Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part II

A funny thing happened to the latest attack on Bill and Hillary Clinton. Big Media Obama fluffers are aware that damage is being done to Obama enabler and fake “neutral” Harry Reid. So now the scheme is to distract attention to the fake non-quotes being peddled as quotes in the new Halperin book which cast Bill and Hillary Clinton in a bad light.

Over at Politico, Obama fluff master Ben Smith wrote a long and thin hit on Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. The totality of the piece was encapsulated in the headline: “Game over: The Clintons stand alone”. The premise of the story is that the attacks on Bill and Hillary Clinton in the gossip tome have not been refuted by the Clinton “machine”. It does not occur to Smith that the best strategy for Bill and Hillary Clinton at this point is to let Harry get the attention. Then a funny thing happened. The comments section of the article proved Bill and Hillary are not alone. The majority of the comments were like these:

1. In the words of Hillary, “the Clintons never forget”. They are not done with 0bama. Think dish best served cold.

2. You wish Ben. Smarter people than you have presumed to write the Clintons obituary many Many times before only to later have to eat crow. Clinton Derangement Syndrome afflicts media whores similar to the way street walkers are afflicted by innumerable STD’s. You actually think that an embroiderer like Halperin is going to get the upper hand on Bill or Hillary? LOL. Keep dreaming haters.

3. This piece is really pathetic. Do you bother to do ANY research, or do you just recycle gossip and phone it in? Seriously. Your thesis is ridiculous. The Clintons are not bothering to acknowledge this piece of Enquirer garbage, because that’s exactly what it is. Anonymous sources and “paraphrased quotes.” This particular statement proves my point: “And she continued to believe — without evidence, and long after her concession — that he had, in effect, stolen the Iowa caucuses by importing out-of-state voters.” If you had done any research at all, as others of us did, you would know that over 1,000 reports of caucus fraud in Texas alone were filed. There was documented evidence of caucus fraud in every state. Look at the incongruent results in states where both a caucus and a primary were held–not even close. The caucus states favored Obama beyond any mathematical probability–and there were thousands of reports of stolen packets, intimidation, and vote misfilings. To call Halperin “the high priest of establishment political journalism” only shows how very low journalism’s standards are fallen. The Clintons are correct to not dignify this garbage with a response. p.s. No report here about the “nasty tactics” of the Obama campaign, using race to smear opponents, running vicious ads on radio and with flyers to avoid MSM detection, and manipulating the votes in MI & FL. Yuck. I’m boycotting you like the rest of the mainstream yellow journalists.

4. Great piece Ben! Plouffe, Axelrod and the Boss really love it and yes of course you’re invited to dinner at the White House tomorrow. But Axelrod is still panicky about 2012 and does’nt think 4th hand gossip is enough to sink the Clintons …goodness knows the republicans tried it for years and still could’nt derail them. We’re wondering if maybe you could photoshop some image of Bill in KKK garb and maybe Hillary in a Nazi dominatrix outfit? But it has to look believable. Thanks again Ben. See you tomorrow night.

5. Lol. Pure wishful thinking from your part, Ben. The Clintons’s camp is not dignifying this sleazy, tacky and trashy book with a reply because silence is golden in this case. The book is nothing but a compendium of anonymous gossips written to entertain the hacks and gossip mongers that pass them selves for “journalists” and pundits in the nation capital also known as Versailles on the Potomac. No member of the Clintons’ inner circle will touch this with a pole.

6. The Clintons were out gunned. They were thrown under the bus by the movers and the shakers in the party. The establishment wanted fresh meat. Can you imagine the mudslinging that went on behind the scenes during the campaigns? There is no love lost between the Clintons and the Obama’s. Hillary was removed from the Senate, so she would not be a problem for Obama and put in a position where she has no power anymore. She is almost non existence these days. However, I would not say put a fork in them just yet, as Obama is turning out to be a disaster for the Democrats. The Clintons are survivors and have many tricks up their sleeves and if Obama keeps slipping in the polls, look for Hillary to come out of the woodwork strutting her stuff again.

7. We are out here Ben, but the HARRY REID ‘high color negro’ remark has drowned out any static for our Clintons so they DO NOT NEED US You have hit a new low Ben, throwing the Clintons unda da bus on the headline to save Reid’s racist old axx? and we all know Patti Solis Doyle was an inside plant and Big Dawg was absolutely correct and they bussed in peeps to Iowa, but anywho our Hillary is doing GREAT, in the POLLS, and on the WORLD STAGE while your narcissist in chief is floundering (hilarious Dadchle calls Bill a narcissist, and then embraced Obama, HA!) SO glad HRC is OUT of the Senate the BOYS CLUB I notice no brouhaha over Chuckie Schumer saying hit HRC with a 2×4, cuz raaaacism is the end of da world, unless it is one of their guys doing it, but brutaility against women is fine in America right Ben? unreal, we will all be waiting if HRC decides to run again, she still has a great career, everyday she is proven right about Obama, the economy is falling off a cliff, Big dawg is just fine working for the Foundation and his numbers are back at 65% with the American people no amount of spin will save Reid, he is going down in November and so are the rest of this HE MAN WIMMUN HATIN club they have there in the Senate

8. Even as an “ObamaBot”, I can endorse the prediction resulting from this book that, if Obama chooses to run for reelection, he will dump Biden and take on Hillary as his running mate. And she might just break that final glass ceiling.

9. LOL. This is getting so predictable. As soon as Hillary has momentum (Gallup polls show she’s got the highest approval rating of ANY politician in the US) the Clinton haters launch their assaults. There seem to be some people who are terrified of Hillary’s recent and increasing popularity. Gee, whoever could that be? I would’nt be surprised if Ted Kennedy said this about President Bill Clinton. Ted had a habit of playing fast and loose with factsMary Jo Kopechne anyone? Everyone knows Ted has always considered the Democratic Party his family’s own fiefdom and he would be damned if two Clintons made it to the White House and only one Kennedy. All of this 3rd hand gossip has Axelrod’s imprimatur all over it. Like during the primaries when he tried to somehow blame Hillary for Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Of course Clinton insiders are’nt going to dignify Halperin’s tabloid style book. Halperin is a known hack who glorified Rove and Bush while belittling Gore and Kerry in “The Way to Win”. And he’s a revolting sexist to boot. Here’s a story of a truly vile photoshopped photo of Sen. Landrieu that this so called “journalist” created. http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/mark-halperins-photopshop-flop-senato

10. the vast right-wing conspiracy may have been a vast progressive conspiracy all along

11. What a bunch of crap this thing is. I from now on will boycott any ‘news’ source who continues to give this ******** book of lies any more press. And YES there was rampant caucus fraud in every single caucus state starting with Iowa. It is extensively documented and scientifically proven. I urge anyone to google Lynette Long who has a website on the matter. Hillary Clinton won the Texas primary by 3 points and ‘lost’ the caucus by 12 points – that is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY. There were thousands of complaints, live video footage, research made in TX along with countless precinct chairs, officials and state politicians who reported on the discrepancies in the caucuses caused by the Obama campaign.

12. Yeah, because anonymous sources are so trustworthy. I frankly don’t believe any of it. It’s the same old bs. And, btw, no one suggested Barack Obama was a drug dealer. They said he was a user, which was irrelevant but true.

13. Hillary never said or tried to paint Obama as a drug dealer. Obama’s college classmate started to crash early rallies in 07 and say Obama was his dealer in college. Start doing dome fact checking before you start publishing an article with nothing but D.C. hearsay to back up these crazy claims.

14. What a load of crap this article. Someone said this, someone said that… Listen up, Hill is a fighter, and a damn very good one. Obama is such a bore and a disaster, just like Carter. Keep dreaming, Ben.

15. “This time, Bill and Hillary Clinton are virtually alone.” Ben where have you been? The Clinton followers will up in 2010 elections and all these old Dems are done. Where is Chris Dodd? Don;t make a mistake and count a Clinton out!

There are many more comments which address the issue of whether Bill and Hillary stand alone. They don’t. Obama is fluffed by Big Media and no effort, or desire, to investigate, vet, or challenge the bogus Obama myth is made. As another commenter wrote,

A world of villains with only one perfect Messiah: Obama! And as soon as Reid (like Biden) came out as racist, someone tries to point at the moving object in the other direction: how can we not hate the Clintons for the reason du jour? I mean, even Sharpton is pleased with the “Negro dialect” but offended by the common senate tradition where junior senators fetched the coffee for the older ones. Nope. The Clintons will never be alone. Their policies brought peace and prosperity to millions. We do remember. Nice try though.

And we do remember. Another commenter notes how utterly phoney the entire exercise of fluffing Obama is:

This article says the ONLY pol coming to Hillary’s defense is Obama? Amazing! That man is super-human! He is so far above the rest of us it’s just unreal. What is so strange, though, is Obama’s poll numbers are down. Weird, don’t these pollsters know how awesome Obama is?

Many, many more comments express the thoughts of Hillary supporters which puts to the lie the “alone” narrative.

Smith claims the Clinton “inner circle” is silent because “The book’s primary sources about the former candidate and current secretary of state are her own former staffers and intimates.” The fake claim is also made that Hillary was “a rudderless candidate and a cheerleader for vicious tactics against eventual winner Barack Obama.” Really? Anyone who saw Hillary in speeches or for months when she was counted out, by the very same Big Media writers and treacherous liars who pretended to be her friends and supporters or “neutrals”, knows the falseness of the charges.

“Vicious tactics”? In most campaigns it is journalists who would investigate claims made by a candidate. Not so in 2008. Big Media protected their stooge Barack Obama. Obama was indeed an admitted drug user but no “journalists” ever wrote about that. We still don’t know most of Obama’s life story. Back in 2007 we wrote about the “freezing tenants” Obama was supposed to represent but instead sided with their slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko. Save for one ignored article in the British press no “journalist” interviewed the tenants in those buildings.

“Vicious tactics”? Obama listened to tapes of Jeremiah Wright when we was in college and spent 20 years in Wright’s “church” but claimed never to know Wright’s views. Instead of answering the charges, Obama gave a speech on “race relations” which brought tears to “journalists” eyes and “tingles up the leg” of TV “personalities”. The post-racial Obama we now know attacked the Cambridge police and allowed “racist” charges to be flung for political benefit. Obama sounds like the Wright he claimed never to have heard – yet pointing out the facts about this candidate for high office, is viewed as “vicious” by Big Media and the perpetrator is not questioned.

Hillary Clinton is branded as somehow paranoid yet the very “facts” presented in the book, if believed, demonstrate that indeed the suspicions were more than justified.

The book reported that many of Clinton’s Senate colleagues — including some who nominally supported her, such as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer — were secretly offering aid to Obama all along.

It appears the “facts” in the book are on the side of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

According to James Carville, who we are supposed to presume does not exist because he seems to be defending Bill and Hillary Clinton, the vast army of sources amounts mostly to one person:

If everyone talked, it was one aide in particular whose firing breached the Clinton’s innermost circle: Patti Solis Doyle, a former East Wing scheduler who was fired as Clinton’s campaign manager early in 2008. Clinton’s circle blames Doyle for many of the book’s most embarrassing revelations.

“She’s a likely suspect” for “80 percent” of the book’s content, said the consultant James Carville. (Solis Doyle responded to the charge in an e-mail that she hadn’t read the book and was in the midst of a family matter.)

The staffers and politicians who served as the anonymous sources for “Game Change” reveal a deeply unflattering image through the eyes of the people who should admire Hillary Clinton most. After Clinton reportedly offered Obama the tersest of congratulations on his victory in Iowa, for instance, one of her “senior-most lieutenants” is described watching “her bitter and befuddled reaction, her staggering lack of calm or command.”

The staffer told the authors of his or her private conclusion: “This woman shouldn’t be president.”

We should all be “bitter and befuddled” if the many stories, by Iowa journalists including the most respected one of all (David Yepsen), concluded that there were plans afoot to bus in Obama supporters from Chicago to vote in the caucuses. Hillary provides “the tersest of congratulations” after Iowa, according to the book, but Obama after several primary losses did not even bother to congratulate Hillary or even speak to his volunteers. But that is not considered “bitter” because Obama is not a woman. As has been noted, the women in the book are described in crazed terms but the men (except Bill Clinton) are given a pass for their emotional states.

Smith also says that the book “systematically hacks away the attributes she spent a decade acquiring in the public eye: humanity, humility, competence.” But the public record, the Hillary everyone saw, including the supposed emotional breakdown in New Hampshire when she “became human”, in the words of “journalists”, speaks to Hillary’s humanity, humility, competence and quality.

Sidney Blumenthal, is depicted as buying into “the darkest anti-Obama rumors”. Hillary needed more Sidney’s not less. If there is a criticism to be made of the Hillary campaign it is that Obama was not confronted more vigorously and more brutally. But Hillary could not do that because some of the elected officials who were supposedly on her side were secretly helping Obama and protested anytime the truth about Obama was told by the campaign.

As we have written previously, Hillary Clinton lacks the advantage Sarah Palin has in that Sarah Palin has Fox News on her side. Palin can afford to take on Big Media and cadavers like David Letterman because she has Fox News to rely on. Hillary in that sense stood alone – battling Big Media and Big Media “personalities”. Hillary supporters should be encouraged that Hillary understood what was actually happening behind the scenes:

I am convinced they also imported people into those caucuses,” she reportedly told Penn a month after her concession. In that conversation, which the authors appear to have obtained from a tape-recording or transcript, she reporteldly gave Penn a particularly self-serving assignment:

I want you to start thinking about how I avoid being blamed [for Obama’s possible defeat]”, Clinton said. “Because I shouldn’t be blamed. But they are going to blame me. I somehow didn’t do enough.”

This assignment Smith calls “self-serving” when we all know that is directly on target. We know because we experienced it. We remember how fake “neutrals” like Donna Brazile demanded that Hillary get out of the race and pushed the narrative that Hillary’s continued candidacy would make Obama unelectable. This happened. Smith and the authors of the book apparently missed it because they were too busy praying at shrines to Obama.

Only at the end of his ridicule does Ben Smith admit the obvious:

But if Clinton could be mistrustful, she often had good cause, and “Game Change” leaves the Clintons isolated not only from their dishing aides but also from many prominent Democrats. Schumer reportedly slipped advice to the Obama camp. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secretly encouraged Obama to run. Al Gore, in a secret meeting, gave Obama a nudge. The authors contend that former Sen. Tom Daschle, who became a top Obama backer, expressed real animosity toward the Clintons, with whom he had worked closely throughout the 1990s and after Hillary Clinton’s arrival in the Senate.

Daschle “considered Hillary an icy prima donna; her husband … a narcissist on an epic scale; the dynamic between the couple, bizarre; their treatment of their friends, unforgivably manipulative and disloyal,” the authors write.

Brain dead Daschle, who made a mess when he led the Senate Democrats, thinks Hillary is “a narcissist on an epic scale” and then backs Obama? This is delusion.

If Carville is correct (recall Carville was removed from CNN because he supported Hillary but Donna Brazile stayed on because she was “neutral”) 80% of the quotes came from a fired Patti Solis Doyle. We used to think well of Patti Solis Doyle. But our commenter “Mrs. Smith” (who is ill – get well Mrs. Smith) on July 4, 2009 discussed Patti Solis Doyle:

IN the interests of historical accuracy, Hillary did not know her campaign mgr Patti Solis Doyle was for all intents and purposes, a mole in her campaign, a mole for Obama.

Solis Doyle’s brother was actively working for Obama at his Chicago headquarters. There isn;t a doubt in my mind Hillary’s campaign was monitored by the Obama campaign through PSD passing campaign plans and strategies along to her brother. Which ultimately were dissected by the Axelrod team.

This is why BC exploded in a fury when he saw the inept job PSD was doing. Bill saw very few Campaign offices in Iowa considering how important Iowa was to Hillary’s image. PSD ensured there were skeletal boots on the ground, lack of offices and the existing offices basically unmanned… and afaik, seeing this, BC threatened to fire the whole crew.

Patti Solis Doyle was fired for very good reasons. We remember those reasons well because we received a lot of reports about what was going on in Iowa. What was going on and why was Patti Solis Doyle fired?

Patti Solis Doyle allegedly bred a lot of ill will inside the campaign among staffers. Many Clinton aides talked about how she had a wall erected between herself and the rest of the campaign staff in Iowa. Others who had been around for Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign talked about how Patti Solis Doyle had shut down the campaign office for two full days in order to watch the collected DVD set of “Grey’s Anatomy.” I’m not kidding.

A journalist worth a bucket of spit would have asked why Doyle would say such ugly things and then put a large “Do not believe” sign around every story she told. But Big Media wants to protect Obama and destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Was Patti Solis Doyle rewarded for her treacheries by Obama? We report, you decide:

By Lynn Sweet on June 17, 2008 9:51 AM

WASHINGTON –Chicago native Patti Solis Doyle, former Clinton campaign manager jettisoned in the final months of the primary, joins the Obama team as the chief of staff to Sen. Barack Obama’s eventual running mate, as Michelle Obama beefs up her operation with a new chief of staff. [snip]

Doyle — the sister of Ald. Danny Solis (25th) — is close to Obama chief strategist David Axelrod, and the Obama trusted inner-circle is essentially a close-knit group of people who have known one another for years.[snip]

Doyle will move to Chicago from Washington to set up and run the campaign operation for Obama’s vice presidential pick starting in July. Whoever is Obama’s running mate will have a team in place — scheduling, advance, press, policy, speechwriting, etc. — from the moment he or she is picked.

Doyle, who first started working for the Clintons in the 1992 presidential campaign — moving from Chicago’s City Hall to Arkansas — phoned Clinton to tell her about her Obama position before it was announced. Clinton congratulated her.

The scales begin to fall from the eyes of everyone but Big Media. Instead of assigning teams of researchers, like was done to the Palin book, to investigate the claims, the claims are peddled as if true. No questions of motive are asked

But Solis Doyle — who after her firing midway through the primaries is no longer on speaking terms with much of the Clinton inner circle, including the senator herself — has been tapped to serve as chief of staff to the future vice presidential running mate. Not exactly a signal that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for the job. [snip]

Why would they put somebody that was so clearly ineffective in such a position? It’s a message. We get it.” She said it was a “calculated decision” by the Obama team to “send a message that she [Clinton] is not being considered for the ticket.”

Other Clinton insiders also seethed. “Who can blame Obama for rewarding Patti? He would never be the nominee without her,” one person who has worked for both Clintons and remains close to them said. The sentiment reflected what another person in the immediate Clinton orbit described as “shock” that Obama would send such a strong signal that he is not considering Clinton as his runningmate so soon.

Although she devoted her adult life to working for Clinton, Solis Doyle left the Clinton world surrounded by a cloud of acrimony, blamed by some close Clinton loyalists — and reportedly Clinton herself — for failing to keep the campaign in order heading into Iowa. After being yanked from her role, Solis Doyle had said she would travel with the campaign and remain on as an adviser, but Clinton effectively cut her off and she was not seen on the road again.

It was a payoff obvious to all except Big Media.

As we wrote yesterday, it is time for Bill and Hillary Clinton (and Hillary Clinton supporters) to evaluate what actually happened in 2007/2008/2009. History is a teacher. Bill and Hillary Clinton also need to evaluate, with cold-blooded logic, their allegiance to the Democratic Party which is now the Obamination Dimocratic Party. As we build a strong online presence of many Hillary support websites, Big Media weakens and loses its power due to financial bloodletting and loss of credibility, and the Dimocratic Party too after November will be greatly weakened – it’s time to consider alternatives.

A lot of people were believed and possibly trusted that should not have been trusted.

[We’ll continue tomorrow with Part III, and discuss Halperin and the rest of the Freak Show. We did not discuss those topics today in order to respond to the Ben Smith garbage.]

Share

144 thoughts on “Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part II

  1. Excellent post, Admin!

    I would just say that if you ever decide to publish your articles into book format, the result would be a runaway best seller…with me standing in line to buy multiple copies. 🙂

  2. “Bill and Hillary Clinton also need to evaluate, with cold-blooded logic, their allegiance to the Democratic Party which is now the Obamination Dimocratic Party.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    YES! OH, YES! YES! YES!

  3. I hope I live long enough to see Hillary in the Oval Office.
    I hope I live long enough to see peace in the Middle East.
    I hope I love long enough to learn the identity of our wonderful ADMIN!

  4. love long enough — whoops, Freudian, there… meant to say live long enough of course…. I do love ADMIN — did you guess?

  5. Peter Daou
    Political consultant, former adviser to Hillary Clinton
    January 12, 2010

    To Heilemann, Halperin and Politico: I’ll Proudly Defend Hillary Clinton, On the Record

    Ben Smith writes a cover story for Politico titled Game over: The Clintons stand alone. The piece is based on John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s ‘Game Change’, the latest in an ever-expanding series of 2008 campaign books — none of which, in my view, capture the entire story of what happened in that historic Democratic primary. (I include in that assessment David Plouffe’s The Audacity to Win, which is undeniably a definitive version of what transpired inside the Obama campaign from the perspective of an exceptional campaign manager, but overlooks key reasons for Hillary Clinton’s defeat and doesn’t articulate the full scope of the online commentariat’s impact.)

    I am reading Game Change now and will update this entry once I’ve completed the portions about Hillary Clinton but I wanted to post something immediately in response to the Politico story.

    Ben Smith is a savvy, well-connected reporter and Heilemann/Halperin are about as plugged into Beltway culture and DC power centers as anyone can be — whether that’s good or bad I’ll let others judge. I became acquainted with Halperin during the campaign — and with Smith — but never spoke to the former about the book, nor with the latter about his article, so I’m coming to this as an outside observer. I don’t dispute that Heilemann/Halperin have high level sources. I just want to be sure their readers get an accurate picture of Hillary Clinton’s conduct during the campaign.

    Smith’s Politico article makes the case that the Clintons have few remaining defenders:

    What’s notable about the highly publicized release of “Game Change,” however, is the virtual silence from the Clinton camp. The lack of public outrage seems to mark the sputtering end of what was once known as the Clinton political machine and underlines a fact that onetime Clinton loyalists acknowledge: The book’s primary sources about the former candidate and current secretary of state are her own former staffers and intimates. As a result, there is no campaign of veteran Clintonites spinning the press corps and trying to pre-emptively discredit the book’s scathing depiction of Hillary Clinton as a rudderless candidate and a cheerleader for vicious tactics against eventual winner Barack Obama. … “Game Change” peels back a decade of careful renovations off Hillary Clinton’s carefully constructed public face, casting her in the terms that defined her at her lows in the mid-1990s: scheming, profane, sometimes paranoid, often tone-deaf.

    Here’s my response: as a former adviser and a senior staffer/department head at her presidential campaign, I’ll proudly defend Hillary Clinton and I’ll do whatever I can to counter lies, smears and mischaracterizations.

    Let me start by recounting how I first got to know her. Nearly four years ago, I was asked by her long-time communications maven Howard Wolfson to join her senate campaign. I was very happy running my site, the Daou Report, and advising a number of organizations in the then-nascent field of digital media consulting. I considered it an honor to be asked, but I knew it was a life-changing decision. Heeding Howard’s warning that once I became part of ‘Hillaryland’ anything I said or did could become a media story (examples here and here), I had a series of conversations with people I trusted and whose unique perspective could help me make an informed decision.

    I discussed it first with close friends and family.

    I then spoke to Joan Walsh at Salon, who hosted/supported my site and always gave great advice. I spoke to Arianna Huffington, who openly warned me against giving up the world of blogging to join the Clinton team. I spoke to David Brock at Media Matters, who had a long history with the Clintons and understood the media landscape in great depth. I spoke to John Kerry, who I respect deeply and for whom I worked in the bitterly contested 2004 election. I fought on his behalf when he was trailing badly going into the 2004 primaries, and after he won the nomination, I lived, worked, ate and slept in his war room for the epic battle against Bush/Cheney/Rove. He understood and taught me the rigors of a campaign better than anyone I knew. And because one of my overarching tasks for Clinton was to connect her to the netroots, I spoke to bloggers like Digby, Markos (Kos) and others to get a sense of the challenge ahead.

    In the end, I couldn’t miss the once in a lifetime opportunity to work with one of the most dynamic, inspiring women in the world. And even though the entire focus when I joined her was on the senate campaign, I, like many others, was looking ahead to the 2008 race. I’ve blogged for years about the pervasive abuse of women and the rampant sexism that affects our world, and the idea of electing a woman president was beyond exciting.

    Our first meeting was set for 15-30 minutes but lasted over an hour. Contrary to the myth that she was clueless about the Internet, Hillary was well aware of the importance of technology, of the role of the online community, and most importantly to me, the value of a strong progressive infrastructure centered around blogs, CAP, Media Matters and the like. We discussed the Middle East and my childhood in Beirut during Lebanon’s bloody civil war. Not unexpectedly, she knew virtually everything about every topic we discussed. And she was as down to earth and funny as anyone I’d ever met in politics — or outside politics.

    A week later, fighting flared up in Lebanon. Very early on a Sunday morning, my home phone rang. I answered groggily. It was Hillary, calling to make sure my friends and family in Beirut were OK. That’s the person she is, the person I encountered throughout the campaign, privately and publicly.

    But this is not about psychoanalyzing Hillary Clinton or probing her personal attributes — others have made a living doing that. It’s not about making her out to be a saint. Nobody is. This is about describing how she ran her campaign and how she treated her opponents when the cameras and microphones were off.

    Was I on every call and at every strategy session? No. Can I vouch for every single thing said and done at the campaign. Of course not. But having participated in countless senior strategy meetings, crisis management and rapid response drills and emergencies, “war rooms within war rooms” (a term used by Heilemann/Halperin), debate prep, calls, emails and private conversations with the candidate, and having slept with my BlackBerry under my pillow and been stationed at the center of her communications operation for the duration of the campaign, I can confidently state that Hillary Clinton did not push for ‘vicious’ or dirty tactics against any of her opponents, nor did she encourage or ‘cheer on’ that behavior from her staff. The ethos of the campaign, which she conveyed in word and deed, was that she would win because she was best prepared, worked the hardest and had the most compelling ideas.

    She was centered, dignified and focused throughout, although her frustration and pain did show through at some moments. She knew the media environment was stacked against her, against any woman. She knew what she was up against and drove forward into the furious headwinds of sexism and rightwing-fueled Clinton-hatred.

    For Hillary Clinton, it wasn’t about being a woman, it was about being the best.

    The unraveling of her huge lead in the polls in late 2007 is an incredibly convoluted and harrowing tale of words, actions, decisions, interpersonal dynamics, internal campaign struggles, dysfunctionality, careless mistakes, leaks, “surrogates gone wild,” (my term for overzealous supporters), reactions, underreactions, overreactions, strategic/tactical brilliance and incompetence, emotional highs and lows on the part of all the candidates and campaigns. Anyone who tries to reduce it to a few pivotal moments or to a simple character narrative does history an injustice. It was literally a minute by minute unfolding, accelerated and complexified by millions of online activists and commentators, who could shape and reshape conventional wisdom in a matter of moments. Any single decision could have changed the course of events — and of history. I have little tolerance for critics who simplify the whole election as some sort of reflection of the supposedly terrible character of Bill and Hillary Clinton, conveniently ignoring the Obama campaign’s brutally effective hardball tactics and overlooking the infinite dimensions — and messiness — of a presidential image/message war.

    The fact is, both campaigns slogged it out, played rough, and one came out victorious. And it would be wrong to act like only Hillary faced historic obstacles. Barack Obama was a formidable candidate and opponent who faced almost insurmountable odds. He deserves all the credit for winning and even more credit for appreciating Hillary’s value when the contest ended.

    Still, it’s important to state for the record, contra Game Change (or at least Politico’s interpretation of the book), that if anything, Hillary’s campaign let her down, not the reverse. Nor was it just one person’s fault. Her entire senior team bears responsibility. I take responsibility for the role I played. It’s easy to demean her when you’re an anonymous source for a book (and an easy way to absolve oneself of guilt), but let’s get real: far too often, she carried the campaign through sheer force of will and through an endless wellspring of personal fortitude.

    Nobody wants to relive 2008, but history is being written now. Generations from today, students will read about a historic campaign where barriers were shattered, and I for one, don’t want the wrong story to be told.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-daou/to-heilemann-halperin-and_b_420081.html

  6. ‘Girl power’ day on cards as Clinton heads Down Under

    MISHA SCHUBERT
    January 13, 2010

    WHEN Hillary Clinton last visited Australia, hot on the heels of her husband’s second-term election as US president in 1996, she mused privately whether Australia would get a female prime minister before the United States had its first woman president.

    ”She had a view our prime ministerial system may well encourage people to treat women as equals and that they could rise to the top,” senator Jocelyn Newman recalled shortly after she met Mrs Clinton at an afternoon tea hosted by Janette Howard – who controversially snubbed women from the Labor side of politics in compiling the guest list.

    ”Mrs Clinton said it did not matter how long you served in the Congress – it didn’t mean you would become president. She saw the upside for women in our system was that the party picked the leader and that, if you were respected, you could be chosen.”

    The topic of female advancement in politics is likely to be on Mrs Clinton’s mind again this trip, 18 months after her bid to break that barrier in US politics was eclipsed by another first: a black president.

    On Tuesday, she is expected to join the woman widely expected to become Australia’s first female prime minister for a ”girl power” event in Melbourne.

    The Age believes Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard will host the US Secretary of State on a ”very Melbourne” day of activities, which will include a trip to the Australian Open.

    Mrs Clinton often takes the stage at town hall-style meetings on her trips abroad, where she talks on a chosen topic and then takes questions from the audience.

    The Secretary of State flies into Canberra on Sunday, following stops this week in Hawaii, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Although formal details of her program are yet to be released, she is expected to dine with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd at The Lodge on Sunday night, after formal meetings earlier in the day and an afternoon function to promote US Fulbright Scholarships. She will spend Monday at AUSMIN, the regular bilateral meeting between the Australian and US foreign and defence ministers.

    US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates will also be there to meet Foreign Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Minister John Faulkner. The talks will focus on strategies to curb the instability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and joint work on counter-terrorism and defence training exercises.

    Mrs Clinton impressed the Australian delegation at the last AUSMIN talks by staying for the entire day, rather than handing over to officials once the headline topics had been handled.

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/girl-power-day-on-cards-as-clinton-heads-down-under-20100112-m4q3.html

  7. Looks like we need some action here.

    What’s notable about the highly publicized release of “Game Change,” however, is the virtual silence from the Clinton camp – a lack of public outrage that seems to mark the sputtering end of what was once known as the Clinton political machine and underlines a fact that onetime Clinton loyalists acknowledge: The book’s primary sources about the former candidate and current secretary of state are her own former staffers and intimates.

    As a result, there is no campaign of veteran Clintonites spinning the press corps and trying to pre-emptively discredit the book’s scathing depiction of Hillary Clinton as a rudderless candidate and a cheerleader for vicious tactics against eventual winner Barack Obama. There is no team of Clinton proxies going on cable television to denounce authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann as scurrilous and unworthy of belief.

    This time, Bill and Hillary Clinton are virtually alone.

    h/w
    politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/The_end_of_the_Clinton_machine.html?showall

  8. gonzo said:
    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.

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

    Yes. Whenever the favorite of the media gets in trouble, the media finds something else to make a big fuss about, usually attacking the Clintons for something irrelevant. (Eg after Nov 2000 when some media were counting the FL votes and looking at charges of vote suppression, the GOP let out a scandal against Jesse Jackson. And the rest of the media went on a witchhunt about Clinton’s end of term pardons.)

  9. That was brilliant….just totally stating the facts and how Hillary nearly won this thing despite what was done to her and Bill.

  10. Press Frustrated Over Obama’s Lack of News Conferences
    The White House press corps is beginning to grumble about a lack of opportunity to ask questions

    By Kenneth T. Walsh
    Posted January 12, 2010

    Frustration is building in the White House press corps over President Obama’s lack of news conferences. He hasn’t held a full-fledged news conference since July (when he made controversial remarks about the arrest of a black professor by a white policeman in Massachusetts), and White House reporters are grumbling about it.

    Reporters asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the situation at Gibbs’s regular briefings both Friday and Monday, and Gibbs said Obama has many ways of explaining his views to the American people, including speeches, interviews, his weekly radio and video addresses, and brief q-and-a sessions with reporters every few days. Gibbs also said such press corps complaints are ironic because until recently, pundits and some White House reporters have been raising questions about whether Obama was “overexposed” and showing up in the media too much.

    But another prominent network TV correspondent says, “Now reporters don’t get much of a chance to ask him questions—unless one is granted a sit-down interview with him.” And that’s precisely the point, say White House officials. Obama has granted a very large number of interviews in recent months, not only with the networks but with newspapers, magazines, and other media outlets. In the case of the networks, however, those interviews have tended to go to the anchors or other visible higher-ups, rather than the regular White House TV reporters, and this has rankled the regulars in the White House briefing room. They want their own “face time.” In addition, White House officials and some veterans of past administrations point out that Obama has hardly been hiding from the public or the media, so Americans do have a chance to see his mind at work. Overall, there seems to be little chance that his media pattern will change. White House insiders say he will continue to hold news conferences, only not as often as the denizens of the White House briefing room would like.

    One additional reason for this sporadic schedule is that Obama doesn’t want to be thrown off message by “gotcha” questions in free-form encounters with the media. This has been a common reason for presidents being reluctant to hold news conferences in the past. Another factor frustrating the press-corps regulars is that Obama spends a lot more time than his predecessor George W. Bush giving lengthy answers, and this cuts down on the time available for questions in the customary hourlong format. So only about a dozen reporters get to ask him questions at any given news conference, and few correspondents can join in the questioning under these circumstances.

    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/01/12/press-frustrated-over-obamas-lack-of-news-conferences.html

  11. wbboei said:
    But if [the GOP] cast out the old leadership in favor of a new breed of politicians and represent the American People then there is a ray of hope in the meantime.

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

    Why should the GOP bother to change if we start supporting them right now already?

  12. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/12/cnn-poll-americans-split-on-success-of-obama-presidency/

    Americans are giving Barack Obama a split decision on his first year in office, according to a new national poll.

    Forty-eight percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Tuesday say Obama’s presidency has been a failure so far, with 47 percent saying Obama has been a success. The poll’s January 12 release comes just 8 days before Obama marks one year in the White House.

  13. JanH

    I guess someone forgot to tell OO that news conferences were part of the job description, and you need to learn to handle them, or NOT. So big media is the crap beginning to clear out of you nasal area, so that you really understand who you put in office? or NOT.

    You reap what you sow, and to is too bad that you don’t like it, you made it.

  14. NMF,

    Yes but every news conference he has goes down in history as a foot in mouth moment. I can see why he runs crying from the room at the very suggestion of them.

  15. This comment from Tom Watson, a huffpo blogger on Peter Daou’s article: (did this blogger Watson keep up his Hillary allegiance through the campaign?)

    What an embarrassment for poor Ben Smith (whose work I generally admire) – it’s the lowest form of Politico ‘reporting’ for linkage.

    Yeah, the Clintons are so ‘alone’! (And Peter’s post shows they’re not, even in post-08 campaign team terms).

    One’s the widely-admired U.S. Secretary of State, the most popular politician in the United States.

    The other is a global philanthropist with a billion-dollar foundation saving lives around the world.

    Gimme that kind of “alone” any day of the week. Stand alone – haha. Does truth matter in any way, shape or form in political reporting any more, or is it all just playground whispers?

  16. admin
    January 12th, 2010 at 4:05 am
    Wbboei, the Republicans are getting their act together. In Virginia and Massachusetts and New Jersey the model is the same. In Florida, Rubio is making a claim on the future of the party.

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

    Do you see the GOP making any substantive changes in policy, what they stand for? What?

    Money for birth control for poor women was taken out of a bill because the GOP opposed it. The teeth were taken out of the Lily Ledbetter bill to please the GOP. Cheney etc are still supporting torture.

    The GOP may be getting better organized — but organized to do what? Do you see them supporting many policies of Hillary’s?

  17. JanH
    January 12th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
    Press Frustrated Over Obama’s Lack of News Conferences
    ***************

    They need to buy golf carts…

  18. Admin: you get A+++ in political thinking 901. Brilliant tactical piece. I loved the entire post but this but these passages made it a grand slam home run.

    1. It does not occur to Smith that the best strategy for Bill and Hillary Clinton at this point is to let Harry get the attention.

    2. In the words of Hillary, “the Clintons never forget”. They are not done with 0bama. Think dish best served cold.

    3. This article says the ONLY pol coming to Hillary’s defense is Obama? Amazing! That man is super-human! He is so far above the rest of us it’s just unreal. What is so strange, though, is Obama’s poll numbers are down. Weird, don’t these pollsters know how awesome Obama is?

    4. The scales begin to fall from the eyes of everyone but Big Media. Instead of assigning teams of researchers, like was done to the Palin book, to investigate the claims, the claims are peddled as if true. No questions of motive are asked.

    5. Bill and Hillary Clinton also need to evaluate, with cold-blooded logic, their allegiance to the Democratic Party which is now the Obamination Dimocratic Party. As we build a strong online presence of many Hillary support websites, Big Media weakens and loses its power due to financial bloodletting and loss of credibility, and the Dimocratic Party too after November will be greatly weakened – it’s time to consider alternatives.

    What we as Hillary supporters are asking Hillary and Bill to do is the toughest job in the world: is to face down this dragon is devouring our country. If our only hope is the Republicans, patriotism compels many of us to cast our lot with them, while those who cannot do that sit on the sidelines. We do not want to do that, especially if it leads us back to the same problems which caused many people including me abandon our allegiance to the Republicans. But as bad as it was under Bush, this curse of Obamation is worse, because what Obamanation means in the end is the utter destruction of this country.

  19. Panic in Massachusetts – the DNC is sending in lots of money for a race they claim is in the bag:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/DNC_getting_involved_in_Mass.html?showall

    The DSCC has purchased $567,000 in television ad time in Massachusetts to bolster Martha Coakley’s campaign.

    Now the DNC is investing as well: The party will provide resources totaling about $500,000, including cash to the state party and campaign, in-kind contributions and money the DNC’s finance team is raising directly for Coakley from national donors, a party official said.

    Coakley is appearing today on a conference call with DNC Chairman Tim Kaine and 500 of the DNC and President Obama’s top donors, the source said.

  20. Admin, all this money, in addition to a fund raiser with pharm, insurance companies, and other special interests already scheduled.

  21. WOW!

    Just WOW!

    Out of the park, admin and I agree 1000% with this;
    ‘Bill and Hillary Clinton also need to evaluate, with cold-blooded logic, their allegiance to the Democratic Party.’

    BTW, LOVED the quotes from Politico! Amazing!

  22. Why should the GOP bother to change if we start supporting them right now already?
    —————————————————
    Because there is a revolution going on in their party too. And in this revolution the good guys are likely to win. The check and balance on a return to the old ways is the Tea Party movement, and people like Sarah. Not for nothing did Halperin single her out as a Republican for derision. He was doing the bidding of the old guard. We shall see how this goes. Marco Rubio was not the preferred candidate of Michael Steele but now the situation has changed. How a candidate like Marco evolves as a leader will tell us much about where the party is headed. If he means what he says and drives the money changers from the temple then there is hope. The backing of Jebb Bush bothers me more than a conservative philosophy. At this point, I am mindful of the risks but willing to trust.

    On a different note, I have a question about Chuck Schumer: when he says Hillary in the head with a 2 by 4 how is that any different than Olberman who goes into a deranged rant and says someone should take her in the backroom and only one of them come out. I am afraid Schumer is a smiling snarkie misogynist which is to say a hater of women. To advocate an act of violence as he reportedly did speaks volumes about how the man thinks. That may well be the intuitive sense that my friend had about him when she served with him in the House together–a deep seated hated of women.

  23. ‘The DSCC has purchased $567,000 in television ad time in Massachusetts to bolster Martha Coakley’s campaign.

    Now the DNC is investing as well: The party will provide resources totaling about $500,000,’

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha!

    Brown raised more than $1.3 million yesterday, 3X his goal of 500G!

  24. Amish families exempt from insurance mandate
    HEALTH REFORM: People with religious objections can opt out
    http://tinyurl.com/ycovnwb
    **************

    Alot of Amish coming your way…Don’t know about you but I am feeling a little Amish today!

  25. pm317
    January 12th, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Gimme that kind of “alone” any day of the week. Stand alone – haha. Does truth matter in any way, shape or form in political reporting any more, or is it all just playground whispers?
    &&&&

    Agreed. If it is the Mystery of the Ever Shrinking Clintons, and the MOST POPULAR, HISTORICAL PRESIDENT EVER, why are all the rats jumping the ship, and Republicans feeling their oats???

  26. THUGGERY YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

    More intimidation and meddling…

    The ref is trying to fix the game. Let ’em play.

    nytimes.com/2010/01/12/nyregion/12ford.html

    White House Opposes Challenge to Gillibrand
    =================================

    By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and JEREMY W. PETERS
    Published: January 11, 2010
    WASHINGTON — The White House made it clear on Monday that it opposed the prospect of Harold E. Ford Jr.’s running for the United States Senate in New York, even as Mr. Ford, the former Tennessee congressman, showed no signs of being deterred.

    The remarks from the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, were the first offered by the Obama administration since Mr. Ford said last week that he was seriously considering challenging Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand in this fall’s Democratic primary.

    Mr. Gibbs said that the administration backed Ms. Gillibrand, who was appointed last January to fill the seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    “I think the White House is quite happy with the leadership and the representation of Senator Gillibrand in New York,” Mr. Gibbs said when asked about Mr. Ford at a White House press briefing. “We’re supporting her re-election.”

    Mr. Gibbs suggested that the White House was prepared to go even further to stop Mr. Ford, telling reporters to “Stay tuned” when asked about any behind-the-scenes efforts to clear the field for Ms. Gillibrand.

    But Mr. Ford remained defiant.

    Asked on MSNBC’s “Hardball” whether he was prepared to run without White House support, Mr. Ford said: “I have great respect for President Obama. If I run and win, I look forward to working with him. But I will listen to New Yorkers as I make this decision.”

    The White House’s move came on the same day Gov. David A. Paterson indicated that he, too, was opposed to a Ford candidacy. Speaking to reporters after attending a rally for abortion rights advocates, Mr. Paterson said that Mr. Ford’s history on abortion rights made him a poor fit for New York.

    “I would suggest that he might look for another state to run a primary,” Mr. Paterson said of Mr. Ford, who has said he supports a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, but described himself as “pro-life” when running for the Senate in Tennessee in 2006.

    In his comments to reporters, Mr. Paterson initially seemed open to the idea of Mr. Ford’s candidacy.

    “I think it’s O.K. for anyone to challenge anybody in a primary this year; that’s what democracy is about,” Mr. Paterson said. But when a reporter pointed out that women’s groups had criticized Mr. Ford, the governor suggested he run in another state.

    Senator Charles E. Schumer, New York’s senior senator and one of Ms. Gillibrand’s fiercest backers; and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, have expressed reservations about Mr. Ford’s potential challenge. Representative Jerrold L. Nadler, who represents the Upper West Side, called Mr. Ford’s record on abortion and gay rights “a disaster” last week. (Mr. Ford, who was previously opposed to same-sex marriage, sought to reverse himself on Monday, saying on the “Today” show on NBC that he believes civil unions are inadequate.)

    Women’s rights groups would most likely be a major presence in a Senate Democratic primary, and Ms. Gillibrand’s advisers say they believe that they can use Mr. Ford’s record on abortion rights to their advantage.

    “We have two senators who are champions of reproductive rights, who have never wavered on choice,” said M. Tracey Brooks, president of Family Planning Advocates of New York State. “And those are the types of leaders that we would like to send to Washington.”

    But a spokesman for Mr. Ford, Davidson Goldin, reiterated on Monday that Mr. Ford had “always supported a woman’s right to choose and always will.”

  27. Brown isn’t just against abortion, he’d DENY EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION TO RAPE VICTIMS.

    H/W
    boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/
    [Coakley’s GOP opponent, Brown cosponsored a bill] which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and to review pictures and information detailing the developmental progress of her fetus.
    [ Brown got ] the support of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life in this race, based on his position on issues including abortion, stem cells, and federal health legislation. He also opposes federal funding for abortion, supports strong parental consent rules for minors, and supports the ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortion. [….]
    Brown sponsored an amendment to a 2005 bill on emergency contraception that would have let emergency room doctors or nurses turn away rape victims if they had religious objections to providing emergency contraception.

  28. The Village doesn’t care about sources

    January 12, 2010
    by Jamison Foser

    The Village was cooing last night over “Game over: The Clintons stand alone,” the speculative and gloating hit on the Clintons by Politico’s Ben Smith.

    Smith breathlessly recounts claims about the Clintons that first appeared in Mark Halperin’s new book Game Change, then takes a sneering ha-ha-nobody-likes-the-Clintons tone in noting the purported lack of Clinton loyalists contesting the book’s claims.

    Now, there’s another pretty obvious possible explanation for the lack of an aggressive high-profile response to the book by the Clintons and their former staff. As John Aravosis — who, if memory serves, did not take a favorable view of Clinton during the presidential primaries — explains:

    I think, rather, that Hillary is being a good Secretary of State. … I think the lack of response from Team Clinton on this book is because she doesn’t want to be a distraction for the President. And if that’s the case, she deserves credit.

    Now, I don’t know if Aravosis is right, or if Smith is. Don’t really care, either. But it is striking that Smith never even considers the possibility that “Team Clinton” is laying low for the reason Aravosis suggests. It suggests a tunnel vision on Smith’s part, and an eagerness to portray the Clintons as adrift and alone.

    And, like I said, The Village ate it up. The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza calls it “terrific.” ABC’s Rick Klein and Politico’s Jonathan Martin hyped it, too.

    One passage in Smith’s article was particularly striking to me (emphasis added): Finally, the depiction of candidate Clinton in “Game Change” suggests that her competitiveness sometimes expressed itself as consuming suspicion.

    “I am convinced they also imported people into those caucuses,” she reportedly told Penn a month after her concession. In that conversation, which the authors appear to have obtained from a tape-recording or transcript, she reporteldly gave Penn a particularly self-serving assignment: I want you to start thinking about how I avoid being blamed [for Obama’s possible defeat]”, Clinton said. “Because I shouldn’t be blamed. But they are going to blame me. I somehow didn’t do enough.”

    What’s interesting about this passage isn’t the substance of Clinton’s purported comments. I mean, who really cares if Clinton asked Mark Penn to think about how she could avoid being blamed for an Obama general-election loss? What’s remarkable about that?

    No, what’s interesting is Smith’s description of the book’s sourcing for the comment. Think about it for a minute: Ben Smith can’t tell whether the authors got the quote from a tape-recording or a transcript. That speaks volumes about the authors’ shiftiness in describing their sourcing. There’s a huge difference between having recordings and having a transcript. If it was a transcript, that would raise all kinds of questions about who produced it and when and how accurate it was.

    It says something about the authors that they were ambiguous about which it was, recording or transcript. Just as it says something about them that the source of the famous Clinton/coffee quote isn’t described in any way whatsoever:

    But Bill [Clinton] 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.

    Quick: who’s the source of that quote? The Kennedy friend, right? That’s what a lot of people have assumed. But read it again: Halperin & Heilemann don’t actually say the Kennedy friend was their source. Their source could have been a friend of the friend. Or the friend’s gardener. Or the friend’s cousin’s roommate’s high school girlfriend’s uncle. We have no idea.

    That’s bad enough. What’s worse is that Halperin and Heilemann’s writing is either sloppy or disingenuous enough that it leads the reader to assumptions about the sourcing — the Kennedy friend; the tape-recording — that, for whatever reason, the authors don’t come out and confirm. They imply sourcing that is stronger than they are willing to assert.

    That, to me, is a clear sign of a book — of authors — that cannot be trusted. Yet it apparently didn’t raise any red flags for Smith, or Cillizza, or the other journalists who have been raving about Smith’s piece. And that speaks volumes about the state of political journalism.

    UPDATE: Greg Sargent weighs in:

    what’s mystifying is that virtually none of the media figures lavishing attention on this book have broached the sourcing issue, something you’d think would merit a bit of discussion among professional journalists. Discussion of this has been left almost entirely to bloggers.

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/201001120015

  29. wbboei
    January 12th, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Why should the GOP bother to change if we start supporting them right now already?
    —————————————————
    Because there is a revolution going on in their party too. And in this revolution the good guys are likely to win. The check and balance on a return to the old ways is the Tea Party movement, and people like Sarah. Not for nothing did Halperin single her out as a Republican for derision. He was doing the bidding of the old guard.

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

    Sorry I was unclear. If there is a revolution going on in the GOP we should be supporting the revolutionaries, not all GOP which would include the Old Guard also.

    As with the Dems, we should support the better candidates even if they are just lesser evil on some issues.

    Anyway, what change do your GOP revolutionaries plan in the CONTENT and POLICIES of the GOP? Are they supporting any Clinton policies? What?

    Or are they just trying ot bring in a younger (and hopefully a little cleaner) crowd for the same old social conservative policies?

    (Sarah is an exception.)

  30. The Fraud quietly takes steps to Federalize the National Guard…while the Country talks about gossip
    *************************

    President Obama Signs Executive Order Establishing Council of Governors
    The White House ^ | January 11, 2010 | Office of Press Secretary

    Posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 9:43:13 PM by Melissa 24

    he President today signed an Executive Order (attached) establishing a Council of Governors to strengthen further the partnership between the Federal Government and State Governments to protect our Nation against all types of hazards. When appointed, the Council will be reviewing such matters as involving the National Guard of the various States; homeland defense; civil support; synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities.

    The bipartisan Council will be composed of ten State Governors who will be selected by the President to serve two year terms. In selecting the Governors to the Council, the White House will solicit input from Governors and Governors’ associations. Once chosen, the Council will have no more than five members from the same party and represent the Nation as a whole.

    Federal members of the Council include the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Engagement, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs, the U.S. Northern Command Commander, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Secretary of Defense will designate an Executive Director for the Council.

  31. In haste. Got some clarification on Coakley and the HC bill.

    Earlier when asked about the HOUSE version she said she would vote against that version because of anti-abortion language.

    The SENATE version had less damaging language so she said she would vote for such a version (“reluctantly”).

    So here she is fighting for reproductive choice and demanding concessions before she’s even elected!

    Even Bill and HIllary have had to support the HC bill, so Coakley may be doing the very best we can expect — and getting results. “Reluctantly” gives her more bargaining power in future, she can always balk and hold out for more concessions to women’s health et.c

  32. I have always liked Peter Daou. I think he and Wolfson were credits to the campaign. However, I am not impressed with his rebuttal to Ben Smith and Halperin. No need to kiss their collective asses. Also, there is some revisionist history on his part on why she became SOS. I play harder ball than he does, or have less to lose. I am not constrained by either political party. However, the one comment I do agree with him in spades was this one:

    “Far too often, she carried the campaign through sheer force of will and through an endless wellspring of personal fortitude”.

  33. Jbstonesfan, surely you were not disparaging those of us from northern and middle Florida as ‘yahoos’ in the sense of a person who is not very intelligent or interested in culture?

    Definitions of yahoo on the Web:
    yokel: a person who is not very intelligent or interested in culture

  34. turndownobama
    January 12th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
    In haste. Got some clarification on Coakley and the HC bill.

    Earlier when asked about the HOUSE version she said she would vote against that version because of anti-abortion language.

    The SENATE version had less damaging language so she said she would vote for such a version (”reluctantly”).

    So here she is fighting for reproductive choice and demanding concessions before she’s even elected!

    Even Bill and HIllary have had to support the HC bill, so Coakley may be doing the very best we can expect — and getting results. “Reluctantly” gives her more bargaining power in future, she can always balk and hold out for more concessions to women’s health et.
    ———————————————————–

    The problem is she flip-flopped AFTER the primary. During the primary, she was against the bill, but afterwards, she was for it. The powers to be, apparently got to her. Blah.

    Pharm, HMOs, and insurance companies are coming to her rescue by having a major fundraiser for her. She is bought and paid for, just like every other politician in congress.

  35. fantastic post, Admin…I will admit to getting thrills while reading those comments in response to Smith…all the clinton people rising from their abyss…wonderful!

    …little do they know the silent majority that lurks…

    pm317, is there a link to watson’s comments…did not see anything on his site…

    …what’s the deal with Mayhill Fowler…more junk for the trunk…

  36. Next Tuesday is the day for patriotic MA Americans to stop the insanity that is our government and the government takeover in progress. Scott Brown will be the 41st vote and the link that breaks the Obamanation’s majority vote. This is paramount; other matters take a back seat to this Dimocratic hubris on a popsicle stick that is the Ramming Jamming Machine of the Peloosi/Reid/Obama 60 vote majority rule.

    Ditto what lil ol grape said about living long enough to….

  37. UPDATE: Greg Sargent weighs in:

    what’s mystifying is that virtually none of the media figures lavishing attention on this book have broached the sourcing issue, something you’d think would merit a bit of discussion among professional journalists. Discussion of this has been left almost entirely to bloggers.
    *************

    We don’t have a media anymore, just paid clowns…Thank God for the blogs…Thank God for Hillaryis44…

  38. This book Game Change is a parcel of lies but more than that it is a thinly veiled attempt by the beltway elites to convince themselves that they did not make an epochal mistake and sell the country down the river to big business when they put the incompetent and underhanded Obama in the White House. It is a last gasp attempt on their part to defend a position which becomes less defensible with each passing day as their Messiah destroys what is left of this country.

  39. wbboei
    January 12th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    This book Game Change is a parcel of lies but more than that it is a thinly veiled attempt by the beltway elites to convince themselves that they did not make an epochal mistake and sell the country down the river to big business when they put the incompetent and underhanded Obama in the White House. It is a last gasp attempt on their part to defend a position which becomes less defensible with each passing day as their Messiah destroys what is left of this country.

    *******************
    wbboei —

    You and I think alike — I had exactly the same thought. Well stated. This is their way of saying, we know Obie is bad, but see — all these people would have been worse. Someone should tell these hypocrites — “sorry, no sale.”

  40. TurndownObama, the rise of the GOP is a consequence of what happened in 2008. The Obama situation comedy coalition is unsustainable. Only now are some beginning to realize how right we have been about that.

    Progressives/Liberals/Democrats who want to prevent the GOP from taking power for generations must realize that the Democratic Party needs to repudiate the Obama Party and the sooner and faster the better. If the Dims do not overthrow Obama and his coalition and restore the white working class to the fold along with the rest of the FDR coalition, that Hillary won in 2008, they will be in the desert for generations.

    The illusion created by Dimocratic “intellectuals” such as Kilgore and Texiera is that the country’s changing demographics will mean generations of Dimocratic rule. We cited Rubio in Florida as an example of how the GOP will adjust to the changing demographics and find candidates to appeal to Latinos (who can be culturally and socially very conservative). The GOP will similarly adapt and appeal to other demographics. We have seen the changed strategy and tactics from the GOP in Virginia and New Jersey already.

    The significance of Massachusetts is that we are seeing how the GOP is able to expand its appeal to white working class voters with someone like Scott Brown (there are many reports of how well he is doing even in South Boston). Brown (like McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in NJ) is concentrating on the GOP strategy of fiscal probity and jobs. Fiscal probity will soon enough emerge as what the GOP stands for as they try to stay away from social issues (for now).

    What we are saying is that Democrats who want the things you cite are going to have to do what happened after George McGovern captured the party in 1972 (with the same strategy and coalition as Obama). After 1972 McGovern essentially led the party back to sanity as he surrendered claims to leadership of the party and chaired the McGovern reforms. The difference this time, which makes matters much more difficult is that Obama won in 2008.

    The results of November 2008 mean that Dimocrats might think that the Obama victory was something other than a fluke. And it was a fluke attributable to 8 years of Bush and the country going down the wrong track culminating in the economic disaster which struck just as McCain was gathering steam and ahead of Obama. If Dimocrats believe that Obama won because of his coalition they will never do what was done after the 1972 disaster. And, they will remain out of power for generations.

    That’s why we say that Dimocrats must face massive defeat, after defeat, after defeat – as a lesson to go back to what works – the FDR coalition. Without these defeats Dimocrats will cling bitterly to hope that they will win again, some time in the future and the damage will never be undone, or we will have to wait a very long time for the damage to be reversed. With crushing defeat it is possible that sanity will return.

  41. Off course not, ShortTermer…some of my best friends are from central and northern Florida. Hope you didn’t get “snowed” in.

  42. S
    January 12th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
    ————-

    Tom Watson’s comment was in Peter Daou’s article (in Huffpo — link up thread) in the comments section. I don’t have a link.

  43. Admin says:

    That’s why we say that Dimocrats must face massive defeat, after defeat, after defeat – as a lesson to go back to what works – the FDR coalition. Without these defeats Dimocrats will cling bitterly to hope that they will win again, some time in the future and the damage will never be undone, or we will have to wait a very long time for the damage to be reversed. With crushing defeat it is possible that sanity will return.

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

    the truth is that O has already taken us backwards…he has already relabeled the party with the old sterotypes that created the Reagan Democrats…

    O and the current full control Democratic Congress…with their out-of-control spending, enormous debt, failed foreclosure plans, misreading the needs of the people in 2009 – duh? jobs, jobs, jobs, and arrogant egos – are proving on a daily basis the old ‘tax and spend’ big government’ lines…

    …and all the obvious broken promises about transparency and openess…the trust is being broken…the bond severed…

    O and this Congress are managing to pull this off while wheeling and dealing like Republicans…amazing, they have managed to associate the Democratic party with the corruption and bailouts of big bankers, wall st, big pharma deals and secret deals with insurance co…and now to make it even worse, O and the dims are taking race relations and attitudes backwards with everything else…

    way to go…let’s see what will be written about O down the road…who will be left standing with him?

    O and the Obama dims have ABUSED their power and our trust…the power must be recinded until the adults are back in charge…

  44. Tom Daschle is a despicable, jealous , hypocrite….thank g-d he got tossed out of office and denied an administration position…

  45. I love how all these self righteous idiots like Daschle and the late Kennedy conveniently forget that they are nothing to right home about. Their egos are amazing. Their records are dismal.

  46. With all the benefits and privileges Bil and Hillary have, it still must be awful knowing you can’t trust people whom you helped long the way….I trust they both have an inner circle of real friends they trun to when these scum sucking back stabbers rear their ugly heads. I would like to see Carville and Begala defend them more often on CNN….They give way too much time to Clinton hater Brazile, Borger, Martin, Gergen, and any other Tom , Dick and Harry who has negative things to say about Bill and Hillary.
    Fox is back to their typical Clinton hatred, MSNBC nebr stopped, and despite this, Hillary is very popular…Bill has taken a hit imo as he was not listed in the top ten (10) most influential men , which was very disheartening to see. I hope once Okie-Dokie leaves ofice, he will feel free to say and or write what he really thinks of the “fairy tale” POTUS.

  47. palin and glen beck are doing a full hour together tomorrow…if these two can stay away from clinton hate, stay positive – they could galvanize many people…beck, i don’t know…he slips into the clinton criticism…they need to be smart and independent…

    pm317…thanks, I read Peter’s article this morning but did not read the comments, great!

    looks like the race is tightening with Coakley…somebodies are getting nervous…

  48. What I see here is people in Obama camp continuing to split the Democratic party. Nobody comes out of this book ahead except, perhaps, the Republicans who have plenty to feast on for decades. This smears Democrats across, women in particular, and makes Obama’s job more difficult – that is, if part of his job as the head of the Democratic party, is to lead Democrats to victory and help achieve our legislative goals and that, I fear, is not something he perceives as part of his job.

    Why are Democrats taking baseball bats to other Democrats? This book is scurrilous on a personal level, but taking a step back and looking at the impact it will have on Democrats in good standing, allows one a full understanding of how incredibly destructive the impulses behind it are. This is a book intended to hurt people who are, at least in theory, on the same side of the political divide as the people spilling the beans.

    What this book does is further the ill will that developed during the primary and campaign. After having spent dozens of hours documenting the fraud in the Iowa and Texas primaries, after having spoken with people all over the nation who experienced the brutality of Obama and his campaign staff personally, after having my camera equipment and notebooks stolen, I have no illusions about who and what Obama is. And even after all I’ve seen and heard, I find this book shocking. It’s time we stopped talking about how shocking the gossip in it is, and start discussing why Democrats are attacking other Democrats in such a dishonest, incendiary and public fashion.

    Obama has been taking a wrecking ball to the Democratic party since his speech on religion where he talked about how other Democrats back away from discussing religion and how that’s wrong – thereby using his celebrity to further a rightwing meme against Democrats. His primary campaign was needlessly divisive and demeaning to gays, women and lower income voters. His presidency has been in exercise in reversing almost every commitment he made as a candidate to Democrats to win their support. And now this…

    Sometimes being shocked is a matter of being sufficiently educated that you know what the standards are and fully grasp the reason for their existence. This book is not shocking primarily because of the scurrilous nature of the gossip revealed but for the fact that Democrats, themselves, are primarily responsible for its very existence.

  49. basement angel,

    What a great post!

    I agree.

    ‘Why are Democrats taking baseball bats to other Democrats?’

  50. Coakleys campaign in disaaray in Mass.

    1 : They had to issue an official apologie and a retraction after they put a tv ad mispelling the state.

    Idiots……..

    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/22217474/detail.html

    At the end of the advertisement, where a candidate must disclose who paid for the ad, the copy read “paid for by Massachusettes (sic) Democratic Party.”

    2 : New Rasmussen poll only has Brown 2 behind in MOE at 49 to 47, this is crazy considering its Mass.

  51. basement angel
    January 12th, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    ——————–

    Well said. Nobody said the dims were smart. If anything they are their own worst enemies.

  52. Thanks so much for doing this! I was so disgusted with the headline, first paragraph, I couldn’t properly read the rest of it. But I had a feeling that when you take the snarling away, there’s not much damning reality left against the Clintons. As you proved, on the contrary.
    You are right. It makes me feel much better to know she was aware of the fraud as I was.
    Also, this entire development validates your earlier thesis that they are preparing a campaign against Hillary.

  53. So are there any reporters out there writing about the economy, Afghan war, Yemen, unemployment, health care… this week?

    Just wondering.

  54. HOPE AND CHANGE GIVE WAY TO GRAVE DOUBTS AND GROWING OPPOSITION

    The full report isn’t up yet, but these are the reported Rasmussen trust numbers for December. Short version: seven out of ten for the GOP, two ties, and the Democrats get to be more trusted on education.

    Dec-09 Nov-09
    Issue Dem GOP Diff Dem GOP Diff Shift
    Health Care 43% 46% (3) 42% 44% (2) (1)
    Education 45% 39% 6 41% 39% 2 4
    Social Security 43% 43% – 41% 41% – –
    Abortion 39% 46% (7) 38% 43% (5) (2)
    Economy 37% 48% (11) 36% 48% (12) 1
    Taxes 38% 47% (9) 36% 47% (11) 2
    Iraq 34% 49% (15) 38% 45% (7) (8)
    Nat’l Security 35% 52% (17) 37% 50% (13) (4)
    Gov’t Ethics 29% 29% – 31% 34% (3) 3
    Immigration 32% 47% (15) 33% 45% (12) (3)

    Analysis? Sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of my realizing that the GOP’s starting the new year being more trusted on national security, the economy, and health care. Oh, sure, it’d be nice to have better corruption trust numbers, but that metric resets whenever there’s no major Democratic scandal that month; I’ll take these metrics for the 2010 election cycle with nary a qualm. Particularly since the Democrats have apparently decided to highlight immigration issues (R+15) for the spring…

    Moe Lane

  55. jbstonesfan,: )
    We did get snow on the rooftops, and our irrigation pipes burst. This has been weather of historic proportions, like the politics of today.

  56. It is clear that Hillary and her team are running foreign policy. True to form big media censors this but it becomes more obvious with each passing day. No prior secretary of state ran foreign policy whereas she does. The toughening stance around the world bears her imprimatur as his naive assumptions about the world and the realities of statescraft are proven wrong time after time after time. Obama has the attention span of a flea as many who have known him over the years will readily attest. Hillary in the other hand is a workaholic–a show horse and a work horse. She commands the respect of the world, and neither he nor his big media courtesans can stand it. The biggest problem she has is world leaders see her boss Obama for the narcissistic circus clown he is, and no amount of Madison Avenue hype form big media can change that impression. These people are connoisseurs of power and they know a lightweight president when they see one.

  57. From Joe Scarbrough

    “For the next few months, the Clinton campaign took one body blow after another. The media coverage was deplorable. In fact, it was so biased in some quarters that more than a few living legends of broadcast news privately shared with me the embarrassment they felt toward their own profession.

    Character is rarely revealed in its sharpest contrast after a glorious victory. Instead, you find out what a person is made of after they sustain a soul crushing defeat. In her long, tortured march toward Denver, Hillary Clinton showed more character, more resilience, and more true grit than any presidential candidate I can recall. ”

    “And in that losing cause, Secretary Clinton served as a great example of character not only for my young daughter, but for us all. It is that type of strength that we need in our leaders now more than ever.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-scarborough/the-true-character-of-hil_b_420599.html

    The above are just excerpts from a good article.

  58. This whole thing reeks of an inside job. She must be apparently deciding to run against him in 2012 and it has leaked out because they are trying to crucify them again. She has had alot of favorable press in the last few months and they are worried.

    Since Copenhaugen, there has been problems for the “One”.

  59. Morning Joe has it so right about Hillary and he is one of my favorite for truthtelling.

    —————————————————

    There is much ground covered in Game Change and much that readers can take away from Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s history of the 2008 election. But as Bob Woodward suggested today on the set of Morning Joe, a reader’s guide to the headline-grabbing book may also be in order.

    The Washington Post news legend focused on the part of the book that personally caused me the greatest concern. While I understand the news value of Harry Reid’s brainless quotes on dialect and skin tone, I was most surprised by the observation of one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides that the New York senator lacked the character to be President of the United States.

    A few thoughts in defense of Secretary Clinton:

    A good deal of the interviews for Game Change were written in the summer of 2008. To put that time frame in perspective, that was at the end of one of the longest, most grueling primary seasons in modern history.

    The Clinton campaign endured a long political death march along a blistering trail that led them from the snows of Iowa and New Hampshire to the bars and bowling alleys of Pennsylvania to the emotionally charged and historic Democratic Convention in Denver. By the end of that brutish season, even the most loyal Clinton supporter could have been excused for temporarily losing their judgment due to exhaustion. Perhaps, in a weak moment, a Clinton supporter lashed out at their boss and blamed her for their spending a year away from family and friends in lousy hotel rooms in godforsaken settings. Maybe this staffer was stunned by Hillary’s failure to close the deal in Iowa or plan beyond Super Tuesday. Maybe, just maybe, this person said something to the authors that they no longer believe.

    I hope that is the case. Because what I saw throughout Hillary’s 2008 campaign was a candidate who kept fighting back even after being badly wounded in Iowa, negligently served by her staff, and treated miserably by a biased press corps.

    Hillary Clinton received what should have been a knockout blow in the election season’s first contest by finishing behind Barack Obama and John Edwards in Iowa. The press smelled blood and rushed in for the quick kill. Pollsters began predicting her demise days before voters marched into the voting booths in New Hampshire. Even Bill Clinton apologized to a group of college supporters the night before the election for not being able to make his wife younger, more exciting, and more articulate.

    I thought the 48 hours before the New Hampshire primary were the most humiliating any national figure of Hillary Clinton’s stature had to endure in recent political history. It was a political execution that was broadcast across the world in slow motion. And it was ugly.

    But Hillary Clinton had other plans. The New York senator shocked every pundit and pollster from Manchester to Manhattan, outperforming the final NH polls by a dozen points or more.

    For the next few months, the Clinton campaign took one body blow after another. The media coverage was deplorable. In fact, it was so biased in some quarters that more than a few living legends of broadcast news privately shared with me the embarrassment they felt toward their own profession.

    Still, Clinton kept fighting on.

    We were told that like New Hampshire, Ohio would be Hillary’s Waterloo. After all, Obama was outspending her there by a margin of 4 to 1.

    She still won.

    Then we were told that Barack Obama’s victory in Texas would seal the deal and make history.

    Hillary won again, despite again being outspent 4 to 1.

    Then pundits told America that West Virginia would be a battleground for the type of blue collar voters that helped put JFK on the path to the White House in 1960. If Obama won there, like another young senator, he would be on his way to the Oval Office.

    But Hillary won yet again, this time by an astounding 41 points.

    The battle next shifted to Pennsylvania, where the two candidates would have a month to make their case to voters. We were told that Pennsylvania would be where Obama would finish Hillary off. After all, the more people got to know Barack Obama, the more they would like him. And, well, the opposite would surely be true of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Working class voters across the Rust Belt got that chance to meet Hillary Clinton up close and personal. So did suburban moms, rural farmers, and urban dwellers. Hillary was dramatically outspent on TV and badly outmaneuvered by a brilliant Obama ground game.

    But at the end of a Tuesday night in April of 2008, Hillary Clinton had once again picked herself up off the floor and won an election that shouldn’t have been close. In fact, this one wasn’t close, but it was Barack Obama who found himself on the wrong side of a lopsided margin.

    In the end, history caught up with the Clinton campaign. Hers was a battle that was doomed from the beginning by a mistaken belief that the Clinton machine would have the Democratic nomination sealed by Super Tuesday. Given her party’s rules for awarding delegates, it was a miscalculation that caused Hillary the Democratic nomination and most certainly the presidency of the United States of America.

    Character is rarely revealed in its sharpest contrast after a glorious victory. Instead, you find out what a person is made of after they sustain a soul crushing defeat. In her long, tortured march toward Denver, Hillary Clinton showed more character, more resilience, and more true grit than any presidential candidate I can recall.

    And in that losing cause, Secretary Clinton served as a great example of character not only for my young daughter, but for us all. It is that type of strength that we need in our leaders now more than ever.

  60. Confloyd,

    Hillary will not run against Obama under any circumstances, short of him switching parties. She will not destroy the only party that currently has a history of successfully expanding human rights in this nation in the past half century. She’ll ride this out and pick up the pieces.

    As for Obama and company, you’re looking at naked pathology here – nothing more. There is nothing strategic at work, no end goal, no big picture, no Machivellian noshes at the table – just the malformed and stunted egos of Obama and his campaign staff lurching and hobbling down the road the only way they can.

  61. Morning Joe was never shy about his admiration for Hillary even and especially during the 08 campaign. People are starting to voice protest against this garbage of a book and lend support to Clintons. Ben Smith, the fool spoke a little too soon.

  62. Even Bill Clinton apologized to a group of college supporters the night before the election for not being able to make his wife younger, more exciting, and more articulate
    *******************

    I don’t remember this…

  63. basement angel, I am just trying to figure out this. Why now? The adminstration is surrounding the wagons for Harry Reid, but not for Hillary, WHY?? Maybe Obama isn’t running in 12′ and the republicans think Hillary will, so their out for blood anyway they can. These two writers are Rino’s anyway, inotherwards the will do what Obama wants.

  64. They are trying to neutralise her for 2010, after all when that disaster comes in Nov, look what happens.

    If the Dems manage to lose the house in 2010 or lose the huge majority, Pelosi is gone, she will be ousted.

    The Dems will lose Reid no doubt in the senate, another one gone, who’s gonna fill that void…..Not Obama, he’s lost his 2 big cheerleaders. The landscape changes and the Clintons will swoop in and take the party back again.

    This is what they fear.

  65. basement angel
    January 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
    Holy moly, I don’t like giving Republicans props but my god, does Morning Joe nail that one.
    —————————————————-

    He was one of the fairer TV pundits during the primary. Imagine what he had to deal with on a daily basis, Mika, Tweety, and Schuster.

    This article was right on and absolutely correct.

  66. “In fact, it was so biased in some quarters that more than a few living legends of broadcast news privately shared with me the embarrassment they felt toward their own profession.”

    ———————-
    To bad they weren’t willing to go public with this at the time. No sympathy for these cowards.

  67. Confloyd,

    They are sociopaths. There is nothing bigger here than the opportunity to destroy something. This is what sociopaths do.

  68. that is a very good article by Joe S…he did consider Hill his ‘girlfriend’…

    just caught sarah on o’rielly…no wonder the establishment dems and repubs FEAR and hate her…whether you agree with her or not, she is so likeable, down to earth and gets in her zingers with a beautiful smile on her face…she has that knack for making people feel like they know her…she is one of them…a genuiness…

    …that kind of reminds me of our girl, Hillary…

  69. The media coverage was deplorable. In fact, it was so biased in some quarters that more than a few living legends of broadcast news privately shared with me the embarrassment they felt toward their own profession.
    ______________________________________
    Why did these so called living legends voice their objectives only in private? Why did they not speak out when they knew their profession was being destroyed? Why did they stand mute while the American People were being deceived.

    Why? Why? Why?

    I will tell you why. Because far from being legendary journalists in the moment of truth they proved to be legendary cowards. It was their duty as elder statesmen of their profession to call the game.

    This was a repeat of the McCarthy era where their colleagues hunted down opponent, both public figures and private citizens and they condemned them not as communists but as racist.

    Those who write books like The Greatest Generation need to be reminded that when the bugle called to defend their profession and their country, they hid out in the root cellar with their stock options afraid to rcck the boat.

    I have got news for these high faletin bastards: the Nirenberg Defense does not cut it. Let that be their epitaph,

  70. that’s right, wbboei…and they, the so-called giants of journalism, continue to do the same thing to this day…and worse…

    just like the puppets in both parties and their party lines and talking points…no wonder we are all longing for smart, honest, independent people who call it truly like it is…instead of the nonstop lies and spin they feed us every day…

    so kudos to Joe S for taking the time to put some truth out there…(although I notice he never cuts Bill a break…)

  71. They are trying to neutralise her for 2010, after all when that disaster comes in Nov, look what happens.

    If the Dems manage to lose the house in 2010 or lose the huge majority, Pelosi is gone, she will be ousted.

    The Dems will lose Reid no doubt in the senate, another one gone, who’s gonna fill that void…..Not Obama, he’s lost his 2 big cheerleaders. The landscape changes and the Clintons will swoop in and take the party back again.

    This is what they fear.
    ———————————————
    If that is true then they shot their wad too early. My sense is the country is not interested in these parlor games. They want results. Campaigning is about inspiration. Governing is about problem solving. And everyone sees politics through the prism of their own lives. Viewed from that perspective, Obama is taking all of us down the River of No Return, and it is over for him–and his big media supporters. A few blips up, perhaps. But the trendline is inexorably downward. I can sum it up for you in one line for WSJ about the economy: Plan A does not work–and there is no Plan B.

  72. …and the divide between what was promised in the campaigning and what is actually manifesting in the governing is HUGE…the trust is crumbling…O will never be able to use all that hope and change, new way of doing business, bipartisan leadership, the most transparent administration, turn a new page, bla, bla, bla, BS again…credibility is gone!

    i was flipping thru channels earlier and even Katrina Von whatever had to admit that the O admin is with the bankers against the people…he has done…what did SNL say…squat for the people that worked so hard for him…Schultz screaming into the camera to O – “don’t abandon your base”

    the bambozzlement isn’t working…

  73. To continue: the problem with Obama is not experience. It is character and judgment. Those kind of flaws are not curable with the passage of time–as the lack of experience would be. On the contrary they grow worse because the mistakes which can be traced to character and judgment are cumulative and become over time insurmountable. His fall from grace is apparent to those with eyes to see.

    If the party suffers devastating losses in November things will shake out. Political leaders who have lost the support of constituents by following him, and see that he has no coattails and have no job waiting for them on K street will reconsider their options, and the alternative. That is when momentum will build for Hillary. But then she will have to consider the pros and cons of it. I agree she will not split the party, and there is also the question of who can I trust. If that scenario materializes I hope she does what is best for the country and runs. But it will require much thought.

  74. and the divide between what was promised in the campaigning and what is actually manifesting in the governing is HUGE…the trust is crumbling…O will never be able to use all that hope and change, new way of doing business, bipartisan leadership, the most transparent administration, turn a new page, bla, bla, bla, BS again…credibility is gone!
    ————————–
    Correct. All politicians make promises they cannot keep. All try to be all things to all people. However, as a rule, they tend to have a fairly consistent philosophy and that is what saves them. Not so Obama. He lied not only about what he would do, but more important he lied about who he is. A big business shill. As the pressure on him continues to build his mental flaws will become more evident to the country and big media will be silenced. Perhaps then legendary cowards like Tom Brokaw will find the courage to speak out, but it does not matter. The American People have figured out what the game is.

  75. Bill is busy caring for the world. He doesn’t have time to respond to lies and gossip.

    ———————-

    Bill Clinton, U.N. Special Envoy for Haiti, On EarthquakeStatement from President Bill Clinton, U.N. Special Envoy for Haiti

    January 12, 2010

    “My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Haiti.

    My U.N. office and the rest of the U.N. system are monitoring the situation, and we are committed to do whatever we can to assist the people of Haiti in their relief, rebuilding and recovery efforts.”

    http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/01/12/bill-clinton-u-n-special-envoy-for-haiti-on-earthquake/

  76. The GOP voters are against this HC bill so the GOP politicians pretend to oppose it. But really the GOP politicians are always on the side of big business (like Obama is). They just want to blame it on the Dems.

    Suppose the Dems didn’t have their 60 votes. Betcha some GOP would suddenly call in sick or something so the bill would pass anyway.

  77. basement angel
    January 12th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
    Hillary will not run against Obama under any circumstances, short of him switching parties. She will not destroy the only party that currently has a history of successfully expanding human rights in this nation in the past half century. She’ll ride this out and pick up the pieces.

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

    Yes. That’s why we need to empower the few friends who can help her pick up the pieces — such as Coakley.

  78. Perhaps, in a weak moment, a Clinton supporter lashed out at their boss and blamed her for their spending a year away from family and friends in lousy hotel rooms in godforsaken settings.

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

    What evidence is there that this anonymous Clinton ‘staffer’ existed or ever said any such thing?

    Probably the authors just made it up — like what they said someone said Ted said Bill said.

  79. basement angel
    January 12th, 2010 at 5:14 pm

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

    How do we know it’s really ‘Democrats’ critizing other Democrats? Halperin, the author, is GOP, he worked against Clinton in 1992. He has every motive to take apart Democrats — and blame it on other Democrats.

    For all we know he made the whole thing up.

  80. With all respect, defeat that begins by crushing a delegate who voted for HIllary on the floor of Denver and who has fought for years for Hillary’s values — will not teach the Dims that Hillary’s values are the way to go.

    We need to show that we will crush Hillary’s enemies and support Hillary’s friends.

  81. birdgal
    January 12th, 2010 at 2:49 pm

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

    When asked about the HOUSE version she said she would vote against any bill which included that language against abortion. When asked about the SENATE version she said that it had different abortion language so that she could “reluctantly” vote for a final version with that less harsh language.

    This is not a flip flop. This is drawing a line in the sand between the two versions and making demands — which may very well be met! This is fighting and getting somewhere.

  82. Gibbs’ non-answers:

    QUESTION: C-Span television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?

    GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….

    First note that the reporter never mentioned a ‘letter.’ Regardless, he wouldn’t need to see it. That’s a throwaway phrase. Gibby knows what the letter said, as does everyone else who wasn’t in an alcoholic stupor for the past few days. Right after that deflection he changes to a tangential statement (“President…begin…discussions”) that sounds *kind of* related but really has nothing to do with the question as asked.

    So there you go, he answered the question loud and clear: “Fuck no, we’re not putting it on C-Span”. It’s phrased to avoid giving out a damning soundbite, of course, but it could only be more clear if he wrote it on your forehead with a Sharpie.

    Moving on:


    Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:

    QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can’t you answer the C-Span question —

    GIBBS: I did.

    QUESTION: You didn’t, because you said —

    GIBBS: I said I hadn’t seen the letter, which I haven’t —

    QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN —

    GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven’t read the letter.

    QUESTION: Well, I’ll just ask you about having it on C-Span —

    GIBBS: I answered Dan’s question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President’s number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…

    As usual Gibby goes from 0 to caught in the headlights in mere seconds. The best he can do is break out the Monty Python Dead Parrot skit (“You didn’t answer the question….yes I did”). God bless him, that’s why he’s so entertaining to watch. If his clownassery isn’t a strategy, all I can think of is that he bought all those campaign promises and now drinks himself to sleep every night.

    Back to the analysis, this clarifies things a bit further. We already knew the answer was fuck no. Now we know we’re at “Fuck no, and let us never speak of this again.”

    Of course, there’s more:


    Fast forward to Wednesday’s briefing. Another question from another reporter:

    QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of — quoting one — “all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public.” Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

    GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday’s transcript.

    QUESTION: But today is today and —

    GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one —

    QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it’s been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?

    GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

    QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-Span?

    GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.

    QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday —

    GIBBS: And I addressed that —

    QUESTION: — pressed for something that’s in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

    GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.

    Another reporter took up the questioning:

    QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see —

    GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?

    QUESTION: Speaking for myself —

    GIBBS: Just a guess.

    QUESTION: That’s not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.

    GIBBS: So the answer is —

    QUESTION: I deal with the information that —

    GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?

    QUESTION: Right, but that’s got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I’m saying would people benefit by having more information?

    GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you’ve reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?

    QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care —

    GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything —

    QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime —

    GIBBS: And he’ll do so today.

    QUESTION: — and pressed them to —

    GIBBS: Do you have another question?

  83. American Republic replaced by “Council of Governors”?

    Tuesday, January 12, 2010

    Quietly—even stealthily—in the opening days of the New Year, President Barack Obama has set up a “Council of Governors”.

    Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people’s nor the congress’s blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal.

    “Is this a first step towards Martial Law, or a tie to the InterPol, RAND National Police Force stuff we’ve been hearing about,” asked a Texas patriot who tipped off Canada Free Press (CFP) after finding news of the new Council of Governors on Twitter. “Is this a sort of Homeland Security Politburo?

    “I do know it’s another sleuth order executed without any announcement, OR EXPLANATION to the People.”

    Patriots know by now that the promised Obama “transparency” is a fog.

    Checking the Net on the Council of Governors, CFP found other than a few blogs only UPI.com had the story as of this morning:

    President Barack Obama Monday established a panel of state governors to collaborate with Washington on a variety of potential emergencies, the White House said.” (UPI.com, Jan. 11, 2010 at 11:54 p.m.).

    “Obama signed an executive order establishing a panel to be known as the Council of Governors, which will be made up of 10 state governors, to be selected by the president to serve two-year terms. Members will review matters involving the National Guard; homeland defense; civil support; and synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States, the White House said in a statement.

    “The statement said the White House would seek input from governors and governors’ association (sic) in deciding which governors to appoint to the council,
    which will have no more than five governors from the same party.

    “The secretaries of defense and homeland security will also sit on the council, as will presidential assistants for homeland security and counter-terrorism, intergovernmental affairs, the U.S. Northern Command commander, the commander of the East Coast Guard, and the chief of the National Guard Bureau.

    “The panel was set up under a provision of the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, the White House said.”

    continue reading this one folks!!

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18890

  84. VIA INFOWARS: In other words, the Pentagon and Homeland Security will give hand-picked governors their marching orders under the guise of “synchronization and integration of State and Federal military activities in the United States,” a direct violation of Posse Comitatus.

  85. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/internal-memo-to-top-dem-donors-warns-mass-senate-race-is-very-tight-urgent/

    In a sign of serious worry about the increasingly tense battle for Ted Kennedy’s seat, the Democratic National Committee and the Martha Coakley campaign have blasted a private memo to top national Dem donors claiming internal polling shows the race is “very tight” and making an “urgent” appeal for donations.

    The memo, which was sent over by a source, is the latest sign that the campaign surge of GOPer Scott Brown has caught the Dem establishment off guard. It admits that the mobilization by big national conservative groups for Brown is “working” and acknowledges that the Dem camaign is “having trouble moving independents.”

    “Our internal polling shows the race to be a very tight race that means we must do everything we can to ensure we are victorious,” reads the memo, which was written by Coakley’s finance chairman and sent to top donors late yesterday by the DNC.

    “This additional assistance being spent on Brown’s behalf seems to be working,” the memo continues, alluding to outside cash being spent by groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth. “Polling shows that Republican voters are more energized than Democrats and that we are having trouble moving Independents.”

    “We have a battle on our hands,” the memo continues, beseeching donors to “max out” with a contribution of $2400. “We cannot win this race unless everyone comes together and gives this race everything they can.”

    The memo’s claim that the Coakley campaign’s internal polling shows the race to be “very tight” appears at odds with another leaked internal Dem poll that showed Coakley with a double-digit lead.

    Separately, Ben Smith reports that the DNC is poised to sink $500,000 into the race — still another sign that national Dems see the need for an urgent last-minute push to salvage Kennedy’s seat.

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

    Update: On a private conference call with top Dem donors today, Martha Coakley acknowledged that Scott Brown’s surge has been “frightening.”

  86. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/massachusetts/election_2010_massachusetts_special_senate_election

    The Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election has gotten tighter, but the general dynamics remain the same.

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley attracting 49% of the vote while her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, picks up 47%.

    Three percent (3%) say they’ll vote for independent candidate Joe Kennedy, and two percent (2%) are undecided. The independent is no relation to the late Edward M. Kennedy, whose Senate seat the candidates are battling to fill in next Tuesday’s election.

    Coakley is supported by 77% of Democrats while Brown picks up the vote from 88% of Republicans. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Brown leads 71% to 23%. To be clear, this lead is among unaffiliated voters who are likely to participate in the special election.

    A week ago, the overall results showed Coakley leading by a 50% to 41% margin. The closeness of the race in heavily Democratic Massachusetts has drawn increasing national interest, and Brown made it clear in the final candidate debate last night that a vote for him is a vote to stop the national health care plan Democrats are pushing in Congress.

  87. TurnDownObama,

    We know this because a lot of the gossip is stuff that came from inside the campaigns. Carville says that 80% comes from Solis-Doyle. Some of Edwards’ staff are on record about what they did.

    Yes, this is a handful of Dems wreaking vengeance at the expense of the Democratic party.

  88. We know this because a lot of the gossip is stuff that came from inside the campaigns.

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

    That PURPORTS to come from inside the campaigns.

  89. basement angel, If Carville says that 80% of what is in that book came from Solis-Doyle, then its straight out of the mouth of the Obama campaign. Didn’t she go to work for Axelrove after Hillary fired her?? So with what you are saying Axelrove is behind this. I imagine that they knew his poll numbers were going to drop because they knew his policies that he campaigned on were bogus and were never met to be. THey knew people would start realizing that he was just Bush III. This is too garner sympathy for the man, that is all this is. These guys could have released this book months ago. They saved this and when it was the right time they let it go out.

    No doubt this meeting on Friday with Bill Clinton, then one with Hillary directly afterwards was to tell them about the book. I bet it had nothing to do with HC or anything else except this.

  90. I heard on morning NPR news SoS HRC speaking about the US providing aid to Haiti, in response to the earthquake.

    Meanwhile, PoS BHO will be doing a “green jobs” photo op.

    She’s busy, and handling world events. Obama just spins his wheels.

  91. Mr. 45%

    realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/13/quinnpiac-obama-approval-at-45/

    January 13th, 2010
    Quinnpiac: Obama Approval at 45%
    Posted by Tom Bevan | Email This | Permalink | Email Author

    A new Quinnipiac national survey shows the public evenly split on President Obama’s job approval rating. The 45% job approval is his lowest to date in the Quinnipiac poll, and his 45% disapproval rating is his highest.

    Overall, Obama’s job approval is now 47.6% in the RCP Average and his disapproval is at 45.8%.

    The public is equally split at 45/45 on the question of whether President Obama’s first year in office was “mainly” a success or a failure. Among the crucial group of registered Independents, 40% view Obama’s first year as a success while 47% view it as a failure.

    Obama’s handling of specific issues declined again this month, reaching new lows across the board:

    Creating Jobs: 34% approve (-3 vs. last poll 12/09)/59% disapprove (+3)
    Health Care: 35 (-3)/58 (+2)
    Economy: 41 (-3), 54 (+3)
    Afghanistan: 45 (-2)/45 (+2)
    Foreign Policy: 45 (-1)/46 (+2)

    Other notables from the Quinnipiac poll:

    Democrats in Congress currently have a 32% job approval rating, down from a high of 45% last March.

    Republicans in Congress have an equally anemic 32% job approval rating, but that actually represents their best showing to date in the Quinnipiac survey.

    Only 2% are “very” satisfied with the way things are going in the country, with another 25% “somewhat” satisfied. On the other hand, 41% are “very” dissatisfied with the direction of the country and another 31% are “somewhat” dissatisfied.

    Despite Obama’s sinking approval ratings, 43% still rate him as “better than George W. Bush,” while 30% say his is worse than Bush and 23% say he is “about the same” as Bush.

    35% believe the country would be “better off” if John McCain had won the 2008 election, 37% believe we’d be “worse off” and 17% believes it didn’t make a difference.

    Among the few bright spots for Obama, large majorities still regard him favorably as a person. 56% say he is “honest and trustworthy” and 66% say he has “strong leadership qualities.”

    Perhaps the worst news for Obama is that a majority (53%) believe he’s been “fiscally irresponsible” during his first year in office, including 58% of Independents.

  92. Either the GOP is serious about dismantling the HC bill when they gain seats Nov 2010, or not.

    If they are not serious, and secretly want the bill, then if the Dims lose their 60 votes, the GOP will find some way to let it pass anyway (blaming the Dems).

    If they are serious, then the question becomes, just how much damage can the bill actually do before they dismantle it, and how much of that damage can be corrected after they dismantle it. Answering this would mean looking closely at what year each provision would take effect.

    The remaining damage needs to be balanced against the damage that anti-choice, anti-gay Brown would do in other areas during his 6-year term as Senator (or would it be a 2-year term?), and lack of the good things that Coakley would do during such a term.

    Politically, the ambiguous impact of crushing an ally of HIllary, needs to be weighed vs the backlash against Obama that would come from passage of the bill.

    There’s also the possibility that Coakley (a tough prosecutor) who refused to vote for the House version, may refuse to vote for the final version too, if it resembles the House version more than it resembles the Senate version.

  93. Jan 13 2010
    by Marc Ambinder

    The Clinton Machines Lives — And Matures

    On Tuesday, Ben Smith, a long-time Clinton chronicler at Politico, fronted a clever story heralding the demise of the Clinton political machine, which has remained virtually silent since a passel of unflattering revelations leaked out this weekend about the revelations in Game Change.

    Smith observed that many senior Clinton advisers were probably sources for the authors and couldn’t very well be asked to respond to characterizations they themselves made. This, he concludes, was a violation of the ultimate Clinton world taboo: “These people have violated the Clinton world’s final taboo: After savaging one another in the press for more than a year, the former aides finally turned on the principals.”

    Not denied were thinly sourced reports that Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair in 2007 (half a sentence in the book), or that Clinton offended Ted Kennedy by ridiculing Obama, or that Hillary Clinton had encouraged campaign aides to play up Obama’s early-in-life drug use.

    Maybe the Clintons don’t need defending.

    Silence does not necessarily equate to an acknowledgment of accuracy — and unbrebutted charges, in this instance, might not mean, ultimately, that the Clinton machine is dead, but rather, that it has matured into the new role.

    One year ago, in fact, the Clinton rapid-response political operation decided to shut down. There have been five major books since then, including a blockbuster by historian Taylor Branch. The Clinton world has uttered nary a peep. It’s also worth noting that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton participated in interviews with the books’ authors.

    Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State. She is no longer in the political swamp. And she is comporting herself as a diplomat, not a politician. Obama has long since forgiven her. They have a very solid working relationship

    Chapters written about the Clintons rely heavily on two sources. One of them, former strategist Mark Penn, has acknowledged talking to the reporters. The other, Patti Solis Doyle, has refused to comment. (The authors relied on reporting by the Atlantic’s Joshua Green, who was the first to disclose that Penn had polled for Clinton in 2004 and that Hillaryland had created a war room within a war room to deal with President Clinton.)

    The ability to fight back exists. Cheryl Mills, a Clinton insider, is now Clinton’s chief of staff at the Department of State. Philippe Reines is a senior adviser there. They were at the tip of the spear when the Clinton machine kicked into operation for previous books, including Ed Klein’s 2007 tome “The Truth About Hillary.”. Bill Clinton’s Harlem office remains intact with the same players, including Matt McKenna, his spokesman, and Doug Band, his counselor. They’re not shrinking violets. In this case, they’ve chosen not to respond. Why drag the Clintons into the book’s 15 minutes of fame? The only result would be more publicity for the authors and more distractions for both Clintons.
    By the way: it is in some ways a testament to both of their relationships with President Obama that the Clintons have not litigated the book’s allegations in the press. Her working relationship with President Obama is solid and effective after a year. If the White House, or President Obama, were worried about the Clinton revelations, trust me, the circumstances would be different.

    Who’s the U.N. envoy to Haiti? Former President Clinton. Will his office spend time coordinating his efforts? Or would their time be better spent responding to a paraphrase of a comment said to someone who is now deceased?

    The book alleges that Ted Kennedy took President Clinton’s comments — that Barack Obama would have been getting them coffee five years ago — as a supreme insult, and insinuated that Kennedy believed it had racial implications. There is something especially tawdry and even dangerous about debating something a dead man heard or said. It’s disrespectful. And distracting.

    Those Clinton loyalists who remain — and there are plenty — disagree with the premise of the book, which is that Hillary Clinton mismanaged her candidacy, They believe that the campaign did not live up to the candidate. Those who believed that Clinton herself was fundamentally flawed — and one assumes that Ms. Solis Doyle is among those — are no longer part of the inner circle.

    For the record, here’s what Halperin and Heilemann told Don Imus about the passage in question.

    HEILEMANN: I think because they’re quoting from the book. The Kennedy part is not and the Clinton part is not a quote. That is a quote from the book of the paraphrase from the book. Does that make sense?

    DON IMUS: No, that’s weak. Anyway, a few years ago this guy Obama would have been getting us coffee. What did he say?(CROSSTALK)

    HALPERIN: Well, he said something just like that.

    DON IMUS: Like, what?

    HALPERIN: Well, we just — again, because we knew that, that was an important quote, would get a lot of attention, as our sources tried to remember what was said, they didn’t agree on the exact language. They agreed on the gist precisely. But we didn’t want to be in the position of quoting something that sensitive in quotation marks without again as I’ve said, the very high level we were using. So, there’s no doubt that, that is more than the essence of what he said. It’s very close. The differences in the versions we’ve heard were not very far, one or two words in two cases but we didn’t want to put it in quotes.

    HEILEMANN: And just to be further clear, in this case in the book, we are very specific, we say, this is what Kennedy reported to some of his friends.DON IMUS: Right.

    HEILEMANN: Claimed that Bill Clinton said. So, we even took it a little further out. A lot of other cases we’ll just say, you know, Bill Clinton said, the following for Ted Kennedy for sure that happened. All we can say in this case is the Kennedy told people that’s what Bill Clinton said that something very close to that and it enraged Kennedy because he took it as a pretty serious slam on Obama with some kind of negative racial connotations

    DON IMUS: You guys have been very careful to say that all of these sources, (INAUDIBLE), most of them, you knew. So, you were able to determine the veracity of their statements with in fact. Because, you had experience, probably but it’s been my experience, not being a reporter but just common sense, that when somebody tells you what somebody else said, that sometimes a lot gets lost. And as an example, well, I say things about people on the radios which often are icky things, you know, and then it gets reported to these various people. It is always far worse than what I actually said.

    HALPERIN: Well, look, that is the nature of the different challenge of reporting. Here’s what we did to try to mitigate that as much as possible

    http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/01/game_over_the_clintons_stand.php

  94. An excerpt from Ben Smith’s Obama-fellating piece about the book Game Change:

    “That is the book’s central theme: that Clinton, John Edwards, and John McCain were all brought down by their personal flaws, and probably deserved to be. Obama alone matches up, more or less, to his public portrait.”

    So in this book, everyone in the whole world is a lot nastier and pettier in private, where “quotes” are attributed them, stuff fake words in their mouth…Everyone except Barack Hussein Obama, whose internal sterling qualities match up to the sterling image brought to us by MSM spinmeisters.

    So what about Obama breaking every campaign promise???

    Ben Smith: “He campaigned in poetry, but he’s governing in prose”.

    Yeah. Right.

    As for “the Clintons are now left alone”, Hillary Clinton is extremely productive and making her situation work the best she can. We don’t know how much she is shut out from Obama inner circle types. Assuming that she is, anyone can see how things are being run under her watch, and how badly Obama’s meddling in world matters is ineffective.

    Bill is busy with his world travels, and if Bill is such a huge pariah, why is Obama summoning him to the White House, pushing back his speech on the Christmas plane attack?

    This Game Change book is a steaming pile of shit, an obvious hit job, an obvious attempt to right the listing Obama reputation. The wealthy people who bought and paid for Obama to do their bidding, and who personally said he was what the counry needed, are covering their asses.

    But a silly book cannot change the obvious facts: Obama is unprepared and unqualified to run the country. So why would anyone close to the Clintons, and especially Bill and Hill themselves, jump up and protest??? Then Ben Smith, “Hillary protesteth too much”. When she rightfully ignores the issue (Smith implies that she “conveniently scheduled to be out of town for a while”, apparently she has some kind of day job that entails traveling), he then can say that “in light of this silence, all the bullshit in the book must be true”.

    The trouble with this is that no matter how much the media try to spin things, Obama is still a terrible president, who broke just about every campaign promise. And Hillary is still an amazing and effective political figure.

  95. Coakley versus Brown

    When’s the last time we were the recipient of the Senate or House actually doing something productive for the country and for which we could characterize as “good”? I believe the focus truly must be on immediately mitigating the continued damage that the Obama-majority Congress is inflicting on the U.S. This can translate only to one thing: vote for Brown, and in true Chicago thuggery form, vote often.

  96. rgb44hrc (8:21 Today)
    Last night on the local news, I noticed the same thing. A statement was read from OO about Haiti, and then they went to Hawaii, and there she was, looking and sounding Presidental speaking from behind a podium, stating what a leader should say.

    My thoughts and prayers are with the Haiti people. There are so many poor people there, this event will make their lives much harder.

  97. I don’t ever purposely go to this site, but ended up there following articles around..anyways, Found this tidbit at heritage foundation site and thought it important to bring to the ” The Big pink round table”.
    ***************************

    In the ongoing attempts of Congress to find an alternative to the “public plan” in health reform, the Senate bill includes a provision to give the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which oversees the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) a new role: sponsoring health plans to compete against private health plans in every state in the nation. Heritage expert Ed Haislmaier has studied the provisions responsible for this new role for OPM, and finds that OPM’s new power would go well beyond its current capacity and allow for the creation of a de facto public option.

    As Kay Cole James, a former director of OPM, points out the FEHBP works because OPM plays the neutral role of an umpire: federal employees choose the private plan they like from a wide variety of different plans, all of which compete against each other to attract the most enrollees. The federal government provides its employees with a defined contribution towards their health costs, and it doesn’t micromanage their choices. OPM allows variety and flexibility in the program, and limits its regulatory role to ensuring consumer protections. Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) proposal would have OPM sponsor new multi-state plans. OPM would set the premiums for plans it sponsors.

    This new role for OPM is the Senate alternative to the House passed “public option”. But ordinary Americans should be leery of the difference. According to James, “this arrangement seems to be a “public option” in “private” option disguise… Because OPM would not merely serve as the umpire overseeing competition among private health plans. It would also become a health-plan sponsor, fielding its own team of players to compete against the existing private plans in every state.”

    Given this new role, OPM could engineer a crowd out other private insurers in the market. Furthermore, Section 1334 of the Senate health care bill allocates “such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section”. If the OPM-sponsored health plans were not profitable, it is thus conceivable that the taxpayer could end up footing the bill. This, along with the federal power to set rates and benefits, could easily end up as the public option that Senate liberals envisioned all along.

    Says James, “OPM’s job is to serve the federal civilian work force and its retirees, while enforcing merit principles in hiring and stopping prohibited personnel practices. It’s not OPM’s job to compete against private health plans.” The best features of the FEHBP- broad consumer choice and intense Multi-plan competition, free of heavy regulation and massive bureaucracy, and governed by approximately 80 pages of statutory text- are worthy of replication. Giving OPM the power to sponsor “multi-state” health plans in competition against the private sector is not the same thing.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/12/dont-draft-opm-into-fight-for-government-run-health-care/

  98. Since I am covered by the FEHBP I feel I have some knowledge about this. I felt, for the most part, this has worked well for us.

    However, I have experienced where Hospitals don’t have to honor the health care plans set up with the government. For instance right now our major hospital will not negoitate and thus accept BCBS. If you are under medicare, you are OK, but if you are not, then you must pay the hospital, and wait for reimbursement from the health care provider. I have never experienced this before, and this has been going on for about 4 years now. The hospital has their own plan, and it is speculated that they are trying to put pressure on people to change to their plan.

    So what ever happened to the health care community taking care of the people and doing no harm. Obviously, greed is their main emotion.

  99. SARAH PALIN: “INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE”

    If SP interviews Squat, here are some questions she may have for him:

    “That chair looks pretty comfy. Nice, huh?”
    “Which schools do you recommend for the kids?
    “Who picked out your drapes?”

  100. BROUGHT THE CAR TO THE MECHANIC, BUT IT STILL IS MAKING THAT TERRIBLE SOUND. DAMN MECHANIC DOESN’T KNOW WHAT HE’S DOING.

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/13/faux_recovery_99868.html

    January 13, 2010
    Faux Recovery
    By David Harsanyi

    One glorious day, all of us will awaken in our mixed-use neighborhoods, rustle up nutritious garden-grown breakfasts and pedal our bikes to “green-collar” jobs using paths generously provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

    As of this moment, however, the “green energy economy” is incapable of spurring the taillights on a motor scooter (much less an economic recovery) without a backup gas-powered generator and government subsidy.

    Why, then — just as we learned that 85,000 Americans “unexpectedly,” as news stories put it, had lost their jobs last month — did the Obama administration pin recovery hopes on a colossally misguided social engineering project?

    We’re not talking about last year’s colossally misguided stimulus plan, which “created” and/or “saved” an incalculable number of nonexistent jobs in various imaginary ZIP codes — though we do continue to learn more about that slapdash experiment.

    At the time of the stimulus debate, President Barack Obama asserted that the “urgent need to accelerate job growth” would be tied to spending on (ethically approved) transportation projects. Yet The Associated Press reported this week that unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much money Washington doled out; the report was reviewed by independent economists at five universities.

    No, this time the administration will renew its focus on stimulus through a new “green jobs” boondoggle. President Obama announced this week that Washington will offer $2.3 billion in tax credits for “clean energy” jobs. Using his very own pie-in-the-sky calculations, it puts the cost of every job at a tax-financed $135,000.

    The uncalculated part of the above equation is this: Bogus jobs kill real jobs. At Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University, for instance, a study found that in Spain — the very country Obama has held out as the exemplar of greening (and with only a 19-plus percent unemployment rate!) — every green job created had destroyed 2.2 jobs in other sectors of the economy.

    The administration plans on spreading an additional $100 million of wealth on green job training and another $500 million on energy efficiency and renewable energy companies — on top of the billions already subsidizing these sectors on the state and federal levels. It is a deeply unserious way to pretend to assist American recovery.

    For instance, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis — announcing the green effort on The Huffington Post — claims that green jobs will increase American competitiveness by preparing workers for “a range of careers,” including “weatherization specialists, wind and energy auditors, and solar panel installers.”

    Yep, that should do it.

    One can forgive Solis for her absurdity, I suppose, as she never, from what I can tell, has held a paying position that wasn’t footed by taxpayers — a trend in this administration.

    Now, despite this effort to mold the economy to ideological tastes by predetermining which industries should succeed and fail, real jobs will return one day — and it will have nothing to do with any high-minded legislation that layers on more centralized economic control.

    In the meantime, utilizing unemployment fears, this administration continues to pursue social policy through faux stimulus plans, funneling money into acceptable sectors, no matter how inefficient, no matter how unviable, no matter how unsustainable.

    What we’ve learned is that the Obama administration will do anything humanly possible to rescue the economy, as long as it doesn’t relieve the pressure on the private sector. After all, this president explained last year that he believes “only government” can get us out of our troubles.

    And that’s our biggest problem now.

  101. Many, perhaps most, Democrats still can’t see the forest for the trees. They’re hung up on this or that issue and which party or candidate stands for one thing or the other, but the many many issues are not the issue now. The only real issue now is how to restore the corrupted Democratic Party, and we can only do it by smacking them down again and again till the Obamanuts are out and the party can be restored by the FDR coalition.

    Coakley, for example, may have done good things in the past, but she stands ready now to support the screw-the-people-Obamacare-insurance plan. Her campaign is being financed by the drug and insurance companies. Can she now fight against them? Of course not. Coakley is cooked.

    Please re read this upthread post. ADMIN puts the case soo well.

    • admin
    January 12th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
    TurndownObama, the rise of the GOP is a consequence of what happened in 2008. The Obama situation comedy coalition is unsustainable. Only now are some beginning to realize how right we have been about that.
    Progressives/Liberals/Democrats who want to prevent the GOP from taking power for generations must realize that the Democratic Party needs to repudiate the Obama Party and the sooner and faster the better. If the Dims do not overthrow Obama and his coalition and restore the white working class to the fold along with the rest of the FDR coalition, that Hillary won in 2008, they will be in the desert for generations.
    The illusion created by Dimocratic “intellectuals” such as Kilgore and Texiera is that the country’s changing demographics will mean generations of Dimocratic rule. We cited Rubio in Florida as an example of how the GOP will adjust to the changing demographics and find candidates to appeal to Latinos (who can be culturally and socially very conservative). The GOP will similarly adapt and appeal to other demographics. We have seen the changed strategy and tactics from the GOP in Virginia and New Jersey already.
    The significance of Massachusetts is that we are seeing how the GOP is able to expand its appeal to white working class voters with someone like Scott Brown (there are many reports of how well he is doing even in South Boston). Brown (like McDonnell in Virginia and Christie in NJ) is concentrating on the GOP strategy of fiscal probity and jobs. Fiscal probity will soon enough emerge as what the GOP stands for as they try to stay away from social issues (for now).
    What we are saying is that Democrats who want the things you cite are going to have to do what happened after George McGovern captured the party in 1972 (with the same strategy and coalition as Obama). After 1972 McGovern essentially led the party back to sanity as he surrendered claims to leadership of the party and chaired the McGovern reforms. The difference this time, which makes matters much more difficult is that Obama won in 2008.
    The results of November 2008 mean that Dimocrats might think that the Obama victory was something other than a fluke. And it was a fluke attributable to 8 years of Bush and the country going down the wrong track culminating in the economic disaster which struck just as McCain was gathering steam and ahead of Obama. If Dimocrats believe that Obama won because of his coalition they will never do what was done after the 1972 disaster. And, they will remain out of power for generations.
    That’s why we say that Dimocrats must face massive defeat, after defeat, after defeat – as a lesson to go back to what works – the FDR coalition. Without these defeats Dimocrats will cling bitterly to hope that they will win again, some time in the future and the damage will never be undone, or we will have to wait a very long time for the damage to be reversed. With crushing defeat it is possible that sanity will return.

  102. RHETORICAL SKILLS: DIMINISHING, OR A FIGMENT?

    In talking about Obama’s descending oratorical skills, it raises the question: Wasn’t Obama’s supposed rhetorical brilliance a fabrication by a fawning media seeking to make the race to the White House more interesting (“Let’s make the inexperienced Junior black senator who is lagging at the back of the pack, and turn him into a competitive front runner; now THERE’S a story; media makes a president out of clay”), and a collaborative effort between MSM and Obama’s campaign team?

    For all the times I heard him in debates, I kept wondering, “What great speaker are they talking about???”.

    Two money quotes from the full article below:

    1. “Nothing has been more damning than the praise of Obama’s defenders. James Fallows of the Atlantic says, “I’m not saying that his big set-piece speeches are cliche-free. … Often they’re not even that ‘well written,’ in a fancy-phrasemaking sense.” And further: “Indeed, I can hardly remember any phrase or sentence from any speech Obama has ever given.” Obama does not need “fine language” or “rhetorical polish” because he has the “eloquence that comes from original thought.” Another defender has praised Obama’s avoidance of “gratuitous bids for Bartlett’s.”

    2. “Even Obama’s well-constructed lectures — such as his Philadelphia race speech, or his Cairo remarks — are marred by a transparent rhetorical ploy. In Obama’s running seminar, a flawed thesis and a flawed antithesis are always resolved by the synthesis of Obama himself — the speaker as Hegelian culmination of history. In this way, Obama manages to be both academic and arrogant. Instead of exploring the genuinely historic nature of his time, he veers toward messianism.”

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/13/no_inspiration_obama_99870.html

    January 13, 2010
    Obama’s Speeches Become a Weak Point
    ===================================

    By Michael Gerson

    WASHINGTON — Along with President Obama’s declining public standing has come a declining rhetorical reputation. There is, of course, a relationship between the two. Even Ronald Reagan seemed a less-than-great communicator after the 1981-82 recession, with his job approval in the 30s. And few would be criticizing Obama’s speeches if unemployment now stood at 6 percent. Success is the best eloquence.

    But Obama’s rhetorical challenge runs deeper than the recession. In the most unexpected development of his presidency, what was once universally recognized as Obama’s greatest political strength — his oratory — now seems a serious weakness.

    The swift rise of Barack Obama was primarily a literary phenomenon. His accomplishments did not come on the Senate floor; they came at Barnes & Noble. His two autobiographies, along with his 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, raised expectations of a rhetorical golden age. One early profile in New York magazine referred to Obama as “our national oratorical superhero — a honey-tongued Frankenfusion of Lincoln, Gandhi, Cicero, Jesus and all our most cherished national acronyms (MLK, JFK, RFK, FDR).”

    But Obama went from this exaggerated expectation to his current workmanlike utterances on health care and Afghanistan without an intervening period of remarkable eloquence. His acceptance speech was flat and typical. His inauguration was an extraordinarily historic moment — which went uncelebrated by a comparably historic utterance. Obama’s speeches to Congress and the American people have generally been explanatory rather than inspirational. His demeanor at West Point — in a speech arguing for new sacrifices in the Afghanistan War — was so stone-cold sober that one was left longing for happy hour.

    Nothing has been more damning than the praise of Obama’s defenders. James Fallows of the Atlantic says, “I’m not saying that his big set-piece speeches are cliche-free. … Often they’re not even that ‘well written,’ in a fancy-phrasemaking sense.” And further: “Indeed, I can hardly remember any phrase or sentence from any speech Obama has ever given.” Obama does not need “fine language” or “rhetorical polish” because he has the “eloquence that comes from original thought.” Another defender has praised Obama’s avoidance of “gratuitous bids for Bartlett’s.” Another concludes, “Maybe we don’t need an inspiring president right now.”

    Unasked is the question: Why can’t original thought and intellectual seriousness also be expressed in speeches that are well written, cliche-free, polished, inspiring and memorable?

    There are passages from Obama speeches that embody all these things — parts of his Nobel Prize speech come to mind. But they mainly serve as reminders of what is too often missing. Even Obama’s well-constructed lectures — such as his Philadelphia race speech, or his Cairo remarks — are marred by a transparent rhetorical ploy. In Obama’s running seminar, a flawed thesis and a flawed antithesis are always resolved by the synthesis of Obama himself — the speaker as Hegelian culmination of history. In this way, Obama manages to be both academic and arrogant. Instead of exploring the genuinely historic nature of his time, he veers toward messianism. His arrival is “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

    But Obama’s largest rhetorical failure has come at times of crisis — when a president’s words matter most, and the time to craft them is most limited. His reactions to the Fort Hood murders and the Christmas Day attack were oddly disconnected from the emotions of the country he represents. His speech at Fort Hood was strong on paper but delivered with all the passion of remarks to the Chamber of Commerce. His recent White House speech on the terrorist threat was bureaucratic and bloodless. Both grief and resolve seem beyond his rhetorical range. People once thought Obama could sound eloquent reading the phone book. Now, whatever the topic, it often sounds as though he is.

    His defenders, once again, elevate this into a virtue. He is an emotionally disciplined grown-up. But at least since Reagan, the rhetorical expectations of an American president have included not only mental toughness but empathy — the ability to wear the nation’s emotions on his sleeve. People want their president to be both the father and the mother of his country — a talent shared by politicians as diverse as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (whose speeches I once helped write).

    Obama’s model, instead, is the coolness of Coolidge. It is old-fashioned. It may even be admirable. It is hard to call it effective. With every speech, a realization grows: A president lacking in drama may also be lacking in inspiration.

  103. “…….Sidney Blumenthal, is depicted as buying into “the darkest anti-Obama rumors”. Hillary needed more Sidney’s not less. If there is a criticism to be made of the Hillary campaign it is that Obama was not confronted more vigorously and more brutally. But Hillary could not do that because some of the elected officials who were supposedly on her side were secretly helping Obama and protested anytime the truth about Obama was told by the campaign…..”

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

    100% CORRECT ADM.

  104. Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State. She is no longer in the political swamp. And she is comporting herself as a diplomat, not a politician. Obama has long since forgiven her.
    ****************
    Other than this, which brings the question to mind of…forgiven what exactly, Marc’s article is right on…and Don Imus is a better reporter than all the main media whores!!!

  105. ANOTHER PLOY

    Does this guy do anything else aside from misdirection ploys that try to give the illusion that he is fighting for the common man? In reality, he fights against the common man.

    This “bank tax” issue is more of the same; empty posturing, calling an industry’s CEO’s out for a fake whipping, and then rewarding them for participating in the dog and pony show.

    Let me guess, in order to quell outrage over bank bail outs with little oversights, and then watching them haul in huge year end bonuses, the most important thing is for the president to be seen as “mad as heck” and “doing something about it”.

    If banks are going to get stuck with some fee or tax, how likely is it that the cost will be passed onto their customers…the very same people who are the “tax payers” that Obama wants to be seen as so concerned about.

    nytimes.com/2010/01/12/business/economy/12bailout.html?ref=politics

    Obama Weighs Tax on Banks to Cut Deficit
    =====================================

    By JACKIE CALMES
    Published: January 11, 2010

    WASHINGTON — President Obama will try to recoup for taxpayers as much as $120 billion of the money spent to bail out the financial system, most likely through a tax on large banks, administration and Congressional officials said Monday.

    The president has yet to settle on the details, and his senior economic advisers are weighing a number of options as they finish the budget proposal Mr. Obama will release next month.

    The general idea is to devise a levy that would help reduce the budget deficit, which is now at a level not seen since World War II, and would also discourage the kinds of excessive risk-taking among financial institutions that led to a near collapse of Wall Street in 2008, the officials said.

    But the president also has a political purpose — to respond to the anger building across the country as big banks, having been rescued by the taxpayers, report record profits and begin paying out huge bonuses while millions of Americans remain out of work.

    The administration previously rejected two ideas that have received much attention in recent months: a transaction tax on financial trades and a special tax on executives’ bonuses.

    The most likely alternatives would be a tax based on the size and riskiness of an institution’s loans and other financial holdings, or a tax on profits.

    Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax. They said financial institutions had been repaying their portion of the bailout money in full, with interest. Losses from the $700 billion bailout fund — estimated to run as high as $120 billion — are expected to come from the automobile companies and their finance arms, the insurance giant American International Group and programs to avert home foreclosures, and the president is aiming to recoup that money.

    “It is perplexing to us,” said Edward L. Yingling, president and chief executive of the American Bankers Association. He recalled that Mr. Obama recently had two White House meetings with bankers to urge them to provide more loans to credit-starved small businesses. But a tax, he said, would be “a hit on banks that will decrease their ability to lend.”

    But the industry’s objections carry less weight at a time when Mr. Obama is under intense pressure to crack down on Wall Street. In coming days, big banks are expected to begin announcing huge bonuses for their top executives and traders. A bipartisan commission charged with reporting on the causes of the financial crisis will begin a two-day hearing on Wednesday with testimony from the heads of four big banks: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America. Meanwhile, industry opposition continues to stymie the president’s initiative in Congress to tighten regulations.

    “The president has talked on a number of occasions about ensuring that the money that taxpayers put up to rescue our financial system is paid back in full,” Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said.

    So has the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, who has drawn criticism from both the left and the right as not being tough enough on Wall Street.

    Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Democrat who is chairman of the House banking committee, said the president was required to seek recovery of any losses under the law that created the $700 billion financial rescue fund, known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in October 2008. The law did not spell out how to do so.

    “I did know they were thinking about doing this and I encouraged them,” Mr. Frank said.

    Mr. Frank and others in Congress said they did not know any details, and administration officials say no decisions have been made beyond the fact that a proposal will be in the budget. Mr. Obama has been meeting with Mr. Geithner and with Lawrence H. Summers, his senior White House economic adviser, to discuss options from the Treasury department. News of the decision to propose some kind of tax was first reported by Politico.

    The 27-nation European Union called for a global transactions tax in December, and last November Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain proposed the idea at a meeting of the Group of 20 developed and emerging nations, saying revenue could be stockpiled to finance any future bailouts. But Mr. Geithner has said a transaction tax, on trades of complicated derivatives and other financial instruments, would simply be passed through to investors and other customers, and could put American companies at a competitive disadvantage.

    Separately, Britain and France have proposed a large tax on financial executives’ bonuses. Last year the administration successfully opposed a House bill that would have imposed a substantial levy on executive compensation, and officials continue to argue that corporate shareholders, not the government, should determine pay policies.

    Any fee that the president proposes is likely to exempt smaller banks, an official said. Community banks carry particular clout in Congress given their presence in nearly every member’s district.

    “Those that caused this train wreck ought to be the ones to pay to clean up the mess,” said Stephen J. Verdier, an executive vice president at the Independent Community Bankers of America. “The community bankers are every bit as much the victims as the average taxpayer in all this, so any tax ought to be devised with those principles in mind.”

    Losses from the $700 billion financial rescue are expected to be much less than initially feared, according to a Treasury report and government audit late last year. Besides banks’ repayment of their bailout money with interest, the government also has made money by selling the bank warrants that it held as collateral for its loans to the institutions.

  106. From the above article, it is worth highlighting a few sentences, just so that the raw wound is exposed:

    The president has yet to settle on the details,

    But the president also has a political purpose — to respond to the anger building across the country as big banks, having been rescued by the taxpayers, report record profits and begin paying out huge bonuses while millions of Americans remain out of work.

    The administration previously rejected two ideas that have received much attention in recent months: a transaction tax on financial trades and a special tax on executives’ bonuses.

    Mr. Frank and others in Congress said they did not know any details, and administration officials say no decisions have been made beyond the fact that a proposal will be in the budget.

    Separately, Britain and France have proposed a large tax on financial executives’ bonuses. Last year the administration successfully opposed a House bill that would have imposed a substantial levy on executive compensation, and officials continue to argue that corporate shareholders, not the government, should determine pay policies.

  107. MORE ON THE MASS. DEM PLOY TO F**K WITH THE, AHEM, “DEMOCRATIC PROCESS”.

    realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/13/democrats_could_seek_to_delay_seating_brown_in_senate_99876.html

    January 13, 2010
    Democrats Could Seek to Delay Seating Brown
    By Mike Memoli & Kyle Trygstad

    Should Republican Scott Brown pull off an upset victory in next week’s special election in Massachusetts, Senate Democrats may seek to use the chaos surrounding the appointment of Roland Burris last year as a precedent for delaying the swearing in of a man who campaigned as the 41st “no” vote on health care reform.

    When the disgraced and soon-to-be-impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich chose Burris for Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat, Democratic leaders delayed seating him by citing a statute that required a formal certificate of election to be signed by all appropriate state officials. The Illinois Secretary of State had not signed it, so the Secretary of the Senate held the controversial appointment for days.

    So now, even though a special election to finish the late Edward M. Kennedy’s unexpired term is set for Tuesday, it could be a month or even longer until that successor is sworn in — whether it is a Democrat or Republican. That’s a notable difference in procedure from the House; just last November, New York Democrat Bill Owens was immediately sworn in after his close win in the 23rd District. In Massachusetts, Democrat Niki Tsongas took office just days after her close victory in an October 2007 special election.

    In the latter case, Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth Bill Galvin, explained that Tsongas was sworn in on the basis of a letter from his office saying that unofficial tallies indicated she was the winner, and that the result was not being contested.

    “That was sufficient for the House. Apparently that is not sufficient for the Senate,” McNiff said.

    Under Rule II of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a certificate of election must be signed by a state’s governor and secretary of state, and presented to the Secretary of the Senate before a newly-elected senator can be sworn in. A spokeswoman in the Senate secretary’s office said that was indeed standard procedure and could not think of an instance where that rule was not followed.

    According to McNiff, that document won’t be issued from Galvin’s office for weeks. Cities and towns must by law wait 10 days for overseas and military absentee ballots to come in. They then have 50 days from the date of the election to certify their results and submit them to the secretary of the commonwealth. Once received, the Governor’s Council certifies the outcome and issues a certificate. That timetable could stretch as late as March, though McNiff said it should take less time since the Senate race is the only contest on the ballot next week.

    In the event of a Brown victory, Republicans in the state are worried the certification process could be delayed for the benefit of Democrats’ health reform bill. One Massachusetts Republican operative not affiliated with any campaign in the race went so far as to claim Galvin sees his own interests in play, and that prolonging the certification would make him a hero to his party and enhance his stature for future statewide bids. A Brown campaign spokesman was equally cynical.

    “The political machine in this state is going to use every trick in the book to hijack this election and, failing that, they’ll do whatever they can to stop Scott from having a voice in the healthcare debate,” said Eric Fehrnstrom. “The political bosses may think they run things, but Scott Brown is running in the name of every independent-thinking citizen to take on one-party rule, and the bosses, and their candidate.”

    The Burris precedent does give Democrats some cushion when it comes to reconciling the House and Senate health care bills before a potential Republican takes that seat. But the larger question is whether that would be a politically wise move. Brown has campaigned unabashedly as the man who could halt a vote on the bill. So the prospect of an unelected Democratic appointee — in this case, Paul Kirk, appointed in September to temporarily replace Kennedy — casting a yea vote even after voters arguably signaled their opposition could only add to the headache Democrats face in defending the plan ahead of midterm elections this fall.

    All of this will be moot, of course, should Democrat Martha Coakley emerge victorious next week. However, recent polling has shown the race is far closer than expected, and Brown’s strong performance in Monday’s nationally televised debate has some in the GOP believing he could become the lone Republican in the state’s 12-member congressional delegation.

    Outside groups are reportedly ramping up their spending this week, and recent activity at the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee indicate they are taking Brown’s candidacy seriously.

    Inside the Capitol, though, House and Senate Democrats have not even discussed a contingency plan should Brown pull off a major upset, according to senior leadership aides in both chambers and at the White House. There is no timeline for completing a compromise between the two chambers, and no need to hurry negotiations because few believe Brown has much of a chance to defeat Coakley.

    “He won’t win,” a House leadership aide said flatly.

  108. SCHADENEFREUDE

    Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

    Oooh, look at the pretty little graph:

    cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084818.shtml?tag=stack

    January 11, 2010 6:30 PM
    Obama’s Approval Rating Dips to New Low
    =====================================

    President Obama’s job approval rating has fallen to 46 percent, according to a new CBS News poll.

    That rating is Mr. Obama’s lowest yet in CBS News polling, and the poll marks the first time his approval rating has fallen below the 50 percent mark. Forty-one percent now say they disapprove of Mr. Obama’s performance as president.

    In last month’s CBS News poll, 50 percent of Americans approved of how the president was handling his job, while thirty-nine percent disapproved.

    Mr. Obama still receives strong support from Democrats (eight in ten approve of his performance), but his approval rating among Republicans is only 13 percent. More importantly, Mr. Obama’s approval rating among independents has declined 10 points in recent months – and it now stands at just 42 percent.

    Domestic issues – and not his response to terrorist threats – appear to be driving the president’s approval rating downward.

    Just 41 percent now approve of his handling of the economy, which Americans say is the nation’s most pressing issue. Forty-seven percent disapprove. The president’s marks on handling health care, with reforms still under debate in Congress, are even lower – just 36 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove. Both of these approval ratings are the lowest of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

    Meanwhile, both parties in Congress receive even lower marks than the president on handling health care. Few Americans think the reforms in Congress hit the right note on expanding coverage, lowering costs and regulating the health insurance industry.

    The president receives slightly higher ratings for his handling of the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism than on domestic issues. Forty-six percent approve of Mr. Obama’s handling of Afghanistan, and 52 percent approve of how he is handling the threat of terrorism.

    While some Republicans have criticized the president and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano’s responses to the attempted Christmas Day terror attack, most Americans don’t share their opinion.

    In the poll, 57 percent of Americans approve of the way the Obama administration has responded to the attempted attack, and 29 percent disapprove. Views are highly partisan – 75 percent of Democrats approve, while just 41 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of independents do.

    More Findings from the Poll:

    • Fear of another terrorist attack has increased since the attempted attack on a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam on Christmas Day. Now, 26 percent think another attack on the United States within the next few months is very likely, up from 12 percent just before the latest incident. This is the highest percentage that has felt an attack was very likely since March 2003, just after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

    • While most Americans (56 percent) have at least a fair amount of confidence that the government will protect its citizens from future attacks, just 15 percent are very confident. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, more expressed confidence.

    • Few Americans – just 19 percent – think U.S. intelligence agencies are doing all they could to monitor the actions of suspected terrorists. Seventy-six think they could be doing more.

    • Most Americans support conducting full body scans on travelers using a digital x-ray machine, a device some airports are now using. Seventy-four percent agree these machines should be used because they provide a detailed check for hidden weapons and explosives and reduce the need for physical searches. Just 20 percent think these machines should not be used because they would produce an image of a passenger’s naked body and are an invasion of privacy.

    • Over half of Americans think the U.S. should continue to keep the Guantanamo Bay prison open. Thirty-two percent think it ought to be closed and the prisoners there transferred somewhere else.

    • The American public continues to volunteer the economy and jobs as the most important problem facing the country (44 percent), with health care a distant second (14 percent). In the wake of the attempted terror attack on Christmas Day, the percentage that cites terrorism as the most pressing issue has risen to seven percent from zero percent early last month.

    • The public’s overall assessment of the condition of the national economy remains grim – 82 percent of Americans say the economy is in bad shape. Looking ahead, 31 percent of Americans think the economy is getting better, while 19 percent think it is getting worse. Forty-nine percent now say the economy is staying the same.

  109. sheesh, I am of the strong opinion that breaking the senate majority held by the dimwitted Dimocrats would be an even greater accomplishment for the MA and American citizenry than supporting a ‘friend’ of Hillary’s who says no and then says yes and then jumps into bed with B-I-G lobbyists and corporations to fund her attack ads, especially if it is true that she was so arrogant and overconfident that she failed to campaign for two weeks. But the icing on the cake would be ousting one of Hillary’s and the American citizens’ enemies named Peloooooosi from her catbird seat!!! Do I hear an amen?

  110. LABOR LEADERS NOT LIKING THE TASTE OF BUS TIRES

    foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/11/irate-labor-leaders-press-obama-proposed-health-care-cadillac-tax/

    Irate Labor Leaders Press Obama on Proposed Health Care ‘Cadillac’ Tax
    ===================================

    By Major Garrett

    The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, said there was a frank discussion at the nearly two-hour White House meeting with about a dozen heads of the country’s biggest labor unions.

    WASHINGTON – President Obama told labor leaders in a tense two-hour closed door tussle over whether to tax health care benefits that he backed the tax, which labor leaders vehemently oppose, but also supports efforts “to protect working men and women.”

    Their problem? Labor leaders say you can’t have it both ways. Some now openly accuse Obama of doing that and violating one of his most important early promises in the health care debate: that if you like the coverage you have, you will be able to keep it.

    Obama did not attend all of the meeting held in the Roosevelt Room, but, according to an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity “reiterated his support for the excise tax but also reiterated his commitment to protect working men and women.”

    Obama’s top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle led the meeting in the president’s absence, the White House said.

    The “excise tax” refers to the Senate attempt to slap a 40 percent levy health insurance benefit plans valued at $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families (for high-risk occupations like law enforcement and firefighting the levels are $9,850 and $26,000).

    Some have dubbed these plans “Cadillac” coverage because of their generous array of benefits. Labor leaders say the better moniker is “Chevy” because, they say, the tax would also hit union and non-union families. The tax applies to the accumulated value of standard health insurance, secondary plans that cover dental and vision expenses and flexible spending accounts.

    But labor leaders, led today publicly by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, call the Senate tax an assault on middle-class familes and a sop to American “elites.” Trumka and other union leaders favor the House-passed 5.4 percent surtax on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples who earn more than $1 million.

    “The senate bill instead drives a wedge between the middle class and the poor,” Trumka said in a speech at the National Press Club just hours before the White House showdown. ” The senate bill taxes the middle class by taxing workers health plans. The Senate bill pits working Americans who need health care for their families against working Americans trying to keep health care for their families. Now this is a policy designed to benefit elites.”

    Significantly, Trumka did not threaten to torpedo health care reform if the Senate excise tax survives intense negotiations with House Democrats over a final bill.

    “The Senate bill from our point of view is inadequate,” Trumka said. “It does not deserve the support of working men and women. We are a long ways from the finish line yet and we’re going to try and get a bill that does, should and and will garner the support of working people in this country. Bringing health care to every citizen out there is too important for us to get this close and say we quit.”

    No one else in the labor movement is publicly advocating killing the entire bill over the issue, but concern is growing over the excise tax. One union leader today flatly rejected it and accused Obama of breaking his promise to shield working families from taxes and cuts in health care benefits.

    “In 2008, then-candidate Obama promised three things: he said he would not raise taxes on folks making less than $250,000 a year; he vowed not to tax health insurance benefits; and he promised that under his health reform plan, people would be able to keep their existing coverage,” said Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. “Now, President Obama supports the misguided excise tax passed by the Senate.

    The Senate bill will either subject the health care coverage provided to thousands of America’s fire fighters to a tax or those benefits will be slashed to avoid the tax.”

    Schaitberger said the IAFF will oppose any excise tax on health benefits. A smaller member of the AFL-CIO, Schaitberger’s union was not invited to the White House.

    These unions attended: AFL-CIO, Change to Win, National Education Association, United Steelworkers, United Food and Commercial Workers, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Teamsters, American Federation of Teachers, Service Employee International Union, Laborers International Union, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Communication Workers of America. The United Auto Workers were invited but did not attend.
    Union sources said several blue collar unions – among them the Steelworkers and Electrical workers – fret a rank-and-file backlash in the 2010 mid-term elections if the health benefits tax passes.

    Schaitberger was more blunt.

    “It’s a disaster, a nightmare,” Schaitberger said of the excise tax. “Our membership will see it as a betrayal.”

    The fight over taxing health benefits is unlikely to derail Obama’s full-court press for health care reform. But it has punctured the aura of inevitability the White House has assiduously sought to build around closed-door House and Senate negotiations.

    Sen. Chris Dodd, Connecticut Democrat and key player in health care, told CNBC today that the reform effort was “hanging by a thread.”

    Rep. Joe Courtney, Connecticut Democrat, told Fox News that anger over the Senate excise tax dominated a members-only conference call organized by the House Democratic leadership on Thursday.

    “There was no question that the excise tax was the number one issue,” Courtney said. “It surpassed abortion. It surpassed the purchasing exchanges in terms of the concerns that members have.”

    Courtney has collected signatures from 190 of 256 House Democrats opposing the Senate health benefits tax. He agreed with Dodd’s characterization of the shaky state of health care talks.

    “This process is very precarious right now,” Courtney said. “Both chambers really have to approach it in a positive way, but understanding that there’s real challenges that need to be fixed here. No one is trying to walk into it with positions that are just designed to blow the whole process up. But nonetheless, the Senate position is, I think, very problematic.”

    Courtney predicted significant political peril for Obama and rank-and-file Democrats if the excise tax survives largely in tact and benefit plans either shrink in size or premiums increase to compensate for the higher taxes assessed on insurers.

    “People out there who, again, are not members of unions but have a primary plan and then have secondary coverage, they will be very unpleasantly surprised to realize that all of those premiums will be aggregated and subjected to the tax,” Courtney said. “They’ll either drop coverages or they’ll just take the hit, in terms of absorbing the tax and paying it, which, again, at a 40 percent rate is very steep. It’s really about sorta changing choices that people presently have today because of the tax status that health benefits presently enjoy.”

    Companies and governments deduct the cost of health benefits from their taxes. Blue collar union leaders say their membership has in recent years traded wages for more generous health benefits. Public employee unions haven’t experienced this type of trade-off, but their leaders fear cash-strapped states, counties and cities will cut back of benefit packages to avoid the excise tax.
    Courtney says the biggest problem for Obama could be a sense that he betrayed his oft-stated promise to hold existing health plans harmless.

    “Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,” Obama said July 16 in Holmdel, N.J. “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.”

    Courtney said the excise tax will materially change coverage for millions of middle class workers. That, he warned, could invite a nasty political backlash.

    “That is a central promise to Americans who have health insurance today and that is really where the battle for public opinion over health care reform really lies,” Courtney said. “If large numbers of people feel that this effort is about taking away a benefit that they presently have, then support for it really begins to decline very rapidly.”

  111. from the above:

    Obama did not attend all of the meeting held in the Roosevelt Room, but, according to an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity “reiterated his support for the excise tax but also reiterated his commitment to protect working men and women.”

    Obama’s top health care adviser, Nancy-Ann DeParle led the meeting in the president’s absence, the White House said.
    &&&&&&&&

    So he didn’t have time for this meeting, even though it was supposed to be “Labor Leaders Meet with Prez”? He just popped his head, for what, a few minutes? Too busy with something else???

  112. LMAO! This is just too funny! 🙂

    Musical about Obama’s ascent to power set to open in Germany
    By Kirsten Grieshaber (CP) – 2 hours ago

    BERLIN — A musical about Barack Obama’s “Yes we can” election campaign premieres in Germany this weekend, including love songs by the president to his wife Michelle and duets with Hillary Clinton.

    Even John McCain and Sarah Palin are given stage time, with actors portraying the losing Republican candidates and belting out songs on their behalf.

    In all, 30 singers, actors and dancers are to perform in the musical “Hope – the Obama Musical Story” when it opens at the Jahrhunderthalle concert hall in Frankfurt in a bilingual mix of English and German. The audience may recognize that many songs quote from politicians’ stump speeches during the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign.

    The venue for the premiere seems appropriate since the optimism of the election remains largely intact in Germany, about a year after Obama became America’s first black president.

    On Wednesday, the performers were still working at their kicks on a small rehearsal stage in an industrial zone of the southwestern city of Karlsruhe.

    “We are rehearsing every day for 12 hours now,” Jimmie Wilson, who plays Obama, said in a telephone interview. “After the opening, we have to see what the feedback is like and then we’ll go on tour.”

    The American performer once acted in the Michael Jackson musical “Sisterella.”

    The organizers of “Hope!” said that tickets are only available for the opening night in Frankfurt and that further performances there and in other German cities were still being planned.

    “I had the idea (for the musical) during the presidential campaign. . . . It was fascinating and the mood at the time fired my imagination,” American writer Randall Hitchins said in a news release provided by the organizers. “All the people were hoping for a change for a better life and there was such a great, collective emotion.”

    While Hitchins initially only wanted to compose one song with the title “Yes, we can” – in reference to Obama’s campaign slogan – he soon realized that the theme had the potential for more. He teamed up with producer Roberto Emmanuele, a German-Italian, and together they created the musical, which combines different musical styles, from pop, soul and gospel to hip hop and rock.

    Set in Obama’s hometown of Chicago and viewed through the eyes of a group of people who share an apartment, the musical tries to show how Obama’s campaign gave people at the time hope for change and belief in a better future. “The story starts 20 years ago, when Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago, and leads all the way to the 2008 campaign,” said Wilson.

    Most of the actors are American and many have performed in other German musicals. As part of an interactive gimmick, the audience will be asked to participate in the show by playing tiny drums built into their chairs. Tickets for the show range from about $60 to $220.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hk9cQ0ChrI00K_v1I6gge1Y6Xsrw

  113. #

    #
    ShortTermer
    January 13th, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    sheesh, I am of the strong opinion that breaking the senate majority held by the dimwitted Dimocrats would be an even greater accomplishment for the MA and American citizenry than supporting a ‘friend’ of Hillary’s who says no and then says yes and then jumps into bed with B-I-G lobbyists and corporations to fund her attack ads, especially if it is true that she was so arrogant and overconfident that she failed to campaign for two weeks.
    ! Do I hear an amen?
    &&&&&&

    AMEN!!!

    At this point, given Coakley’s sudden “change of heart”, on THE issue that separated from her Democratic opponent in the nomination process, it would seem that supporting her is less important that breaking the Dem 60 vote strangle hold.

    Divided government it should be. Until we get someone in the Oval Office who a) knows what they are doing, and more importantly, b) CAN BE TRUSTED.

  114. gonzotx re: Dem press release: Scott Brown made a “deal with the devil” with “radical tea party groups”

    I am GUILTY as all get out, of being radical, and I am so proud of it I might wear a t-shirt with that logo on it. Who dares to label citizens exercising the current rights and privileges in the government politics arena as one or all of the 3 R’s(radical, racist, and yet worst of all Republican)? It is the collective Dimocrats who have jetted around and spent obscene amounts of taxpayer money living their ‘Roman Holiday’.

  115. Mark Hemingway: Tea Parties begin to think strategically
    By: Mark Hemingway
    Commentary Staff Writer
    January 13, 2010 When the Tea Party movement emerged last year, it was greeted as grass-roots movements on the right always are — with sneering and derision by those on the left and in the elite media.

    Once again, knuckle-dragging troglodytes from flyover backwaters have some ideas about how the country should be run. A few hundred thousand of them even relinquished their white-knuckle grip on their guns and religion long enough to travel to Washington and demand their concerns be heard. How quaint.

    Despite Tea Partiers’ popularity — an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last month showed the Tea Party label outpolling Democrats and Republicans in terms of favorability — epithets are still flung with regularity.

    National Public Radio recently used your tax dollars to post a cartoon on its Web site called “Learn to Speak Tea Bag,” which portrayed members of the movement as stupid with all the subtlety of a rhinoceros in a Swarovski shop. NPR defended the cartoon on the grounds of satire, but that’s a pretty hollow defense considering that NPR has publicly complained on multiple occasions about NPR correspondents who appear on Fox News, as if the cross-pollination here might taint National Palestinian Radio’s vaunted reputation for objectivity.

    That supposedly impartial news outlets think nothing of hurling the lewd and crude “tea bag” insult is pretty revealing, to say nothing of their lack of reverence for American history.

    But let them continue to dismiss the Tea Party. They do so at their peril. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Tea Party is both far more sophisticated than its opponents realize and an electoral force to be reckoned with.

    The liberal rap on Tea Partiers is that the movement is dragging the Republicans so far to the right that pretty soon the P in GOP is going to stand for Pinochet. Or at least that was the narrative coming out of the recent congressional election in upstate New York, where grass-roots outrage forced the Republican In Name Only candidate Dede Scozzafava out of the race. The more conservative Tea Party-approved candidate Doug Hoffman entered into the race as a Republican and lost.

    Supposedly, the lesson here is that Hoffman was too conservative to win in the Northeast.

    But Hoffman came awfully close to winning under unusual circumstances. Now Tea Party opponents have to explain Scott Brown, who’s running in the Massachusetts special Senate election. Brown is an independent-thinking, pro-choice Republican — a likable guy from Wrentham who drives a truck.

    He may be more liberal than most Republicans, but he’s well-suited to represent Massachusetts. He’s narrowly ahead in a number of polls, and just raised an astounding $1.3 million in a single day.

    Smart Democrats are starting to wake up. Brown may still be an underdog Republican running for the seat recently held by Ted Kennedy, but that’s almost beside the point.

    Markos Moulitsas, founder of the Daily Kos and a driving force behind the Democratic “netroots” that helped Democrats win back Congress, is favorably comparing the Scott Brown race with early netroots efforts.

    “Scott Brown reminds me of Paul Hackett,” Moulitsas said on Twitter, referring to an Ohio special congressional election in 2005. The Democrat Hackett lost, but the way liberal grass roots rallied to Hackett’s campaign prepared them for future elections. “Like Hackett, Brown will lose, but grass-roots [conservatives are] learning how to better organize.”

    It appears that Tea Partiers aren’t just a bunch of reactionary simpletons devoted to supporting the most conservative candidate available — it’s lively and organic political movement that is thinking strategically about getting people elected.

    Welcome to your worst nightmare, Democrats. Keep yukking it up — those insults will be cold comfort when Tea Parties break out across America in November.

    http://tinyurl.com/yhmcx7r

  116. White House pushing Illitch to join governor’s race

    By Ed Brayton 1/13/10

    Here’s an interesting twist in the ongoing saga of the 2010 Michigan gubernatorial race: The Detroit Free Press reports that the White House is courting Denise Illitch, daughter of Little Ceasar’s founder Mike Illitch and current University of Michigan regent, to jump in to the race for the Democratic nomination for governor. And they deem this important enough that President Obama met with her personally at the White House:

    White House officials and President Barack Obama met Tuesday with University of Michigan regent Denise Ilitch to discuss her possible candidacy for governor, according to a White House official who asked not to be named.

    Ilitch, a Detroit area businesswoman and daughter of sports and entertainment moguls Mike and Marian Ilitch, has been probing for support, following Lt. Gov. John Cherry’s decision last week to drop out of the race.

    The article also mentions two other possible candidates: Former state treasurer Bob Bowman and DTE Energy chairman Tony Earley, who says he’s more likely to support Andy Dillon. This race just keeps getting more crowded and more interesting by the day.

    http://michiganmessenger.com/33246/white-house-pushing-illitch-to-join-governors-race

  117. “He won’t win,” a House leadership aide said flatly.

    ——————————

    Well if Brown does win, I hope those egotistical bubbles that the dims seem to have attached to their asses burst big time.

  118. shorttermer,

    How do you see a 59/41 ratio in the Senate ‘ousting’ Pelosi, who is Speaker of the House, not even in the Senate? To oust Pelosi, iirc the GOP would need about 40 more seats in the House.

    As someone posted earlier today, MA and Reid can Burris around with installing Brown so he would miss the HC vote. Coakley has said she would vote against a House-type bill (very restrictive on abortion) but “reluctantly” for a Senate-type bill (less restrictive). So she’s fighting for mitigation of a bill that is probably going to pass anyway.

    Voting for HIllary on the FLOOR IN DENVER makes her a friend without the scare quotes, imo. (And if she’s in bed with all her supporters, I hope she’s having fun with Bill. He’s there campaigning for her….)

  119. Coakley didn’t ‘suddenly change her mind.’ She made a distinction between a theoretical final version with the House abortion language and a theoretical final version with the Senate abortion language.

  120. The Clintons are DEFINITELY NOT ALONE!

    Thanks for this very good series of analysis concerning the Democratic Clintons and the pond scum that masquerades as “Democrat” movers and shakers today. Although I haven’t read this fiction, and I don’t plan on reading it, my good judgment leads me to believe that much of it is probably garbage that is an attempt to derail the goodwill that the Clintons have with many in the America public. I also concur with what I read by an astute commenter, and that is that while the Clintons talked about a vast rightwing conspiracy, I now believe that there was also a leftwing conspiracy taking place against them, so that they were being hit from both sides at the same time. And get this… they are still standing and making a difference while most of their enemies have either been exiled to “never hear from them again land”, or have lost any appeal that they might have once held.

    I have no doubt that by her past actions Patti Solis Doyle was a mole. I also have no doubt that there were other infiltrators within the Clinton camp. After all, this was nasty Chicago politics rearing its head in the Democratic campaign. But trying to make it look like the Clintons are out there on their own is just STUPID which is how I would describe our current president and his aides. Now that I think more about it, this book must have come from Obama’s direction.

  121. Don’t fall for the garbage that Coakley, an apparent friend of Hillary, should be elected Senator in Massachusetts based solely on this observation. Coakley has a record to stand on, and it is not particularly good. She may have a letter “D” behind her name, but that letter “D” will bring with it another vote for major Obama legislation like Obamacare which from what we have all seen is not worth voting for. Scott Brown will be the anti-Obama that is surely needed at this time. If you want Obamacare, plus any of Obama’s future big government nonsense, then vote for Martha. But if you want to put a check on Obama’s and his servile cohort’s agenda to refashion America into a progressive, aka socialist utopia, in which everyone pays out of their butts, and suffers the same lousy fate (except those in government, and other priveleged people who are always exempted from the wretchedness that they themselves create for the rest of us), then vote for Scott Brown. He will be a needed check against the Obama agenda that is quickly ruining the economic vitality of the US.

Comments are closed.