Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley

Did you doubt Big Pink when we wrote Barack Obama At War With Hillary Clinton (And Thank You Andrew Breitbart)? Your doubts should disappear with the publication of the Mark Halperin book Game Change coming out Monday.

The Book Game Change is a hit on Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and everyone who Obama wants to destroy. The sources in the book are obviously from Obama and his thugs. We have had an article discussing the work of Mark Halperin ready for a year at least which we have not yet published. The issues in that article are now ripe and we will publish that long delayed article tomorrow.

Mark Halperin and Big Media played a destructive role in the Democratic primaries in 2008 and with the publication of his book (co-authored with John Heilemann) the 2008 primaries and general election are now once again a focus of attention. The 2008 primaries are not the only issue that is ripe for discussion. Harry Reid and “Negroes”, “racism” charges, Ted Kennedy and the Chappaquiddick gang, the Democratic Party suicide, the secret war against Bill and Hillary Clinton by the Democratic establishment (now the Obama Dimocratic Party), how the Left and the Right can unite, the real meaning of the Tea Party movement, – all these issues are now also ripe for discussion. We will discuss them tomorrow and in the week to come.

* * * * *

The issue today is the Victory In Massachusetts for those of us who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries and who now resist the Dimocratic Party – until it decides to once again represent the coalition of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and mainstream Democrats – not the Chicago Thug Machine. Have no doubt that what is happening in Massachusetts is a victory for us.

As our readers know, we endorsed Martha Coakley in the primary election in Massachusetts. Coakley won the primary. Our endorsement was based not only on Coakley’s credentials but also on her support of Hillary Clinton during the primary season in 2008 (when the entire Democratic establishment in Massachusetts endorsed Obama) and because the Kennedy clan loathed Coakley, and because the Dimocratic establishment was against her as well. Nancy Pelosi went so far as to endorse Coakley’s opponent in the primary.

When we endorsed Coakley we wrote this:

Let’s be clear, Dimocrats must suffer shattering defeats in the 2010 elections (let’s not forget the few 2009 elections and what is really happening there) if we are to have a Democratic Party in the foreseeable future or ever. The Democratic Party modeled on the FDR winning coalition must be restored. Obama must be rejected. More importantly Obamaism must be rejected too.

With the above in mind, those of us who reject Obama and his Obamination Party must have allies in elected office. We must be very selective in whom we endorse.

Since that endorsement some very disturbing things have happened. So disgusting are the intervening events that only Bill Clinton can save Coakley in the general election scheduled for January 19. We understand that Bill Clinton will travel to Massachusetts just before January 19 in order to save Martha Coakley.

Few understood what was happening in Massachusetts, or refused to believe what was happening, until Rasmussen issued a poll which showed Republican Scott Brown going from a thirty point deficit to a nine point deficit. The Rasmussen poll also noted that all the energy and momentum was with the Scott Brown campaign. The Rasmussen poll was immediately attacked by every Dimocrat who continues to believe in the Chicago Thug Machine and continues to support the Obamination which is the health care scam.

Last night however, a poll which is perceived to be pro-D, not Republican, showed even more dire results. The reasons for the shift in public opinion are many. Martha Coakley deserves some blame because she, like Ned Lamont, did not campaign after she won the nomination. Coakley was not as bad as Lamont, who went on vacation, but Coakley essentially ceded two weeks to the hard driving Scott Brown who campaigned furiously and and aired advertisements.

But what has really hurt Martha Coakley is the utterly ugly health care scam she says she will vote FOR and which Scott Brown says he, as the 41st Republican filibuster supporting senator, will vote AGAINST and thereby kill the odious legislation.

Martha Coakley has also turned to the Kennedy clan to try and save her campaign. This ugly situation is really hurting her. The PPP poll and Dimocrats believe tying Coakley to Ted Kennedy will help but we believe that is a delusional act of suicide (we will discuss this below).

But in the past few days, a truly ugly and revealing event has cast Coakley as a villain. That event is the Dimocratic threat/promise to disenfranchise the will of the voters of Massachusetts if Scott Brown wins the general election. Here is the disgusting, revolting, story:

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill. [snip]

Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.

But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election. [snip]

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Yesterday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.”

Martha Coakley must denounce this election theft. Nothing less than an absolute rejection of this defiance of the will of the voters will do.

We denounced the Roland Burris shenanigans when he was schemed against. We did not support Burris but he was duly selected and we understood not seating Burris was a “protect Obama” scheme. When the Hillary victory in New Hampshire was challenged we supported an election recount because we believe above all – the will of the voters must be respected.

We recall that when Dimocrats won two congressional seats this past November the winners were almost immediately sworn in so they could cast votes for the health care scam. But in Massachusetts the will of the voters is already discarded.

We Hillary supporters objected when the Democratic establishment defied the will of Michigan and Florida voters who supported Hillary and instead gave Hillary delegates to Obama. Now Massachusetts, one of the original thirteen colonies, home of the Boston Tea Party, is declaring “No Representation, But Nullification”. Coakley is silent thus far on an issue of basic democracy. This is an outrage.

Coakley must not only speak out against the Dimocratic establishment plans but denounce them as well and then vow to represent the people – not that corruption which is now the Obama Dimocratic Party. Coakley must understand that events are moving outside her control and that in order for her to be a Senator worth having, she must be a representative of the rights of the voters NOW.

Coakley is in danger of running against the people of Massachusetts and for the corrupt Dimocratic establishment. Coakley must understand that getting in the political car with the Kennedy clan is a big mistake. Massachusetts voters want – CHANGE.

Indeed, during the primary campaign Coakley said she would oppose the Obamination which is the health care scam before congress. She was against it, before she was for it:

State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee for US Senate, reluctantly threw her support yesterday behind the Senate health care bill, even though it contains restrictions on abortion coverage that abortion rights groups are calling unacceptable.

During the primary campaign, Coakley said she would not have supported the House health care bill because of provisions designed to prevent federal funding of abortions that abortion rights advocates said went too far. Her stand was a major point of debate during the campaign; several of her opponents criticized her for being willing to sink the health care bill over a single issue, but she insisted that there were some things on which she would not compromise.

Let’s be clear on what’s principled here,’’ she said at the time of her opponent, US Representative Michael Capuano. “If it comes down to this in the Senate, and it’s the health care bill or violating women’s rights, where does he stand?’’

Obviously feeling the pressure, Capuano pivoted a few days later and said that while he voted yes in the House, he would vote no on final passage if the abortion restrictions did not change.

Coakley used her stark position on abortion rights to appeal to supporters for donations; in an e-mail, she declared her decision to make her position “a defining moment’’ in her campaign.

Asked last week whether she would vote against a bill that went beyond current law in restricting abortion coverage, Coakley said, “Yes, that’s right.’’

In a statement to the Globe yesterday, Coakley said that although she was disappointed that the Senate bill “gives states additional options regarding the funding mechanisms for women’s reproductive health services,’’ she would reluctantly support it because it would provide coverage for millions of uninsured people and reduce costs.

This double talk nonsense and obfuscation is killing Martha Coakley. She won the primary because she stood on principle and AGAINST the health care scam. Now she is in danger of turning herself into a tool of Dimocratic corruption.

According to Public Policy Polling (PPP), which is for sure not a Republican polling firm, the Senate race in Massachusetts is now a “toss up” with Republican Scott Brown in a paltry lead (48-47). PPP advises Coakley that she can still win the election. The advice is to get Democrats “energized” and because there are more Democrats than Republicans in Massachusetts she will win.

PPP also gives this ridiculous piece of advice which is contradicted by the evidence and common sense:

Make it about Ted Kennedy’s legacy. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this poll is that among those planning to vote 47% oppose the health care bill to only 41% who express support for it. Clearly voters who loved Kennedy and want to see comprehensive health care reform become a reality are not grasping how important coming out to vote for Coakley is to making that goal happen.

The voters did not “love” Ted Kennedy. He was the Democrat in a heavily Democratic state but Democrats did not give him any “love” when they voted for Hillary even though he did everything he could to drive Hillary over the bridge (more on this when we discuss Halperin’s book tomorrow). And we repeat, Coakley won the primary when she said she would vote AGAINST the health care scam.

Coakley tying herself to Ted Kennedy’s corpse will lead her to where he is. Coakley tying herself to Obama’s health care scam will lead her to deserved defeat.

Coakley must denounce Dimocratic corruption and the health care scam. Here’s more from PPP:

-Brown has eye popping numbers with independents, sporting a 70/16 favorability rating with them and holding a 63-31 lead in the horse race with Coakley. Health care may be hurting Democratic fortunes with that group, as only 27% of independents express support for Obama’s plan with 59% opposed.

-In a trend that’s going to cause Democrats trouble all year, voters disgusted with both parties are planning to vote for the one out of power. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Brown’s standing is that only 21% of Massachusetts voters have a favorable opinion of Congressional Republicans…but at the same time only 33% view Congressional Democrats favorably. And among voters who have a negative take on both parties, who account for more than 20% of the electorate, Brown leads 74-21.

Coakley finds herself in a car in Chappaquiddick if she thinks the PPP advice is sound. In Framingham, even a Democratic Committee Chair is disgusted with the Obama Dimocratic Party and has left to become an independent voter. [Martha, check out this cartoon HERE, if you want to see where PPP’s advice will lead you to.]

There is a case to be made for sending Martha Coakley and not Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate. Some polls show her winning and Bill Clinton, along with the odious John Kerry will make the case for Martha Coakley on Friday at a rally. The argument for Coakley is that she is on “our” side of the issues. This argument is that Scott Brown in the Senate will stop the Obama health scam but other than that he would oppose “us” on every other issue because he is a Republican. But that argument is not rational.

The argument is not rational because we have seen what Obama Dimocrats, in overwhelming power for a year, have done. For an entire year we have seen that Obama Dimocrats do not represent “us” – the Democratic grass roots. Whether on Wall Street bailouts or Big PhaRma sweet deals or sexism and misogyny or stimulus scams. What Obama Dimocrats are expert at doing is waving red flags like “abortion” or “racist!” or “teabaggers” to denigrate the Tea Party movement. But the anger is growing among Americans.

From Massachusetts to California the anger is growing. In California:

The number of initiatives so far, while high, is not the largest in history. But the rage that underlies them has not been seen in decades, said lawmakers, pollsters, political consultants and the proponents.

The feeling is one of revolt,” said John Grubb, the campaign director for Repair California, a coalition behind a pair of initiatives to call a constitutional convention. “And come January, they will start negotiating the budget again, and there will be more fear and loathing. The feeling here is that California state government is broken, and we need not a little fix, but a big fix.”

As we have argued repeatedly, the Dimocrats must face devastating defeat after defeat after defeat, if they are ever to recognize the massive Mistake In ’08 they made and return to the FDR coalition as well as reject the politics represented by Obama’s Situation Comedy Coalition.

Republicans are well aware of the historic mistake Dimocrats made in ’08. They are readying their appeal to the “Reagan Democrats” that Hillary proved so powerful a voice with. Republicans are also on the right track by asking what effect a close election for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts will have on Blue Dogs. Scott Brown has already provided a victory for Republicans and the ever growing NObama Coalition. Republicans and Independents are rightly energized and Scott Brown’s offices are erupting with volunteers.

Any parent, animal trainer, or criminal justice professional knows that the closer the punishment is to the misdeed the more effective the lesson. It is imperative that in election after election after election Dimocrats suffer devastating defeats until they apologize for what they did to Hillary Clinton and us in 2007-2008 as well as abandon race-baiting and sexism and misogyny as political tools to achieve the “leadership” ends. Last November voters in New Jersey and Virginia started the punishment.

Come November 2010 we will be at work to ensure Obama Dimocrat defeat. It will be difficult because many of those we will oppose will be those who say things we like. Their words will be on our side of the issue debate. But their actions will say something else. We’ve seen it for a year now, in practice, not in audacious dreams.

But we have learned that words are not actions. We were never gulled into believing Obama words because we looked at his history and the content of his character and the character of his friends.

* * * * *

For Hillary supporters and those who reject the Obama Dimocratic Party of endless Obaminations, the Massachusetts election is and will be a victory. If Martha Coakley wins she will win because of the help Bill Clinton provides and because she supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Martha Coakley, during the primaries, ignored the Dimocratic establishment in Massachusetts and supported Hillary. The Kennedys cannot stand her nor can the rest of the Dimocratic establishment in Massachusetts.

If Scott Brown wins, the entire Obama Obaminations Program Schedule (OOPs) blows up into dust. If Scott Brown wins and Dimocrats try to stonewall him from taking the oath of office there will be anger in the electorate we have never witnessed since the Civil War. If Scott Brown wins the Obama health care scam will lie on a mortuary slab along with Michelle’s sleeves.

In either case the NObama coalition will be strengthened. All Dimocratic elected officials must now be scared. If Massachusetts is in play…

Martha Coakley can save herself by rejecting Obama and his Obaminations. She must come out against the Obama health scam as she did during the primaries and mean it this time. Coakley must vow to abide by the election results and make sure the winner is immediately seated. Coakley must stand with the American people and the American Way, not the Chicago Way. It’s the only way to win.

Martha Coakley must earn her support.

We cannot support Martha Coakley – she must support us.

Share

173 thoughts on “Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley

  1. Wow, what a tough position to be in for Coakley. I don’t want to be in her shoes for a million bucks. I had high hopes for her future but unfortunately the time is not right for her. Her situation can be best described by a (my)native aphorism — can’t swallow, nor can spit it out because whatever is in your mouth is too precious (like hot ghee).

  2. admin: That clarifies the situation in Massachusettes, but what about NY? It makes sense we have to support the republican to cleanse the nation of the Chicago thugs, but as you said, its hard.

    I am so sick of this, the Obamanation hitting Bill and Hillary and the damn republicans too. This is what they did while he was POTUS too. The reason they don’t like him is 1) most think he is a republican 2) he says “yaul”. People just can’t understand the nation is teetering on the edge of destruction and all they talk about is their bitter little bs. Why can’t the left see that Hillary is left of Bill?? Their hate will sink us for many years to come. The republicans know this and use it everytime. 3) I did think at one time that Ford was a Hillary supporter, but in the end they all went over to bad side.

  3. What a great post,admin.

    You are a person of principal!

    I, too, hope Brown, (Hottie McAwesome” Brown as the Hillbuzz guys call him) rips the Dims a new one and then follows up on his pledge to vote against the HCR bill.

  4. PM317, I guess the same will be true of Kristen Gillebrand in New York. I probably have misspelled her name.

  5. I came to read you as soon as I saw the new onslaught of CDS at memeorandum. You didn’t disappoint. Interesting implications of the Mass elections. If I were a voter there, I’d vote Brown. Just t Kill the Bill. Shame on Coakley for her turnaround. (I am sure she was made an offer she couldn’t refuse – Chicago style)

  6. Meme is full of excerpts from that fucking book Game Change. I tried to read the one on Edwards but could not get past the first page. Everything they wrote will be to enhance Obama and bring down everyone else esp. those who opposed him. WHEN WILL WE HEAR OUR/HILLARY’s SIDE OF THE STORY? Who is writing it? I hope BC is writing it as we speak and will come out the day Hillary resigns.

  7. WHEN will we hear HOW MEDIA FUCKERS short changed democracy in the last election in this famed democratic miracle of the 19th century? That Game Change book is written by media whores rationalizing and defending their choice. WE NEED A STRONG REBUTTAL.

  8. I have my doubts that Brown can win, but if it’s even close then the Dims are in deep trouble. I mean, come on, MASSACHUSETTS??? MA should never even be in play for an R. Dims got pissed that Brown used some JFK footage in his ads. He said (and rightly so) that these current Dims had nothing in common with JFK, that he was closer to JFK’s beliefs than they are.

    I was furious when Coakley caved after taking such a strong stand in the primary. Someone got to her with some threats.

  9. I was just cruising a few Red blogs, and found some comments from a guy who was at an event for Scott Brown in MA. His district is 7 to 1 Democrat.

    He says they got huge response, people honking like crazy, and tons of Dems walking up saying they planned to vote for Brown. Why? Because they are angry at Coakley’s flip-flop on HCR, and the high-handed cluelessness of the D party. He says there were union guys there supporting Brown, because they are FURIOUS that Obama plans to tax their hard-won healthcare. He was amazed at that. Lots of older Democrat women there supporting Brown, he says.

    The Democrats had better wake up. They are destroying the party, and the feeling is growing that they just need to be tossed out and stomped on HARD for the crap they’ve pulled, by any means necessary.

    If it’s even close in MA, then the Dems have a huge problem. Huge.

  10. H4T, I imagine that is what has happened a Chicago-style offer, she could not refuse. I did not realize this election is in 10days and its what will make or break the healthcare bill. If Brown wins and they refuse to seat him, we will all know for certain that the Daley gang is in charge in Washington.

    Bill is going to Mass. to try and save her, but why would he? A loyal democrat, I guess?

  11. Those media whores who are by Soros and the Fox Network 40% owned by the Saudi’s. So that is bad for Hillary!

  12. Off topic but I confess I’ve got a tingle up my leg seeing Henry squirm over his ‘RACIST” remarks about Squat.

    “He’s light skinned and doesn’t have a ‘negro’ dialect unless he wants to.”

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha

  13. basil, one of the things coming out in that awful book is that Chuck Schumer and Reid and others were in Obama’s camp from the start, even while they claimed to support Hillary. Schumer, early in the primaries, told Obama to “take a 2 by 4 to Hillary”.

    They fecking lied and betrayed her. They were on board for the Messiah from the beginning. I hope they rot in hell.

  14. Just on George S. on Abc, Liz Cheney was talking about whether its John Edward’s baby or Bill Clinton’s long running affair?? WTF, is she saying, what long running affair is she talking about??? If this is true, this is what Obama blackmailed her with!

  15. confloyd, they said that Bill has some long-running affair, but zero proof or sources. They also said that Hillary met privately with Obama for the SOS slot, and said things like “I can’t control him, and it might be a problem.”

    That right there to me reeks of Axelrove spin and lies. Number one, Hillary would not have run if she knew Bill was carrying on – she’s not that stupid. Number two, there is no way in hell that Hill would have “confided” in Obama using those words. It’s a crock. Funny how that “I can’t control him” verbiage is the same “Crazy outta control Bill!” bullshit they pushed in the primary. I remember all the times they claimed Bill lost his shit, totally off the rails meltdown! Then you’d look at the footage, and Bill was calm as he could be.

  16. The whole political system is being turned on its head the Dem leadership seems to have its head stuck up its ass, there is no other way i can describe it.

    They seriously want to start listening to the people because its like watching the run up to the general election in the Uk, a deeply unpopular Leader refuses to listen to the electorate or to the people in his own left party and is cruising towards annihilation at the polls. Brown is like Obama, a dead man walking politically.

  17. The telling thing for me is this, if they are having to import Bill Clinton in to campaign that means Coakley is probably very worried and in serious trouble.

    This is Mass for fecks sake, its where you could stick a Dem rosette on a piece of dogcrap and they would send it to the senate. They never have to spend money on campaigning or campaign for that matter.

  18. How convenient that all these torrid lies are coming out just when Hillary’s polling is so great and just as she is embarking on her overseas trip to Australia and New Zealand.

    The Chicago thugs and dims must be wetting their pants with worry if they are bringing out their “big guns” like this to slow her momentum.

  19. H4T, you’re absolutely right. There is NO way Hillary would tell Obama that BC is a problem. Right there is what that book is all about, lies and spin.

  20. They are scared to death because they know if the Hillary Clinton wing of the party takes control after 2010, there is going to be one hell of a payback for what Obama’s bots did in 2008.

    All bets are off.

  21. pm317, It does however appear that they send Bill out when they want, to me that signifies a problem. However, it will not be at this time I want to discuss it. I think Hillary is knee deep in alligators and she is in a leaky boat. She cannot trust anyone. I don’t want to hurt her in any way, so I will keep my mouth closed. She is the only leader that can help us and they are demonizing her daily along with Palin.
    I just wish they would team up.

  22. And they call this “responsible journalism?” This moron says it “sounds” like something Bill Clinton would say…so I guess that makes him guilty as hell?

    I am seeing red again.

    —————-

    January 10, 2010

    What Bill Clinton really thinks of Obama

    Rick Moran

    The publication of the book “Game Change” has Washington in an uproar this morning with so many mouth watering, juicy little tidbits of political gossip, it should keep tongues wagging for days.

    One of the more interesting gossip items was a revealing exchange between former president Bill Clinton and the late Teddy Kennedy. It had been something of a mystery why Teddy had cast his lot with Obama rather than Hillary Clinton – a mystery solved by Politico’s Ben Smith who quotes from the book:

    [A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.

    Kennedy was reportedly so offended by Clinton’s racially charged dismissal that he decided to endorse Obama.

    Is it true? Someone wanted the authors of the book – veteran political hands John Heliemann and Mark Halperin – to think so anyway. If that comment had come out after Iowa, Hillary would probably have withdrawn much sooner than she eventually did. The thing is, it sounds like something Clinton would say – which only makes the double standard regarding racist remarks between Democrats and Republicans that much more pronounced.

    Wonder what Hillary is thinking this morning?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/what_bill_clinton_really_think.html

  23. Big article in NY Post today about the book and Schumer’s betrayal of Hillary. What a snake. I used to be a huge supporter of his. Never agaion. I will never vote for him again…no matter who is running.

    I think this is the last straw for me. I am gooing to drop my Democratic registration.

    I know I have posted this before, but I wonder if Bill and Hillary’s public, albeit tacit support of Obama and the democrats…will turn many people off in the future as they turn away from democrats and look for change.

  24. Confloyd, I think Gillibrand in still the real deal. From what I have read about Ford, he is backed by Wall Street and is a corporate shill. It is probably pay back for HRH Caroline not being appointed senator.

  25. I dont like Obama’s tricks, could he send BC out to help coakley, she possibly loses and Obama puts the blame at his door, after all they endorsed the other guy in the primary.

    Don’t put it past them to do that.

  26. JanH, if Bill even made that remark, I don’t think in context it was “racially charged” at all, any more than his fairytale comment was. I’ll bet that what Bill actually said was a long comment on Obama’s total lack of experience or accomplishment, ending with something like, “This guy is hardly qualified to be an intern, much less POTUS. I have people bringing me coffee more experienced than him!”

    I’m betting that something along those lines was what Bill actually said, and it wasn’t racial at all. But Axelrove and Big Media will spin it that way, and race-bait it into something it never was.

  27. Carol, you raise a good question with your “will turn many people off in the future” hypothetical. We hope, think, believe, the answer to your question is “no”. We say this because most people understand that Hillary and Obama are not friends. Most people understand that Hillary and Bill are doing what they are doing for reasons other than because they like, or even agree with, Obama.

  28. It does appear to be civil war going on, doesn’t it?

    I was I could read the article aboout the betrayal, can you post it?

  29. Liz Cheney’s statement is still bothering me, I wonder why she would say that on National TV? Was that in the book or what??

    All the networks are on the Harry Reid story, not much on Hillary!

  30. Hot air had a good “interpretation” of what BC may have meant with that Coffee thing, that he may have been referring to Obama’s youth and (wait for it) thin resume. Of course, Kennedy is dead and they can characterize his reaction/actions any which way the media whores want which is why it is in that book.

    I am reading this other article on Edwards’ and what a sick story. The way it is written it makes Elizabeth Edwards a monster (incl. the cartoons) and seems to want to engender sympathy for John. That almost makes me think if it was all a coup from Obama camp, sending that woman to seduce him and now out of their guilt they are trying to make John a more sympathetic character, like what else would he do being married to that Elizabeth.

    None of these fuckers (incl. the media whores) seem to have any larger purpose in life, like who will do right by their country. It is really sick.

  31. Admin…..I hope you are right. However, people who are not “really into politics” will see her first and foremost as a democrat who followed the party line.

    But in hindsight, I now see that I may have been wrong last year when I thought she should not take the sos post. She has vastly improved her foreign policy creds and stayed above the partisan fray.

    BUT…Had she stayed in the Senate and become the one holdout for a better hcr bill….what would have happened. We will never know. It would have been risky and courageous. One thing I have learned is that life can be pretty unforgiving as far as hese kind of career choices go.

  32. Carol,

    BUT…Had she stayed in the Senate and become the one holdout for a better hcr bill….what would have happened. We will never know. It would have been risky and courageous. One thing I have learned is that life can be pretty unforgiving as far as hese kind of career choices go.

    —————————————————————————–

    You may have something there. She would have driven this get the best one. She would have stolen the light of Edward Kennedy, AGAIN, there were not about to let that happen, so to the SOS job she went. hmmm, hmmm.

  33. We’ll be discussing Reid later this week but we can’t resist a little taste of what is going on today: Now it’s Reid’s turn to be race-baited. Republicans are wise to attack on all fronts and Reid is now another distraction for Obama and the Dims:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31300.html

    Republican leaders called on Harry Reid to step down as Senate majority leader, Sunday, after the Nevada senator apologized for calling Barack Obama as a “light-skinned” African-American who lacked a “Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

    “The reality of it is this, there is this standard where Democrats feel they can say these things and apologize as long as it comes from one of their own,” Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele said on “Fox News Sunday,” equating Reid’s comments with the racially charged ones that led to the outster of Former Republican Leader Trent Lott. “And if it comes from somebody else, it’s racism.”

    Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) , the second ranking Republican in Senate, also pointed to a “double standard” in how Democrats have treated Reid as compared to Lott.

    “If he should resign, then Harry Reid should,” Kyl said on Fox. “If they apologize and you know what is in their heart, my feeling is they shouldn’t but in this case he should.”

  34. H4T,

    I am not surprised about Schumer. He’s another snake and I hope he rots in he!!, too.

    What really infuriates me is the way the dims rally around the ‘safe’ women like Napolitano, pelosi, Landrieu, Coakley – anyone they think they can control but they threw the strong, independent, competent woman, HRC, under the bus.

    I will never forgive that. NEVER!

    About Gillibrand, living in her ex-district I am not at all impressed with her. Another butt-kisser. But I don’ like Ford, either.

    So far, Murphy hasn’t been too bad.

    Let’s face it – there are few to respect in either party at this point.

  35. If she was the lone hold out on HCR in the senate, she would have been hounded out as the sore loser by the very same group of people who stole her nomination and people on the street would have believed them. That would have given more momentum for this bill in a perverse way than Obama could ever imagine. I think she is safe where she is from the snakes and the wolves.

  36. admin,

    I am ROTFLMFAO at Reid’s plight!

    Now if we could only catch Pooplosi saying something similar – like when Boxer pissed off that AA guy (forgot his name) a few months ago, it would just be too delicious!

  37. Martha Coakley must denounce this election theft. Nothing less than an absolute rejection of this defiance of the will of the voters will do.
    ———————————–
    With the voters on one side, and the party on the other, she is compelled to make a choice. The right choice, obviously, is to support the voters. If she does not do that, then she deserves to lose. I thought she could get by because she is not an incumbent, but she has a choice to make and it needs to be the right one. The voters, or the party. There is no in between.

  38. wbboei, That is going to be the choice for Hillary as well,if she runs again. She has already chose party once. I think we really don’t know why though!

  39. confloyd
    January 10th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
    wbboei, That is going to be the choice for Hillary as well,if she runs again. She has already chose party once. I think we really don’t know why though!

    ___________

    Isn’t that the choice Hill and Bill are making now.
    They continue to stand up and support this administration.

    Perhaps they have already waited to long to speak out against O. Remember the I was for it before I was against it?

    I support Hillary and think she is the best leader this country has right now. However, I do not support anyone blindly. No one is perfect. I still cannot really understand the Clintons reactions to Obamaland.

  40. Carol, It is at times hard to understand. Obama is Bush III and a Wall St. slime. Hillary in 2008 had the vote of the people, but maybe she did not think she could maintain it. She is afterall a product of republican contempt for almost 20 years. I think she should have been more of a poker player and risked it.

  41. This administration stops at nothing to get cooperation from whoever its needs it from. Perhaps if Brown wins and this administration succeeds in holding off swearing Brown in, it will perhaps see why no one says NO to this administration. I am beginning to wonder if Obama has something on everyone in the govt., and if it doesn’t it manufactures one. (as they did in Palin’s case)

    I just hope those who are voting for Brown have investigated him to make sure if he isn’t and undercover Obama operative.

  42. I have been thinking about this all night and here is what I believe.

    First, Obama planned to blame the for the airline incident on the state department.

    Second, after meeting with Bill and Hillary he realized this would backfire because she did her job.

    Third, MSNBC had a headline this morning blaming Hillary the incident on Hillary.

    Fourth, this was part of their continuing conspiracy with the Obama thugs.

    Fifth, most insiders can see that Obama cannot do the job. Zero chance of a second term.

    Sixth, his demonstrable incompetence is leading this country to its doom–everybody loses.

    Seventh, the Republicans have a plan of their own–to bring down the entire democratic party.

    Eighth, the architect of this plan is most likely Newt Gingrich, and FOX will be the attack dog.

    Ninth, they will leave Obama to his own devices and enjoy the spectacle of him as he self destructs.

    Tenth, they will focus attention on Hillary because she is the only real leader in the country.

    Eleventh, they picked Halperin to do this hit piece because he is a loyal operative with the cover of ABC.

    Twelfth, the attacks are on Bill are lies and will not be believed. See prior comments.

    Fourteenth, the attack on Schumer is probably accurate and it will make him a pariah. He needs to respond.

    Fifteenth, how Hillary respond to these power plays by Obamathug and Rethugs will tell us how serious she is about 2012.

  43. This may prove to be the opportunity to drive a silver stake through the malignant heart of the traitor to the country known as MSNBC.

    This will force FOX to decide what it wants to be. It has the audience and has achieved a measure of acceptance and support as it grew beyond its original mission as a Republican attack machine. We shall see if it rises to the challenge or reverts back to its smaller partisan role. If it does the latter it will lose its audience. They need to counterbalance Hillary haters like Morris, Hannity, Rove, Beck, Gingrich with more people like Greta if they want to be accepted as fair and balanced.

  44. Now more than ever the only hope for this country is Hillary Clinton. In a world of many ambiguities, nothing could be clearer than that.

  45. Isn’t that the choice Hill and Bill are making now.
    They continue to stand up and support this administration.
    —————————————————-
    Carol: I think it is more a matter of lip service than real active support. To support Obama is to destroy the country.

  46. The sentiments posted above about Hill and Bill’s shall we say, loyalty, to the Democratic party (the party that ceased to exist in 2008) and promotion of the Mackerel President has been a constant burr in my side as well. I concede they may well have a very good reason yet to be revealed, and I am withholding judgment until all facts are known – or at least until 2012. There is the law of diminishing returns that applies to Hill and Bill. The longer they are associated with Him and the Dimocrats the more their credibility will be tarnished. I believe with every molecule of my being they were threatened with something mind boggling; and with time I have come to believe that even threats should not cause one to go counter to what is best for the nation. Vivid is the memory of the AA woman who said, “Bill, is wearing Obama’s tie. He has been conquered.”

    Re: Haleprin and the other author of this sleeze!!! The National Enquirer does not publish as much ‘gossip’ and hearsay as this book. The authors likely won’t make much money off it, because the main excerpts are available free of charge. It is all about creating ‘doubt’ within those of us who support those who are against their agenda. What is said about Hill and Bill sounds like LIES to me. YOU LIE. YOU LIE. YOU LIE.

  47. When the timing is right and it cannot benefit Obama, I will post on this site my analysis of the events leading up to the Iraq War, which show why it is wrong to blame Hillary for her vote, how Obama never really took a position on the matter (that speech was nothing more than preaching to the choir), and how screwed up the decision making process was in the Bush White House.

  48. HILLARY CLINTON DECLARES STRONG US SUPPORT FOR U.N. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH AND RIGHTS: KEY NGOS EXPRESS APPROVAL:

    UNITED NATIONS – MaximsNews Network / 10 January 2010 –

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared the strong support of the U.S. government for the health and development goals set out by the U.N. Millennium Development Goals to achieve access to reproductive health along the lines set out by the International Conference on Population and Development and key NGOs issue statement of approval, including: Advocates for Youth, Americans for UNFPA, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Catholics for Choice, Center for Environment and Population, Center for Health and Gender Equity, Center for Reproductive Rights, The Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), EngenderHealth, Family Care International, Global Health & Development at the Aspen Institute, Global Health Council, International Center for Research on Women, International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region, International Women’s Health Coalition, Ipas, JSI Research & Training Institute, Marie Stopes International, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National Council of Women’s Organizations, Pathfinder International, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Population Action International, Population Connection, Population Council, Population Institute, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States – SIECUS, Sierra Club, United Nations Foundation and Women Thrive Worldwide.

    Secretary Clinton declared that the U.S. aims to make access to reproductive healthcare “a basic right” and that “women’s health is essential to the prosperity and health of all people,” thus bringing the nation into alignment with other countries in the International Community and the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) that was held in Cairo and supported by some 179 other nations.

    The ICPD Conference supported universal access to reproductive health by the year 2015 as part of the Millennium Development Goals that emphasized the importance of voluntary contraception, control of HIV/AIDS and related diseases as well as much improved maternal and child health.

    “Today’s statement by Secretary Clinton marks a return to U.S. leadership on international family planning,” said Suzanne Ehlers of Population Action International. “The United States was a major architect of the 1994 Cairo agreement, but U.S. funding for international family planning programs, a major component of reproductive health services, has fallen 23 percent in real dollars since its high in 1995,” she said.

    The coalition of NGOs also appealed to the Obama Administration to help achieve global access to reproductive health and family planning needs by the following:

    Ensure that the new Global Health Initiative retain a strong focus on interventions to prevent unintended pregnancy, promote women’s health and save women’s lives.

    Ensure that greater access to contraception and reproductive health care remains a high priority within any restructuring of the U.S. government’s foreign assistance program so that women, men and youth can access a comprehensive range of reproductive health services no matter where they are accessing care.

    Work with the U. S. Congress to fund international family planning programs at $1 billion, to reverse a decade of inadequate funding, and eliminate punitive legislative restrictions that continue to tie-up the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

    “I hope that Secretary Clinton’s speech is a signal to everyone that the U.S. government is done with political theater and instead will focus on the important work of saving lives.” said Tamara Kreinin of the UN Foundation.

    “Poll after poll has shown that a majority of Americans across the ideological divide support family planning programs and proven investments in women’s health,” she said.

    http://www.maximsnews.com/news20100110populationUSgovernment11001100101.htm

  49. Senators McCain, Lieberman downplay Mitchell’s threat

    During Jerusalem press conference, senator who lost to Obama expresses objection to use of aid freeze as threat. Lieberman: Attempt of this kind won’t pass in Congress

    Roni Sofer
    01.10.10

    Mitchell can threaten Jerusalem, but there will be others ready to defend Israel in Washington: Four senior US senators visiting Israel said Sunday that they oppose attempts to apply pressure on Israel by freezing aid. The senators, including former Republican presidential candidate John McCain, emphasized that they would not allow the US government to authorize such a proposal.

    During a press conference at Jerusalem’s David Citadel Hotel, at which senators Joe Lieberman, John Thune and John Barrasso were also present, McCain said that he expects the White House to confirm soon that this is not its policy.

    Lieberman said that any attempt to force Israel to the negotiations table by withholding aid would not pass in Congress. He added that he did not think it would come to this. Lieberman, who was Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2000 and afterwards supported McCain for president, is now an independent senator though still part of the Democratic faction in the Senate.

    Steinitz: We’ll do without US aid

    The four senators spoke following the storm caused by an apparent threat from US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, to freeze loan guarantees to Israel if it failed to make progress in the peace process with the Palestinians. During an interview with the PBS network, Mitchell asserted that the US would use both carrots and sticks against the two sides, noting that US law allowed such a freeze.

    Later, a senior Washington figure told Ynet that no threat was intended, in an attempt to moderate Mitchell’s remarks.

    The apparent threat was discussed in the cabinet’s weekly meeting on Sunday, during which Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) asserted, “We don’t have to use those guarantees. We are doing very well without them.”

    Education Minister Gideon Saar (Likud) added, “Israel will act in accordance with its interests.”

    Earlier, Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Labor) met with the four senators and noted that Hezbollah continues to rearm. Lebanon carries full responsibility for any rockets fired from its territory, he said, adding that Israel would not go after individual terrorists. He also talked about the need to launch negotiations with the Palestinians, and about Iran.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3832424,00.html

  50. The one thing of value this piece adds to the discussion was how tone deaf the Obama Administration has been to the changing mood of the county. The marketing effort which many adjudged to successful in the campaign has been singularly unsuccessful in governance. The reason is because they ignore feedback from reality and dance with themselves in the dark. That is a surefire formula for political failure in a time of transition.
    ————————————————–
    The Risk of Catastrophic Victory
    Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?
    By PEGGY NOONAN

    Article
    Comments (577)
    MORE IN OPINION »
    EmailPrinter
    FriendlyShare:
    facebook
    ↓ More
    Save This
    ↓ More
    Text
    Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.

    If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, “You didn’t even waste our time successfully.”

    What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008—expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009—more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line—and didn’t notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.

    In a way Mr. Obama made the same mistake President Bush did on immigration, producing a big, mammoth, comprehensive bill when the public mood was for small, discrete steps in what might reasonably seem the right direction.

    The public in 2009 would have been happy to see a simple bill that mandated insurance companies offer coverage without respect to previous medical conditions. The administration could have had that—and the victory of it—last winter.

    Instead, they were greedy for glory.

    It was not worth it—not worth the town-hall uprisings and the bleeding of centrist support, not worth the rebranding of the president from center-left leader to leftist leader, not worth the proof it provided that the public’s concerns and the administration’s are not the same, not worth a wasted first year that should have been given to two things and two things only: economic matters and national security.

    Those were not only the two topics on the public’s mind the past 10 months, they were precisely the issues that presented themselves in screaming headlines at the end of the year: unemployment and the national-security breakdowns that led to the Christmas bomb plot and, earlier, the Fort Hood massacre. “That’s two strikes,” said the president’s national security adviser, James Jones, to USA Today’s Susan Page. Left unsaid: Three and you’re out.

    Just as bad, or worse, the president’s focus on health care allowed the public to infer that his mind was not focused on our security. He’d frittered his attention on issues that were secondary and tertiary—climate change, health care—while al Qaeda moved, and the system stuttered. A lack of focus breeds bureaucratic complacency, complacency gives rise to slovenliness, slovenliness results in what was said in the report issued Thursday: that, faced with clear evidence of coming danger, the government failed, as they’re saying on TV, to “connect the dots.” Dots? They were boulders.

    View Full Image

    Chad Crowe
    ***
    I am wondering if the Obama administration thinks it vaguely dishonorable to be popular. If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you with a certain . . . not disdain but patience, as if you don’t understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice. Just so, but in democracy you do this by garnering and galvanizing public support. But they think it’s weaselly to be well thought of.

    In politics you must tend to the garden. The garden is the constituency, in Mr. Obama’s case the country. No great endeavor is possible without its backing. In a modern presidency especially you have to know this, because there will be times when history throws you a crisis, and to address it you may have to do an unpopular thing. A president in those circumstances must use all the goodwill he’s built up over the months and years to get through that moment and survive doing what he thinks is right. Mr. Obama acts as if he doesn’t know this. He hasn’t built up popularity to use on a rainy day. If he had, he’d be getting through the Christmas plot drama better than he is

    The Obama people have taken to pointing out how their guy doesn’t govern by the polls. This is all too believable. The Bush people, too, used to bang away about how he didn’t govern by the polls. They both added unneeded stress to the past 10 years, and it is understandable if many of us now think, “Oh for a president who’d govern by the polls.”

    More Peggy Noonan

    Read Peggy Noonan’s previous columns

    click here to order her new book, Patriotic Grace

    If Mr. Obama is extremely lucky—and we’re not sure he’s a lucky man anymore—he will get a Republican Congress in 2010, and they will do for him what Newt Gingrich did for Bill Clinton: right his ship, give him a foil, guide him while allowing him to look as if he’s resisting, bend him while allowing him to look strong.

    ***
    Which gets us to the Republicans. The question isn’t whether they’ll win seats in the House and Senate this year, and the question isn’t even how many. The question is whether the party will be worthy of victory, whether it learned from its losses in 2006 and ’08, whether it deserves leadership. Whether Republicans are a worthy alternative. Whether, in short, they are serious.

    I spoke a few weeks ago with a respected Republican congressman who told me with some excitement of a bill he’s put forward to address the growth of entitlements and long-term government spending. We only have three or four years to get it right, he said. He made a strong case. I asked if his party was doing anything to get behind the bill, and he got the blanched look people get when they’re trying to keep their faces from betraying anything. Not really, he said. Then he shrugged. “They’re waiting for the Democrats to destroy themselves.”

    This isn’t news, really, but it was startling to hear a successful Republican political practitioner say it.

    Republican political professionals in Washington assume a coming victory. They do not see that 2010 could be a catastrophic victory for them. If they seize back power without clear purpose, if they are not serious, if they do the lazy and cynical thing by just sitting back and letting the Democrats lose, three bad things will happen. They will contribute to the air of cynicism in which our citizens marinate. Their lack of seriousness will be discerned by the Republican base, whose enthusiasm and generosity will be blunted. And the Republicans themselves will be left unable to lead when their time comes, because operating cynically will allow the public to view them cynically, which will lessen the chance they will be able to do anything constructive.

    In this sense, the cynical view—we can sit back and wait—is naive. The idealistic view—we must stand for things and move on them now—is shrewder.

    Political professionals are pugilistic, and often see politics in terms of fight movies: “Rocky,” “Raging Bull.” They should be thinking now of a different one, of Tom Hanks at the end of “Saving Private Ryan.” “Earn this,” he said to the man whose life he’d helped save.

    Earn this. Be worthy of it. Be serious.

    MORE IN OPINION
    EmailPrinter FriendlyOrder Reprints

    Share:

  51. HillaryforTexas
    January 10th, 2010 at 10:01 am

    confloyd, they said that Bill has some long-running affair, but zero proof or sources. They also said that Hillary met privately with Obama for the SOS slot, and said things like “I can’t control him, and it might be a problem.”
    That right there to me reeks of Axelrove spin and lies.

    YES, HILLARY WOULD NOT SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

    Number one, Hillary would not have run if she knew Bill was carrying on – she’s not that stupid.

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

    I’m sure Bill isn’t doing anything wrong, but if he were, why would Hillary refuse the SOS job on that account? It would have nothing to do with her job performance. Why should she turn down a job where she can do a lot of good? If he were carrying on, he’d get in the tabloids sooner or later, no matter what job she did or didn’t have. Would it be worse with her as SOS than with her as Senator from NY?

    You’re right on what you say about the ‘control’ words.

  52. Mitchell did well under Bill in N. Ireland and my guess is he is simply doing what the anti-Israeli administration is ordering him to do…better him than Hillary. Israel is in a no win situation as the Obama wants extreme concessions tantamount to pre-67 borders, and in retun his “gift” to Israel is allowing Iran to go nuclear. As they say, with “friends ” like that, who needs enemies. I believe, however, that the pressure will not be so great as he still needs the Jewish vote in 2012…if Jews don’t wake up and throw this Muslim Potus out of office, Israel will be in mortal danger , and in turn, so will Jews everywhere.

  53. “Sending Bill out” to help Coakley?

    Who tells Bill what to do? Maybe he is helping Coakley because he WANTS to. Coakley stood by Hillary till Denver iirc, one of the few who did. Coakley has an excellent record of walking the walk on abortion; she has done real, courageous things for that cause. Also for gay issues.

    Maybe Bill (and Hillary who can’t speak publicly) are helping Coakley because she is a loyal Clintonista and they WANT her in the Senate for the next 6 years.

  54. HillaryforTexas
    January 10th, 2010 at 10:58 am

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

    I thought of that theory but don’t want to spread it, as it really gives the other side ammunition. If we seem to admit it as a fact then they can say we’re wrong about the interpretation, we’re trying to What Bill Really Meant, etc.

    There’s no evidence that Bill ever said anything of the sort! If he did, it would have been spread wider during the primaries, when it mattered. Someone is just making it up! Like the other story (same book?) about HIllary saying she couldn’t ‘control’ Bill.

  55. That almost makes me think if it was all a coup from Obama camp, sending that woman to seduce him and now out of their guilt they are trying to make John a more sympathetic character,

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

    Iirc the Edwards affair began years ago. And the Obama camp is incapable of guilt. That would require some moral sense.

  56. Mm. Just overall…. If the GOP want to win in 2012, they might do well to give Obama and the Dims more rope to hang themsleves with in the next couple of years.

    If the HC goes through and more people feel the bite, that will be more people blaming the Dims. If it fails now, those who support it now will just blame the GOP and will never know the truth.

    If the GOP take over in all 2010 elections, then they will own the next couple of years’ problems (unemployment etc) and the 2012 backlash might be against the GOP.

  57. From wikipeida ” ……….Mitchell was born in Waterville, Maine. “…His father, George John Mitchell, Sr. (born Joseph Kilroy),[2] was of ethnic Irish descent but was adopted by a Lebanese family since he was orphaned.[3] He was a janitor at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, where Mitchell was raised. Mitchell’s mother, Mary Saad, was a textile worker who emigrated to the United States in 1920 from Bkassine, Lebanon at the age of eighteen. Because of his origin, Mitchell is recognized as a prominent Arab-American……”
    ——————————————-
    Kind of explains Mitchell’s “loyalties”…

  58. This visit is alas, just a flyby, but must mention admin, how happy I am to see someone taking the subject of this post head on!

  59. “There’s no evidence that Bill ever said anything of the sort! If he did, it would have been spread wider during the primaries, when it mattered. Someone is just making it up! Like the other story (same book?) about HIllary saying she couldn’t ‘control’ Bill.”

    Turndown, you’re right. They would have put this out when it mattered in the primaries if BC really said anything remotely close to that. This book is full of lies and spins.

  60. This is exactly the type of book I would expect the National Enquirer to come out with.

    It’s comments that Hillary “warned” obama that becoming SOS would be like a circus because of Bill is a joke and a half. Obama could deny this allegation if he wanted to. Where is he?

    As far as Bill saying anything racist about obama “carrying their coffee,” is neither here nor there. Bill Clinton is not and never has been a racist. He did more for African Americans during his tenure than any leader before or after him. They gave him the honorable title of “the black president” for a reason.

    And even if those few words about coffee were spoken, it could simply have referred to obama’s zero experience on anything.

    Neither Bill nor Hillary will go down in flames over this.

  61. If anyone’s interested, here’s a list of Senators who are getting very old and which party they’d be replaced by:

    h/ no w
    hdtd.typepad.com/hdtd/2010/01/us-senate-death-watch-2010-version.html

  62. turndown, I also think your right, why are they spreading this now?? This would have made a difference in the primaries.

    I wonder when Bill’s book is coming out?? Someone is vying to get the blue dogs back over to the left. This is all about making Obama look good and remaking of John Edwards. Gee, I wonder if he is trying to get back in?

    Where are you all reading the quotes in the book?

  63. It will be interpreted as racists by the same crowd we saw in S. Carolina and will further hurt Bill imo in the AA community. They will say “I told you so” and reinforce their hatred towards Bill and Hillary. Obama will use this to his advantage as he has done on all racial issues….(see Tea Party).

  64. I believe the Obama Administration planned to blame the State Department for the incident because they know his poll numbers are dropping like a head shot goose, and hers are riding high. The Chicago thugs fed the story line to their co-conspirators at MSNBC and it was supposed to have been announced as shocking news. However, the Obama people did not have all the facts, and when Hillary provided him with those facts, their plan to hang Hillary was aborted. Here is my understanding of the facts, and my speculation as to what did happen which absolves the State Department.

    1. Visa Issuance: at the time the passport was issued there was no reason believe that the 23 year old Nigerian man was a terrorist. On the contrary, he was the son of one of he most influential men in Nigeria. He was like a Kennedy. He was thought to be a respectable young man and there was no evidence at that point that he had terrorist leanings. The British had revoked his passport by then but there is no indication this information was shared. For future purposes that is a loop to be closed and John Lehman stated as much in his comments yesterday.

    2. Notification by Father: when the father came to the US Embassy he advised them that he had concerns about his son. He had sent him to college in London and put him up in a $5 million home. This caused him to become isolated and turn to the wrong people for companionship. The son wanted to study Sharia law and go to Yemen. The father objected and threatened to cut him off and the son said fine and he disappeared. The father wanted to locate his son and wanted our help in doing so. He was prepared to hire a private security team to extract the son, if he could locate him.

    3. CIA Takes Over: this information was passed up the line to Hillary and she contacted the CIA. There were four meetings after that with the father, the ambassador and the CIA. The State Department was focused on the diplomatic aspects of this matter and the CIA was focused on the security aspects. If you know anything about police work then you know that when you have a suspect under surveillance you do not want to tip your hand. Revoking the visa at that point would have tipped the hand. There were bigger fish to fry. There was no indication that the young man posed an imminent threat.

    4. Airport Security Failure: the young was refused permission to board the aircraft by the customer service agent of Northwest Airlines in Amsterdam. Reason: no ticket, no identification and no visa. An Indian man demanded that he be allowed to board, the agent called in the supervisor and the supervisor allowed him to board. Obviously, he was not properly searched either. This airport security in Amsterdam (and Ghana and Nigeria) was the proximate cause.

    5. A Non Sequitur: it is a non sequitur to blame the State Department for issuing or failing to revoke his passport. Why? Because he was allowed to board the plane without it. Therefore whether he had a passport or not was immaterial. Thus the story line and innuendo published by NBC is a cacophony of lies and distortions to drive their pro Obama anti Hillary agenda. Nothing more and nothing less.

    5.

    Fourth,

    Fourth,

  65. It will be interpreted as racists by the same crowd we saw in S. Carolina and will further hurt Bill imo in the AA community. They will say “I told you so” and reinforce their hatred towards Bill and Hillary. Obama will use this to his advantage as he has done on all racial issues….(see Tea Party).
    ——————————
    I think it is immaterial. This lie has already been factored into the stock price since South Carolina. Thinking people will weigh this statement (which you and I recognize as hearsay on hearsay) as totally inconsistent with his public statements, actions and life’s work. I think it is a non-starter, honestly. And since it is part and parcel of the Republican attack on the party, we shall be interested to hear what Admin says about Halperin. I have already said my piece on that subject.

  66. I mean all roads do lead to Rome here. A Republican operative posing as an ABC journalist publishes a parcel of lies about leading democrats which is then published in a Republican newspaper at the very moment that public ire against dimcocrats is reaching a fever pitch. It is easy to see how it all fits together.

    At this point, we have two opponents within the party. The Kennedy Machine and the Chicago Machine. If Obama goes down then they are out of power.

    And that brings us to the rather interesting subject of Mr. Dodd. He has been promised a job on K Street–as a lobbyist. Just like Honest Tom Daschale. But what about all the other democrats who stand to lose if they support health care deform? Are there enough jobs for them on K street as well? The answer is no. That is why they must think carefully about their own future and whether it is wise to support this bill.

    The bill is still likely to past because it has the momentum. But surely the Democrats realize that they succumbed to hopium, they have run away from their base, and they are history. Quietly, they are starting to poll their blue dog supporters to see if they have screwed the pooch. And now they see how Obama blew the security issue, and made their support for and reliance upon him more tenuous than ever.

    In the immortal words of Yogi Berra: it ain’t over until it is over. To that I would simply add when you separate yourself from the base of your party then by God it is over–for you.

  67. As a Massachusetts voter, this election is a tough one. I’m really wrestling with it. Not only do I respect Coakley for sticking with Hillary and the wishes of Massachusetts voters, she is a college classmate. Unlike the do nothing giggolo Kerry, she has actually been a career public servant.

    The the flip side, I can’t think of anything more important that ensuring that neither political party of crooks has a 60 vote majority in the Senate. I would vote for Hannibel Lector if it meant stripping the corrupt Dems’ 60 vote majority.

    I never dreamed this race would be close. I don’t what I’m gonna do.

  68. #
    rgb44hrc
    January 10th, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    #
    birdgal
    January 10th, 2010 at 12:03 am

    Frankly, I believe actions, not words. I believe that Kennedy was part of the group that was encouraging Obama. What ever happened during the primary was a smoke screen and he used any little thing against Hillary as justification for his support of Obama. Blah, blah, blah.
    &&&&&

    Kennedy better have it on tape about what Bill said about O that was “racist” in that phone call. Bill might have said, “Obama’s using reverse racism…”, and TK could then say, “Aha!!! that is the moment I knew I would support Obama”.

    And forgive me, but in private, god knows what offensive terms (racial, sexist, etc.) Obama, Kennedy, or any of the other Judas “purists” might use. The “C” word??? “Whitey”?

    Get my drift?

  69. Hwc, it is a tough decision. It will be tougher in November, as we wrote, when we have to oppose hundreds/thousands of Dimocrats who say the right things.

    We decided ultimately that actions, not words, mattered most. Like sad parents we realized the children need to be punished – swiftly and where it hurts (money and votes). In the end the party “leadership” is what will be elected in this election (and because of the 60 votes, every senator in November). If Coakley starts off by giving in to the “leadership” now, that behavior is what we will see in the Senate. History is a teacher.

    We wrestled with the writing of this article too. Let us know how you decide on this tough decision. Best wishes to you.

  70. Hwc: I have a friend who is an influential blue dog democrat in a mid western state. She has personal ties to one senators and his family. Those ties go back to the time he was a boy. She has supported that Senator every step of the way in his election career. Nevertheless, she has severed those ties because he supported the health care bill. She told him she would work to defeat him. This was not an easy decision for her because of those ties and because she has no use for the right wing republicans. Her rationale was simple: there comes a point where we must stand up for our country even if that means voting against someone you would like to support.

    I read Admins essay of today on Coakley. She said, yes, yes, yes. Then she talked about Coakleys opponent Brown. She told me that she is impressed with him inspite of his Republican affiliation. Why I asked. She said because he is offering what the country needs if it is to survive namely cost control. She then added that if this bill passes it is Katie bar the doors for millions of Americans.

    I read her the part of Admins blog about the Kennedy Machines intent to delay swearing in Brown if he wins to shove health care down the throats of Americans. She became irate and said that is illegal, and if they do it with the country in the crazy mood it is in today it will be the death of her party. So in her view a vote for the republican candidate is ultimately a vote to save the party as well as the country.

  71. I spoke to Mrs. Smith’s mother a minute ago. Her condition has improved in the last couple days and hopes to be home by the end of this week. I told her mother to tell her that we are all thinking about her and wishing her a speedy recovery so she can get back on the blog.

  72. Obama has divided the democratic party, and a house divided cannot stand. The same goes for the country. The Age of Obama ended with the aborted terrorist attack. The magic thinking must stop. The Age of Reality has only just begun.

  73. ‘The Age of Obama ended with the aborted terrorist attack.’

    I have read that same sentiment expressed in different words at several blogs.

    I hope ta he11 y’all are right!

  74. wbboei
    January 10th, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    ——————

    Thank you for the analysis. I can’t see how Hillary could be responsible for this communication breakdown and near catastrophe.

    Just wishful thinking on the maggots who are trying so hard to dislodge her from having any political life at all.

  75. wbboei
    January 10th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
    Obama has divided the democratic party, and a house divided cannot stand. The same goes for the country. The Age of Obama ended with the aborted terrorist attack. The magic thinking must stop. The Age of Reality has only just begun.
    ———————————————————————————–

    So much for being the “great uniter.” Maybe, the “great divider” would be more appropriate.

  76. If I were advising the Republicans at this point I would be gleeful. I would step back and let Mr. Obama continue to do exactly what he is doing, let public outrage build up to a fever pitch, eliminate credible alternatives to him and indict the entire party for what he has done. I would also let big media follow Obama and the party over the cliff and give them a little nudge along the way. I would keep my 2012 candidate a secret, boycott all networks except FOX and play rope a dope.

    If I were advising the Democrats at this point I would be deathly worried. They have been too long in the hopium den. The Chicago and Kennedy machines have tied their fate to Obama and when he goes down they will too. When disaster strikes, and it could be another incident, those groups will be roundly condemned. Once that happens, realists within the party will be receptive to an alternative message. My message to them would be get this clown off the stage before he sinks everyones ship. Do it gradually and inconspicuously but do it. Seek bipartisanship in Congress if it is not too late.

  77. wbboei, Oh so glad to hear about Mrs. Smith. I have sorely missed her, if she is in bed in the hospital and anywhere near a television she is steaming. I can’t wait for her weigh in.

    Its my opinion that whoever holds the cards for the next election wants Hillary out bad, they know Obama is done for and the only way to keep Hillary from winning is to tie her to the failed attempt on Christmas day and to separate the A.A.’s from them AGAIN!

    So the question is who is doing this??? My theory is that it is the republicans, after all they suceeded in getting most of the legislation they wanted thru Obama. He continued Bush’s policies, so to come in for the touchdown, they have to take out Hillary. She has gotten way to popular and so has Bill. The republicans have always launched the sex thing at Bill, thereby tarnishing Hillary. They know America doesn’t want to hear another blow by blow description of Bill’s love life. Pardon the pun!

  78. The people who claim to be experts claim that politics is all about story telling. Simply put, Obama won because he told a better story than Hillary or McCain. Well, I do not buy that explanation. It is far too simplistic. And it ignores the fact that if we had an honest press in this country, then a false story like his would have been repudiated early on in the process.

    But assume for the moment that I am wrong and they are right–those self professed experts who say whoever tells the better story wins. What kind of a story do you suppose the Republicans will tell about the putative leader who was too busy playing golf and watching the movie Avatar to worry about an aborted terrorist attack and its aftermath?

    Frankly, the video clip our brilliant admin posted just yesterday is lethal to the credibility of Obama, and to any claim he makes to the mantle of leadership. Your average Joe may not understand the implications of massive budget deficits, but he sure as hell understands that when the enemy attacks it is no time to hang out the sign that says Gone Fishing.

  79. American Samoa congressman attacks Clinton

    By MICHAEL FIELD

    American Samoa’s only congressman has condemned US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for visiting New Zealand, which has banned US warships, but not visiting Pacific states that supported it.

    Clinton arrives in Auckland on Friday for a three-day visit and will also visit Australia and Papua New Guinea.

    Congressman Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin has told the Samoa Observer he is “truly disappointed” that President Barack Obama has not directed Clinton to meet other Pacific states. “At a minimum, the President or the Secretary could have easily called for a summit of Foreign Ministers from the island nations to meet in Samoa, Hawaii, or even New Zealand,” Hunkin, who is a non-voting member of congress, said.

    “That this was not done shows a lack of sensitivity for the region and sends a message that some 15 Pacific Island nations are not an important or integral part of our US foreign policy objectives.” Hunkin said the US was taking Pacific states for granted.

    “While New Zealand refuses entry to US nuclear ships, many Pacific Island nations fought side by side with the US throughout World War Two,” he said. “China, Taiwan and Iran are increasing their presence in the region while the US cannot even bother to re-establish USAID presence.”

    Hunkin said the presence of China should be a worry to the US. “China takes the time to meet with heads of state from small Pacific Island nations and the U.S. should do the same because it is no longer enough to continually fly over the region. Pacific Island nations deserve something better than fly-by diplomacy.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/3219970/American-Samoa-congressman-attacks-Clinton

  80. Clinton visit signals US re-engaging with Pacific

    11 January, 2010

    An academic in New Zealand says the key message of the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s visit to the Pacific is for the US to re-engage with the region.

    Mrs Clinton will this week visit Hawaii, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia. In Honululu, she will meet with her Japanese counterpart to discuss bilateral relations, which have been strained over US military bases in Okinawa. In Papua New Guinea, she will hold bilateral talks and meet civil society leaders to discuss women’s issues and environmental protection.

    Victoria University’s senior fellow for strategic studies, Terence O’Brien, says Mrs Clinton’s visit is signalling a change in US foreign policy. “The reasons for coming at this particular time are related to America’s desire to be seen to be active in the Pacific, more active than recent administrations.”

    Terence O’Brien says aid is also set to be high on the agenda.

    http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=51321

  81. I think that book is filled with a mix of truth and lies, but I agree with those here who say Hillary would never have told Obama she couldn’t control Bill (BTW, the book says that was in reference to Bill’s saying things that would need to be explained, not any potential fidelity).

    If Hillary thought she shouldn’t be SOS because of her husband, why would she think she should be president? That makes no sense.

  82. Election will test Kennedy clan’s influence

    Does the famous Democratic dynasty still have coattails? The contest to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy will show whether the family’s endorsement still holds sway in Massachusetts.

    By Johanna Neuman
    January 10, 2010

    It’s a test of Camelot in a way, a question of whether the Kennedys — who have held sway over Massachusetts politics and the national imagination since the rise of President Kennedy and his glamorous wife, Jackie — still have coattails.

    Led by Victoria Kennedy, the widow of Massachusetts Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the clan on Thursday gave its endorsement in the fight to replace the longtime lawmaker to state Atty. Gen. Martha Coakley, whose race against Republican state Sen. Scott Brown has narrowed in the last few days. As the Ticket has reported, Coakley’s single-digit lead in a heavily Democratic state is raising alarms in party circles.

    So last week Coakley looked on as former Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II and other Democrats embraced her candidacy to an audience of seniors who had been serenaded with a brass band’s rendition of “Hello Dolly.” Citing her late husband’s lifelong fight for healthcare reform, Victoria Kennedy said, “We need Martha. We want Martha. . . . We can’t take this election for granted.”

    The election in less than two weeks will test whether voters agree — and whether the Kennedys can still move public opinion.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-ticket10-2010jan10,0,677258.story

  83. Also, I tend to question any book from the 2008 campaign that includes not a single negative anecdote about Obama. That alone makes it highly questionable. I’m not saying the book has to paint him in an unflattering light across the board, but a lack of balance is a problem in my eyes.

    BTW, apparently the Edwardses and the McCains come off looking much worse than the Clintons.

  84. ‘The Age of Obama ended with the aborted terrorist attack.’

    I have read that same sentiment expressed in different words at several blogs.

    I hope ta he11 y’all are right!
    ————————————-
    Basil: The tide has turned. The flood tide lasted 2 years–from January 2008 to end of 2009. The ebb tide began in January 2010 and it will continue from now on. It is inevitable, and irreversible. There may be false recoveries but shortly thereafter you will see regression to the mean, which is a slow inexorable drain in his good will,credibility and popularity. In time he will become the same kind of charactericature as Bush. What people do not fully realize yet however is how deep a hole he has put us in–if this health care bill passes.

  85. I think that book is filled with a mix of truth and lies, but I agree with those here who say Hillary would never have told Obama she couldn’t control Bill (BTW, the book says that was in reference to Bill’s saying things that would need to be explained, not any potential fidelity).

    If Hillary thought she shouldn’t be SOS because of her husband, why would she think she should be president? That makes no sense.
    ———————-
    Correct.

  86. confloyd
    January 10th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    turndown, I also think your right, why are they spreading this now?? This would have made a difference in the primaries.

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

    One motive may be defensive, distraction — diverting attention from the fiascos of HC and the ‘isolated extremist’ Undiebomber.

  87. wbboei said:
    1. Visa Issuance: at the time the passport was issued there was no reason believe that the 23 year old Nigerian man was a terrorist.

    DATE WOULD BE HELPFUL

    On the contrary, he was the son of one of he most influential men in Nigeria. He was like a Kennedy. He was thought to be a respectable young man and there was no evidence at that point that he had terrorist leanings. The British had revoked his passport by then but there is no indication this information was shared. For future purposes that is a loop to be closed and John Lehman stated as much in his comments yesterday.

    2. Notification by Father: when the father came to the US Embassy he advised them that he had concerns about his son.

    AGAIN, DATES?

    He had sent him to college in London and put him up in a $5 million home. This caused him to become isolated and turn to the wrong people for companionship. The son wanted to study Sharia law and go to Yemen. The father objected and threatened to cut him off and the son said fine and he disappeared. The father wanted to locate his son and wanted our help in doing so. He was prepared to hire a private security team to extract the son, if he could locate him.

    3. CIA Takes Over: this information was passed up the line to Hillary and she contacted the CIA. There were four meetings after that with the father, the ambassador and the CIA. The State Department was focused on the diplomatic aspects of this matter and the CIA was focused on the security aspects. If you know anything about police work then you know that when you have a suspect under surveillance you do not want to tip your hand. Revoking the visa at that point would have tipped the hand. There were bigger fish to fry. There was no indication that the young man posed an imminent threat.

    4. Airport Security Failure: the young was refused permission to board the aircraft by the customer service agent of Northwest Airlines in Amsterdam. Reason: no ticket, no identification and no visa. An Indian man demanded that he be allowed to board, the agent called in the supervisor and the supervisor allowed him to board. Obviously, he was not properly searched either. This airport security in Amsterdam (and Ghana and Nigeria) was the proximate cause.

    5. A Non Sequitur: it is a non sequitur to blame the State Department for issuing or failing to revoke his passport. Why? Because he was allowed to board the plane without it.

    NOW THAT IS ODD. IF HE STILL HAD A US PASSPORT AT THAT POINT, WHY DIDN’T HE CARRY IT AND SHOW IT? WOULD SOME ID NUMBER HAVE BEEN CROSSCHECKED WITH THE BRITS?

    Therefore whether he had a passport or not was immaterial. Thus the story line and innuendo published by NBC is a cacophony of lies and distortions to drive their pro Obama anti Hillary agenda. Nothing more and nothing less.

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

    Timeline format for the whole thing?

  88. The Chicago concept of governance is to empower the voters who support you and to disenfranchise those who do not. The damage is already done, but announcing this intention to delay the swear in. Even if they intended to do this why in the world would they telegraph their move by announcing it prior to the election. It is a big fuck you to the same voters they want to support their candidate. What idiot dreamed this one up?
    ————————————————————-

    Posted by Dan Perrin (Profile)
    Sunday, January 10th at 3:23PM EST
    66 Comments
    (At 11;59 PM on 1/8 Moe Lane posted on this story, here. I’m just adding another log to the fire.)

    In a clear demonstration of the Speaker’s comment that we will do “almost anything” to pass health care, the Democrats have said they will delay seating Scott Brown, the GOP candidate for Senate in Massachusetts if he wins the race for former Senator Kennedy’s Senate seat on January 19th.

    Talk about lighting a torch while standing is in a field of gasoline! The Dems would be really putting on their crazy train if they tried this.

    This plan is rank with corruption. Not only would they be denying the will of the people of Massachusetts, but they would be corrupting our process even further to do it — I mean, besides buying off Senators Nelson and Landrieu — you know.

    For the Dems to be planning in this level of detail for a loss is revealing, and puts an explanation point on the great anger at ObamaCare in the nation — and the Dems desperation in even considering this CHEAT.

  89. wbboei, i read an interesting take on the pantybomber over at CF. He is tracing the company that is in charge of the airport in Amsterdam, it has ties to ISRAEL. Another thing they are looking at is that the passengers are saying the guy seemed in a tranced, drugged or hypnotised. He did not respond in any way. THe whole plane was screaming and he was being attacked by other passengers and he seemed catatonic.
    Its really weird, all kinds of conspiracy theories will be deduced by these discussions.

  90. Well I do agree with one blogger I read, that the book is nothing more than a hit piece on the three most powerful women in the country today. Hillary, Palin and Edwards. Not sure about Elizabeth, but she has a following.

    Basicly, that’s what I think is going to come out, that its another hit piece of the worst misogny to date from a media mogul. This world seems to hate powerful women. They all need to joing together and kick some butt.

  91. The Pantybomber’s visa was issued in June of 2008, before Hillary became SOS. The visa was valid for two years:
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/dec/134213.htm

    As for that book, the Clintons have been the subjects of such smears before. (Dick Morris, anyone?) I’m sure this will blow over in time. Based on the comments I’ve read at the end of various articles, even Repubs who can’t stand Bill Clinton will take his word over Ted Kennedy’s.

    Yes, I believe the Obamabots are behind this book.

    No, I don’t believe Hillary would have confided anything to Obama about not being able to control Bill.

    I have absolutely no idea if Bill has been engaging in any, uh, extracurricular activities. It’s none of my business. But even if he is, why should it matter politically? And why would anybody be shocked? We’re not talking about Tiger Woods, who had a squeaky clean reputation until very recently. There have been stories about Bill since he first ran for president back in 1992, some of which turned out to be true and who knows about the others? But Bill got elected and then re-elected anyway, and he probably would have won a 3rd term if he were allowed to run again. Whatever’s going on with Bill, it isn’t interfering with Hillary’s ability to do her job.

    I agree that Martha Coakley should stand up for what the American people want. It’s a tall order, though, because I don’t think too many people in high places would stand with her. We shall see…

  92. the guy seemed in a tranced, drugged or hypnotised
    ——————————
    In that case they should have arrested him immediately on suspicion of being an Obama supporter.

  93. In that case they should have arrested him immediately on suspicion of being an Obama supporter.

    ——————————————————————

    ROFLMAO!!!!

  94. The Pantybomber’s visa was issued in June of 2008, before Hillary became SOS. The visa was valid for two years:
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/dec/134213.htm
    ————————————————–
    Thanks Jen. I am glad to hear that.

    Turndown: I understand the meetings with the father ended in November. From that point on the matter was in the hands of the CIA.

    Quite possibly, the reason he did not have it with him or any id was because he assumed that the Americans were aware of the fact that the British had revoked his passport and would arrest him if they knew who he was.

  95. Some messages that might be read (by different people) into a Coakley loss:

    1. Bots punished her for supporting Hillary (ie bots are powerful)

    2. Conservatives punished her for supporting abortion, gay rights, etc (ie conservatives are powerful)

    3. PUMAs even eat their own, there is no pleasing them (so don’t try)


  96. The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election. [….]
    Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

    And if Coakley again promises to vote NO, will they swear her in before the vote? Or will they leave her in limbo to keep their safe Kirk casting the vote?

    Looks like her only chance to vote NO, or to work for any concessions on abortion etc, will be if she keeps quiet till sworn in.

  97. Some messages that might be read (by different people) into a Coakley loss:

    1. Bots punished her for supporting Hillary (ie bots are powerful)

    2. Conservatives punished her for supporting abortion, gay rights, etc (ie conservatives are powerful)

    3. PUMAs even eat their own, there is no pleasing them (so don’t try)
    ———————————————-
    I am sure you know this turndown but I will say it once for anyone who does not.

    It is not the interpretation that matters. Everyone will interpret it their own way.

    What matters is the future of our country.

    If her opponents win then the opposition will have the voted needed to fillibuster health care deform.

    If the dims delay seating him and pass this deform in defiance of their voters then come November they will have hell to pay

    The fate of the country is more important than the fate of any senator or senatorial candidate.

    The future candidacy of Hillary is hypothetical at this point.

  98. Correction:

    If her opponent wins then the opposition party will have the 41st vote needed to fillibuster health care deform.

  99. I am with wbboei on the post above. Country above persons! I encourage all to support the election of Scott Brown because it is what is good for MA and what is good for the nation. Perhaps money bombs with the famous 44cent tag.

  100. The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election. [….]
    Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said today a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.
    ————————————
    The problem with that scenario is the dims have already set a precedent of installing the winning democratic candidate two days after the special election so she could vote on legislation deemed critical to the state. Certainly health care deform rises to that level of criticality. (See Tongass case cited in Admin’s post). Add this to the questions raised on the constitutionality of certain provisions, e.g.the individual mandate and they have an even bigger problem.

  101. If the dims delay seating him and pass this deform in defiance of their voters then come November they will have hell to pay

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

    If they pass it, when people get their insurance bills the Dims will have hell to pay anyway. By next Nov some little shenagan in MA won’t be remembered even in MA, much less elsewhere.

    For that little possible bad press for the MA Dims, we’d be giving up 6 years of good courageous pro-abortion and pro-gay votes in the Senate.

  102. The problem with that scenario is the dims have already set a precedent of installing the winning democratic candidate two days after the special election so she could vote on legislation deemed critical to the state. Certainly health care deform rises to that level of criticality.

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

    Yes, the MA Dims might not dare delay installing Brown. Especially if he and the GOP make enough noise about it.

    So we’d have 6 years of a GOP Senator with not even a MA shenagan to show for it.

  103. Perhaps. But I think we should take the man at his word. Reid is a self confessed racist. His confession is a one off. It does nothing whatsoever to validate the bogus hearsay on hearsay crap which no living man other than Bill Clinton can validate and how why would he ever validate a lie. Kennedy had a motive to lie. Whoever told that lie to Halperin had a further motive to lie–since it was obviously someone in the Kennedy Machine. And Mr, Halperin, republican operative, chief of staff to Bob Dole and Clinton Hater masquerading as a journalist had a clear motive to print that lie. Seems pretty simple to me.

  104. I am an outsider and cannot offer an insiders perspective. But as an outsider, it appears to me that there are three machines in the Democratic Party.

    The Clinton Machine–which is an army in winter now–like Washington at Valley Forge. The Chicago Machine–which is one indictment away from chaos, whenever Fitzgerald decides to file. And the Kennedy Machine–which is leaderless and rudderless but hanging on hoping to keep their jobs. The wild card in all this is the Boob, who will burn all bridges before he is through.

    The only way the Chicago and Kennedy Machines could defeat the Clinton Machine was by joining together which they did. But they are so corrupt that if they maintain control they will destroy the party.

    Within a decade it will become the racially restrictive anti growth anti working class entitlement party which we see today, only more so. They will lose their preeminence as a national party and become regional at most.

    Isn’t it interesting how big media was making those very predictions about the Republican Party a year ago. If they blow it that could still happen. But right now it applies to the Democratic Party. What a difference a year of governing as opposed to campaigning makes.

  105. CES: Why the White House is backing away from Net neutrality
    LAS VEGAS–The Obama administration and its allies at the Federal Communications Commission are retreating from a militant version of Net neutrality regulations first outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in September.
    [….]
    Genachowski had initially described his vision for the future role of the FCC as a “smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet.” Communications companies understood that to mean aggressive and detailed enforcement of rules that would, among other things, prohibit ISPs from offering premium, or “fast lane,” services.
    [….]
    a firestorm in 2007 that has grown hotter since the election of President Obama, who proclaimed himself in favor of Net neutrality regulation during the 2008 campaign.
    […]
    But even as the commission concludes its collection of public comments next week, both the White House and the FCC appear to be dialing back their expectations.

    Details at
    h/ no w
    news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10430009-94.html

  106. Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe word about alleged Chuck Schumer betrayal portrayed in ‘Game Change’

    BY Michael Mcauliff and Kenneth R. Bazinet
    DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU
    Sunday, January 10th 2010

    WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton and her campaign insiders don’t believe reports that Sen. Chuck Schumer stabbed her in the back – despite reports in a blockbuster book that he did just that.

    “Game Change” by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin revealed that Schumer and other powerful Dems urged Barack Obama to run – knowing that Clinton planned to. The pair wrote that Schumer even told Obama pal Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to “take a two-by-four” to Clinton in 2007.

    One source said the secretary of state and Schumer (D-N.Y.) talked by phone yesterday and she told him that she “paid it no mind.”

    “She said it was just one of the many things in the book that she didn’t believe was at all true,” the source said.

    The usually talkative Schumer, pressed on the report, refused to comment yesterday, but vehemently denied the account over the weekend. Several sources said Camp Clinton knew Schumer encouraged Obama to run, but that he also warned the future President he’d back Hillary once she jumped in. And they say Schumer delivered.

    “Chuck did everything we asked,” said one Clinton campaign hand.

    The insiders suspect the reporting stems from the fact that senators like to leave the impression they have more to do with everything than they really do. “Chuck sometimes likes to take too much credit so he can say, ‘I did that,'” one source said.

    The book has also landed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in hot water, reporting he once said he thought Obama could do well because he was “light-skinned” and didn’t speak with a “Negro dialect.” Reid apologized and the President accepted over the weekend. Still, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said yesterday Reid should step down because he’s racially insensitive, even as Steele is facing his own charges of racial insensitivity.

    Steele angered Native Americans last week by using the phrase “honest injun” to show how seriously he believes the GOP doesn’t need a new, more modern message. Native Americans, including Republicans, slammed the remark as a racial slur.

    “Well, if it is, I apologize for it,” Steele said on “Fox News Sunday.”

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/01/11/2010-01-11_hil_doesnt_believe_flippin_word_about_chuck_betrayal.html

  107. wbboei,

    Within a decade it will become the racially restrictive anti growth anti working class entitlement party which we see today, only more so. They will lose their preeminence as a national party and become regional at most.
    ———————————————————————————————
    So whats left the corrupt republican party?? Not for me, I will continue to try and help purge the filth in the democratic party. I can’t swallow what they did to Bill. Those of you who seem to think its wise now to become a republican after supporting Bill really need to read the “Clinton Tapes”. The trachery in the republican party is at a depth where purging won’t help, it needs to completely disband and begin anew. Now saying that we (democrats) are at a crossroads now, if we don’t purge it now, it will to late as it is for the republicans now. The republicans have had power most of my life, the smut in entrenced to a level unimaginable. As long as the Clintons remain democrats, there’s always a change the party can be saved. Which is what I think Hillary is working off of now.

  108. Honestly, the republicans???

    Federal Reserve Seeks to Block Release of U.S. Bailout Secrets
    Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) — The Federal Reserve will ask a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal secret identities of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan, after hearing arguments in the case today, will decide whether the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. In August, a federal judge ordered that the information be released, responding to a request by Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

    Bloomberg argues that the public has the right to know basic information about the “unprecedented and highly controversial use” of public money. Banks and the Fed warn that bailed-out lenders may be hurt if the documents are made public, causing a run or a sell-off by investors. Disclosure may hamstring the Fed’s ability to deal with another crisis, they also argued. The lower court agreed with Bloomberg.

    “The question is at what point does the government get so involved in the life of the institution that the public has a right to know?” said Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Davis isn’t involved in the lawsuit.

    The ruling by the three-judge appeals panel may not come for months and is unlikely to be the final word. The loser may seek a rehearing or appeal to the full appeals court and eventually petition the U.S. Supreme Court, said Anne Weismann, chief lawyer for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington advocacy group that supports Bloomberg’s lawsuit.

    Seeking Disclosure

    New York-based Bloomberg, majority-owned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued in November 2008 after the Fed refused to name the firms it lent to or disclose the amounts or assets used as collateral under its lending programs. Most were put in place in response to the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

    “Bloomberg has been trying for almost two years to break down a brick wall of secrecy in order to vindicate the public’s right to learn basic information,” Thomas Golden, an attorney for the company with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, wrote in court filings. He said the Fed may be trying “to draw out the proceedings long enough so that the information Bloomberg seeks is no longer of interest.”

    The Fed’s balance sheet debt doubled after lending standards were relaxed following Lehman’s failure on Sept. 15, 2008. That year, the Fed began extending credit directly to companies that weren’t banks for the first time since the 1930s. Total central bank lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time on Nov. 6, 2008, reaching $2.14 trillion on Sept. 23, 2009.

    Freedom of Information

    The lawsuit, brought under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, came as President Barack Obama criticized the previous administration’s handling of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed by Congress in October 2008. Obama has said funds were spent by the administration of former President George W. Bush with little accountability or transparency.

    FOIA requires federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public.

    In her Aug. 24 ruling, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in New York said loan records are covered by FOIA and rejected the Fed’s claim that their disclosure might harm banks and shareholders. An exception to the statute that protects trade secrets and privileged or confidential financial data didn’t apply because there’s no proof banks would suffer, she said.

    Burden Not Met

    The central bank “speculates on how a borrower might enter a downward spiral of financial instability if its participation in the Federal Reserve lending programs were to be disclosed,” Preska, the chief judge of the Manhattan federal court, said in her 47-page ruling. “Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the board’s burden” of proof.

    In its appeal, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System argued that disclosure of “highly sensitive” documents, including 231 pages of daily lending reports, threatens to stigmatize lenders and cause them “severe and irreparable competitive injury.”

    “Confidentiality is essential to the success of the board’s statutory mission to maintain the health of the nation’s financial system and conduct monetary policy,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony West and Fed lawyer Richard Ashton wrote in a legal brief to the appeals court.

    “The board’s ability to administer lending programs crucial to maintaining national financial and economic stability will be severely undermined” if lenders won’t come to the regional Federal Reserve Banks “for their funding needs, particularly in time of economic crisis,” they said.

    Protected From Disclosure

    Historically, the type of government documents sought in the case has been protected from public disclosure because they might reveal competitive trade secrets, Davis said. Laws governing such disclosures may be due for a change, he said, following the far-reaching U.S. bailout.

    “If you are in need of a bailout and turn to the federal government and say, ‘help,’ with that comes some requirements in terms of transparency,” Davis said.

    The Fed is joined in its bid to overturn Preska’s order by the Clearing House Association LLC, an industry-owned group in New York that processes payments between banks. The group assailed the judge’s decision for what it said were legal errors, such as applying the wrong standard in weighing the exception to FOIA.

    The group includes ABN Amro Bank NV, a unit of Royal Bank of Scotland Plc, Bank of America Corp., The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., US Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co.

    Directly Participate

    Preska allowed the association to join the case so that it could directly participate in the appeal. More than a dozen other groups or companies filed amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs, including the American Society of News Editors and individual news organizations.

    The judge postponed the application of her ruling to allow the appeals court to consider the case.

    Also today, the same appeals court will hear arguments in a lawsuit brought by News Corp. unit Fox News Network seeking similar documents. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in New York sided with the Fed in that case and refused to order the agency to release the documents.

    The case is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 09-04083, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York).

  109. RANT ALERT!!!!!!!

    Hillary Shelton of the NAACP is on Fox DEFENDING Reid and saying Reid has a great record with the NAACP and they accept his apology. He says what Reid said was AWKWARD but not RACIST!

    WTF were these people when BC was being accused of racism by Cryburn, JJ, Sharpton, Bradzilla!

    And NOW they’re circling the wagons for the Dim women like Nappy and yet no one said a friggin word about the horrible disgusting sexist treatment HC got.

    Have I said I HATE them!!!!!!
    😡

    More hypocrisy by Dims – I HATE them!

  110. well, I changed mind. I think its good this piece of trash concocted by the republicans and some lefties comes out now. I am reading everywhere that folks just don’t give a crap about Bill’s philandering or Hillary’s desire to win. Most believe she won, and most believe she was cheated. Most all believe she would have won the general even with Bill’s philandering.

    What is going to happen is that its going to make the rethugs look bad and it will make those of the left that cheated us out of Hillary look even worse. So, so be it. Let the screwing begin.

  111. Basil9, People are going to see right thru this, time will show that those who cheat and keep cheating Hillary out of her rightfull place in American politics will be screwed.

    So let the screwing begin.

  112. wbboei posted January 11th, 2010 at 1:00 am

    turndown said:
    Some messages that might be read (by different people) into a Coakley loss:

    1. Bots punished her for supporting Hillary (ie bots are powerful)

    2. Conservatives punished her for supporting abortion, gay rights, etc (ie conservatives are powerful)

    3. PUMAs even eat their own, there is no pleasing them (so don’t try)

    ———————————————-

    wbboei said:
    It is not the interpretation that matters. Everyone will interpret it their own way.

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

    If the Dims are to be taught a lesson, it needs to be an unambiguous lesson. Although Hillary herself may not run again, the lesson needs to be that bot types lose, Clinton-policy-supporters win.

    As the Peggy Noonan op-ed above said, letting the Dims hang themselves with this HC will elect more GOP in Nov 2010 — pledged to undo it.

    That’s not enough reason to support a bad HC bill, but imo throwing a good pro-abortion, pro-gay Senator out with the bathwater would have at the very least 6 years of bad effects on many substantive issues.

  113. We need to rid the democratic party of these maggots. THey need their own vile party. We could call the tree huggers party. Its almost like the teabaggers party.

  114. confloyd,

    What do you think about this pic of the Squat’s saying the pledge with their left hands over their hearts?

    www dot theobamafile dot com/ObamaLatest dot htm

  115. TDO, imho if Coakley caved on the HCR bill vote, then she can not be relied on for other things and she is not the same caliber of patriot as Hillary. I do appreciate her support for Hillary, but many supported Hillary before they went against her.

    With today’s advances in birth control, it slays me to understand just why the battering ram used against women is still abortion as there are convenient ways to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Today women have choices about their reproductive organs like never before in history; there should be little necessity for abortion today.

  116. basil 9, I can’t seem to find it, but I bet its a doozy.

    Some of the commentators I have read about the new book out says, “so that leaves us with Obama and the celestial choirs”. OMG, I thought that was funny!

  117. basil9, those who ridicule the birthers need to have their head examined. People born and raised in this country know theres only 50 states, even the brain fried drug abusers know that. They also know you put your right hand over your heart.

    Just like he said in Selma, Alabama, that his parents in during the riots of “bloody sunday”, which was in 1965. His so-called birth certificate says he was born in 1961, so which is it Barack, 1961 or 1965?

    This man can’t even remember his child’s name. He didn’t even call her the name of the other child as I do. This was the name of his sister, not his child.

    Too many unanswered questions!

    TM still apparently believes that Obama ran a clean campaign, they are delutional.

  118. One last note on this stupid book…

    January 11, 2010

    Hillary accused Obama of cheating in primaries
    Rick Moran

    More little tidbits from the book “Game Change” out today in many bookstores.

    This one via Jim Hoft:

    Here’s the latest piece of scum to float to the surface…
    A book published today by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin The Race of a Lifetime reveals that Hillary Clinton accused Obama of cheating during their historic 2008 campaign race.

    This is a pretty serious charge. Let’s see if the US media covers it.

    Founding Bloggers discovered this nugget from the Times Online report today: Hillary Clinton is depicted – and quoted – as foul-mouthed and consumed with anger over what she saw as the media’s kid-gloved treatment of Mr Obama. She was convinced that he had cheated at the start of their marathon primary contest by bringing in outsiders to vote in the Iowa caucuses, and when it was over she was supremely reluctant to work for him, the authors claim.

    How dare she accuse Obama of cheating!
    What proof does she have that the ACORN King would cheat in an election.

    The absolute gall of that woman.

    This is one morsel the gossip mongering press seems to have missed. At the time of the caucuses, many Hillary supporters were livid with the tactics of the Obama crew at many sites when they routinely denied entry to Hillary supporters. Same thing happened in Nevada and other caucus states.

    But this is the first we’ve heard about Obama busing in Chicagoans to vote in the Iowa caucuses. Could it be that the reason we’re not reading about it elsewhere is that it rings true?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/hillary_accused_obama_of_cheat.html

  119. If MA does elect Scott Brown, it won’t be because they’ve gone Republican, as some say. That either/or thinking is simplistic. The point is to pick the candidate for this senate seat who recognizes that runaway spending and rotten tampering with health care are the urgent issues. Furthermore, we must bust up the Kennedy/Chicago rats’ nest if we are ever to have a healthy party again.

    As for worries about abortion, Repubs did nothing but talk against abortion all these recent years. In regard to gay/lesbian rights: the Dems promise everything and deliver nothing! Politicians in both camps just lead dupes around by their noses on these issues. If Brown gets to be a problem on these matters later on, we can vote him out.

    Coakley, even if she does reverse her position on health care — AGAIN – we can’t trust that she won’t reverse it AGAIN! She (or somebody telling her what to say) has destroyed our trust in her. ADMIN is right: if Coakley is cooked, that’s what did it. (ADMIN really has the pulse of MA in this article. Good ole ADMIN! Bingo everytime!)

    Also would like to point out that MA is not so blindly Democrat as people seem to think. We have elected quite a few Republican governors (preceding Duval Patrick we had Mitt Romney, Paul Cellucci, William Weld) and MA came out strong for Reagan and Geo Bush the 1st.

    And lastly, whoever said MA doesn’t count and this little fracas doesn’t matter … whoa. I think you’d better think that out again.

  120. lil ole grape, if you are in MA can you report on the boots on the ground for Brown and the boots on the ground for others from ACORN and SEIU? Are they up to the tactics of the Dem primary?

  121. confloyd,

    IMHO, that pic says everything there is to say about the Squats.

    And I too wonder if it’s deliberate, or a signal.

  122. Shelton,Cryburn, Shaprie, JJ, the pantywaist press, Dims everywhere are showing big time how friggin hypocritical they are and what liars they are.

    I as SOooooooooooo disgusted!!!!!!

    And these are the same mf’ers who DARED call BC racist!!!!!

    And now Holder is defending Reid.

    Have I said how much I DESPISE these POS’s!

  123. Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Monday, January 11th at 9:53AM EST
    20 Comments

    Had Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) not put a hold on the nomination of Erroll Southers to be the head of TSA, he might have been confirmed by the Senate without any serious digging into his background.

    We know, for example, that the White House now admits it did not vet Mr. Southers. In fact, were you to pass through a TSA checkpoint at the airport, you will have been more heavily vetted that Mr. Southers.

    But now there is new and far more troubling information about Mr. Southers caught on video. According to Erroll Southers, pro-life Christians and our support of Jews is a bigger threat to national security than Al Qaeda.

    Mr. Southers, in 2008, said he was more worried about “Christian identity” terrorist groups inside the U.S. than islamic terrorists. What are “Christian identity” terrorist groups? White-supremacists naturally. The KKK. And the Southern Baptist Convention.

    Southers identifies pro-life groups and anti-government activists as particular problems.

    Yes, you read that right. Mr. Southers is worried more about tea party activists than Islamic terrorists.

    Mr. Southers also thinks that America itself is to blame for the terrorist attacks. Had we not sided with Israel and France, which he says is an anti-Islamic nation, we would not be attacked by Islamic extremists.

    “Some people might argue that U.S. foreign policy exacerbates terrorism.”

    Mr. Southers seems to at least understand the basics — we are being attacked by Islamic extremists. Surely he would, as head of the Transportation Safety Administration, institute some sort of profiling to stop Islamic extremists.

    Not so fast. Erroll Southers says the thought that terrorists are all Middle-Eastern and Islamic is a misconception. According to Erroll Southers, we’ve overrated the threat posed by Islamic radicals and we need to focus on pro-lifers and Christians instead.

    Lastly, never mind the guy setting off the Geiger counter. Southers wants us all to know the nuclear terrorism threat is quite small.

  124. Reid needs to get on television apologize and let Revered Wright give him absolution for his terrible sin. He needs to crawl.

  125. JanH, The article you posted, well I’m still mad. I will be mad the rest of my life. Unlike Hillary I can’t forgive him and go with his policies. I will never except this crook for my POTUS. I would rather have Nixon back than this gangsta.

    Yes, it does piss me off that they are saying Harry Reid doesnt have a racist bone in his body, but apparently BC does, yeah right. I think this is a liberal backed by the republicans attack again on the Clinton’s.

    One other commentator I read said “We all know BC is a scoundrel, but he our scoundrel and we love him”. That sums it up for me too. We know it, don’t approve of it, but he’s been cheated out of being called the greatest President of our time since FDR. He was, he balanced the budget, got millions off welfare. People had jobs, college tuition was not the business as it was under the republicans.

  126. remember how Ferraro was crucified for her comments. She was a lot more tactful in telling the truth than of course Reid. In fact, she highlighted the positive aspect of Obama’s candidacy (for those who didn’t think his lack of accomplishments was a problem). But Reid gets off the hook for mouthing the truth about why liberal elite supported Obama.

  127. JanH, What really pisses me off is that I have to look to the rethugs for help combating this virus that is rushing thru our great party.

  128. pm317, yes Ferraro was too wasn’t she. You would think that people should notice that only the males minus BC gets breaks. The women never do. THis is as I said last night a hit piece on womanhood again.

    There are some blogs that were active during the primary that haven’t been since. These were basic feminists blogs. I hope they get active again after people really see what this book is about.

    Obama administration is totally against the woman’s movement.

  129. Why I’m Not All That Concerned About The New Allegations of Democratic Racism

    By Lyssa Reinders

    Now I’m usually all for just about anything that weakens Harry Reid’s chances at re-election, but I’m afraid that I’m going to have to take his side in the recent “controversy” related to statements that he made according to a tell-all 2008 presidential campaign book.
    According to the book Game Changers, Harry Reid described Barack Obama during the presidential election as a black candidate who would benefit from his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

    The book also quotes Bill Clinton, by way of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, as stating, in reference to the man who was then challenging the former president’s wife for the nomination, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

    Both of these remarks are being heralded as signs of racism deep within these two powerful of Democrats. But are they really? Let’s take them one by one.

    Reid’s statement is getting much more attention right now, presumably because of his current key importance in the healthcare debate. GOP chair Michael Steele is calling for him to step down as Senate majority leader, and others have done the same. The most notable thing about Reid’s comments is that they are not insulting to Obama; they say two things that are inarguably true: that he is a lighter-skinned black man and that he does not speak with a “negro dialect.” His comments appear to be more about society’s acceptance of such a man as a presidential candidate, as compared to other black candidates. And, indeed, this is doubtlessly true, at least to some degree. As the son of a white woman, Mr. Obama’s skin color did not and does not scream “black” in the way that a darker skinned, more “black” appearing candidate’s could.

    It seems obvious that Sen. Reid was taking note of the fact that some may find this easier to accept than they would a very dark black man. (Whether or not that is true to a large enough degree to have made a difference in the election is besides the point; it is at least reasonable that Sen. Reid thought that it could.) As for Mr. Obama’s speech patterns, it is obvious that he is well-educated and an impressive public speaker. An advanced professional degree (such as a law degree) is rarely accompanied by any strong “dialect,” which is usually seen as a sign of lower intelligence and/or education. While Americans tend to like a touch of a southern accent (think Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), they would certainly reject the heavy southern dialect as is often spoken by the less privileged southerners in my part of the country (think Larry the Cable Guy). Nor, I’m certain, would American’s accept the language of the “guidos” from Jersey Shore. (I’ll admit that I haven’t seen the show, but as an Italian and a New Jersey native, I know exactly what they should sound like. And it makes Fran Drescher sound like the Queen of England.) Similarly, Americans certainly would not have voted for a man who spoke like Snoop-Dogg most of the time. It’s not racist to point that out; it’s common sense.

    As for Former President Clinton, the only report here comes through the mouth of a not particularly honest dead man, and they are, more notably, completely devoid of context. “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee” is all we have to go on.

    Hillary Clinton ran on a platform of “35 years of experience.” Thirty-five years before the presidential campaign, Barack Obama was just barely a surly teenager. To the Clintons, he must have always seemed like a child. Surely they wanted others to see Obama as the kind of bright young go-getter who is just getting his feet wet by acting as a go-fer for the grown-ups, but not quite ready to play with the big boys and girls. (Indeed, I’m still not sure that he’s ready, but that’s another story.) And the image of “getting coffee” for someone is hardly a go-to racial stereotype; it’s much more associated with sexism than racism. Doesn’t it seem more plausible that this was an insult to Mr. Obama’s age, rather than to his race?

    Now, does that mean that I’m going to jump all over someone like Michael Steele for making a big deal about it? Hell, no. Tit for tat, and all that. Don’t forget that liberals have hardly been “progressive” towards Mr. Steele’s race. Steele and the other Republicans have, after all, got to make the Democrats live up to their own rules.

    http://newsblaze.com/story/20100111080128lyss.nb/topstory.html

  130. From the DC Examiner (I know.)

    Big Pharma for Coakley?

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/yevw63f

    “With Democrat Martha Coakley in trouble in the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat, Democrats could lose vote No. 60 for President Obama’s health-care bill. In response, an army of lobbyists for drug companies, health insurance companies, and hospitals has teamed up to throw a high-dollar Capitol Hill fundraiser for Coakley next Tuesday night. The invitation is at right (click here for a better view).”

  131. There is some truth and a lot of disinformation in this book. There is no question in the world that it has a partisan motivation. The belief among certain Republicans operatives is if they can keep this propped up dummy Obama on stage long enough and destroy qualified people then he will destroy the Democratic Party. My question to them is what about the country. They never give me a good answer. So that you know, the rank and file conservatives are livid toward the operatives and the party leaders who subscribe to this view. Their goal is to get rid of them and replace them with solid conservatives who will fight this asshole to the last breath and love this country. Halperin is one of the operative who puts party first and country a distant second. In fact, he has no sense of country whatsoever. I have called some dimocrats traitors. Mark is simply a different kind of traitor.

  132. Just got this via emal…… sad but ain’t it the truth!

    LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT:

    IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

    IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

    IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

    IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

    IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

    IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

    IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

    IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENSE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS, CREDIT CARDS, SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE, FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE, THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY’S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON’T GET ENOUGH RESPECT, AND…IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.

    I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION

  133. Nelson has got to go. He is a traitor to the party and to the country. His treachery in the primary is now a matter of record. His selling the country down the river is manifest in his vote on health care. I wish Marco Rubio was running for HIS seat instead of Mendendez’s.

  134. According to the Metro paper on the train today, Bill Clinton was also quoted as saying to Kennedy on the phone was something to the effect that (from memory) “The only reason you are supporting Obama is because he is black”. And they mentioned the “getting us coffee” quote.

    Where is the racism in these comments??? They are analytical, honest opinions. Would TK have supported a white Junior senator with only two unspectacular years experience in the Senate and a couple of mundane years in a state senate? Heck, there are people who just turned 30 who have more under their belt.

    If TK wants to say it was because of Obama’s “strong stance against the Iraq war”, heck, why not nominate one of the big organizers (Eli Pariser) from MoveOn.Org, or someone who truly and continually was against the Iraq action. Obama became totally mute on the topic once elected to the US Senate.

    So it looks like TK thought, misogynistically, that a black candidate was the only hope of “saving the Democrats” from yet another Clinton. So TK is a misogynistic, Clinton hater, and his argument that Bill was using code-word racism is totally disingenuous.

  135. What I am mad about is that he’s dead and can’t see what that devil he has backed has done. He got to check out before the shit really hits the fan here in America.

    So no one in the WH is saying that BC is not a racist, only Harry Reid.

  136. As for Former President Clinton, the only report here comes through the mouth of a not particularly honest dead man, and they are, more notably, completely devoid of context. “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee” is all we have to go on.
    —————————
    True. Plus, it was repeated, if at all, to an unknown source who is a friend and therefore part of the Kennedy machine seeking to prop up the asshole in the White House. This comment is pure trash. In a court room it would draw an objection of incompetent irrelevant and immaterial and if Obama was on the other side of the case he would rise to his feet and say: you rang?

  137. Excellent Posts Admin. I have been working double shifts and have not had the time to add a comment or two, but have spent the last hour catching up.
    I think this ridiculous book is being pushed to take the Frauds disasters out of the headlines. His failures to protect this Country with his golf car cabinet, the health care bill, economy, job losses. etc. BC and HC are wise to ignore the whole thing and not take the bait. That being said, I will contact Dobbs and voice my great disappointment on the above comments. I usually find him fair and have talked to him on his radio show several times. I’m mad as hell at him
    Those clips of Brown calling the Senate seat the People’s seat are priceless. David G is a MAJOR disappointment and a paid Fraud butt kisser and Brown definitely got the better of him. I think he made a lot of points with that spot on statement.

Comments are closed.