Brown Versus Coakley – Halperin’s Game Change, The Democratic Left Creative Class, The Boston Tea Party Movement And The NObama Coalition

Let’s make sense of the Brown versus Coakley U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, the Democratic Dimocratic Left “Creative Class”, Mark Halperin’s latest book “Game Change“, the Tea Party Movement’s return to Boston after a few hundred years, and the growing NObama Coalition we talked about in January 2009.

In the wake of our article on the Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley race in Massachusetts (Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley) we have been accused of being “Libertarians”, “Republicans”, “stupid”, along with other nonsense assertions of non-fact. The “Libertarian” accusation was particularly humorous because it would have made sense IF we had endorsed the Libertarian Joe Kennedy in the Massachusetts race, and/or if we did not believe in the good sensible government can do (that’s why we supported Hillary Clinton’s HOLC and Universal Health Care Plan). The “Republican” accusation is also silly for anyone that has read this website for the past several years. Indeed, we considered ourselves left-of center Democrats. But stupid, we have never been.

“Stupid” is what now passes (we call them PINOs – Progressives In Name Only) for the Democratic Left. These modern day Leninists love to call themselves the “creative class”, in a paroxysm of egomania matched only by airheaded class “D” celebrities. The current Obama loving Dimocratic Left is “stupid” – very “stupid”.

These stupid creatures are really latter-day Leninists. These stupid creatures believe they, the comic book superhero style “creative class”, are the “revolutionary vanguard” sent down by celestial choirs to lead “the masses” and be adored by the proletariat. These stupid boys – and they are mostly boys and men who are terrified of women (with some Left Talking women who desperately want to be one of the boys) are extremely in need of self-reflection and a rational, and reality based, analysis of American politics.

How stupid is the “creative class” Dimocratic Left that loves to mock the Tea Party movement as “dumb redneck hicks” and “teabaggers”? The “creative class” is so stupid that they whored themselves for Barack Obama, thinking he was the “change” candidate. Now as they sit down and listen to audio tapes of the Mark Halperin book “Game Change” they realize they actually backed the establishment candidate. Self-styled revolutionaries whored themselves for the establishment – how dumb is that?

Our series of articles Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, Part II, and Part III discussed the big flaws in “Game Change” as well as the lessons to learn. While we doubt the speculations and bias in “Game Change” what cannot be denied is what is self-confessed by participants, now that the book is out: the Democratic Party establishment was the chief sponsor of Barack Obama’s candidacy and what forced him to run.

The public excuses in “Game Change” for gifting the nomination to Barack Obama and destroying Hillary Clinton is that Hillary could not win the election because she could not win men and the white working class.

Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination. He argued that Obama’s lack of experience might not be crippling; it might actually be an asset, allowing him to cast himself as a figure uncorrupted and uncoopted by evil Washington, without the burdens of countless Senate votes and floor speeches. [snip]

Obama had heard these arguments before from other senators. His friend and Illinois counterpart, Dick Durbin, was urging him to run, but that was to be expected. More intriguing were the entreaties he was receiving from New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill. [snip]

The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map, a capacity Clinton surely lacked. In conversations with other senators and strategists in 2006, Schumer would make these points over and over. He made them to Obama as well, and repeatedly; in one instance Schumer even double-teamed him with Reid. Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly—“You understand my position,” he would say—he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question.[snip]

These were not the only senatorial voices importuning Obama. Daschle, too, was on the case, and so was a coterie of senators close to him, including Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both of North Dakota. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Barbara Boxer of California, and even Ted Kennedy—all were nudging Obama to take the plunge. Their conversations with Barack were surreptitious, a conspiracy of whispers. They told him that 2008 was going to be a change election and that he uniquely could embody transformation.

Add Pelosi, McCaskill, Dean, Kerry, and the Democratic organizations to the anti-Hillary mob. Bamboozlement! A clan of corrupt and coopted establishment figures knew Obama could be MARKETED as a candidate of “transformation”. Bamboozlement! Inexperience became an asset. Not voting became a defense. A stooge was marketed as a leader.

The real Game Changer of course was Hillary Clinton who could unite African-Americans and the White Working Class Men and Women and Latinos and Women Independents and Republicans and truly transform the Democratic Party into a majority party for a long time. Hillary Clinton who won in Southern States with the enthusiastic support of men and who, according to exit polls, would have gotten more Republican votes in the general election and a bigger margin against John McCain than Obama was blocked BY THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT for their own power purposes.

Ted Kennedy, the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur, who had backed Obama for years and was a secret power (mocking Bill Clinton in secret with “hick” imitations and laughed because few knew that he, Ted Kennedy was no “neutral” but instead the power behind the stooge), gifted Obama the nomination and as part of the strategy smeared Bill Clinton as a racist. The establishment did their sleazy job well and the “creative class” dupes and dimwitted stooges went right along. How dumb is that?

* * * * *

Hillary Clinton supporters are the spearhead of the NObama coalition because we better than anybody know the content of Obama’s character. The main body of the spear, the lance, is the Tea Party movement. While Hillary Clinton supporters and the Tea Party movement have issue differences of some gravity, we are united in the NObama coalition. That cross-ideological merge is a necessary response to the manipulations, sexism, misogyny, deceptions and plots of the Democratic “leadership” stooge-masters who gifted unqualified stooge Barack Obama the Democratic nomination thereby imperiling the nation for their own cynical benefits.

The Tea Party movement, mocked as “rednecks” and “hicks” and the sexually leg-rubbing term “tea baggers” by the boys of the “creative class” has proven to be smarter than the stupid “creative class”. The Tea Party movement has not only removed a pro-Obama on healthcare Republican candidate in New York’s 23rd congressional district. The Tea Party movement almost carried a non-telegenic bore and skeleton fright Tea Party candidate to victory in that race.

In Florida, the Tea Party candidate is about to smash the popular ex-governor who was the Republican establishment candidate for U.S. Senate. In Massachusetts, the Tea Party candidate has moved a sure loss of a seat held by Ted Kennedy and John Kennedy for more than half a century into an historic, truly earthquake level race.

The Tea Party movement is what the “creative class” imagine themselves to be. The Tea Party movement is a powerhouse movement of grassroots citizens that is imposing its will on the Republican Party establishment and effectively opposing Barack Obama. The Tea Party movement is actually accomplishing its admittedly still inchoate goals. If Scott Brown wins, the Tea Party movement will have effectively written the template for all Republican candidates this November (and even some smart Democrats) as well as effectively control the Republican Party – whether the Republican Party establishment agrees or not.

The Tea Party movement, if Scott Brown wins, will be true and reborn to its inspiration, in the city of the first Tea Party – Boston. We saw the Tea Party movement as “strong” back in April (Weak Obama, Strong Tea). We understood the force and significance of the Tea Party movement back then too (The Meaning Of The Tea Parties: No Taxation Without Representation). The “creative class” of Dimocrats were too busy tittering and rubbing their legs with teabag jokes to recognize what was happening. The “creative class” is the “clueless class”.

In Massachusetts, the Hillary Clinton movement is meeting the Tea Party movement. What happens in Massachusetts will shape the still growing NObama coalition.

In our article Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley we posited that whatever the election results, next Tuesday, Hillary Clinton and her supporters will emerge victorious. Every day brings new evidence that only “lonely” and “racist” Bill Clinton can possibly save Martha Coakley. Whether Coakley is worth saving remains to be seen. A Coakley win will bolster Bill Clinton in his war with Big Media and Barack Obama and his thugs.

A victory by Scott Brown will effectively destroy Barack Obama’s useless administration and short-circuit all the plotters which gifted Barack Obama the Democratic nomination.

In our earlier article we gave some advice to Martha Coakley and her campaign. Today it is Scott Brown who deserves advice.

We have researched many websites and news sources to monitor the election in Massachusetts. We have noted one ugly note sounded by Scott Brown supporters on a few websites. Scott Brown is not the one to blame nor is his campaign. But we have noted that some Scott Brown supporting websites are engaging in ugly sexism and misogyny against Martha Coakley. Again, Scott Brown and his campaign are not to blame in any of this. The website owners are mostly not responsible for the sexism and misogyny directed against Martha Coakley. But the sexism and misogyny is oozing out in comments and in whispers. This has got to stop.

First of all, the sexism and misogyny is wrong and stupid and is more in line with the mindset of the “creative class” PINOs. The worse stereotypes of men as “mouth-breathers” and neanderthals is reinforced by some of the ugly sexism and misogyny we have read on some websites. The women who engage in calling Martha Coakley ugly names, from the worst of the world of rap music, demonstrate the lack of self-respect these women have towards themselves. This has got to stop.

Second of all, the sexism and misogyny hurt Scott Brown and Republicans and the Tea Party movement and alienates Hillary Clinton supporters. The sexism and misogyny hurt Scott Brown because he is not responsible for any of it and he does not need to go down that dirty Barack Obama road. If Scott Brown supporters want to be called right of center Barack Obama’s then keep up the sexism and misogyny.

Further, the sexism and misogyny will hurt, not only Hillary Clinton but Sarah Palin as well. The same whisper campaigns and stupid sexism and misogyny utilized to hurt Martha Coakley has been used against Hillary Clinton and will be used against other women candidates such as Sarah Palin. We have all, left and right, witnessed the sexism and misogyny employed by Dimocrats and Republicans against Democrat Hillary Clinton. We have all, left and right, witnessed the sexism and misogyny employed by Dimocrats and Republicans against Sarah Palin. It is time for all of us to recognize common interests. So, stop the sexism and misogyny. Stop it.

* * * * *

Martha Coakley to her credit has denied that Scott Brown will be prevented from immediate recognition as a Senator if he is elected. Coakley’s denial was not immediate and it has not been strong or repeated enough. That is hurting her whether her supporters and she like to hear it or not. For her own self interest she should vigorously denounce such a ploy. We wrote about this enough previously so we won’t belabor it, but this is hurting her a lot. The story is not going away and even Big Media outlets are reporting this sensational side line. This is not the only mistake she is making.

Martha Coakley is making mistakes and Scott Brown is taking full advantage of them. In the recent debate Coalkey declared Afghanistan to be free of terrorists. We doubt most Americans or even those in Massachusetts believe Al-Qaeda is not operating there. In advertisements Coakley allies and the Coakley campaign are tagging Brown as “pro-torture” because he wants military imprisonment for terrorists, not trials in civilian American courts. Whatever the merits of those positions as policy issues, the reality is that most Americans, even those in Massachusetts agree with Scott Brown. Why is Coakley’s campaign making this an issue? Is it to get out the alleged Democratic base? How does that work when a sufficiently significant part of the base too agrees with Brown? How does that help? The Coakley campaign needs a refresher course in the Paul Tully message box.

On terrorist trials 65% of Massachusetts voters agree with Brown. How does that help Coakley to make this an issue?



Scott Brown is also making a strong appeal in person and in advertisments to independent voters, which number more than Democrats or Republicans in Massachusetts. Coakley is pursuing a “base vote” strategy. This is at best confused and an abandonment of a huge amount of voters.



Whoever gets elected next Tuesday will be in office for two years only, then they will have to run for election again. That will be a presidential election year. But after next Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts there will be a nationwide contest this November. Coakley has clarified the situation for Dimocrats who are still thinking Barack Obama’s (non-existent) popularity will save them. Coakley recently said at a fundraiser:

If I don’t win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . Every Democrat will have a competitive race.”

Her defeat was also described as “Waterloo for health care.

About that fundraiser, it was not exactly a sharp political move. Coakley, like Obama attacked lobbyists, but then went to Washington to take their money. Is this wise? Does this help?



Many groups are now spending money on the Massachusetts race. SEIU is spending $700,000 on advertisements which trashes Scott Brown’s “values”. Americans for Responsible Health Care is spending $200,000 in advertisements to trumpet the news that Scott Brown can be the 41st vote to stop Obama’s health scam. The DNC and DSCC are spending more that a million dollars to help Coakley. It’s all flim-flam because the race is Brown versus Coakley and healthcare scam versus a “NO” vote.

Frankly, the best outcome for Republicans would be for Scott Brown to win the election; the Dimocrats via trickery and chicanery to prevent Brown from his rightful place in the Senate; and via this snub of the voters Dimocrats pass the Obama health scam. This would mean the Republicans get the 41st vote against Obama; they run on “repeal” in 2010; they get no blame for blocking Obama and his scam; and the American people will be so furious at the skulduggery to pass the scam that Dimocrats will be decimated. Everyone will be happy but the American people and America goes further into Obama Hell.

Machinations by Republicans and Democrats is what has the country so fed up. This disgust felt by the American people is being exploited by a wily Scott Brown.



Scott Brown is even utilizing his daughters to exploit the fed up attitude the Tea Party movement represents.



Scott Brown is a wily politician who is ripe for the moment America faces. Above all Scott Brown, more so than Martha Coakley, understands the disgust Americans feel. Scott Brown is taking advantage of the moment and he is leading the NObama Coalition right now with a smile not a scowl. Americans understand now, the cynicism of Barack Obama, at some level. Americans know Obama proposes a debased version of plans he attacked – after making big deals with Big PhaRma and Big Insurance. Obama attacked McCain for having a better version of what Obama now proposes:



Obama attacked McCain for having a better version of what Obama now proposes:



Scott Brown is seizing the moment. Martha Coakley is letting the moment slip by. The Obama health scam which transfers vast amounts of wealth from Americans to Obama’s Big Money pals must be stopped. If Martha Coakley does not understand that simply fact, Scott Brown does.

Share

180 thoughts on “Brown Versus Coakley – Halperin’s Game Change, The Democratic Left Creative Class, The Boston Tea Party Movement And The NObama Coalition

  1. From the Hotline:

    http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2010/01/majority_would.php

    Majority Would Vote Against Obama

    A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the ’12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.

    The Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll shows 50% say they would probably or definitely vote for someone else. Fully 37% say they would definitely cast a ballot against Obama. Meanwhile, just 39% would vote to re-elect the pres. to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.

  2. Scott Brown is slapping Barack Obama and neutering him too.

    http://news.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100114scott_brown_obama_not_invited_to_this_party/srvc=home&position=0

    Surging GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown yesterday warned President Obama to “stay away” from the Bay State during his roiling race against Democratic rival Martha Coakley and not to interfere with their intensifying battle in the campaign’s final days.

    “He should stay away and let Martha and I discuss the issues one on one,” Brown said. “The machine is coming out of the woodwork to get her elected. They’re bringing in outsiders, and we don’t need them.”

    Coakley’s campaign showed signs of panic as they scrambled to get a last-minute appearance by Obama to bolster their effort before Tuesday’s election.

  3. Admin. Superb analysis. Anyone who wants to understand what is happening in politics behind the misleading shallow accounts we see in big media should be coming right here right now. It should be part of the daily reading assignment of any serious journalist. Yours is the best campaign analysis on the blogs, it is hardhitting, factual and is loaded with sophisticated political insights–the kind that win elections.

    I am not following the Massachusetts race in a blow by blow basis. But I hope the Brown campaign is smart enough to say that if you elect me this is not the end of heath care reform, it is the end of a counterproductive approach to the issue and the beginning of a constructive one beneficial to all Americans, not big pharma et. al. It can be said better than that but something along those lines is important. It takes the all or nothing for 15 more years away from the bad guys.

  4. “Majority Would Vote Against Obama

    A year into his tenure, a majority of Americans would already vote against Pres. Obama if the ‘12 elections were held today, according to a new survey.”

    ____________

    WOW! I wonder how the dimwits will spin this one.

  5. Wobboei is right. This should be mandatory reading for all serious journalis…what there is left…and University Poly/Sci classes…and and and everyone…

  6. I see ALL the AP articles are about the greatness of the Fraud and BC is sweep aside. Biden to Haiti..does he even know where it is? It’s so he can give AP reports using the Frauds name over and over. Trying to clean up the soulless, heartless image we all know and hate.

  7. Now would be a good time to make sure the Kennedy Machine has not rigged the voting machines. Also, any acts of voter fraud and intimidation should be highlighted to a national audience as a shadow of things to come in 2010 and 2012. This will happen, so count on it. One plank of the Obama strategy going back to the primaries was to flood in illegal voters and to disenfranchise legal ones. And make sure this time that it is not outcome determinative. Speaking of law enforcement unions backing Brown, can you imagine all the unspeakable acts by Teddie and his cronies over the years that they have had to cover up. It is sickening to think about it, but I am quite sure some of them remember and live with the memory of it.

  8. gonzo,

    Bill Clinton said yesterday that if he thought it would do any good, he would hop the first flight to Haiti. But he thought he could do more here, raising/coordinating money and resources that they so desperately need. He said he would just be in the way with the chaos that still exists. I’m sure when the time is right, He will go down there and get the job done, without fanfare.

  9. Another long article that should be read in total.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/14/first_black_president_assailed_as_racist__99877.html

    How did Toni Morrison’s “first black president” become a racist? Commentators on the political left now routinely receive Bill Clinton’s remarks with the worst possible racial assumptions. The benefit of the doubt many progressives extended to Harry Reid or Joe Biden, by contrast, has been withheld from the president whose ties with blacks were once storied.

    The new book “Game Change” reports that Harry Reid once privately said, “the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect.'”

    President Obama immediately absolved Reid because, as he said in a television interview, the majority leader was “a good man who’s always been on the right side of history.” Democrats’ argument: context matters. But if context matters, why did the Clintons, and Bill Clinton still to this day, not earn the same presumption?

    Consider Eugene Robinson. The Washington Post columnist wrote Tuesday that Reid’s remark, “offended decorum but it was surely true.” Robinson was therefore “neither shocked nor outraged” by what Reid said. “Much worse,” Robinson concluded, was Bill Clinton’s attempt to convince Ted Kennedy to not support Obama. The book reports Clinton told Kennedy, “a few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”

    Many pundits echoed Robinson’s outrage. Al Sharpton said the Clinton comment was “much more disturbing” than Reid’s. CNN’s Roland Martin also said “African-Americans find that more offensive.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews detailed why on Monday. Clinton’s remark was “absolutely revolting,” Matthews said. It’s “almost as if” Clinton said, “‘yes, massa, can I get you some coffee?'” Matthews added, “That is a horrendous statement.”

    Horrendous? Well yes, if you cast Clinton’s comments that way. But there is another plausible explanation. Obama had been a state legislator only a few years earlier. Veterans tend to resent the rising rookie who hasn’t paid his dues. “Jack was out kissing babies while I was out passing bills,” Lyndon Johnson said of John Kennedy.

    In fact, Tuesday, to his credit, Matthews appeared to have changed his view: “I think Bill Clinton may well have been saying” that Obama “was junior to us.”

    But it’s telling that the first analysis of Clinton involved charges of racism. A man inducted into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame is today consistently framed as prone to bigoted comments.

    The article lists more outrages, then this:

    Clinton said Obama’s consistent opposition to the war in Iraq was “the biggest fairy tale that I have ever seen.” Some folks heard racial inferences. But were they really listening to Clinton?

    Confronted with the accusations, Bill Clinton responded, “When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called Hillary [Clinton] the senator from Punjab, I never said a word.”

    There’s more:

    Recall Obama’s gaffes. Obama said during the campaign, “You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out.” Some women heard a veiled attack on Hillary as catty. Obama said in one presidential debate, “you’re likable enough Hillary.” Then, like some blacks interpreted Bill Clinton’s remarks in South Carolina, many women heard an “ism” — the tough woman portrayed as a bitch.

    Obama was forgiven, as Obama forgave Biden. Biden said in 2007 that Obama was “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”

    Bill Clinton has indeed made some questionable remarks. But unlike Reid and Biden, did any of his language actually utilize racially fraught words?

    Many Democrats excused Reid because he was from Searchlight, Nevada, and of the generation that used the word “negro.” But this is the Democratic majority leader! Blacks are the most loyal bloc of the Democratic Party. How can Reid be so socially disconnected from blacks today as to use the word “negro?”

    Still, as columnist Mary Mitchell pointed out in her defense of Reid, talking about race is not the same as racist talk. But the irony is that some of those who continue to attack Bill Clinton as a racist, while granting absolution to his peers for racially charged statements, should know better. That irony is compounded because Clinton’s history with blacks is far deeper than Reid or Biden and his phrasing less offensive.

    Finally:

    But then, Morrison’s point was that no president before Clinton had so visibly affirmed cultural blackness. Clinton’s bond with blacks was, at its deepest, symbolic. Clinton was the first president-elect to attend an Inauguration Day prayer service in a black church, praying where figures like Frederick Douglass once preached. We knew this Clinton for eight years. Do a few arguably contentious statements truly merit forgetting him?

  10. Wbboei, The omnibus bill I think was a regular spending bill to cover the military, the rethugs added over 1 billion in pork projects and it passes with all votes necessary. The rethugs added more pork than the dems. Its a matter of fact. Yet they continue to label the dims as spenders.
    ————————
    A billion is alot of money. But compared to the total cost of this bill–$660 billion or the trillion dollar slush fund engineered by the Dims it is de minimus. I think we need to stay focused on the current problem which is the Dims. The argument that Rethugs do the same thing is a Dim argument and we ought not to give it currency at this point. I would be willing to stipulate that there is corruption in the other party but that is not the issue now.

  11. admin
    January 14th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    Another long article that should be read in total.
    ******************

    The article doesn’t give Clinton the recognition he deserves. All the good he fought for with the Black community. Where are those of color that will stand up and be counted who witnessed his greatness in his cause to defame racism in America? They are silent and for that, he is a better human than I am.

  12. Admin, Thank you so much for your excellent analysis of the political landscape. It is such a breath of fresh air to read your analyses and helps me to maintain a bit of sanity in this crazy world. No one comes close to your clever and unique way with words, all with an ironic twist at times. It is greatly appreciated. 🙂

  13. African-American, black, women are still some of the strongest supporters of Hillary Clinton.

    Here’s another website of a strong black woman, who like SoldierForHillary and Sugar inspire (we like her comments on one of our articles, after she quotes the relevant parts of our article – read it and enjoy):

    http://thomasfriedmanisagreatman.blogspot.com/

  14. Confronted with the accusations, Bill Clinton responded, “When he put out a hit job on me at the same time he called Hillary [Clinton] the senator from Punjab, I never said a word.”

    —————————–

    These two-faced racist hypocrites (both bambi, meme, his thugs and media lovers) continue to disgust the hell out of me. If ever there was a time to be ashamed of being a democrat or media representative, this is definitely the time.

  15. The race baiting of the Clintons, particularly Bill, as we know all started in S. Carolina and will never end. It is absolutely infuriating to me and deeply offensive to a southerner like Bill, whom worked his whole life to help the “negro”.

  16. Janh< I think Bill is right not to go down there now. He can't come without a contingent of SS. It would put more of a strain on the Haitians.

  17. Best laughs ever.

    #1
    Scott Brown got nekkid for Cosmo in ’82. http://www.tabloidprodigy.com/?p=6640

    Totally doable. And funny how Coakley waited until 5 days before the election to drop it. I think she waited too long.

    #2

    Breck Girl is back in the news getting divorced. Seems that mean wife of his kicked his ass to the curb at xmas and he went trolling for younger fish on the island where they have a vacation home.

    Sweet! What a complete douche.

    http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/12614

  18. jbstones,

    I agree with what you say about the continued race baiting re: Bill. It’s dumb. It’s only a small part of why I left the party. The rest has to do with sacrificing long held beliefs about one man- one vote, changing the rules and sacrificing values for a votes.

    I wonder for Brazilla is up to these days? 400 lbs? 😆

  19. OkieAtty, Edwards will soon appear at bars, dressed in polyester suits. He has nowhere else to go. We guess Elizabeth has stopped saying her marriage is better than Hillary’s. 🙂

  20. Jan, I remember that! That was AWESOME! He really gave Chris the whatfor didn’t he?

    Anyone see HRC on Fox & Friends this morning about Haiti? She knocked it out of the park. Smooth, professional, knowledgeable, and just the right amount of compassion tempered with the reality of how bad it is and will continue to be. She did a good job of communicating how important it is to get this done correctly. Also, she looked better than I have seen her in ages.

  21. Admin, loved the parts about them in “Game Change.” Boy oh, boy. Someone really didn’t like her and was hugely disappointed by him.

    During the campaign, I hung out part of the time at Capital Hill. That is until the mistress story was breaking and some folks got all pissy and whiny. Admin there had a double standard and let them attack HRC (on a HRC site no less) and I told them where they could stick it.

    I’m enjoying a bit of schadenfreude now. 😉

  22. I think there is some real power grabbing going on behind the scenes right now. Why else would he send Biden to Haiti?? That will also cause more trouble for the Haitians. Right now there are 9 planes circling Haiti and there’s no place to land. So lets send Biden, and his whole security contingent instead of food and water. Obama is just stupid, he should follow what Bill said, if he thought it would make a difference he would go himself, it won’t, it will just keep food and water from coming in.

    Biden could do a fly over and see the damage, without sitting foot on the ground.

    Something is up in Black Camelot, the roaches are coming out of the cracks.

  23. JanH

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L2513JFJsY&feature=related

    JanH, thanks for posting this video, I had not seen it and as I watched President Clinton, clarify, articulate and defend himself against his critics’ question, it reminded why I truly admired this president’s intellect, coolness, and savoir-faire, he is truly missed and by comparison Obama is the complete opposite.

    Obama is trying to turn Ameican into Oz, and Obama plays the supporting role as the man without a brain, and the man behind the curtain is Axlerod, the great deceiver.

  24. TerryDo, that video got us howling. You go Bill! Lots of facts we had dim memories of, like Bill’s plans to attack Afghanistan and take out the Taliban (but CIA would not certify Bin Laden attacked the Cole). Ah… good times.

  25. birdgal, they all want to get on some of this “atta boys” that will likely come if this goes off well.
    It makes me sick, this is all about the Clintons, Bill has worked down there for years.

    Admin: Excellent article. I heard the other day that the tea party movement may have enough power to have independent party. Its sounds like the teaparty movement is not per se republican. It is a movement of disgruntled citizens. The rethugs are merely trying to get this movement on to them. I think the reason they put Sarah Palin on Fox is because the teaparty was trying to recruit her.

    She and Beck were talking in very religious tones, which will be a death sentence for her.

  26. TerryDo,

    You are very welcome. It is at times like this that I wish Bill Clinton was still in the White House.

  27. obama is so boring to listen to during extreme crises to this. Hillary comes across like the leader she is and with a lot of compassion as does Bill.

  28. HOW TO TAKE A PERFECTLY CLEAR MANDATE AND STOMP IT INTO THE GROUND INTO A PILE OF STEAMING CRAP

    Like everything 14 months later, “The Obama Effect” is turning out to be pole opposite of what it was prior to the election. In Colorada, the Obama Effect means Dems heading for the hills.

    latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-democrats-west14-2010jan14,0,7631063.story

    Democrats’ Rocky Mountain high takes a tumble in Colorado
    =======================

    A year or so ago, the state looked like the party’s new base. Now Obama’s and other Democrats’ popularity is down, and Republicans are poised to regain what they lost.
    &&&

    Nicolas Riccardi

    Reporting from Denver – It was less than 18 months ago that the Democratic Party declared this region its new base.

    Barack Obama claimed the party’s presidential nomination at a football stadium here, in a state where Democrats had won the governorship, both houses of the state Legislature, and were about to pick up both U.S. Senate seats.

    Now President Obama and his party’s approval ratings in the West are lower than elsewhere in the country. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. abruptly announced last week that he would not seek reelection. The state’s junior senator is, like Ritter, trailing badly in the polls. Analysts think Democrats could even lose their majorities in the Legislature.

    “To lose this state at this moment, almost across the board, is a pretty profound statement that that party is in deep trouble,” said Floyd Ciruli, a Denver-based independent pollster.

    With the Latino population growing and progressive-minded transplants from coastal states moving in, Democratic strategists had hoped that the interior West — as distinct from the party’s base on the Pacific Coast — would eventually become reliably Democratic territory.

    There are signs, however, that the independent-minded region is rejecting the party’s agenda.

    The party has a 53% disapproval rating in the Western U.S., excluding the longtime Democratic stronghold of California, according to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll.

    When asked if they would prefer a Republican or a Democrat on a generic congressional ballot, Western voters are 11% more likely to choose Republican over Democrat, while nationwide Democrats have a 1% edge. Obama’s disapproval rating in the region is 53%, compared with 46% nationally.

    And Western Democrats are threatened across the region, from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who trails in the polls in his home state, Nevada, to members of Congress in Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado.

    Western voters “were enticed by leaders in the Democratic Party who promised to deliver something different,” said Nicole McChesney, a Republican pollster based in New Mexico. “But now they’re showing their true, big-government colors, and they don’t wear well in the West.”

    In Colorado, Democrats acknowledge that the situation is tough but contend that it has nothing to do with their policies.

    “This is not unusual in tough economic times. People question everything,” said Terrance Carroll, the speaker of the Colorado House. But, he added, “we’re still in a very strong position.”

    As recently as 2004, the state was Republican country. It solidly backed George W. Bush in 2000, and the GOP had the governor’s office, both U.S. Senate seats and both houses of the Legislature.

    Then the Democrats took it all back, touting themselves as a can-do, pragmatic party not bound by the GOP’s social conservatism. First, former state Atty. Gen. Ken Salazar won a Senate seat and Democrats captured the Legislature in 2004. In 2006, Ritter, the former district attorney of Denver, won the governor’s race. In 2008, Obama won the state by 9 percentage points and a Democrat captured the other Senate seat.

    The party’s troubles began soon thereafter.

    Obama picked Salazar to be his Interior secretary. Rather than selecting an experienced politician, Ritter chose the superintendent of Denver schools, Michael Bennet, to fill the open Senate seat. That outraged many party members, including former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, who was passed over and is challenging Bennet in the primary.

    Colorado has weathered the economic downturn relatively well, but, like governors everywhere, Ritter has had to cut crucial government services and raise fees to balance the state budget. He instituted furlough days for state workers and a program to allow felons out of prison early. He has lagged in the polls behind his probable Republican challenger, former Rep. Scott McInnis, and has struggled to raise money.

    When Ritter announced that he would not run for reelection, Democrats said it was unrelated to his standing in the polls.

    “This allows me to focus on the things that should be the most important: taking care of my family and taking care of the state of Colorado,” Ritter said.

    Salazar said he was not interested in running in Ritter’s place, but Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, announced Tuesday that he would run. Hickenlooper is popular, but a poll last week showed him 3 points behind McInnis.

    Bob Loevy, a political science professor at Colorado College, said Democrats in the state were “victims of their own success. It’s not that they’ve done anything wrong — this always happens when a party wins a lot and things don’t go well nationally.”

    David Wasserman, who tracks congressional races for the Cook Political Report in Washington, said Democrats could take heart in the long-term demographics of the region: rising number of Latinos and younger, college-educated whites, who are usually reliable votes for the party.

    “But what is encouraging for Democrats in the long term is discouraging in 2010,” he said. “We’re going to see a big drop-off in younger voters,” two-thirds of whom backed Obama in 2008, Wasserman said. That will hurt the party’s ability to hold on to its Western seats.

    Loevy is skeptical that demographics give Democrats any long-term edge in Colorado. “Colorado mainly follows national trends in its voting behavior,” he said. “The best thing they had going for them was that they had an unpopular Republican administration in Washington.”

    Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, contends that the state’s loyalties change constantly. Indeed, even though Democrats were largely shut out here between 1994 and 2004, the party often did well in the 1970s and ’80s.

    “I know that Democrats thought good times would last forever and they had built a permanent situation in Colorado,” Wadhams said. “But no party can build a permanent fortress in this state.”

  29. IS HARRY REID IN A RACE TO PASS LEGISTLATION BECAUSE HE WON’T BE IN THE SENATE NEXT JANUARY?

    realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latestpolls/latest_election_polls.html

    Nevada Senate – Tarkanian vs. Reid PPP (D) Tarkanian 50, Reid 42 Tarkanian +8
    Nevada Senate – Lowden vs. Reid PPP (D) Lowden 51, Reid 41 Lowden +10

  30. UNITER?

    Ummm, no.

    realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Jan/13/obama_concedes_he_hasn_t_brought_country_together.html

    January 13, 2010
    Obama concedes he hasn’t brought country together
    The Associated Press
    President Barack Obama says he has not succeeded in bringing the country together, acknowledging an atmosphere of divisiveness that has washed away the lofty national feeling surrounding his inauguration a year ago.

    “That’s what’s been lost this year … that whole sense of changing how Washington works,” Obama said in an interview with People magazine.

    The president said his second-year agenda will be refocused on uniting the country around common values, “whether we’re Democrats or Republicans.”

    “We all want work that’s satisfying, pays the bills and gives children a better future and security,” Obama said in the interview, which the magazine conducted with the president and his wife, Michelle Obama, at the White House last Friday.

    The president’s comments came as Republican leaders rallied against the core items of his agenda, from his economic stimulus plan to health care. The mood of the country has remained in a sustained slump, too, as double-digit unemployment followed a campaign built upon “hope” and “change.”

    Obama said people have “every right to feel deflated, because the economy was far worse than any of us expected.” But he insisted that his government’s economic steps in 2009 are paying off and that people should have confidence in this new year.

    On other topics:

    _The president said Tiger Woods, the champion golfer who has fallen into disgrace amid reports of extramarital affairs, can be “rehabilitated,” as his interviewer put it. “Absolutely,” Obama said. “I don’t want to comment on his personal relationship with his wife and family, but I’m a strong believer that anybody can look within themselves, find their flaws and fix them.”

    _The first lady said one of the most memorable moments of the year came when their daughters, Sasha and Malia, met the pope at the Vatican. “It was interesting,” she said, “the picture of the pope and Malia and Sasha standing there exchanging conversation: ‘How’s school?’ ‘It’s fine.’

    _The president opted not to lower the grade he had given himself for his own performance in 2009 — a B-plus — in light of the intelligence and security failures that allowed a suspected terrorist to board a Detroit-bound plane with explosives in an effort to blow it up. “When you look at what we’ve done this year on national security, we performed at a very high level in as difficult an environment as you can imagine,” he said.

    _The president said he misses daily, spontaneous interactions while living in a bubble. He said the job is lonely in another way — the gravity of sending troops off to war or responding to an attempted terrorist attack. “That side of the loneliness of the job is what I signed up for and I actually think I’m pretty good at,” he said.

    The new issue of People will be on newsstands Friday.

  31. admin
    January 14th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
    Birdgal, what disaster was Mary Todd referring to? Her husband? The first year? Her outfits?
    ——————————————————-

    LOL! I wonder if the low polling numbers are inducing more sleeves being yanked off?

  32. “When you look at what we’ve done this year on national security, we performed at a very high level in as difficult an environment as you can imagine,” he said.

    ——————–

    um no. Hillary performed at a very high level. You went golfing.

  33. Birdgal, the sleeves are flying through the air like fall leaves. You can hear the threads of seams being yanked apart from the basement of the White House to the rooftop. 🙂

  34. “_The president said he misses daily, spontaneous interactions while living in a bubble. He said the job is lonely in another way — the gravity of sending troops off to war or responding to an attempted terrorist attack. “That side of the loneliness of the job is what I signed up for and I actually think I’m pretty good at,” he said.”

    Can we have him drug tested? I only ask because he must be on drugs if he believes that to be true.

    When did he respond? When is he alone? Every time I see him, he’s golfing, playing basketball, chatting with folks, having another damn party. Okay, maybe he means bubble in the sense that he hasn’t held a press conference since July….

    abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-barack-obama-helda-press-conference-months/story?id=9549859

  35. rbg, incumbents always run unless one of the following occurs:

    1. There is a scandal about to pop.
    2. They have a sick spouse/child and it would be unseemly (unless you are Breck Girl and you try to milk it for votes).
    3. Your party looks so bad, the numbers so bad, you will never, ever recover from the loss.
    4. Your money men withdraw to favor another candidate.

    Ritter is clearly #3.

  36. MORE PROOF THAT THE STIMULUS WORKED!!

    meteor-blades.dailykos.com/

    Sales Down, Benefit Claims Up, Stats Still Jiggly
    by Meteor Blades
    Thu Jan 14, 2010 at 10:00:08 AM PST
    In its “advance” monthly report released this morning, the U.S. Census Bureau stated that retail sales dropped slightly from November to December. The decrease was unexpected and at odds with what private trackers of retail sales have been saying. Meanwhile, first-time unemployment claims unexpectedly rose, although the four-week running average that is considered a better barometer continued a trend that began early last spring by dropping to its lowest level since August 2008.

    Jeff Bater, Sarah N. Lynch and Luca Di Leo at The Wall Street Journal reported:

    Retail sales declined 0.3%, the Commerce Department said Thursday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires forecast a 0.5% increase.

    November sales, however, were adjusted upward, to a 1.8% increase from a previously reported 1.3% gain. October sales also rose strongly, up 1.2%.

    Excluding the car sector, all other retail sales in December fell 0.2%. Economists expected a 0.3% increase.

    The numbers were a disappointment for the economic recovery. The retail sales data are an important indicator of consumer spending. Consumer spending makes up 70% of GDP, which is the broad measure of U.S. economic activity. Thursday’s report suggests high joblessness is restraining consumers and will mute the recovery.
    &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

    While the upward revisions in estimates of retail sales in October and November offered some good news in contrast to the unexpectedly bad December sales, these month-over-month comparisons provide only a narrow view of what is actually going on. The October-November sales showed an improvement over 2008, but it’s an unfair match-up considering that that year saw the steepest three-month plunge since the Census began keeping statistics on retail sales in 1992. When December sales in 2009 are compared with 2007, they don’t look good at all, a 6% decline.

    In fact, retail sales in October-December 2009, including motor vehicles and gasoline, were lower than they’ve been since 2005. And that’s just in nominal dollars not adjusted for inflation. When inflation is added in, retail sales were lower in October-December 2009 than in every year since 2001. Likewise, retail sales for all 12 months of 2009 were lower, when adjusted for inflation, than in every year since 1999. Chalk up another “lost decade” to go along with the ones in wage, employment and stock market gains. (See chart.)

    While the majority of leading economic indicators continues an upward trend that began by early summer last year, most observers keep saying we’re in for a tepid recovery. That view was reiterated Wednesday in the Federal Reserve’s beige book. In The Wall Street Journal’s biggest duh moment of the week so far:

    “Some economists fear that the high unemployment rate will hold steady for much of this year unless companies start hiring again.”

    No hiring, no jobs? Really? The government’s economic stimulus had its greatest impact on growth in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 2009 and, without additional spending, that impact will continue to fade. Under such circumstances, the probability of an oxymoronic “jobless recovery” is reinforced. And the term “double-dip recession” is being heard more frequently again. Not exactly good news with at least 26 million Americans out of work or working part time because there aren’t enough full-time positions. But we keep being told that the pot of jobs is just over the horizon at the end of the happy-talk rainbow.

    Meanwhile, as more and more people spend down their savings, exhaust their unemployment benefits (if they were lucky enough to have them in the first place) and lose their houses to foreclosure, the underlying structural problems of the economy, including a still vastly under-regulated banking industry, myopic trade policy and anti-progressive tax policy, seem destined to remain in place, ensuring that the next crisis will be even worse and may begin before the current one is over.

  37. John Stossal, an investigative reporter working for Fox is going to kick Obama’s ass. He just did a piece on who is making money off the green technology. He just linked a company that makes windows to the Obama campaign. THey apparently made a huge donation to his Presidential campaign. John is investigating the kick backs. Well, its a little late, but late is better than never.

  38. admin said:
    Hillary Clinton who won in Southern States with the enthusiastic support of men and who, according to exit polls, would have gotten more Republican votes in the general election and a bigger margin against John McCain than Obama

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

    Here’s detail from the exit polls:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/11/12/politics/horserace/entry4596620.shtml

    As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.
    Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

  39. Well, trying to find the silver lining in the black cloud of Haiti. I can imagine there will be work there rebuilding their country. Its close enough to America that People will be able to go there and work.

  40. In all fairness, the economy sucks bc of both parties inability to control spending. Bush was an idiot and BO is a neophyte who is in over his head and has an opportunistic WH staff who f-s everything up. That’s a deadly combination when combined with a culture that endorses instant gratification and denigrates the blue collar work ethic.

    Besides, HRC and Gates, who the hell does he have who is worth a damn at decision making and follow-thru? And who, if anyone, can serve as a cultural leader to bring back the values of older generations? (And, no, it should not be Palin or Rush or Newt.)

  41. Thanks for the link on the exit polls TurndownObama. We’ll add it to our next “Mistake In ’08” article.

  42. That side of the loneliness of the job is what I signed up for and I actually think I’m pretty good at,” he said.”
    **************

    So he found something he is pretty good @, loneliness? This guy is ALWAYS giving himself high marks and now he is giving himself high marks for loneliness?

  43. Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee
    ******************************

    Those are the PUMA’s…you betcha!

  44. “_The president said he misses daily, spontaneous interactions while living in a bubble. He said the job is lonely in another way — the gravity of sending troops off to war or responding to an attempted terrorist attack. “That side of the loneliness of the job is what I signed up for and I actually think I’m pretty good at,” he said.”

    Can we have him drug tested? I only ask because he must be on drugs if he believes that to be true.

    When did he respond? When is he alone? Every time I see him, he’s golfing, playing basketball, chatting with folks, having another damn party. Okay, maybe he means bubble in the sense that he hasn’t held a press conference since July….
    —————————————–
    Amen. If he were drug tested he would definitely pop positive. He is such a deep, thoughtful and caring man that it must be hard to make the sacrifices he does for our benefit. Like the old ballad says–the life that loves the valley is lonely on the hills. Give me a fucking break. Dont worry Halerpin, I am not responsible for that comment since I did not put quotation marks around it.

    If I were an Ebay merchant, I would have Barack Obama camel hair prayers rugs made up in Yemen and sent to each member of Big Media. On the top side would be a picture of Bambi with the robe a big media dope with hope moniker. On the back side I would have one of those death to America chants and with matching beheading swords. That is the least he could do for these obscene beltway elites have put their pampered life style before the welfare of the nation, just like their counterparts did in Rome along about, oh lets say 452 AD.

  45. Correction: If I were an Ebay merchant, I would have Barack Obama camel hair prayer rugs made up in Yemen and sent to each member of Big Media. On the top side would be a picture of Bambi with the ROPE a big media dope with hope moniker. On the back side I would have one of those death to America chants and with matching beheading swords. That is the least he could do for these obscene beltway elites have put their pampered life style before the welfare of the nation, just like their counterparts did in Rome along about, oh lets say 452 AD.

  46. There is simply no depth too low for the criminals known as Congress……..

    Report: Dems to Grant Special Exemption to Unions on “Cadillac Tax”
    By Philip Klein on 1.13.10 @ 2:15PM
    http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/13/report-dems-to-grant-special-e/

    In their latest effort to pass a health care bill by any means necessary, Democrats have struck a “tentative deal” with their big labor allies to exempt union benefits from a tax on high value health care plans, CongressDaily reports.

    The idea itself is nothing new. Back in June, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus floated the idea of shielding union benefits from the new tax, but it was set aside. In September, President Obama declined to take a clear position on this so-called “carve out.” But now that the excise tax has become a sticking point in negotiations between the House and Senate — and one that threatens to cost Democrats union support for the bill — the exemption idea is evidently back in play.

    If this policy is adopted, it would mean that there could be two Americans receiving the exact same benefits, but one American may be taxed and one wouldn’t, and the only difference would be one of them being a member of a union. This is unseemly and unfair, even by the standards of Obamacare. It has nothing to do with policy-making. It’s simply an outright bribe to a constituency that has contributed handily to Democratic campaigns.

  47. gonzotx
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee
    ******************************

    Those are the PUMA’s…you betcha!

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

    It’s been a while, but I tracked poll and such all the summer of 2008. Iirc, the number of Hillary supporters planning to vote GOP stayed pretty constant from the exit polls in the late primaries to the exit polls in Nov. During the summer there was confusion when some polls reported PERCENTAGES of Democrats rather than ACTUAL NUMBERS, because a lot of Hil people switched from Dim to Ind or GOP; thus a high percent of those remaining Dims were bots.

    I had all this up at clintondems, hope it’s still available as a research site.

  48. MORE PROOF THAT THE STIMULUS WORKED!!
    —————————–
    It worked well for the beltway elites and wall street. For the rest of us it was a disaster and a lost decade.

  49. Just received this on the Brown campaign as a leftover from Dems for McCain:

    We are forwarding the below email as an informational service to our members and friends.

    *****

    Please consider volunteering for the Scott Brown For U.S. Senate legal team.

    Next week, Massachusetts’s citizens will head to the polls to vote in a historical election. Close elections draw intense scrutiny, and ensuring the accuracy and credibility of the process is crucial. For that reason, the Scott Brown campaign is assembling a volunteer team to ensure that every legally cast ballot is accurately counted. The citizens of Massachusetts deserve a fair and honest election.

    You can sign up at the link below. We will contact you with further information.

    Please do not wait, Election Day is January 19th! Please click on the link below to sign up:

    spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dHZHMmtFTWh3dWhISDlXT2Q3MFllMkE6MA

    To Victory,

    Dan Winslow
    Chief Legal Counsel
    Scott Brown for U.S. Senate Committee

    Note that this is a completely volunteer effort and you are volunteering only your own time. The campaign will not be funding or reimbursing any
    legal volunteers for travel, lodging or expenses. The campaign also will not enter into any official engagement with any of the legal volunteers,
    although the attorney-client privilege will apply to all client communications.

    *****

    The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA), trains lawyers on election law issues, but does not participate directly in the elections themselves. The RNLA is happy to make known to its members opportunities to volunteer, or in some cases to be retained to assist with candidates, candidate committees or continuing committees to act in various capacities in connection with elections. The RNLA will pass on requests for volunteers from those entities by posting information on its website, or through informational mailings.

  50. We can see whatever message we like, but think who would actually write the headlines:

    “Bill Clinton couldn’t save Coakley”
    “Supporting HIllary in Denver didn’t help Coakley”
    “Voters reject pro-choice Coakley, choose pro-life Brown”
    “Move over Palin, here’s a man to lead the Tea Party”

  51. For the symbolism of a MA Tea Party, look at the issues we’d be throwing under the bus:

    Coakley has a formidable track record on issues that have been thorns in the side for Obama, who has been accused of being soft on Wall Street and unwisely extending the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. As Attorney General, Coakley forced a huge settlement with mammoth investment bank Goldman Sachs and has called for increased regulation of the financial sector. Like all the candidates in the Democratic primary, opposed President Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
    Coakley also went to court to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce tougher emissions regulations, and challenged the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which imposes federal limitations on same-sex marriage.

    h/w
    hlrecord.org/news/coakley-cruises-to-victory-in-massachusetts-senate-primary-1.981238

  52. Bill Clinton and Haiti

    Mark Leon Goldberg – January 14, 2010

    As I said in my Daily Beast item, one of the best things that Haiti has going for it right now is Bill Clinton. Last spring, the Secretary General tapped the former president to be his special envoy for Haiti. At an emergency General Assembly meeting yesterday, Bill Clinton was emphatic about the urgent need to raise cash for food, water, shelter and first aid supplies. He even promised to hand deliver the cash donated for Haiti through his foundation.

    I’ve just received word that, in the past 24 hours, the Clinton Foundation has raised $2.6 million from 30,000 donors. That excludes funds raised through text message donations, so the total number will be higher.

    But Bill Clinton’s most important role will come in the next few days as the United Nations launches its “Flash Appeal.” This is the mechanism by which the United Nations asks donor countries to contribute funds quickly to an emergency. Individuals can also donate to the Flash Appeal through the UN Central Emergency Response Fund. (This is what Ted Turner did yesterday.) The UN then coordinates the distribution of funds across the UN agencies according to their needs. So, for example, money donated through the Flash Appeal will be dircted to buy food rations for the WFP, medicines for UNICEF, equipment for the peacekeeping mission MINUSTAH, etc. In short, the Flash Appeal is how the UN streamlines the distribution of aid following a disaster like this.

    At the Secretary General’s press conference this morning, he noted that President Clinton will likely play a role in this Flash Appeal. This is good news for the people of Haiti. The man is a very skilled fundraiser.

    http://www.undispatch.com/node/9422

  53. Admin: Sue Lowden is another rising star in the Republican Party. She is star power, articulate, and unflappable. She is a jewel much more so than Marsha Blackburn who has been promoted up to now as a star. When Sue beats Danny boy the pipes the pipes are calling and the racist dirty Harry , she will be a national figure–portrayed as a dragon slayer.

    As you say, the other party is adjusting to the new realities, including demographics, resurgent patriotism and populism. The elites screwed up badly here. They are so drunk on power that they had to order that last drink, and told themselves that because it was a different flavor they could get away with it. They never counted on Hillaryis44.

    When I compare people like Sue, Marco and Scott to the Republicans who came to power in 1994 under Gingrich many of whom I met along the way, and most of whom did not survive the decade in public office, I am struck by how much better these three are than the class of 1994 whom partisans used to say was the completion of the Goldwater Revolution. If these three people are any indication, then the Republican class of 2010 will be the class the stars shown on.

    The DIMS have abandoned the American People in favor of beltway elites and global money men. Just like the Bush repulicans did. The Bush type republicans need to be eased out. The problem is bi-partisan. If we value this country then the competition between the two parties should focus on who can serve the American People best whereas now and particularly under Barack the focus is on who can better serve the elite class. Big media and big money must be vivisected and disemboweled

  54. Ron Brownstein has more hilarity from that Heartland poll from Hotline:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100116_9394.php

    One year after President Obama took office, the green shoots of optimism that accompanied his inauguration are withering, pummeled by gale-force discontent and anxiety over the prolonged recession, a new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll indicates.

    Despite some recent signs of economic recovery, the proportion of Americans who say that the country is moving in the wrong direction has reached its highest level since the George W. Bush era. In the latest Heartland Monitor poll, respondents expressed little trust in any institution beyond their own family to help them navigate the financial rapids–giving government, major corporations, and financial institutions all dismal grades. Only a little more than one-third of Americans predict that their personal financial situation will improve over the next year.

    And although most people still believe that Obama’s agenda will eventually benefit the country, his approval rating has fallen to 47 percent amid a widespread consensus that Washington’s response to the downturn has so far helped the wealthy and powerful more than it has average families. Shirley McCarter, a homemaker and poll respondent in Altus, Okla., encapsulated that view with a brisk verdict on the government’s agenda: “It’s not helping the little guy,” she said. “It almost seems like rewarding the people who made the bad decisions.”

  55. More hilarity from Ron Brownstein:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20100116_9394.php

    Although support for Obama remains strongest among those at the core of his 2008 electoral coalition, the erosion in his standing is widespread. Since April, his approval rating has slipped 9 percentage points among Democrats and Republicans alike, and about twice that among independents. Also since April, the president’s standing among Hispanics, though still a strong 60 percent, has fallen by about the same rate as it has among whites.

    His approval among white respondents is now down to 38 percent overall and just 35 percent among those without a college education–the group that has been consistently coolest to him. College-educated white men are nearly as dubious, with only 38 percent approving. College-educated white women, traditionally Democratic-leaning, display more support; but even among this group, Obama’s approval has slipped to 46 percent, down from 64 percent in April. By contrast, African-Americans and people under 30 have hardly budged in their solid support.

    But Obama certainly can’t find the early numbers on his re-election prospects encouraging: Just 39 percent of Heartland Monitor poll respondents say they are inclined to support him for a second term. Fifty percent say they will probably or definitely vote for someone else.

  56. I remember in Bill Book, the Clinton Tapes, it was Haiti that President Carter was at and did not want to leave because he got to liking the President’s wife. Haiti has been in Clinton’s hair for a long time. So has Jimmy Carter.

  57. All this talk of falling poll number may worry Obama, but all his handlers are going to tell him is this has happened even to the king Ronald Raygun, and Bill Clinton.

  58. Wbboei, Lowden (a woman) and Rubio (a Latino) along with the many other (reports are that the numbers are sharply up) minorities and women have been recruited by Republicans. The Democratic strategists who thought Republicans would do nothing to woo all demographics are quickly being shown how stupid they are.

    The Hotline poll shows how Obama is wrecking the Democratic Party with his situation comedy coalition. Latinos are drifting away as are women. Whites are pretty much gone. It’s all falling apart.

  59. Jon looked like a fool during this interview, no matter how you side with it. Regardless, I think it’s abhorrent how the Fraud’s admin and “Justice” department are going after this guy.
    ********************

    Jon Stewart Calls John Yoo Interview ‘Pretty Unsatisfying’
    By Ryan J. Reilly | January 12, 2010

    John Yoo (Berkeley)

    Jon Stewart (Daily Show)
    Expectations were high in anticipation of Daily Show host Jon Stewart’s interview with John Yoo, a former official in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel who wrote the so-called “torture memos.” Given the comic’s history of tough critiques of the decisions made by Justice Department under George W. Bush, many expected a spirited debate over the use of executive power.

    But at the end of Monday’s show, Stewart called his Yoo interview “pretty unsatisfying” and joked that the government should force captured terrorists to watch it. “My guess is they’ll talk,” said Stewart.

    Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley, was on to promote his book, “Crisis and Command,” in which he argues that the founding fathers deliberately left the Constitution vague on the limits of presidential authority.

    Yoo said it was his duty to answer the White House’s questions about executive power and mentioned that he never met Bush (which ”may be the most f**ked up thing about this,” joked Stewart).

    “I said it’s not something that anybody wants to go out and answer, it’s not anything I came into the government to do but at the same time, our country is under attack, and you think there’s going to be a terrorist attack very shortly,” said Yoo. “There’s a huge demand to get this kind of intelligence from the top leaders of al Qaeda.”

    “If we’re at peace and there’s no enemy, these are not questions that we have to think about,” Yoo later said.

    “So you have to be at war to be able to waterboard?” asked Stewart.

    “Well you just have to be at war to even think of the question,” said Yoo.

    “It’s very easy to attack Bush or Obama for being some renegade president, but Congress and the Supreme Court can always put a stop to anything they want,” said Yoo.

    “If they know about it,” said Stewart.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/daily-show–exclusive—john-yoo-extended-interview-pt–1

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive—john-yoo-extended-interview-pt–2

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive—john-yoo-extended-interview-pt–3

  60. We picture the few remaining Hopium guzzlers, sitting under their bridges, crying and singing this song to Obama – who never cared a whiff about them (poor, sad, Hopium guzzlers):

  61. FoxNews business has on the Saudi prince tonight. Cavuto says we should trust this Saudi prince more than we trust our Potus. Hmmm, Hmmmm, theres is bs going down. Its all being covered up. This Saudi Prince invests in CitiBank. That folks is Soros owned.

  62. turndownobama
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    For the symbolism of a MA Tea Party, look at the issues we’d be throwing under the bus:
    *****************

    But we may very well be saving the Republic. Never fear, the Clinton’s will make sure she has every opportunity in the future. She really has no one to blame but herself for her stated support of the Fraud and his policies and lack of work ethic in the last 2 weeks. Horrible, very entitled.

  63. gonzotx
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    That side of the loneliness of the job is what I signed up for and I actually think I’m pretty good at,” he said.”
    **************

    So he found something he is pretty good @, loneliness? This guy is ALWAYS giving himself high marks and now he is giving himself high marks for loneliness?*****************************************************

    good one, gonzotx… : )

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

    Admin…so on the money as usual…what a treasure you and this site are…

  64. The Democratic strategists who thought Republicans would do nothing to woo all demographics are quickly being shown how stupid they are.
    —————————————
    Reality is catching up with the Dim strategists who believed in straight line projections, and never guessed that the other side would adjust to a changing reality. The DIM problem was summed up well by Alexander Pope:

    Of all the causes which conspire to blind
    Man’s erring judgment and misguide the mind
    What the weak head with strongest bias rules
    Is pride–the never failing vice of fools.

  65. FoxNews business has on the Saudi prince tonight. Cavuto says we should trust this Saudi prince more than we trust our Potus. Hmmm, Hmmmm, theres is bs going down. Its all being covered up. This Saudi Prince invests in CitiBank. That folks is Soros owned.
    ————————
    If Cavuto has the story it has a ring of credibility. He is a fairly good interviewer, and they seem to give alot of the serious stuff to him–not that Greta or Laura could not handle it just as well or better.

  66. Murphy’s request granted: Congress gets 72 hours to review health care bill

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — House leadership has agreed to Rep. Scott Murphy’s request to allow Congressional members 72 hours to review the final health care reform bill before voting.

    Today Murphy began circulated a letter urging Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer 72 hours before the final vote. The letter was still being circulated among Congressional offices when he received word that his request was granted.

    “Given the complex nature and widespread impact of this legislation, it is particularly important that we have at least 72 hours for review,” said Murphy in the letter.

    http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2010/01/14/news/doc4b4f87d927c36939593990.txt

  67. JanH
    January 14th, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Jan, I really miss Bill….the intelligent,straight talk common sense. I had forgotten what it sounds like coming from a politician

  68. Advertisement

    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
    Thursday, January 14, 2010

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15.

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 (see trends).

    Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters now give the President poor marks for handling the economy.That’s the highest negative rating yet recorded. Seventy-percent (70%) of Republicans give the President poor marks in this area along with 54% of unaffiliated voters.

    Overall, just 36% voters say he’s doing a good or an excellent job on economic matters. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Democrats hold that view.

    When it comes to national security matters, 39% say he’s doing a good or an excellent job while 38% say poor. Thirty-one percent (31%) give the government good or excellent marks for its response to the Christmas Day bombing attempt.

    Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove. To get a sense of longer-term trends, check out our month-by-month review of the President’s numbers. A commentary by Michael Barone argues that supporters of the President are driven by style while Tea Party Protesters are motivated by substance.

    In Nevada, support for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has fallen even more following release of comments he made about Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign. Reid now trails two Republican challengers by double digits. In Ohio, Rob Portman holds a very narrow advantage over two Democrats in his effort to enter the U.S. Senate. In New Hampshire’s Senate race, Republican Kelly Ayotte likely Democratic candidate Paul Hodes by nine.

    In Massachusetts, the upcoming special U.S. Senate election is surprisingly close. Rasmussen Reports has released other Senate polls for Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky. and California.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

  69. gonzotx
    January 14th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    turndownobama
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    For the symbolism of a MA Tea Party, look at the issues we’d be throwing under the bus:
    *****************

    [….] Never fear, the Clinton’s will make sure she has every opportunity in the future.

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

    It’s not about Coakley’s personal career. It’s about what kind of US Senator we’d be stuck with for the rest of the term — and what kind of person we’d be helping to gain power among the Tea Party (pushing Sarah aside).

    Brown tried to DENY EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION TO RAPE VICTIMS. As well as other nasty anti-choice actions. Let’s save the Tea Party and Sarah from this kind of nut.

  70. alloutin10
    January 14th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
    There is simply no depth too low for the criminals known as Congress……..

    Report: Dems to Grant Special Exemption to Unions on “Cadillac Tax”
    By Philip Klein on 1.13.10 @ 2:15PM
    &&&&&&&&&&

    In order to get the unions on board, they’d carve out this special exemption. On the face of it, it stinks. Overt favoritism immediately brings out everyone else’s hands. Just look at the uproar over the 100% Medicaid coverage deal given to Ben Nelson’s state.

    That’s not fair health care reform.

    What other unjust favors are going to be parceled out in order to drag this dead turkey over the finish line???

  71. My turn for a conspiracy theory. 😉 Actually it was someone at pumapac who brought up the idea.

    She said that most GOP politiicans are just as much in the power of the insurers, Pharma etc as the Dims are. If the Dims don’t get their 60th vote, one of the GOP (Snowe or someone) will flip so the bill will go through.

    Actually none of the GOP have to openly flip. The 60/40 thing is just about ending a filibuster. All the GOP has to do is someone not show up for the filibuster, or push the wrong button….

    A passed unpopular HC bill that the GOP can blame on the Dims will mean more GOP elected in Nov 2010. So the GOP gets their secret payoffs and their public cause, both. (Hey, kind of like Obama posing as a community organizer, or more recently as a reformer, while really in the pay of big money.)

    So voting for Brown isn’t really going to save the republic, or even stop the HC bill…. It just puts a ringer into the Tea Party leadership, and an anti-choicer into the Senate.

    ANd I still bet the MA Dims would delay Brown’s installation till after the HC vote, popular outrage be damned. How much good came of popular outrage against Obama’s MI/FL shenanagans, months later?

  72. It’s not about Coakley’s personal career. It’s about what kind of US Senator we’d be stuck with for the rest of the term — and what kind of person we’d be helping to gain power among the Tea Party (pushing Sarah aside).
    ——————————–
    It is two years. Whoever loses will be the challenger in 2010. The overriding issue here is health care deform. A vote for Martha is a vote for health care deform. A vote for Scott is a vote against it. And against the Kennedy machine that plotted against Hillary. That machine is the snake that needs to be decapitated–the sooner the better.

  73. According to Cavuto, the saudi prince has been buying our banks!!! WTF is this about???
    ——————————————
    Which explains the deep bow to his master. During the campaign it was disclosed that a member of the Saudi Royal family got him into Harvard. Later reports are that they paid for it.

  74. Bill Clinton is campaigning for Coakley. I notice Sarah Palin is NOT campaigning for Brown.

    If Brown becomes the hero of the Tea Party, that hurts Sarah. Brown is a nut who wants to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. The Tea Party and Sarah don’t need that kind of ‘help’.

  75. Here is the history (by Coakley endorser Boston Globe) of the Scott Brown contraception to rape victims issue:

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/abortion_takes_stage_in_senate_race/?page=2

    The 2005 amendment that Brown sponsored in the state Senate would have allowed a physician, nurse, or any other employee to deny rape victims an emergency contraceptive if it “conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief.’’ The facility would have had to have someone else who could administer the contraceptive or refer the victim to another facility at no additional cost to the patient.

    The amendment, which did not pass, was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide the contraceptives to rape victims.

    In Coakley’s latest ad, a narrator says, “Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.’’

    Brown and his supporters have declined to discuss the underpinnings of his amendment, instead trying to focus on the fact that he supported the overall legislation. He also voted to override a veto by Governor Mitt Romney.

  76. The Fraud has made a commercial for Coakley. Word is he may be going there tomorrow. That would be a disaster.

  77. I’m sorry but obama does not need to go on the campaign trail when there are so many dire issues happening right now.

  78. Turndown,

    The health insurance debacle contains stronger “conscience” language for health care providers to decline service, if it is against their beliefs. So, that is a weak argument.

    If MA doesn’t like Brown, they can throw him out in 2 years.

  79. Brown’s amendment — if a rape victim needs emergency contraception the facility can
    refer the victim to another facility

    Great.

  80. birdgal
    The health insurance debacle contains stronger “conscience” language for health care providers to decline service, if it is against their beliefs.

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

    Do you have a quote?

    Coakley may have to go along with Bill and Hillary who are supporting the HC bill. But Brown SPONSORED that anti-contraception amendment.

    That’s the sort of person he is. Coakley has been fighting for choice for many years as state prosecutor. That’s the sort of person she is.

  81. Turndown, my bottom line, is that the dims have to lose big time. The dims are throwing women under the bus and there seems to be more DINOS than ever. Anyone who votes for this monstrosity needs to go. I don’t care what they have done in the past. MA can throw him out in 2 years. Coakley will be a freshman, with very little power and with big pharma, the insurance companies, chicago and Kennedy machines supporting her, she won’t dare to get out of line.

    Look at the women who are in Congress now. What have they done to try to support women in this obnoxious health insurance bill? Sure, they have given lip service to it and may have tried to soften the Stupak language, but in the end, they have and will vote for this POS legislation. No one gets a pass on this.

    So, add Brown to all the other idiots in Cogress. I am really angry about the backroom deals, shoving women under the bus, spineless politicians, and taxing the middle class. Frankly, the Repubs and Dimocrats are one party and they are each vying for the special interest dollars. They are no different.

  82. http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/politics/local_politics/republican-scott-brown-kids-answer-coakleys-abortion-criticism

    Republican Scott Brown kids answer Coakley’s abortion criticism
    Updated: Wednesday, 13 Jan 2010, 11:09 AM EST
    Published : Tuesday, 12 Jan 2010, 12:13 PM EST

    BOSTON (FOX25, myfoxboston) – Republican Scott Brown is using his two daughters to answer his Senate rival’s abortion criticism.

    Ayla and Arianna Brown were appearing this afternoon at a news conference to address a negative ad by Democrat Martha Coakley.
    She claims their father opposed emergency contraception for women. Brown says he didn’t want to force Catholic hospitals to supply “morning-after” pills.

    Meanwhile, Brown says he raised $1.3 million Monday in a 24-hour appeal for his campaign to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

    Brown said 16,800 people across the country gave an average of $78 to his campaign.

    Independent Joseph L. Kennedy — no relation to the senator — is also a candidate in the Jan. 19 election.
    *******************

  83. Kennedy’s widow does ad for Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley
    Updated: Thursday, 14 Jan 2010, 11:48 AM EST
    Published : Thursday, 14 Jan 2010, 10:09 AM EST

    BOSTON (FOX25, myfoxboston) – Edward Kennedy’s widow, Vicki Kennedy, has made a TV commercial championing the Democratic candidate running to fill his Senate seat.

    The last-minute appeal on behalf of Martha Coakley underscores Democratic worries about losing the race.

    The Democrats must hang on to the Kennedy seat to maintain the 60-vote margin they need to pass President Barack Obama’s overhaul of health care despite Republican opposition.

    Last week, Coakley said she thought it would be impossible for Kennedy to tape an ad on her behalf, given the short time before Tuesday’s election.

    Republican Scott Brown is claiming momentum, and state and national Democrats are now rallying behind Coakley.

  84. check this out from washintonpost:
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/1-2-3.html?wprss=thefix

    Democratic groups outspending GOP 2-1 in Mass. Senate special election
    1. Senate Democrats and affiliated outside groups are outspending their Republican counterparts by an almost two-to-one margin on television in the final week of the tight-as-a-tubesock special election between state Sen. Scott Brown (R) and state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D). The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is now committed to nearly $1 million in television ads in support of Coakley while the Service Employees International Union ($529,000) and Citizens for Strength and Security ($278,000), a labor-backed 527 group, are also spending heavily. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is not on television in the state although the Chamber of Commerce ($443,000), American Future Fund ($375,000) and Americans for Responsible Health Care ($204,000) are combining to spend just over $1 million for Brown. The spending by outside groups affiliated with Democrats is further evidence that the party is in triage mode, trying to fix the problems of the Coakley campaign through an major influx of cash and commercials. Coakley is doing herself no favors. Her most recent eyebrow raising comment came in a conversation with Boston Globe; when asked whether she wasn’t doing enough to win the race, Coakley shot back: “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands? This is a special election.” Um, OK.
    ##########################
    UPDATE: Baseball great Curt Schilling wrote this today about Coakley’s faltering campaign:

    …Finally, has she forgotten who she’s talking to? What state she’s wanting to represent in the Senate? It’s Massachusetts. You do not make sneering insults about Fenway Park. What’s she going to do next, insult the Red Sox? That’d really just be the cherry on top of a delightful campaign. Fenway Park and the Red Sox are damned near sacred to Massachusetts residents, Bostonians in particular. Really, I’m starting to think that she just doesn’t want to get elected or something. Because anyone with half a modicum of sense knows that you do not go into Boston and mess with Fenway Park.

  85. The pro-Brown, anti-Coakley site says about Obama’s video:
    Maybe the lackadaisical nature of the video is purposeful. Obama is voting present. Obama can say he supported Coakley, without actually having supported Coakley if she loses.

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

    That’s Obama’s style. Pretend to support or oppose and to be defeated. Thus avoiding having a pro-Hillary gutsy pro-choice Senator to stand up against him. And losing his famous 60/40 majority so he can justify even more deals with the GOP (while the GOP politicians pretend to oppose the HC bill).

  86. Well I hate to kick a dead dog, but it will be nice to see the Kennedy’s fall. They have been an open sore festering since they decided to back the “one”.

  87. The insult to sports fans is to suggest that they would rather shake hands in the cold than read facts and records at home. Or that they would prefer a candidate who spends his time shaking hands in a photo op to one who has a good record and reveals it in a rational way.

  88. confloyd, I’m pretty sure Biden is going to Florida to meet with the Haitian community there, not to Haiti itself.

  89. That Obama ad IS strange. He seems angry that Coakley has put him in this position. Disdain for her is oozing in his face that she can’t win over voters like he did. He is also admonishing the MA voters to do the right thing which is to help him fight all those bad people in Wash DC which of course is a big joke.

  90. Brown says he didn’t want to force Catholic hospitals to supply “morning-after” pills.

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

    That’s supposed to be some kind of excuse? This kind of contraception has to be given ASAP after the rape. So they want to make the victim run around being ‘referred to some other facility’ to try to get it within the few hours when it can work?

    They pretend to be so concerned about some fertilized egg that might already be in the system, that they would cause a delay (as well as the trauma of trying to get to some ‘other facility’) — which could cause a REAL pregnancy to begin. Thus putting the victim in need of a REAL abortion.

    This is nothing but trying to prevent contraception per se!

    At least hiding behind his daughters shows that he’s running scared on this issue, as well he should be!

  91. pm317
    January 14th, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    That Obama ad IS strange. He seems angry that Coakley has put him in this position.

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

    More likely he’s scared she’ll be another Hillary in the Senate!

  92. In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.
    Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.

    But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.
    It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.

    Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.

    Coakley, now the Democratic candidate for US Senate, has made much of her record prosecuting crimes against children, and says her office handled this investigation appropriately. But the case stands out as one in which she drew criticism for not being aggressive enough. Indeed, the case gave rise to Coakley’s last competitive election.
    *******************

    Got it from Ace Turndown, I will have to look for the source, but should be easy enough. I don’t see Hillary playing it the same way IMHO

  93. from bigjournalism.com…Andrew Breitbart…they have a part 2
    **************

    Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things the Democrats Would Like You to Forget About Candidate Coakley

    Posted by Gary Hewson Jan 14th 2010 at 8:55 am in Crime, Featured Story, Martha Coakley, Politics, Print Journalism | Comments (273) Part one of a series

    In researching the ever-intensifying Massachusetts Senate race between Democrat Martha Coakley and her Republican challenger Scott Brown, it only takes a few keystrokes to unearth her ongoing history of questionable judgment and puzzling prosecutorial decisions. Even though the election has been effectively nationalized, with some polls showing the underdog Brown within two points or so of the colorless Coakley, she remains largely unknown outside New England.

    So as a public service to the voters of the Bay State, during the run-up to the special election on Jan. 19, Big Journalism will be offering some of the Martha’s Greatest Hits, so that they can fully make up their minds whether she would make a suitable successor to the late Edward Moore Kennedy – who, as you recall, began his illustrious career by being expelled from Harvard for cheating, went on to drown Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick, and then turned to a life of drinking and debauchery, including the infamous “waitress sandwich” with soon-to-be-retired Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, before attempting to inflict “universal health care” on the country shortly before his death last year.

    You can read all about Ted here in this classic profile of the last and worst of the Kennedy brothers by the late Michael Kelly. Be sure to read the whole thing, just to get a flavor of the kind of candidate Massachusetts voters seem to like.

    Homework done? Good. Because Martha Coakley, the current Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and thus its top law enforcement officer, is shaping up as a worthy heir to the Lion of the Senate.

    Let’s start with a horrific case that shows Coakley’s inexplicable and appalling lack of judgment:

    1. October 2005: The curling-iron toddler rape case. Coakley brings no charges, then lets the rapist out on no bail.

    “I’ve been a cop for over 26 years and this is one of the most — if not the most — horrific cases I’ve ever seen.” Police Detective Sgt. Barry Campbell

    Even in a place like Boston, which has seen its share of horrific sex crimes in recent years, such as the Jeffrey Curley rape and murder in 1997, this was particularly unsettling. Meet Keith Winfield, child rapist:

    From the Boston Globe. Read the whole thing:

    Some saw Coakley as lax on ’05 rape case
    In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.

    Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.

    But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.

    It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.

    Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.

    Coakley, now the Democratic candidate for US Senate, has made much of her record prosecuting crimes against children, and says her office handled this investigation appropriately. But the case stands out as one in which she drew criticism for not being aggressive enough. Indeed, the case gave rise to Coakley’s last competitive election.

    One of the attorneys who had represented the family of Jeffrey Curley was so outraged at Coakley’s inaction in the Winfield case that he challenged Coakley in her run for A.G. in 2006, but lost.

    After Coakley’s foot-dragging, Winfield eventually was found guilty on all four charges of the August 2006 indictment: two counts of rape of a child with force, one count of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury. He was sentenced to two life terms

    So let’s be clear: Martha Coakley failed to take action against a man who molested his own niece, a child, with a curling iron until her hand was finally forced by the victim’s mother.

    And that’s just the beginning. Stay tuned for Part Two…

  94. Its seems to me that Massachusettes is not very good at kicking out bad folks they elect. Look how long they put up with Teddy’s philandering.

  95. Turndown, there are no saints in politics, except maybe a couple of Clintons who come close
    ********************************

    Martha’s Greatest Hits II: Candidate Coakley and the ‘Pedophile Priest’
    Posted by Gary Hewson Jan 14th 2010 at 1:12 pm in Crime, Featured Story, Justice/Legal | Comments (35) Second of a series. Find part one here.

    The “Pedophile Priest” Case, 1995-2002: Coakley cut secret deal in 1995 that allowed Father Geoghan to molest again.

    Martha Coakley is running for the U.S. Senate in part on her track record of keeping children safe from predators. The actual facts, however, are somewhat at odds with her campaign biography.

    One of the most notorious cases of homosexual child abuse in the “pedophile priests” scandal that rocked the American Catholic Church in general and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular over the past twenty years involved Father John Geoghan, who came to symbolize the cancer in the church.

    Here’s a brief introduction to the late, defrocked Father Geoghan by Denise Noe in Crime Magazine. Be sure to read the whole story, then come back.

    The unofficial poster boy for priest pedophilia was a Boston priest named Father John Geoghan. He became a symbol for everything the church had done wrong in handling this problem when, on Jan. 6, 2002, The Boston Globe broke the story about how Boston’s archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved the abusive Geoghan from parish to parish over the years. The article also discussed the $10 million dollar settlement the church had already made with families of his victims. After the article ran, an embarrassed Law apologized – and turned over to law enforcement the names of dozens of Boston priests who had been similarly accused.

    The Geoghan scandal rocked Boston, and eventually resulted in Cardinal Law’s removal as Archbishop. In part to shield him from possible prosecution, the late Pope John Paul II summoned Law to Rome, where he was ensconced as the Archpriest of the historic Basilica of St. Mary Major, and replaced him in Boston with Archbishop Sean O’Malley.

    And what was Ms. Coakley’s role in all this? At first, she was applauded for her role in the successful prosecution of Father Geoghan in 2002. But then it was discovered that she had plea-bargained away molestation charges against him in 1995, letting him off with probation in a deal that was kept secret from the public.

    What?

    One possible explanation for her actions is that she had lost a high-profile case against a priest in suburban Woburn, Father Paul Manning; Manning’s parishioners reportedly cheered when he was acquitted of molesting an 11-year-old altar boy at his 1994 trial.

    Still, as David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted at the time: “Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence.’’

    Here’s Martha, explaining herself:

    And here’s the Boston Globe story, recounting the whole sordid mess:

    When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

    But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

    Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

    In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.

    That’s one way to make a name for yourself: let a pedophile off the hook privately so that he can molest more children, and then make a big, public conviction to take credit for your amazing work keeping children safe from…. the pedophile priest you secretly let go seven years earlier.

    And as for Father Geoghan, he was strangled and killed by a fellow inmate in February, 2004.

    More

  96. gonzotx
    January 14th, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    turndownobama
    January 14th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    ***************

    Unlikely

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

    Like Hillary, Coakley is a workhorse, she deals in rationality not grandstanding, both have done solid legal work for choice and for women. Both have won by their work (Coakley as MA Attorney General which is real work, not just crowd-pleasing) in spite of opposition from men and from the Kennedy crowd (who opposed Coakley in the primaries and are now only supporting her becuase she’s the only Democrat).

    Issues such as forcing a huge settlement with mammoth investment bank Goldman Sachs and calling for increased regulation of the financial sector; opposing Obama’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan;
    going to to court to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce tougher emissions regulations; and challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
    [cite given already]

    Here’s more on Coakley’s record supporting gay issues, from
    h/ no wi
    gayberkshires.blogspot.com/2009/12/opinion-general-coakley-vs-porky-brown.html

    Coakley has received the endorsement of Mass Equality, an organization of more than 200,000 members that works to protect, promote and defend marriage equality and to advance lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights. In the suit she filed in Federal Court seeking to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act, Coakley called it “discriminatory and unconstitutional.” And that is only one action in a multi-pronged effort to level the playing field for lesbians, gays and many others.

    She strongly supported the MassHealth Equality bill, which ensured that Massachusetts cover the cost of health care for same-sex couples who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid; worked to obtain civil rights injunctions in numerous cases involving hate crimes against members of the LGBT community; and supported efforts to address domestic violence in the LGBT community. Her office also conducted trainings for police departments around the Commonwealth on how better to respond to hate crime

  97. The thing I don’t like about the Massachussett election is the heavyhanded thugging by obama’s dims. They pour money into Coakley’s campaign like there is no tomorrow. Are they going to do this with every byelection that comes up? It’s overkill in every area.

    All I can say is thank god there is no caucus this time around. All they have to watch for is the bullying at the polls by the bots and the corrupt nature of the vote count afterwards, also lovingly supported by the dims and bots.

  98. birdgal
    January 14th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
    ***************************************

    got to say, I agree…these are not even dems anymore…they have already sold us out…they need some humility to bring them back to reality and the average people…

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

    btw…one thing about Brown…he really knocked big, bad David Gergen down to size with that comeback line about during the debate, “this isn’t the Kennedy seat or the Democratic seat, it is the people’s seat” SNAP! ouch…

  99. How do you see this working out? A rape victim comes to a hospital. Her attacker broke her leg and she is bleeding and has concussion. Brown’s amendment says the hospital can ‘refer her to another facility’. She is supposed to go somewhere else before she can get her injuries attended to? Or the first hospital can treat her injuries (taking valuable hours) and THEN tell her they have not given any emergency conception and she will have to go elsehwere for that?

    Someone whoh has religious objections to emergency contraception should get another job.

  100. Turndownobama…

    How do you think a woman who has been raped will be treated at any hospital once obamacare is in place?

  101. Depends on whether we have Brown types in the Senate (who would probably say she deserved it) or Coakley types like Hillary who fight for women’s health rights.

  102. turndownobama…although it is hard to accept, if the dims and the stupak ilk get their health reform scam that bars women from an abortion, even if they want to pay for it, having Brown in there as a senator is a moot point…

    besides, many women got sick and tired of the dims manipulating us and our votes solely based on the abortion issue…we are sick of it…they can no longer be trusted and as birdgal states…right now the two parties are essentially the same…the prevailing difference…where the lobbying money is going…so for now, the dims are the bigger sellouts and collecting the lobbying money…as can clearly be seen by their actions on a daily basis…like the latest for the unions while the rest of us are forced to pay for them, and Lousiana and Nebraska, etc, etc, etc…

    enough!

  103. Coakley will vote for the obamacare POS…so how can you say that she would vote like hillary??

    I don’t believe she is anything like hillary at all.

  104. Coakley has caved in and crawled into bed with the dim’s Hillary has not and brown is not either so it’s a obvious choice for me.

  105. Judith Timson on politics

    Game change? It’s just the same old sexist bull

    Unhinged! Crazy! Opinionated! Too much trouble! In the new tell-all book, Game Change, that’s the depressing depiction of women in politics

    There’s been a lot of chatter in the U.S. media about Game Change, a hot new political tell-all by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin that reconstructs the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. It is undeniably juicy reading and it has already given birth to at least one imbroglio: the Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, one of Barack Obama’s early supporters, has been pilloried for saying in the book that the electorate would like Mr. Obama because he was “light-skinned” and didn’t talk in a “Negro dialect.” Panel after panel of wound-up commentators have been poring over that one.

    But there’s another discomfiting thread that runs through this entertaining book: its portrayal of women in a campaign that was historic partly because one woman – Hillary Clinton – came close to winning her Democratic party’s presidential nomination and another woman – Sarah Palin – ran as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

    Big breakthroughs, yes? Except the women in Game Change come off quite a bit worse than the men. Ms. Clinton, after losing in Iowa, was so “bitter and befuddled,” the authors write, that “one of her senior-most lieutenants thought for the first time, This woman shouldn’t be president.” On another occasion, Ms. Clinton didn’t just raise her voice to ask her staff “why are we losing?” she was “nearly screaming now.” As for her decision to battle Mr. Obama almost to the end: “Obama had never considered Clinton irrational, yet her refusal to surrender just seemed crazy.”

    As for former Alaska governor Sarah Palin – whose ignorance about world affairs and misplaced self-confidence about her selection as John McCain’s running mate (“It’s God’s plan”) should be all anyone needs to fairly condemn her – there’s also a suggestion she was too hampered by being a mother to do her job. And that “some on her staff believed Palin was suffering from postpartum depression or thwarted maternal need.” Oh and she screams, too. (Men seldom scream, don’t you know, they just talk loudly or yell. No nasty ear-splitting there.)

    And how is it possible that Elizabeth Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of that philandering scumbag John Edwards (whose mistress eventually gave birth to a daughter), comes off looking so bad? Apart from noting why some American women responded positively to her – “I like that he’s got a fat wife,” one woman says – the authors, in what is the most vitriolic chapter in their book, give us “the lie of Saint Elizabeth,” charging that there is “no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing” than Ms. Edwards. The author of two bestsellers about getting through tough times, she is apparently not the courageous, gracious and smart woman the public thinks she is, but what insiders saw as an “abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazy woman,” and one “prone to irrational outbursts.” (Is there a wife who wouldn’t be prone to outbursts if she were married to John Edwards?)

    In fact, Ms. Edwards was such a shrew, according to Mr. Heilemann, a national political columnist for New York magazine, and Mr. Halperin, the senior political analyst for Time magazine, that perhaps Mr. Edwards travelled a lot to get away from her!

    And finally Cindy McCain, who came across during the campaign, at least to me, as a lonely, overly scripted Stepford political wife is portrayed as arguing with her husband all the time. (A married couple who argues? What a bombshell, as one Republican commentator said.) She apparently also berated him, saying in frustration, “It’s all about you.” And she may have been having an affair.

    Don’t get me wrong. Some of the male politicians in the book (apart from Mr. Obama) are variously depicted as overreaching, unfaithful, greedy and mendacious, each flawed in his own spectacular way. But there’s a depressing sameness to the way the women are viewed. Unhinged! Crazy! Opinionated! Too much trouble! Which, I hate to say it, is a rather entrenched reaction many threatened men have to women who give them trouble, especially powerful women.

    These four female caricatures caused Salon.com editor Joan Walsh to suggest Game Change could have been entitled the “Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse.” Ms. Walsh lamented: “Boy, we’ve cracked that old glass ceiling.”

    But hey, don’t worry that any book, even a bestselling so-called “definitive” book about the campaign that paints them as shrews, will stop women from entering high-stakes political campaigns. After all, Ms. Clinton has gone on to more gravitas, power and prestige as Mr. Obama’s Secretary of State, so she can’t be that irrational. And like her or loathe her, Ms. Palin is continuing on her path to world domination with a recent mega-bestselling memoir and a pit stop as a Fox TV commentator.

    Meanwhile, Game Change’s two male authors profusely thank their own female partners for all their “inspiration,” “grace” and even “salvation.” Too bad neither of these paragons thought to say to their men, “Honey, aren’t you being a little hard on the women?”

    Not much of a game change there.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/family-and-relationships/game-change-its-just-the-same-old-sexist-bull/article1431544/

  106. S
    January 14th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    turndownobama…although it is hard to accept, if the dims and the stupak ilk get their health reform scam that bars women from an abortion, even if they want to pay for it,

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

    That’s the version Coakley REFUSED to vote for, and may thereby have gotten it changed.

  107. djia
    January 14th, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    Coakley will vote for the obamacare POS…so how can you say that she would vote like hillary??

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

    Hillary and Bill are both supporting the HC bill. Hillary campaigned for Obama in 2008. Coakley VOTED AGAINST OBAMA IN DENVER at the Convention when Hillary herself voted FOR Obama.

  108. turndownobama…yes, but a couple of nights ago Big Pharma and a parade of lobbyists threw her a fundraiser to save her ship…that feels very compromised…very Obamaesque – and as someone stated with the pressure that will be on her…as the rest of the democratic women – they are rationalizing and caving…it is sad and tragic…the few steps we made to get ahead are now steps going backwards…with the O dim party…a big price to pay…too big…the trust is gone…

    O is taking the whole party down…even the good ones…

  109. turndownobama
    January 14th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
    Brown says he didn’t want to force Catholic hospitals to supply “morning-after” pills.

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

    That’s supposed to be some kind of excuse?
    *****************

    I WORK FOR A CATHOLIC HOSPITAL. THIS IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. NO ABORTIONS, NO HYSTERECTOMIES, NO BCP’S…YOU CAN GO DOWN THE STREET TO THE NON CATHOLIC HOSPITAL AND GET YOUR NEEDS MET. I’M NOT CATHOLIC, BUT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO BUSINESS UNDER THEIR MORAL COMPASS.

  110. birdgal
    January 14th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
    I’m not even going to vote for Boxer, that is how disgusted I am with the dims.

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

    I probably wouldn’t vote for Boxer either after how she treated Hillary in the primaries. First Boxer promised to vote with the citizens of California. CA voted for Hillary. Then Boxer kept stalling. Then finally she broke her promise and voted for Obama instead. — Just the opposite of what Coakley did.

  111. Health care is reason enough to vote for Scott Brown. That bill must be defeated. But there is another reason to vote for Brown as well. National security. The record is clear that Obama is weak on that issue. And that should matter greatly to Massachusetts voters. Why? Because Boston/MassPort was identified by intelligence reports as one of the two likely targets for a second attack. The other was Los Angeles/Long Beach. If memory serves.

    A few weeks ago the estimable Leslie Gelb wrote an article critizing Obama for a lack of strategic vision. I see that the latest issue of Foreign Affairs argues that he is brilliant and everything is on track. The author is Dr. Stangelove himself Zbig Brzezinski Obamas long time mentor, hater of Israel and the one who unleashed radical Islam upon the world in order to destroy the old Soviet Union. Trust me. This man is pure evil as it gets. His praise for Obama should not be taken at face value.

  112. birdgal and turndown…i feel the same way about Boxer…in 1992, we all worked so hard for the clinton/gore – boxer/feinstein ticket…met boxer a few times in LA…she is a perfect example of what i was trying to say above regarding O and the takedown of the party…even the good ones…or former good ones…

    Marcy Kaptur is one of the few strong women left…and even she will probably be co-erced to vote for this scam…

    tominpaine.blogspot.com/2010/01/if-there-was-anything-that-anyone.html

    O’s serial lying catching up with him…

    good piece on O and his lying ways…he is like a virus that has infected our once beloved party…they are the establishment now…the corportists in charge…and they have way too much power and control as it is…we simply cannot give them anymore at this time…their arrogance and control has to be stopped…

  113. I probably wouldn’t vote for Boxer either after how she treated Hillary in the primaries. First Boxer promised to vote with the citizens of California. CA voted for Hillary. Then Boxer kept stalling. Then finally she broke her promise and voted for Obama instead.
    ————————-
    A complete maggot if there ever was one. I met her husbands law partner in a bankruptcy case thirty years ago. I think she is originally from Brooklyn if memory serves.

  114. bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100114brown-out_poll_shows_scott_brown_trumping_martha_coakley/srvc=home&position=0

    Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

    Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University/7News survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.

    “It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”

    The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Unenrolled long-shot Joseph L. Kennedy, an information technology executive with no relation to the famous family, gets 3 percent of the vote. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.

    Paleologos said bellweather models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent. Kennedy earns just 3 percent of the independent vote, and 1 percent are undecided.

    Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy – and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”

    Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

    The poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday, surveyed 500 registered likely voters who knew the date of Tuesday’s election. It shows Brown leading all regions of the state except Suffolk County.

    “Either Brown’s momentum accelerates and his lead widens, or this becomes a wake-up call for Coakley to become the ‘Comeback Kid’ this weekend,” Paleologos said.

    And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.

    The poll surveyed a carefully partitioned electorate meant to match voter turnout: 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican and 45 percent unenrolled.

    Brown wins among men and is remarkably competitive among women – trailing Coakley’s 50 percent with 45 percent.

    While Brown has 91 percent of registered Republicans locked up, an astonishing 17 percent of Democrats report they’re jumping ship for Brown as well – likely a product of Coakley’s laser-focus on hard-core Dems, potentially at the exclusion of other Democrats whom she needed to win over, Paleologos said.

    For Coakley, Brown’s surge may be as ominous as the fact that her campaign’s peril is not fully recognized, with 64 percent of voters still believing she’ll win – a perception that threatens to keep her supporters home.

    Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.

    No longer does Brown suffer from a name-recognition problem, with 95 percent of voters having heard of him statewide.

    7News Political Editor Andy Hiller said, “Voters obviously think Brown is running a better campaign than Coakley. For months, it has been Coakley’s race to lose, and now in the last days that’s exactly what she may be doing.”

    Brown surges ahead:
    + Poll results highlighted
    + Kennedys’ nod may have hurt Coakley
    + Obama supports Coakley in YouTube video
    (72) Comments | Post / Read Comments

  115. probably wouldn’t vote for Boxer either after how she treated Hillary in the primaries. First Boxer promised to vote with the citizens of California. CA voted for Hillary. Then Boxer kept stalling. Then finally she broke her promise and voted for Obama instead.
    ————————————
    I called her office on that during the primary and they equivocated and became very defensive. Some technical bullshit that she would not endorse Hillary but would vote in accordance with the will of California voters in the first round.

  116. The Story The Media Is Missing Because It Does Not Fit Their Narrative
    by Erick Erickson
    Red State Blog

    (snip)

    Right now the media is missing a really big story. It does not fit their narrative.

    The narrative, of course, is that conservatives want a totalitarian pure party with a purity test for the GOP. You want gay marriage? No way. Pro-choice? No support. For government assisted health care options? We don’t recognize you. At least that is what the media claims.

    So the media has and is ignoring the alliance between left and right among the GOP in Massachusetts.

    Scott Brown is not a conservative. He makes no pretension of being a conservative. He defends Romneycare, which most conservative have rejected. He is pro-choice. But he is for less government interference in the free market and less spending. Like Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, he is the perfect sort of Republican candidate for New England.

    Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund is encouraging its members to support and donate to Scott Brown.. Marco Rubio is supporting Scott Brown. RedState is supporting Scott Brown. We, well . . . I, suspect he’ll give conservatives heart burn as New England Republicans do. But all of us know he is a good, pragmatic fit for Massachusetts. He’ll vote against Obamacare and he’d vote against a second stimulus. Conservatives do know, despite media and liberal Republican (called “moderate” by the media) claims to the contrary, that the GOP needs 51 seats in the Senate to have a majority.

    Conservative and liberal Republicans are united behind Scott Brown. You’d think a mainstream media that has generated millions of words on television, radio, and print about conservatives demanding a pure party would take notice.

    But that would shatter their whole narrative. And the last thing anyone wants to do at the next party at the Met or Sally Quinn’s house is mention the latest liberal friend in rehab or that maybe their group think on conservatives is shallow, self-serving, and vain.

  117. I wonder for Brazilla is up to these days? 400 lbs?
    ——————————————-
    Hammerstein had the best words to describe it–with some minor edits:

    Brazilla is as dainty as a sparrow,
    Her figure is somethin’ to applaud.
    Where she’s narrow she’s as narrow an arrow,
    And she’s fat where a broad should be broad.
    (Especially between the ears)

    Four hundred and one pounds of fun,
    That’s Roland Martin’s honey bun!
    Get a wide load of honey bun tonight.

  118. curious…does anyone know when barney frank is up for re-election?
    —————————————–
    2010

  119. And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.
    —————————–
    wow

  120. If the Republicans are smart they will keep an eye on Blue Digital. I guarantee you they are in the middle of this Massachusetts thing. The other thing to watch out for is mining information off the super computer to adjust the campaign message i real time. On the other hand, maybe it is too late to matter. The logic of American Idol says Brown will win. I guess it depends on how successful the Kennedy Machine is in disenfranchising voters and enfranchising illegal once. Iowa.

  121. Our friend Peggy Sue at No Quarter:

    I picked up a marketing media poll earlier this evening that scans the internet, press headlines, twitter and facebook data. According to their analyses, the interest ratio being generated by the two candidates, this is going to be a blowout for:

    Brown.

    I have to see it to believe it, but I’m flabbergasted that I’m even reading results like this.

    And if Coakley loses, she will instantly be thrown under the bus. The Dems are already laying the groundwork, sending out the message that she screwed the pooch and a loss has nothing to do with the Dem majority or President Obama. One of the union bosses lamented in a press article that this reminds him of the Dukakis campaign.
    ————————————————————————————-
    This IS a referendum on health care, the economy and a president who favors elites over the American People. Its deja vu Rezko. And Cambridge was the site of his gaff dumb (white) cop. For these reasons, I reject the premise that if Martha loses it is her fault. When Big Media parrots that delusional line it will be further evidence of their folly and fall from grace. Say, why doesn’t Barack try a beer summit with the leader of North Korea?

  122. The Arbitrator and I held a seance this afternoon to call up the dead spirits of Harry Bridges and Jimmy Herman long deceased leaders of the International Longshoreman’s Union and former friends of Nancy Pelosi thirty years ago. These men were hard core leftists but people of principle. From the grave they both deplore what Botox Nan is doing to the party and the country. Their spirits told us if the head of the Pacific Maritime Association ever offered them a bribe (which he did not) they would have blown the whistle on him. They saw no reason why the same rule of honor should not apply to the Speaker and her chamber and were appalled at what they are seeing from her.

  123. Brown tried to DENY EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION TO RAPE VICTIMS. As well as other nasty anti-choice actions. Let’s save the Tea Party and Sarah from this kind of nut.

    Pardon my french, but this is complete bullshit lies being spread by the Coakley campaign and the Dimocrats. Whoever keeps posting it in this blog needs to be called out.

    Scott Brown is incredulous at that ads being run against him on this issue. He VOTED FOR the morning after pill for rape victims TWICE. The bill came up in the Mass legislature. He supported the bill, but introduced a religious exemption so that health care providers with religious objections wouldn’t be required to terminate pregnancies. His admendment failed, so he voted to pass the morning after bill anyway.

    Then, Mitt Romney vetoed the bill. Scott Brown voted with the majority of the Mass legislature to override the veto and again pass the legistlation making the morning after pill available at state expense to rape victims.

    And, Coakley has the gall to run an ad with a woman cowering in a stairwell painting Brown as being against providing abortions to rape victims? It’s a gross, disgusting perversion of the man’s record.

    This needs to STOP right now. TURNDOWNOBAMA, I’m talking to YOU.

  124. This utter disrespect for people’s relgious beliefs pisses me off. I’m the least relgious person you’ll ever meet. I haven’t set foot in church since high school in the 70s — and then it was a Unitarian church. But, damn, we owe it to people to respect their religious beliefs. It’s what this country was founded on.

    I love pork. I eat pork. But, that doesn’t mean I don’t respect those who keep kosher. I’m not going to pass a law forcing them to eat pork. Good grief.

    Same thing with abortion. I’m 100% pro-choice. But, if someone has a religious objection to abortion, I respect that. I don’t think it’s right to force a devout Catholic health care provider to peform abortions or terminate pregancies. It’s just basic respect for religious beliefs that are every bit as valid as mine or yours.

    I’m sick to death of liberals demonizing people like Scott Brown and many others for trying to be respectful of people’s religious beliefs. These are tough issues. I think we have to work hard to find answers that don’t trample on people’s religious and moral convictions.

  125. Someone whoh has religious objections to emergency contraception should get another job.

    That’s absurd. Should the government force them to eat pork, too? How about beheading them if they pray to mecca? I don’t even recognize the religious intolerance reflected in your statement.

  126. wbboei said;
    This IS a referendum on health care, the economy and a president who favors elites over the American People. Its deja vu Rezko. And Cambridge was the site of his gaff dumb (white) cop. For these reasons, I reject the premise that if Martha loses it is her fault. When Big Media parrots that delusional line it will be further evidence of their folly and fall from grace.

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

    Big Media will say it’s Martha’s fault for supporting Hillary and having Bill campaign for her. It will be taken as the Final Fall of the Clintons. It will teach the Dims not to ever let anohter Clintonista win a primary. (Especially not a woman.)

  127. hwc,

    Pork is a simpler question. Or, let’s say, meat, or non-vegan food.

    If someone doesn’t want to serve non-vegan food, they have no business working in a canteen where hungry people come in great need.

    All these religious scruples about what OTHER people should be allowed to do to protect themselves from pregnancy AFTER RAPE — those religious people need to exercise their own freedom of choice of jobs!

  128. hwc said:
    [Brown] supported the bill, but introduced a religious exemption so that health care providers with religious objections wouldn’t be required to terminate pregnancies.

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

    Brown introduced the amendment? Are you sure? Supporting the bill as a whole might have been something he felt forced into (as Coakley, Bill, and Hill may be forced into supporting the HC bill), but introducing the amendment is a whole nother level of responsibility.

    Where do you get ‘terminate pregnancies’ out of this? Or are you referring to some other bill that was actually about abortion?

    That applies to whatever bill you’re talking about. The one I’ve seen described was about emergency contraception being denied to rape victims (and yes, ‘referring the victim to some other faciility’ would result in the victim not getting the contraception or not in a timely manner).

  129. turndownobama:

    Then why are you supporting Obamacare? It has a provision that allows any health care provider with a religious OR moral objection, to not offer abortion services. In other words, a stronger provision than Brown wanted. Coakley supports this bill. Should we attack her for “denying health services to rape victims”? These are total outright distortions.

    To be perfectly honest, the religious objection to abortion is so long-standing and so strong that I think politicians would be very well served to find alternatives to taxpayer funding. To me, that is how you work to find some accommodation. Surely all these Democratic fat cat donors could fund an endowment to cover free abortion services.

  130. hwc,

    Coakley has worked to make the HC anti-abortion language LESS limiting. Brown introduced (so you said) an amendment to the morning after bill to make it MORE limiting of contraception.

  131. Big Media will say it’s Martha’s fault for supporting Hillary and having Bill campaign for her. It will be taken as the Final Fall of the Clintons. It will teach the Dims not to ever let anohter Clintonista win a primary. (Especially not a woman.)
    ———————————-
    So what. These people are not constrained by the truth. They will say whatever comes into their delusional minds to blame Hillary and Bill. Dumbo Ben Smith took their best shot with his standing alone me me and then Halperins gossip tome game change. And while all this is going on Bill is down in Haiti saving lives.

    Big media has burned every bridge to support Obama. That is because he will throw the middle class under the bus to protect their wealth and privilege. They will tell any lie to protect their wealth and privilege. People are sick of them and they tune them out.

    Notice how more and more and more people are saying Hillary got treated unfairly in the media and or their election coverage was a travesty. Just keep giving them rope, watch Obama fail, watch the Kennedy Machine falter and all will be well.

    If Hillary decides to make another run you and I both know Martha will be there with her. But the last thing in the world to do is worry about what big media will say. They are as trustworthy as an Obama speech. Not.

  132. DEAR SENATOR NELSON:

    I HELD YOU IN HIGH EXTEEM UNTIL I HEARD ABOUT YOUR TREACHERY TOWARD HILLARY. YOU PRETEND TO BE HER FRIEND AND THEN YOU STAB HER IN THE BACK. I AM A HILLARY SUPPORTER SO AN OFFENSE AGAINST HER IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST ME.

    YOU SAY YOU WANT ME TO HELP SAVE THE SEAT OF YOUR FRIEND TED KENNEDY. THE ANSWER IS NO. WHEN THE TIME COMES I WILL WORK WITH PEOPLE IN YOUR STATE TO DEFEAT YOU. WE NEED HONEST PEOPLE IN CONGRESS WHO PUT PEOPLE BEFORE BIG BUSINESS.

    IN THE MEANTIME, TAKE ME OFF YOUR MAILING LIST. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE YOU OR HEAR FROM YOU. JUST GO AWAY.

    WB

  133. Wbboei, keep your letter to Ben Nelson on your computer hard drive. Eventually, we will all have to make copies of it, change the name to many others on a long list, and send it to a lot of other Dimocrats. The Dimocrats will have to pay for their treacheries to the nation and to the once great Democratic Party – in full.

  134. hwc,

    Okay, here’s evidence that it was Brown who ‘owned’ the amendment allowing denying contraceptives to rape victims.

    [Brown] said he could not recall whether he had actually filed that amendment, although Senate records clearly say he did.

    What I have not been able to find out is, whether the legislature succeeded in overriding Romney’s veto of the bill. If the legislature had a veto-proof majority in favor of the bill, then the fact that Brown voted with the majority tells us little about Brown’s own intentions. Survival may have forced him to go along with the majority.

    Where he opposed the majority was in adding this amendment, which would have made it more difficult and in some cases impractical for rape victims to get emergency contraceptives. So here we have an expression of Brown’s own preferences, or at least his priorities: ie to deny the contraceptives.

    Here’s more from the story at

    h/w
    boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2010/01/13/abortion_takes_stage_in_senate_race/?page=full

    The amendment, which did not pass, was attached to a bill that he ultimately voted for, which required emergency rooms to provide the contraceptives to rape victims.
    [….]
    Brown and his supporters have declined to discuss the underpinnings of his amendment, instead trying to focus on the fact that he supported the overall legislation. He also voted to override a veto by Governor Mitt Romney.
    [….]
    Brown has also declined to discuss his amendment proposal.
    “It’s irrelevant; it’s a red herring,’’ he told reporters after Monday night’s debate, as an aide cut off further questions.
    On WCVB-TV last night, he said he could not recall whether he had actually filed that amendment, although Senate records clearly say he did.

  135. Coakley has worked to make the HC anti-abortion language LESS limiting.

    When was Martha Coakley in the closed-door meetings where the Senate version of the HC bill was written. That bill has a stronger religious belief exemption than the one Brown introduced in Mass.

    BTW, I would have voted for Brown’s amendment. I don’t think it’s right for the government to force Catholic nurses, doctors, or hospitals to perform services that go against their strong religious beliefs. To me, that’s just not how you try to deal with a tough issue. When there are irreconcilable differences as fundamental as relgious beliefs, then I think you have to seek every possible avenue of accomodation. You don’t send in a government gestapo to force Catholic charity hospitals to dispence contraception.

  136. hwc,

    As I’ve said, Martha said she would not vote for a final bill that had the Stupak kind of language, but would vote for one with less restrictive language. She’s selling her vote for the better language, forcing them to concede on this point.

  137. Brown’s voting with the majority on the 2005 bill proves nothing; his only independent action was his defeated amendment allowing denial of contraceptives.

    For evidence of his larger motive, we can look at his record on other reproductive issues and look at how the pro-choice and anti-choice organizations rated him and Coakley.


    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.[….]
    Still, abortion rights advocates are deeply critical of his record, and say they do not consider him an ally.
    “There is nothing that I can see that demonstrates that he would support abortion rights,’’ said Dianne Luby, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, which also endorsed Coakley.

    h/w
    boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/04/abortion_stances_of_brown_coakley_not_so_easily_defined/?page=2

    Imo the headline of this Boston Globe article is not justified by its content.

  138. Here is an excerpt from a letter from Coakley’s campaign which explains the difference between the House version which she rejected and the Senate version which she reluctantly accepted.

    [….] there are important distinctions between what was passed in the House and what was passed in the Senate. As you note, the House provision would effectively bar any insurance plan accepting government subsidies from covering elective abortions. The Senate bill, on the other hand, would allow such insurers to sell plans covering abortions, but would require women to pay for that portion of the coverage separately.

    The whole letter is at my blog,
    florasteele.blogspot.com

    I got it from a post at Riverdaughter.
    h/ no w
    riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/putting-the-pieces-together-an-open-thread/#comment-437092

  139. Where he opposed the majority was in adding this amendment, which would have made it more difficult and in some cases impractical for rape victims to get emergency contraceptives.

    Oh stop it, please. Massachusetts is not siberia. There is no town in Massachusetts where a Catholic hospital is the only health care facility. Hospitals are one of our major industries.

    And for the love of god, will you quit throwing the Boston Globe in my face. Do you have any idea the editorial slant of the Boston Globe. They’ve been running hit pieces on Brown for a month. I don’t think you know the first thing about Massachusetts or Massachusetts politics.

    Hmmm. Let’s see, he voted twice for the bill to provide state funded morning after pill for rape victims because THAT’S WHAT HIS CONSTITUENTS WANTED. What a novel idea.

    Don’t give me this crap about Martha Coakley “working to make the health care bill better”. She hasn’t even been elected yet. Or, are you talking about working with pharma lobbyists in Washington the other might? Looks like she’s getting up to speed quickly on that part of the job.

  140. Okay, here’s evidence that it was Brown who ‘owned’ the amendment allowing denying contraceptives to rape victims.

    [Brown] said he could not recall whether he had actually filed that amendment, although Senate records clearly say he did.

    I don’t need “evidence” and Senate records. Brown is on the radio here every single day. I listened to him explain the whole thing. Yesterday. He supported the bill. Always supported the bill. Everyone in the state supported the bill. It passed unanimously. When Romney veto’d the bill (to establish his street cred for the presidential run), the override vote was also apparently unanimous. This was not a big deal.

    What I have not been able to find out is, whether the legislature succeeded in overriding Romney’s veto of the bill. If the legislature had a veto-proof majority in favor of the bill, then the fact that Brown voted with the majority tells us little about Brown’s own intentions. Survival may have forced him to go along with the majority.

    See I live here. Brown voted to override Romney’s veto. He supported making morning after contraception available to rape victims. Always supported it. Took heat for supporting it. That’s what makes Coakley’s ad so offensive. It’s a lie.

    Where he opposed the majority was in adding this amendment, which would have made it more difficult and in some cases impractical for rape victims to get emergency contraceptives. So here we have an expression of Brown’s own preferences, or at least his priorities: ie to deny the contraceptives.

    You don’t have a clue about the Massachusetts legislature, do you? Where do you get that he wanted to deny contraceptives when the guy voted TWICE to provide contraceptives to rape victims? This isn’t even a case of where he voted against something before he voted for it. He for it from the start. He supported the legislation!

    He tried to make it better, but giving hospital workers with religious convictions the ability to not be the one administering the drug. I think that would have improved the bill to. There are people who believe they are going to eternal hell if they provide those treatments. There are plenty of doctors and nurses in Massachusetts who don’t have those issues. But, hey, he gave it shot. His amendment failed.
    Here’s more from the story at

    Brown and his supporters have declined to discuss the underpinnings of his amendment, instead trying to focus on the fact that he supported the overall legislation. He also voted to override a veto by Governor Mitt Romney.
    [….]
    Brown has also declined to discuss his amendment proposal.
    “It’s irrelevant; it’s a red herring,’’ he told reporters after Monday night’s debate, as an aide cut off further questions.

    See, that’s a total lie from the Boston Globe. I listened to him explain the whole thing on the radio Tuesday morning while I was sitting in the drive through lane a McDonald’s. He had no problem talking about it. Nothing to hide.

    Look, I feel sorry for Martha Coakley. She’s a competent public servant who has worked for this moment for years and should be coasting to victory. Unfortunately for her, her party has sold her down the river shoving an agenda down people’s throats and exhibiting an arrogance that has voters near the point of open revolt. She’s caught in the rip tide.

  141. I don’t know who you people are that write for this blog, but I have to compliment you. I visit here every now and then, and finally registered the other day. I’m a moderate to conservative Democrat who voted for Sarah Palin in the general election. It was my first Republican vote ever. I plan on voting a full Republican slate in 2010 in Florida.

    Anyway, I agree with your assertion that the progressives are the “stupid” ones. I don’t even consider them to be Democrats, either. Indeed, they are Leninist/marxists/communists… whatever leftist, non-Democratic name one can come up with. I’ll vote against any politician that I feel is a threat to the prosperity, and freedom on this country, and if that means that I vote Republican, even conservative Republican, to keep a leftist out of office, then that’s what I will do. In my opinion, the extreme left is much more of a threat to this country than the extreme right, although a prefer more centrist politicians.

    Thanks for the thoughtful, and informative posts on this site. I’m sure that we agree on many things, and probably don’t agree on others, but I will continue to visit here since it’s obvious that your thought processes have not been affected in any way by kool aid, and like me, you seem to choose country over party. That’s what I will be doing from now on when I vote.

  142. By the way, I hope that Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts. Obamacare needs to be stopped and Scott is the perfect antedote for that. It’s not just Obamacare that needs everyone’s attention. Obama’s big spending, no results agenda needs to be stopped before the country slides into complete economic ruin. We are witnessing “Democrats Gone Wild” in Washington DC, and their nonsense needs to be stopped ASAP.

  143. hwc, I am glad you cleared that up about the hc bill on the morning after pill. I don’t live in Massachusettes, but am ready for the country to clean house. My only concern is that we get it right, there might not be another chance to save the country.

    nomobama, glad to see you here, I seen you at other blogs. I think this is a very good blog and it has been true and loyal to Hillary since day one, that why I like it here.

  144. I hear on a blog that Obama won’t be stumping for Coakley because when he stumps for you, you lose. LOL!! That’s why they send Clinton, he is a winner.

  145. One year out: President Obama’s fall

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, January 15, 2010; A25

    What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama’s approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent — and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president’s second year.

    A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health-care reform.

    A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on Earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing — even among erstwhile believers.

    Liberals try to attribute Obama’s political decline to matters of style. He’s too cool, detached, uninvolved. He’s not tough, angry or aggressive enough with opponents. He’s contracted out too much of his agenda to Congress.

    These stylistic and tactical complaints may be true, but they miss the major point: The reason for today’s vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he’s too left.

    It’s not about style; it’s about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society — health care, education and energy.

    Then began the descent — when, more amazingly still, Obama devoted himself to turning these statist visions into legislative reality. First energy, with cap-and-trade, an unprecedented federal intrusion into American industry and commerce. It got through the House, with its Democratic majority and Supreme Soviet-style rules. But it will never get out of the Senate.

    Then, the keystone: a health-care revolution in which the federal government will regulate in crushing detail one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By essentially abolishing medical underwriting (actuarially based risk assessment) and replacing it with government fiat, Obamacare turns the health insurance companies into utilities, their every significant move dictated by government regulators. The public option was a sideshow. As many on the right have long been arguing, and as the more astute on the left (such as The New Yorker’s James Surowiecki) understand, Obamacare is government health care by proxy, single-payer through a facade of nominally “private” insurers.

    At first, health-care reform was sustained politically by Obama’s own popularity. But then gravity took hold, and Obamacare’s profound unpopularity dragged him down with it. After 29 speeches and a fortune in squandered political capital, it still will not sell.

    The health-care drive is the most important reason Obama has sunk to 46 percent. But this reflects something larger. In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people — disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized — have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

    Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

    It’s inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel — of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

    Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn’t just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something — to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America’s deeply and historically individualist polity.

    Perhaps Obama thought he’d been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success — twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress — was a referendum on his predecessor’s governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.

    Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

    One year out: President Obama’s fall

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/14/AR2010011403558.html?sub=AR

    ————————–

    Admin,

    I hope you are going to do a one-year report card on this misfit potus as well.

  146. wbboei,

    Thank you for the “Drawing Heaven” video! That child’s artistic skills are literally otherworldly.

Comments are closed.