the situation at hand. If he thinks we are in the same situation today that we were in during the Reagan administration then he is an idiot. I doubt he has read the 9/11 report. He lives in the same ivory tower that many law professors live in including the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Here is what one of the key members of the 9/11 commission has to say about the Obama Administration’s approach to terrorism in general and more specifically treating them like enemy combatants.

    “After watching President Obama’s remarks on national security this afternoon, John Lehman, the secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and a member of the 9/11 Commission, tells National Review Online that, “frankly, I’m pissed off.”

    “President Obama just doesn’t get it,” says Lehman. “I don’t think he has a clue. It’s all pure spin. He’s ignoring key issues and taking respectable professionals like John Brennan and turning them into hacks and shills. It’s beyond contempt.”

    “The president has ignored the 9/11 Commission’s report,” says Lehman. “This whole idea that we can fix things by jumping higher and faster is ridiculous. The fact is that the system worked just like we said it would work if the president failed to give the Director of National Intelligence the tools he needs: it’s bloated, bureaucratic, layered, and stultified.”

    “President Obama continues to totally ignore one of the important thrusts of our 9/11 recommendations, which is that you have to approach counterterrorism as a multiagency intelligence issue, and not as a law-enforcement issue. He’s made a lot of commission’s members angry for dismissing our report and ignoring key recommendations.” Obama, he adds, has taken a “lawyer-like, politically-correct approach” to national security issues like terrorist watchlists and no-fly lists. “You got to blame the president for enforcing the politically-correct and legalistic policies that led to these failures.”

    (Caveat: If you asked to decide who to believe–Lehman vs Toobin this is what you should know. Lehman is an American hero. In addition to serving on the 9/11 Commission, he was Secretary of the Navy while he was in his 30s.. In that role he built the 600 ship navy and was architect of the military strategy which defeated the Soviet Union although he would give the credit to others. He wanted to give Obama a chance but will not compromise the security of our nation to do it. By contrast, Toobin is a law professor. His client is CNN, His credentials on national security are to use an expression of an old law professor of mine long as a whores dream and bare as a goats ass.)

Comments are closed.