Scott Brown Aftermath: Hillary Clinton Beats Barack Obama

It’s almost like the scene in the movie “Pleasantville” when a whole world goes from black and white to vivid color. In this case, the world has gone PINK. Big Pink.



Ah, the power of change. Not fake change, which bamboozles temporarily, but real change which sweeps clean like a fast moving punch wave of water.

* * * * *

The lesson? After Massachusetts, permission has been granted by the “high information”, “liberals”, and “not racists” of the Bay state to politically open fire on the flim-flam scam man from Corrupt Chicago. Obama is now under attack by people he fooled, tricked, for votes. Big Media reports note that Obama will attempt to grab the anger and frustration from Scott Brown. But the old tricks no longer work. Reuters reported the story of Obama’s latest flim-flam, and Politico did the analysis:

Reuters reports that Tim Geithner may have, as it were, pulled a Goolsbee — letting bankers know that President Obama’s populist posturing is, more or less, just that:

President Barack Obama’s newest Wall Street crackdown was met with hesitation from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who is concerned that politics could be sacrificing good economic policy, according to financial industry sources.

Goolsbee, during the campaign, allegedly mentioned to a Canadian official (accurately, if he did) that Obama didn’t really plan to mess with Nafta. But while there isn’t much in the way of left-wing populism inside the Obama administration, there is a strain — represented by Volcker and Goolsbee — of economic thinking that has far less affection for Wall Street, and faith in the Street’s warnings of calamity, than do the people who have run policy to date, Summers and Geithner.

They call it “posturing” we call it what it is, “flim-flam scam”. Who’s right?

Charles Krauthammer sees the flim-flam, just like we do:

After Coakley’s defeat, Obama pretended that the real cause was a generalized anger and frustration “not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.”

Let’s get this straight: The antipathy to George W. Bush is so enduring and powerful that . . . it just elected a Republican senator in Massachusetts? Why, the man is omnipotent.

And the Democrats are delusional: Scott Brown won by running against Obama, not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare. Killing it was his No. 1 campaign promise.[snip]

Brown ran on a very specific, very clear agenda. Stop health care. Don’t Mirandize terrorists. Don’t raise taxes; cut them. And no more secret backroom deals with special interests.

Obama and Obama Dimocrats snubbed voters, particularly the white working class, and now they want Americans to believe they represent those they snubbed. Krauthammer again:

The reason both wings of American liberalism — congressional and mainstream media — were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they’d spent Obama’s first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer. With characteristic condescension, they contemptuously dismissed the protests as the mere excrescences of a redneck, retrograde, probably racist rabble.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

The evidence was unmistakable. Independents, who in 2008 had elected Obama, swung massively against the Democrats: dropping 16 points in Virginia, 21 in New Jersey. On Tuesday, it was even worse: Independents, who had gone 2-to-1 Republican in Virginia and New Jersey, now went 3-to-1 Republican in hyper-blue Massachusetts. Nor was this an expression of the more agitated elements who vote in obscure low-turnout elections. The turnout on Tuesday was the highest for any nonpresidential Massachusetts election in 20 years.

One of the top Kooks at DailyKooks appears to admit we have been right about the historic mistake made by Democrats in 2008. We’ve talked about how Obama’s Dimocrats threw out the winning FDR Hillary Clinton coalition in exchange for the “situation comedy” coalition. A Kook at Huff n’ Puff, too late, now sees what we saw so long ago. Here’s what the slowly awakening Kook says:

Political observers surprised by the Democratic Party loss in the Massachusetts Senate election last night should take a second look at the trouble Barack Obama had attracting so-called “lunch-bucket” voters in the 2008 presidential primaries. The problem that once plagued the campaign of candidate Obama has now metastasized to the whole party of President Obama. It took one year for that to happen and the consequences could be dire for the Democrats.

The Kook does not want to actually acknowledge “white working class” voters. The euphemism is “lunch bucket”. But have no doubt, the white working class voters Obama purposefully snubbed in 2008, are now in full snub mode:

But remember it they should, because the story of Obama’s failures in presidential primary states like Pennsylvania and Massachusetts was remarkably similar to the story coming out of last night’s loss in the Senate race.

Reporting in March of 2008, NPR’s Mara Liason observed, “Sen. Barack Obama, who has built his string of victories with the support of upscale affluent voters, is now trying hard to win support from the so-called “lunch-bucket” Democrats.” Liason then when on to quote one voter in particular who summed up this “lunch-bucket” perspective on Obama in 2008:

She just seems more in touch with people than Barack Obama does,” he says.

The “she,” of course, was Hillary Clinton, who won her way into the hearts and minds of white working-voters with a few shots of whiskey and a relentless focus on Main Street issues. Try as he might, Obama never managed to become a symbol that lunch-bucket Democrats took as their own. While the impact of that vote was diminished in the fray of the national election against McCain, the x-factor of the lunch-bucket Democrats remained in play.

We wrote repeated that Republicans should learn the lessons of Hillary Clinton and benefit from those lessons. That obvious fact is clear even to the Kooks:

If the right-wing should be credited with one accomplishment in 2009, it is turning the lunch-bucket albatross of one Presidential campaign into the symbol of the entire Democratic Party. That transformation was bound to happen eventually, but News Corp made it happen in under twelve months.

As a result, when lunch-bucket voters looked at Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, they saw a symbol of elites who speak for vested interests rather than working families. They saw, in other words, the same candidate they did not trust in the 2008 Presidential primaries. And seeing that symbol, they either stayed home or flocked to the opposition’s “anti-government” anger. Either way, the lunch-bucket voters were the decisive factor in the Coakley loss.

The Kook thinks the credit belongs to News Corp which shows the limits of the “creative class” boobs to acknowledge the intelligence of the white working class. The bottom line is that the Democratic Party made an historic mistake when its establishment gifted the nomination to Obama and attacked Hillary Clintonthe champion of the working class and specifically the white working class.

The Kook prescribes more deficit spending and more, much more, publicity stunts. It won’t work. Obama snubbed the white working class and the white working class is snubbing right back.

Patrick Buchanan understands the potency of what we have been writing about for so long. Scott Brown understood what we have been writing about for so long.

What explains the white surge to the GOP?

First, sinking white support for Obama, seen as ineffectual in ending the recession and stopping the loss of jobs.

Second, a growing perception that Obama is biased. When the president blurted that the Cambridge cops and Sgt. James Crowley “acted stupidly” in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates – a rush to judgment that proved wrong – his support sank in white America and especially in Massachusetts, where black Gov. Deval Patrick joined in piling on Crowley. Deval is now in trouble, too.

Buchanan notes that Hillary Clinton “clobbered Obama in the 2008 primary, though the Kennedys were in Obama’s corner.” Buchanan then goes to our argument once again:

The Scott Brown Democrats were the Hillary Democrats were the Reagan Democrats.

But if McDonnell, Christie and Brown could roll up large enough shares of the white vote to win in three major states McCain lost, why did McCain lose all three?

Answer: In 2008, the working and middle class had had a bellyful of the Bush-McCain Republicans. They were seen as pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and pro-NAFTA, when U.S. workers had watched 5 million manufacturing jobs disappear in a decade – and reappear in China. They were willing to give Obama a chance because Obama had persuaded them by November he was not just another big-spending utopian liberal.


Scott Brown Democrats, Hillary Democrats, Reagan Democrats – also known as the FDR winning coalition.

D.K. Jamaal harvests a comment from the Huff n’ Puff post and CQPolitics. D.K.:

At the Huffington Post, blogger and MSNBC analyst Craig Crawford rocked the boat with a cross posted article provacatively titled ‘What If Hillary Had Won?

One of the comments from a PUMA: “Would it have made a difference if an inexperienced unqualified pilot had landed in the Hudson instead of Sully? Of course it would have made a difference.”

Craig Crawford asked a question he knows the answer to. Craig answered his own question:

I’ll admit it. I was a bit wimpy in posing this post as but a question. Truth is I totally believed that Democrats were utterly foolish to choose a political neophyte they barely knew.

Craig Crawford was a regular on television before the primaries, before he let on that he was not a Hopium guzzler. Craig Crawford did not guzzle the Hopium, so Craig Crawford disappeared.

Even the gossip mongers know Hillary beats Obama any day of any year:

And my political strategist, by the by, is also not only fully aware I voted for Ms. Clinton in the primary, she also appears to be seeing why I was such a fan of H.C. in first place:

“I totally agree with you. If Hillary had been elected, people could at least agree or disagree on something, because the woman makes decisions, not just a bunch of bulls–t talk and jibberish that speechwriters turn out to make him oh-so-dreamy and hopey-changey.”

We called Barack Obama “balloon boy” and now Obama enabler Mort Zuckerman borrows from us:

The air is seeping out of the Obama balloon. He has fallen to below 50 percent in the poll approval ratings, a decline punctuated by his party’s shocking loss in the Massachusetts special election.

Why?[snip]

His promiscuity on TV has made him seem as if he is still a candidate instead of president and commander in chief. He—and his advisers—have failed to appreciate that national TV speeches are best reserved for those moments when the country faces a major crisis or a war. Now he faces the iron law of diminishing novelty.

Despite this apparent accessibility, Obama’s reliance on a teleprompter for flawless delivery made for boring and unemotional TV, compounding his cerebral and unemotional style. He has seemed not close but distant, not engaged but detached. Is it any wonder that the mystique of his presidency has eroded so that fewer people have listened to each successive foray? The columnist Richard Cohen wryly observed that he won the Pulitzer Prize for being the only syndicated columnist who did not have an exclusive interview with the president.

Poor results. But Obama’s problems are more than a question of style. There is doubt aroused on substance. He sets deadlines and then lets too many pass. He announces a strategic review of Afghanistan, describing it as “a war of necessity,” only to become less sure to the point that he didn’t even seem committed to the policy that he finally announced. As for changing politics in Washington, he assigned the drafting of central legislative programs not to cabinet departments or White House staff but to the Democratic congressional leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the very people so mistrusted by the public. Who could be surprised that the critical bills—the stimulus program and healthcare—degenerated under a welter of pork and earmarks that had so outraged the American public in the past?

One year ago Obama promised to close Guantanamo prison (during the campaign it was ‘close Guantanamo in 100 days’). Guantanamo is still open. Obama promised to meet without preconditions, anytime, anyplace, with dictators. Thanks to Hillary that naive foolishness was not accomplished.

Peggy Noonan, who did her best to destroy and libel this website, now agrees with us:

In 2008, the voters went for Mr. Obama thinking he was not a Nut but a cool and sober moderate of the center-left sort. In 2009 and 2010, they looked at his general governing attitudes as reflected in his preoccupations—health care, cap and trade—and their hidden, potential and obvious costs, and thought, “Uh-oh, he’s a Nut!”

Another Big Pink hating website, Politico, now sings the praises of Bill Clinton and sees Bill as the light and the way:

WWCD: What Would Clinton Do?

That’s not a question that President Barack Obama and his team of loyalists from the 2008 campaign are prone to ask, because they don’t much care about the answer.

It is an irony of the Obama administration — given that it is staffed with so many people with high-level experience during Bill Clinton’s presidency, including one Cabinet member named Clinton — that its basic attitude toward Clinton-style governance is hostile.

Obama and White House aides are courteous to the 42nd president when he calls, but in private many of those aides sound very much like George W. Bush’s advisers in disparaging the Clinton years.

The people around Obama are romantics. They dream of Obama as a transformational figure, looming large on history’s stage. They see Clinton as at best a transitional figure, whose poll-tested pragmatism and incremental policies loom small.

Imagine the level of stupidity that thinks of Obama as “transformational” or “looming large on history’s stage”. Pre-teens, tweens, and early teen-agers have more sense. Or maybe not, but they can be excused for youthful naive inexperience. Vote enfranchised adults cannot be excused.



The Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts has exposed the Democratic Obama foolishness in 2008. There will be Hell to pay for that foolishness in the generations of Novembers to come.

Share

155 thoughts on “Scott Brown Aftermath: Hillary Clinton Beats Barack Obama

  1. Excellent as usual, admin. I must re-read and digest.

    In the meantime, Boobery Rides Again! Oh, yeah, Teh One is definitely rattled. At his townhall today:

    At one point Obama said, “here in Michigan” alas it was in Ohio.

    ROTFLMAO!!

  2. OMG, the Democrats want to go into the political wilderness forever, it seems.

    Headlines now on TV that they are pushing to get rid of the filibuster rule. However you may feel about that rule, given the current angry political climate, the public response is going to be “WHAT PART OF STOP SHOVING STUFF DOWN OUR THROATS DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND????!!!!!”

    If the Dems try to do this, they are dead meat. DEAD MEAT for decades.

  3. Will Durst
    Political Comedian

    The Barack H Obama 2010 State of the Union Address Drinking Game

    WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY:

    4 taxpayers: 1 rich white guy banker type wearing a suit. (Bank Boy.) 2 ordinary folks wearing jeans, 1 in a blue work shirt, the other in a white shirt, no tie, sleeves rolled up (the Jeans,) and 1 person wearing clothes that look like they were involved in some sort of sewage treatment plant engagement ring retrieval operation. Belt and shoelaces safely secured (Rags.)

    1 living room with a large screen HDTV tuned to C-SPAN.

    1 shot glass per person. Everybody furnishes own, placing it on a coffee table in front of TV. Bank Boy gets first choice for use during game. White shirt picks next, then blue shirt. Bank Boy takes last shot glass as well, and Rags either rents it from him, finds a replacement or drinks out of own cupped hands.

    Everybody antes up 20 bucks. Cash. Except Bank Boy, who tosses in an I.O.U..

    2 cooked packages of Vienna Beef Chicago style hot dogs in middle of table with butter grilled buns and pickles and tomatoes and onions and condiments and that weird neon green relish on the side.

    1 bottle of bourbon.

    A large stash of beer in cans on ice. Rags gets whatever is on sale, like Heileman’s Old Style Light. Bank Boy gets whatever import he wants. The Jeans get domestic, but must pay for all the beer, bourbon and hot dogs.

    RULES OF THE GAME.

    1. Every time Barack H Obama says “Democratic leadership,” the first person to stop laughing is exempt from drinking 3 shot glasses of beer.

    2. When the President says the State of the Union is good, but could be better, the last person to eat a fully accoutered hot dog has to drink 1 shot of bourbon.

    3. If either the Vice President or the Speaker of the House gets caught napping on camera, last person to sing the chorus from “Wake Up, Little Susie” has to drink 4 shots of beer. If Senator Robert Byrd ever appears awake, everybody has to drink 6 shots of beer.

    4. As soon as Mister Obama starts a defense of Cap & Trade, everybody must drink a whole beer then throw the empty can at the television. If anybody hits Harry Reid in the head, everyone else has to drink 3 shots of beer.

    5. Whenever Barack uses the phrase “economic stimulus package,” the last person to slap the side of his/ her forehead with a hot dog, has to drink 2 shot glasses of beer.

    6. If Obama speaks of how he sympathizes with the electorate’s fundamental desire for “change,” the last person to cough “Hack!” must drink 3 shots of beer.

    7. Every time the Chief Executive winks and/ or points at Michelle, all four players swordfight with hot dogs. The last person with an intact weenie does not have to eat an entire shot glass full of that weird neon green relish.

    8. If the President relates a touching heartfelt story of some poor unfortunate denied health care, Rags gets to kick everybody else once. Twice, if the subject of the anecdote is in the audience. Three times, if he/ she is sitting next to an astronaut.

    9. Whenever Obama makes a reference to his faith getting him through tough times, last person to fall to their knees and shout “Hallelujah!” has to drink 1 shot of bourbon.

    10. The first time Barack H Obama mentions bipartisanship, the last person to pretend to faint has to drink 3 shots of beer.

    EXTRAS:

    Before the speech, everyone writes down who they think is giving the Republican Response. Anybody who correctly identifies the person doesn’t have to watch it. Bank Boy takes home all the money and the Jeans have to pay off his I.O.U.. Leftover bourbon, beer and hot dogs go home with Rags after he/ she finishes washing the dishes.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/durst/detail??blogid=84&entry_id=55812

  4. H4T, He still can’t tell the difference between Ohio and Michigan? I wonder if he has learned that there are only 50 states yet??? And they Sarah Palin is dumb. He’s had a whole year to learn how many states we have and the difference between Ohio and Michigan.

    I think he smoking more than domestic cigarettes!

  5. I love Krauthammer and I read Buchanon’s spot-on article,

    I think Buchanon has been reading here!

    Jan, BTW, that article is ROTFLMFAO funny!

  6. Read Noonan’s WSJ piece. The end is most important.

    The applause on that plane should scare the shit out of every incumbent. I’m telling you this isn’t just about Democrats. It’s about business as usual vs. common sense and decency. Sure, the Dems will get hurt the most and the GOP will be better at exploiting it to some degree, but the anger is at all of them.

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575017503811443526.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

  7. OkieAtty, that was good.

    Here is the seismic political change as I see it:

    The two parties have at various times in recent history had their finger on the pulse of what the People want. But when they have that flash of insight, their response has not been “Then let’s give them what they want.” It has been Let’s see how we can mold what we have into a facsimile of what they want, and convince then this is, in truth, it.. BOTH parties have done this. Obama was the height of this craft: an entirely manufactured candidate, designed and tested via the Deval prototype to tap into a disgust with the govt and desire for Change.

    What is happening in this country is that people are sick of it, and not buying it. And it is happening on BOTH the left and the right. They are demanding that they be given what they want. They are demanding that they be taken seriously, not merely plumbed for prevailing opinion so as to manufacture a new candidate (whether R or D) to play on those desires without actually delivering a damn thing.

    The American People are standing up, throwing off party rule, and asserting their sovereignty across the entire right-left spectrum. And they are doing it SMART this time: They are not spiraling off into hopeless 3rd parties. They are standing as independents and saying, “I own my vote, my money, and my time – and I will bestow it as I see fit, on whatever candidate I choose. You are free to court me. I am not ANYONE’S guaranteed vote.”

    I believe that this is the healthiest thing to happen to American politics in decades. I think it’s healthy on BOTH the right and the left.

    In short, I believe with all my heart in We The People.

  8. The Krautheimer and Noonan pieces admin links today are both “must-reads”. Krautheimer is hilarious. He says the one thing the lefties should have recoginized was a “proletarian vanguard”. Baaa wwwwaaa haaa haaaa.

    Noonan gets this one rigth. She surmises that voters no longer see Dems and Repubs, but Nuts and Creeps. That loyalty to a party is gone. There’s no cushion from voter content. They’ll throw your party out and then throw the next party out. Just business. No loyalty. Better perform. I think she’s right.

  9. The slaughterhouse:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/If-Republicans-run-like-Brown-then-only-103-House-Dems-are-truly-safe-82360422.html

    Anyway, there’s a pattern here: Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.

    Let’s extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103. [snip]

    So that means that 101 of the 256 House Democrats represent 64%+ Obama districts and that 155 House Democrats represent districts which might, according to the Massachusetts metric, be vulnerable in some circumstances to Republican capture. No wonder so many House Democrats refused to vote for the Senate health care bill—enough to prompt Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say publicly that “unease would be a gentle word” to describe their attitude toward doing that.

  10. H4T, EXACTLY!!

    Since May 31st, 2008 I have had to really get back to the roots of my political beliefs. I, like many others, had gotten too much into the mob mentality. It was part of why I left here after November. That and I was tired and needed to have a real life again.

    I’m a Democrat in the sense that it once identified a person as someone who desired social justice, not to be stepped on by the titans of industry and didn’t think I knew what was better for someone’s body. That being said, I’ve always been a fiscal conservative.

    This bullshit of bankrupting the treasurery because the GOP did it has to stop. It just must.

    Someone mentioned women’s groups earlier in the day on the last thread- guess what- every group even advocacy groups are full of the same sickness that government/the parties has been stricken with for way too long.

    At one time you could count on a solid response, but they sold their souls to jockey for position. In the end, they lost themselves and our trust eternally.

    Now, that’s coming from a disillusioned Democrat. I wonder how a Republican feels after Bush and the GOP’s reckless spending and policies?

  11. Admin, that # is scary, but there is nothing really to back it up. It’s like seeing the Virgin Mary on a piece of toast. You want to see it, but really?? Are you sure you’re seeing what you’re seeing?

    I think we are seeing toast (i.e. Dems/incumbents are toast), but we ain’t seein’ the Virgin. Not yet least ways.

  12. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125327/Majority-Favors-Suspending-Work-Healthcare-Bill.aspx

    In the wake of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Tuesday’s U.S. Senate election in Massachusetts, the majority of Americans (55%) favor Congress’ putting the brakes on its current healthcare reform efforts and considering alternatives that can obtain more Republican support. Four in 10 Americans (39%) would rather have House and Senate Democrats continue to try to pass the bill currently being negotiated in conference committee.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/january_2010/61_say_it_s_time_for_congress_to_drop_health_care

    Sixty-one percent (61%) of U.S. voters say Congress should drop health care reform and focus on more immediate ways to improve the economy and create jobs.

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 30% of voters nationwide disagree and think Congress should press ahead with health care.

  13. Okie, what the people are doing, right left and middle, is refusing to let their personal ideology be dictated by anyone. Not by the parties, now by their fellow-conservatives or fellow-lefties, not my ANYONE.

    We have a chance of becoming what we once were – a nation of individuals with a broad spectrum of views, rather than a nation of sheep to be herded one way or another.

    Third parties will NEVER break the two-party system. INDIVIDUALS can.

  14. Notice how poor widdle Barry Warry has stopped wearing a tie so that he can show he’s a man of the people. Isn’t he just adorbs?

  15. WASHINGTON – Unemployment rates rose in 43 states last month, the government said Friday, painting a bleak picture of the job market and illustrating nationwide data released two weeks ago.

    The rise in joblessness was a sharp change from November, when 36 states said their unemployment rates fell. Four states — South Carolina, Delaware, Florida and North Carolina — reported record-high jobless rates in December.

    New Jersey’s rate, meanwhile, rose to a 33-year high of 10.1 percent while New York’s reached a 26-year high of 9 percent.

    Analysts said the report showed the economy is recovering at too weak a pace to generate consistent job creation.

    “A lot of states that had started to add jobs (in November) gave up those gains in December,” said Sophia Koropeckyj, managing director at Moody’s Economy.com.

    Texas and Georgia lost more jobs in December than they had gained the previous month, she noted, while Arizona and South Carolina lost nearly as many as they had gained.

    That is consistent with nationwide trends. Employers shed a net total of 85,000 jobs in December, the government said earlier this month, after notching a small gain of 4,000 jobs in November.

    In another nationwide trend, long-suffering states like California and Michigan saw their jobless rates stabilize even as they continued to bleed jobs. That’s because thousands of frustrated workers gave up hunting for work and dropped out of the labor force, which means they aren’t included in the unemployment rate.

    California lost 38,800 jobs, the most of any state. But its unemployment rate was unchanged at 12.4 percent, the fifth-highest in the nation. That’s because 107,000 people, or 0.6 percent of the state’s work force, gave up and stopped job-hunting.

    Michigan shed 15,700 jobs, but 31,000 people left the labor force. That caused the state’s jobless rate to fall slightly, to 14.6 percent from 14.7 percent. Michigan has the nation’s highest unemployment rate.

    Nationally, more than 600,000 people left the labor force in December, according to government data. The large exodus from the labor force indicates that “unemployment is a lot worse than the numbers suggest,” Koropeckyj said.

    Still, Michigan has actually gained about 10,000 jobs over the past three months, as automakers and other manufacturers have boosted production to restock inventories depleted over the summer and early fall.

    “That’s a positive thing for a state that has been doing so terribly for so long,” said Dave Iaia, an economist at IHS Global Insight.

    Texas lost the second-most jobs: 23,900. That sent its jobless rate to 8.3 percent in December from 8 percent. The next-largest job losses were in Ohio, Illinois and Michigan.

    The economy grew at a 2.2 percent annual rate in last year’s third quarter, after declining for four straight quarters during the recession. Many economists estimate that growth accelerated to more than 4 percent in the October-December quarter. But that’s still sluggish by the standards of many previous recoveries.

    And growth could slow in the first half of this year as temporary factors, such as government stimulus spending and inventory restocking, fade.

    Many states saw sharp drops in restaurant, hotel and other leisure employment, a sign that consumers are still holding back on their spending. Nationwide, the United States lost 25,000 leisure and hospitality jobs in December.

    Texas shed 6,500 restaurant and hotel positions. Florida lost 5,600, South Carolina 5,200 and North Carolina lost 2,600 — more than any other sector in that state.

  16. OkieAtty, I agree with that Independent vote, let them earn your vote. This is the best way, it seems to be working. Ben Bernanke is having trouble getting confirmed, but its likely all smoke and mirrors as Mary Landieu has now said she will support him. SMOKE AND MIRRORS

  17. Pingback: Puma Eyes
  18. The Hocus Potus has a look of confusion and panic on

    his face as he continues to slide into ihe unwanted and unneeded political trash can.I truly hope he does not try to take Hillary down and blame her for all of his shortcomings.He just might try to put his white half out there as his black support fails.

    For any of you that did not get to see and hear the great speech by Hillary on preserving the rigt of free speech on the Internet Here is the path to a true work of art by She who should be the next President. http://www.state.gov

  19. Citing the Scott Brown victory, the death of Obama’s health scam, the death of Air America, and the Supreme Court ruling, Charles Krauthammer said it was his best week since spring break when he was in medical school. He then said he does not remember that spring break week, to chuckles from the panel. It was very funny to see his facial expression when he said it. 🙂

  20. JANUARY 23, 2010

    The Clinton Internet Doctrine

    ‘An attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all.’

    Kudos to Hillary Clinton, who on Thursday launched a U.S. State Department campaign to preserve and expand Internet freedom around the world—and hit out at regimes that continue to tighten Web censorship.

    “Countries or individuals that engage in cyberattacks should face consequences and international condemnation,” she said, following attempts by Chinese hackers to read the emails of human-rights activists by attacking Google’s servers. “In an interconnected world, an attack on one nation’s networks can be an attack on all.”

    Her note that Beijing should “conduct a thorough investigation of the cyber intrusions” does invite the fox to take the keys to the henhouse. But overall, the new Clinton Doctrine is welcome. Her department’s work to fund technology development that would help activists thwart their censors, and to fight off attempts in the U.N. to restrict access to information on the Internet, could deliver an important blow against autocrats beyond the Middle Kingdom.

    See for instance the Twitter-powered “Green Revolution” in Iran, which has used social-networking technology to do more for regime change in the Islamic Republic than years of sanctions, threats and Geneva-based haggling put together. Social-networking may be a fad, but then so were the fax machines and bootlegged Frank Zappa albums smuggled behind the Iron Curtain a generation ago. Being popular with the kids doesn’t usually hurt the cause of liberty.

    To be sure, technologies that restrict individual freedom rarely run far behind those that expand them. Thus Tehran has made use of Nokia Siemens Networks intercepting tools to monitor and crack down on the country’s democracy activists. In her remarks, Mrs. Clinton named China, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Egypt as places where “a new information curtain is descending.”

    That’s all the more reason to support Mrs. Clinton for taking America on the offensive in the fight for electronic freedom. By contrast, the response of Germany and France to the Chinese cyberattacks has amounted to little more than finding fault with Microsoft and suggesting that users consider a temporary switch to a different Web browser.

    These columns have often expressed disappointment with President Obama’s reticence to encourage democracy activists around the world. But if Mrs. Clinton makes good on her promise, and if unrestricted Web access becomes a priority in Washington, she will have taken her Administration in a notably better direction.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575014560882205670.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

  21. His best week since that spring break week that he doesn’t remember, LOL!!

    I am not in agreement about the supreme court ruling, its very scary. I don’t think that Microsoft has the same humaness that I have, nor can Microsoft go into a voting booth and vote as I can, therefore I think giving them the same right as I have is just crazy.

    This alone can make us a corporate state. I know that some of you think that people will see right thru that, oh really, what if you worked for Microsoft and wanted to make sure the company stayed solvent, how would you vote???

  22. TAVIS SMILEY REPORTS “One on One With Hillary Clinton” on PBS Wednesday, January 27, 8-9 pm ET

    Tavis Smiley travels and talks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her first year as America’s chief diplomat.

    In the first of four primetime specials that examine some of the country’s defining moments, noted broadcaster Tavis Smiley accompanies Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on a diplomatic mission abroad, to meetings on Capitol Hill and within the State Department itself, to give the American public a candid and incisive view of the inner workings of U.S. diplomacy and international relations.

    http://realitytvwebsite.com/RealityTVNews/TAVIS-SMILEY-REPORTS-One-on-One-With-Hillary-Clinton-on-PBS-Wednesday-January-27-8-9-pm-ET.html

  23. Go Chelsea!
    —————

    Good Deeds

    Chelsea Clinton Sweats It Out for Haiti

    By Paul Chi
    Friday January 22, 2010

    Sweating has literally paid off for Chelsea Clinton!

    The former First Daughter and SoulCycle have raised $66,810 for the earthquake victims in Haiti by hosting a special 90-minute spin class in New York City Thursday.

    Clinton, a member and regular at the indoor cycling studio, was overjoyed by the rapid response of donations made by dedicated riders – including Kelly Ripa and husband Mark Consuelos who both generously opened their checkbook and participated in the calorie-burning class.

    “Thank you all for being here to support this effort,” Clinton, 29, said. “I hope you all continue to support Haiti over the months and years to come.”

    Just a few days ago, she and her father, former President Bill Clinton, visited Haiti experiencing the disaster first hand. “The day after the earthquake struck, the international community fed 3,000 people,” Clinton said. “Today, people have fed 100,000 people and we actually need to be feeding a million people. This demonstrates how much we’ve done, but how much more work we have to do. We need a lot of money to do that.”

    With 100 percent of all proceeds made from the cardio benefit going towards the Haiti relief efforts overseen by the Clinton Foundation, SoulCycle co-owner Julie Rice could not be more proud.

    http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20338800,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines

  24. Jan 22, 2010

    NBA Players And Bill Clinton Team Up To Assist Haiti

    By Dime Magazine

    In the wake of the earthquakes that have devastated Haiti, a lot of NBA players have stepped to the plate to help out. Samuel Dalembert, Dwyane Wade and LeBron James have all shelled out large sums of money to the relief effort. Now comes a monster effort from Bill Clinton, the Wasserman Media Group and the 47 NBA players the WMG represents. Their goal is to raise and to donate at least $500,000 the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund (CBHF).
    During halftime of tonight’s Lakers/Knicks game, President Clinton will be interviewed by ESPN’s Mike Breen about the effort. Through the agency-wide program, Wasserman-represented NBA players will make personal contributions or donate a designated sum per point they each score. Wasserman athletes include: Joe Johnson, Antawn Jamison, Derrick Rose, Tyreke Evans and Russell Westbrook. The collective funds raised will be matched by The Wasserman Foundation, the family’s private charitable organization.

    Fans are encouraged to visit the CBHF at clintonbushhaitifund.org to contribute to the joint efforts of President Clinton and President George W. Bush to restore the lives of those who survived the earthquake in Haiti on January 12.

    http://dimemag.com/2010/01/nba-players-and-bill-clinton-team-up-to-assist-haiti/

  25. wbboei, After seeing this I am sorry I ever said that I like Carlie Fiorna. Your were right!

    One possible opponent will be Carly Fiorina, who will run on a platform of fiscal conservatism, job creation and moderation on social issues. That’s an attractive combo in California. On the other hand, the main item on her resume is her not-terribly-successful stint as CEO of Hewlitt-Packard, where she laid off 28,000 people, outsourced their jobs, and pocketed a $28 million “golden parachute.”

    These aren’t the kind of politicians that will help the middle class, this is Barack Obama with a R behind her name. I would like to see Boxer get hers, but this lady???

  26. Another excellent synopsis of FObama (f’ing Obama).

    I haven’t read any comments on this site today, so please excuse me if this has already been discussed. I missed the documentary from Glenn Beck concerning progressivism in the US. Did anyone here watch it? If so, what was it about, and what was your take on it?

    Thanks in advance.

  27. I used to work for Hewlett Packard at the time that Carly Fiorina became the company’s CEO. She initiated HP’s purchase of Compaq computer, which many thought was a pretty bad idea. I’ve seen more positive comments on that sometime after the deal went through, but beforehand, people were not very happy with it. Anyway, what I remember about her is that every time she opened her mouth about something, the value of my stock went down. When it was all said and done, I lost a good 2/3rds value in my stock, which I had depended on after purchasing a house in 1999. I never envisioned that my stock would fall so steeply and at such a rapid pace. Needless to say, I would have done things differently at the time of purchase. I would rate her a bad CEO, but one that speaks in an intelligent manner. If she happens to win in California, she’s still a the better choice over the moron Boxer. My only hope is that Carly would stick with those Republicans in the Senate who have a clue.

  28. Unfortunately I got a glimpse of Squat today.

    WTF is with the no-tie thing?

    He looks like a friggin SLOB! He’s the POTUS fer christ sake, not some elite liberal college professor.

    He missed his true calling.

  29. he was also missing his tie as of late at other times seen either in print or on tee vee

    I too feel he’s POTUS and should look like it rather than a Miami Vice character

    my only answer i can come up with as to why he has no tie on anymore is that meeeeshell ran out sleeves to yank so she has now taken up yanking ties.. 😀

  30. basil9
    January 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    He missed his true calling.
    ———————-

    You think that would have been easy for him? Noooooo..

  31. admin, like Southern born made a joke on another thread, I am waiting for HIM to appear sleeveless one of these days — then we know things have really gone worse for him everywhere. 🙂

  32. He doesn’t wear a tie. She doesn’t wear sleeves.

    They take respect for the oval office to the lowest level.

  33. Admin, brilliant job, as usual.

    The koolaid sippers have a lot of nerve waking up. I wrote to one of them — please make sure to wear your Obama buttons loud and proud on your chest — we’d like to know whom to thank.

  34. Basil

    He had no tie in Massachusetts last Sunday, too. This is obviously a focus-group tested idea to make him look like a man of the people.

  35. Maybe he’s back on the blow and looking to bring back the Don Johnson look. Be very worried when he starts giving speeches with a three day beard.

  36. I hate the no-tie look. It’s appropriate on vacation, or certain settings. But the president should look like a president when he formally addresses the people.

    What’s Obama going to do next, get a truck? Give it up, Bambi – you can’t pull off “man of the people” with any credibility.

  37. OT but…is anyone watching the Haiti telethon? CNN showed a video about a little boy who was found alive in the rubble after being buried for 8 days. His parents were killed. He spent two days in the hospital and was just released today. Anderson Cooper had the boy and his nurse on the set for a live interview. The kid was silent and absolutely wide eyed. Cooper jovially patted him on the head at the end and said he was “shy”. Sheesh, the kid just lost his family, was buried alive for over a week, and just got out of the hospital. He’s in shock… Maybe I’m over reacting but Cooper just ticked me off…had to vent…

  38. These columns have often expressed disappointment with President Obama’s reticence to encourage democracy activists around the world. But if Mrs. Clinton makes good on her promise, and if unrestricted Web access becomes a priority in Washington, she will have taken her Administration in a notably better direction.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575014560882205670.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

    Did you notice how the WSJ article says “she will have taken her administration” — as if Obie does not exist?

  39. “Craig Crawford was a regular on television before the primaries, before he let on that he was not a Hopium guzzler. Craig Crawford did not guzzle the Hopium, so Craig Crawford disappeared.”

    Admin: Thanks for reminding us about that. Crawford regularly supported Hillary on MSNBC in the early primary days; then he disappeared from the station (but his CQ column continued to support Hillary). I thought I was the only one who noticed.

  40. Noonan was sucking up to Obama the entire election and only recently has turned,…She is a Clinton hater through and through..While it’s nice to see others finally wake up, lets never forget that the Noonans, Becks, Hannity’s, O’Rileys, and pretty much all liberal media are always going to fall back on Clinton derangement syndrome.

  41. I was actually angry with Craig Crawford after a column he wrote which was not so Hillary supporting and seemed in actuality supportive of the fraud. Craig wrote me back..twice.

    All those letters we wrote during the primary, no one wrote me back, except for Craig

  42. JanH
    January 22nd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
    TAVIS SMILEY REPORTS “One on One With Hillary Clinton” on PBS Wednesday, January 27, 8-9 pm ET
    _____________________________________________________

    isn’t that the same date and time of the SOTU address? figures.

  43. Lastly about Craig Crawford, I always did like him and he usually was fair. I guess I was so tired of the Hillary hate and lies his article hit me the wrong way. It probably wasn’t that bad, it just hit a nerve…and I didn’t have any left!

  44. Found this comment @ BP
    *************

    Drudge top headline with barky photo:

    THRILL IS GONE

    Article all about his speech in Ohio. His recurring line, “I will never stop fighting for you” is stolen from Hillary’s primary speeches, by the way.

    Somehow it just doesn’t sound genuine when Cream of Nothing says it.

    Never stop fighting? He has never started!

  45. alcina
    January 22nd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
    *********

    You and maybe 10 other people. he’s on TV more than Seinfeld someone said on another blog, and i believe it. Enough already! He thinks his work is speaking because he doesn’t know how to do anything. Can we impeach this guy?

  46. “I will never stop fighting for you” in Michigan, or that is right, he was in Ohio. But he was tired.

    Did we not hear that shxt during the campaign, and they thought nothing of it. Now, the trill is gone.

    Got news for you THERE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN A THRILL, and now you have to live with what you refused to see.

  47. it just hit a nerve…and I didn’t have any left!

    I think a lot of us experienced a nerve deficit. You know that this week was the first time I’ve watched a minute of TV news since January 2008?

  48. So the story is up over at Red State:

    In keeping with The One’s sudden populist rhetoric about sticking it to Wall Street, the Republicans introduced an amendment to the 1.9 trillion dollar debt ceiling increase bill today. The admendment would simply void the authorization to spend $300 billion of Wall Street bailout money that hasn’t been spent yet. Sounds like just what Obama would want, right?

    Well, apparently not. The admendment had bi-partisan support with 53 votes in favor, but the Democrats blocked it with a 45 vote filibuster.

    You don’t think Obama could just be posturing do you? Naaaaaaah?

  49. hwc
    January 22nd, 2010 at 11:07 pm
    it just hit a nerve…and I didn’t have any left!
    I think a lot of us experienced a nerve deficit. You know that this week was the first time I’ve watched a minute of TV news since January 2008?
    —————————–

    Likewise here…I have not watched news since Oct 2008 until week for the MA elections….i never even watched the 2008 nov elections.

  50. Yep, now since that can’t keep glorifying the “God” Obama, they’ll just go back the crucifying the Clinton’s. That is always their good old standby.

    I think I will watch Hillary on PBS rather than watching the “One”.

  51. hwc, the Dems don’t want that 300 billion for more bank bailouts. They want to keep it as a slush fund to spend however they want to prop up election 2010 by passing out favors to key districts.

    If the money was not needed for it’s stated purpose, it should be returned to the Treasury, i.e. the People. The Repubs are right on this one.

  52. Gonzotex, Look at this!

    Former President George H.W. Bush and wife, Barbara, took the unusual step of endorsing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in her bid to un-seat Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. The two square off in a March primary that will likely (probably definitely) decide the race. Generally, and especially among Republicans, a primary endorsement is a rare bird.

    From the Houston Chron:

    “Barbara and I are taking this unusual step of endorsing Kay in the primary,” he said, “not because we oppose Rick Perry … but because of our unbridled belief in Kay.”

    Bush said that as a former Harris County Republican Party chairman, he respected Hutchison’s longtime support of the party.

    “She was a Lone Star Republican before it was cool to be a Republican,” Bush said.

    Is it really cool to be a Republican? Food for thought. In any case, Hutchison’s not-great performance against Perry so far has been a surprise to many of her supporters. Although never a stellar campaigner, Hutchison has long been one of the most popular politicians in Texas, of either party

  53. maybe that Kook talking about the lunch bucket dems will wake up to the fact that the democratic primary was rigged with fraud and cheating caucusus and votes that were stolen or withheld from Hillary…that people actually voted for Hillary while O gamed the system with his thugs…and backstabbing delegates…

    …and is he kidding? more publicity? we are sick of seeing and hearing this guy…he was so overexposed months ago…

    Admin…you are so right…the koolaid drinkers are waking up…Krugman is starting to come out of his fog, although he clings to this health scam and a bigger stimulus push, but he recognizes that his worst fears about O are coming true…the congressional dims are getting bolder by the day…

    …and Mort Zuckerman, bless his heart, has been hitting it out of the park in his latest musings…finally someone has the nerve to state the obvious when he says:

    Despite this apparent accessibility, Obama’s reliance on a teleprompter for flawless delivery made for boring and unemotional TV, compounding his cerebral and unemotional style. He has seemed not close but distant, not engaged but detached. Is it any wonder that the mystique of his presidency has eroded so that fewer people have listened to each successive foray?

    …thank you Mort…someone finallys says it…O is BORING…BOOOORING! maybe we can finally end this great oratory nonsense…

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

    btw…Hillary states in that interview with Tavis Smiley that she would not stay on for a second stint as SOS

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

    all in all, today has been a great birthday…things are changing in a better direction…”we” are starting to get somewhere…

  54. Things could get very ugly for The One. There is some serious hostility from his sychophants in the state-run media. When they turn, they may turn hard.

  55. wbboei, old profession? Are you saying Taylor is a member of the world’s oldest profession?
    ——————————–
    OkieAtty: there was a great English sitcom called Yes Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is a Cardinal Riechlu type of character. He has his hands on all the levers of power. He deals in scandalous rumors and worse. Whenever he is asked to confirm or deny a scandalous rumor or some machination he has set in motion his standard response is to look directly into the camera, smile and say “You might think that but I really couldn’t commment”.

    I have nothing in common with the Prime Minister. I have no power and no aspirations to power. I simply want to save our country from the menace of Obama. I have no first hand knowledge of TM’s prior life or even if she had one. Therefore, if we are speaking literally, all I can say is others might think that but I really could not comment.

    However, if we are speaking metaphorically, then I must confess that I am deeply disappointed with the way TM flipped for Obama, after being a Hillary stalwart. She would say she did it for the party whereas I believe she did it for money and if that is true then I think what we have here counselor is a case of res ipsa locitur. Would’t you agree?

  56. Well that was a good bit of news that Hillary will not stay on as SOS for a second term!!! I just wish she wouldn’t stay on past the 1st half of the first term.

  57. wbboei, I have been listening to FOx this evening and everyone is saying Obama is going to stay the coarse and try an make us believe he is going to do something about jobs and etc. What have you heard, anything different??

  58. OH THIS IS GOING TO BE GOOD!! 😀

    In Illinois Senate Race, Round Up the Unusual Suspects: Are the Wheels Coming Off the Chicago Machine?

    The Chicago media is having trouble picking a winner out of the line-up of likely suspects for the Machine’s chosen candidate for Barack Obama’s old, hardly even used U.S. Senate seat. The dragnet doesn’t include anyone with an impressive rap sheet of accomplishments. So what’s up? Is the Machine sputtering?

    The Illinois primary election for U.S. Senator is February 2. Senator Roland Burris isn’t running. No money. No support. No surprise. After what the disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s hand-picked seat warmer had to go through just to get credentialed, it’s no wonder he just wants to pack up and go home to his monuments.

    And the recent victory by Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election for the U.S. Senate certainly has put the fear of God into party hacks from sea to shining sea. So, who’s the Machine’s candidate among the leading suspects?

    Here’s the line-up.

    Alexi Giannoulias, age 33, graduated from Boston College and Tulane University Law School. He worked in the family bank until elected Illinois Treasurer in November 2006.

    Here’s U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D. 9th IL), wife of the notorious felon, Robert Creamer, introducing Alexi. Like her husband, Schakowsky is a flaming leftist:

    Alexi shoots hoops with Barack. In fact, on Election Day, November 2008, they dribbled together to break the tension.

    Giannoulias raised six-figure campaign funds for his basketball friend from the Chicago Greek community. If closeness to President Obama is evidence for being the Machine candidate, then Alexi is the prime suspect.

    The Giannoulias family business, Broadway Bank, is a two-edged sword for Alexi’s political aspirations. His banking experience, albeit limited, helped establish his creds as a candidate for Illinois Treasurer. But some of his actions as a senior officer at the bank have called his judgment into question.

    Broadway has had many fine, upstanding customers. And then there’s Michael Giorango, a developer convicted of running prostitution rings and bookmaking. But, look, so what if Alexi finally admitted that he met Giorango in Miami to take a look at some of Mike’s property the bank financed there. Even crooks have to bank somewhere.

    Alexi oversaw a loan to a Giorango company that was part owner of a Myrtle Beach, South Carolina marina that was home to a casino boat once partly owned by Konstantinos Boulis, until he was whacked in 2001. A group of investors, including disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff, bought Boulis’ share, then sold it back to Boulis’s nephew, who donated $5,000 to Giannoulias’ campaign for State Treasurer in 2005. Move along, nothing to see here.

    Antoin “Tony” Rezko was also a Broadway customer. But, hey, Rezko had many business acquaintances back then. He ran up a $450,000 debt out in Vegas at Caesar’s Palace and Bally’s Hotel Casino between March and July 2006 and paid up with nine checks on his Broadway account. They bounced like Alexi’s b-balls. (Maybe that’s why Tony volunteered to stay in jail while he awaits sentencing.)

    Alexi, running against greedy banks, did well at his family’s bank. From 2005-2008 he made $5.5 million.

    As Illinois Treasurer, Giannoulias oversaw the state’s Bright Start College Loan Program. During the credit crisis the program lost $150 million. Although he negotiated a return of 50 cents on the dollar from Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., opponents say he should not have put the money in a risky fund. And, he should have been paying closer attention to the college money Illinois parents invested in the state program.

    SNIP

    Question: Does Alexi’s friendship with Barack translate into unqualified Machine endorsement and support? Or, is he trying to move up the greasy pole too fast, too soon, with too thin a resume?

    Suspect #2, please step forward.

    David Hoffman, age 42. After graduating from Yale (‘88), he worked as a staffer for U.S. Senator David Boren (D. OK). After the University of Chicago Law School (‘95), he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney (‘98-‘05) and Inspector General of the City of Chicago (‘05-‘09).

    (MUCH MORE ON EACH OF THESE CANDIDATES AT THE LINK BELOW)

    SNIP

    Suspect #3, please step forward.

    Jackson

    Cheryle Jackson, a graduate of Northwestern University (’88), is not related to the Jesse Jackson family. She’s President and CEO of the Chicago Urban League (on unpaid leave). Sort of a community organizer.

    During his first term as governor, Jackson was Deputy Chief of Staff of Communications and Chief Press Secretary for Illinois Governor…wait for it…wait for it…Rod Blagojevich – the third rail in Illinois politics these days.

    Before that, she worked for Amtrak and National Public Radio (NPR).

    She’s served on a potpourri of Chicago civic boards and committees.

    Jackson is the only African-American in the race for a seat held by Burris, Obama and Carol Moseley Braun, in reverse chronological order.

    She is not the Machine candidate. We can release her this time, but she may have a future in Machine politics.

    Final Observation: This is not a line-up of heavyweight Machine operatives. You have to ask yourself – What’s up with that? What’s happened to the once finely-tuned Chicago Machine?

    http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/01/22/round-up-the-unusual-suspects-are-the-wheels-coming-off-the-chicago-machine/#more-10302
    *******************************************

    SHOULDN’T BE TOO HARD FOR A TEA PARTY CANDIDATE TO PULL ANOTHER UPSET HERE 😀

  59. When I heard Obama say the problem in Massachusetts was that he was too busy governing to spend time ‘splain’ the people all the wonderful things obamacare would provide, I wondered whether he was referring to the price increases, the rationing, the individual mandate, the fines and penalties, the hold harmless for the unions, the big benefits for ACORN etc. This from a man who governs from the back of a golf cart, and has his ugly mug on television ever day. How much more ‘splain’n can we stand?

    This put me in mind of a vignette. Years ago, a transit operator from the city of New York filed a grievance for underpayment of wages. The amount in controversy was the princely sum of $.16–that was the total amount. And for that a hearing was convened with attorneys, management officials, union officials and the grievant himself. The Arbitrator was Theordore Keele who was one of the great arbitrators of the mid twentieth century. The union had the burden of proof so they went first. The union attorney put the transit operator on the stand and rather than asking him a series of pointed questions, he asked him to just tell his story, and by God he did–for four straight hours. After 3 hours of the James Joyce run on narrative, Keele leaned forward, looked at the grievant over his glasses and gently inquired whether there was something that could be done to expedite the proceedings. The silver tongued Irishman paused for a minute, considered the question carefully and then told the arbitrator. Yes there is your honor. I believe I can talk faster.

    So far as I know he was no relation to Obama.

  60. above currently caught in the spam filter i posted an article posted over on bigjournalism.com

    it’s about the Il. senate race coming up soon Feb 2nd!!

    title is:

    In Illinois Senate Race, Round Up the Unusual Suspects: Are the Wheels Coming Off the Chicago Machine?

    in this article they introduce the reader to the players and a ton about their background (very shady backgrounds)

    Roland Burris is not running for the seat either..

    very interesting read complete with a few video’s

    my thoughts, should be prime target for a tea party candidate to run and send another WAKE UP BLAST to the WH

    This would (will) be fun to watch…let’s stay tuned to this one 😀

  61. Connie: yesterday O’Reilly was arguing that Obama would move to the center as Bill did. Laura Ingraham disagreed. If everyone of FOX is of one mind now that Obama will fight than switch then O’Reilly has changed his opinion.

    But do note, he has told Pelosi and Reid to seek bi-partisan agreement on the less controversial provisions in the bill, and that is some indication that he got some of the message.

    I think he knows the window of opportunity is short, and I do believe that he is anxious to secure agreement on other items. Therefore, I am not prepared to say categorically that he will not move to the middle on some issues, in order to secure some agreements.

    The problem is he does not understand the message of Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia or the polls on his presidency. He thinks his powers of persuasion are such that he can turn chicken shit into chicken salad. I can make voters believe anything I want them to believe. He said that and it is indicative of his state of mind.

    This man will never leave the campaign mode. He will never understand that governing is about choosing priorities, securing the resources, exectution and follow up. And the test of governance is not pretty words, but tangible results–and he has none to show for the first year. He is a man of words–speeches. Speeches are a distraction. Like Napoleon said, veterans pay no attention to them, and raw recruits forget them at the sound of the first musket ball. You cannot govern through speeches, any more than you can defend it from the back of a golf cart.

  62. These columns have often expressed disappointment with President Obama’s reticence to encourage democracy activists around the world. But if Mrs. Clinton makes good on her promise, and if unrestricted Web access becomes a priority in Washington, she will have taken her Administration in a notably better direction.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575014560882205670.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

    Did you notice how the WSJ article says “she will have taken her administration” — as if Obie does not exist?
    ————————————
    I agree Ani. It is an interesting choice of words. I think basement angel’s predictions about Obama will come to pass.

  63. I think the press may be close to throwing the bum out. One day they say it’s his “no year” anniversary and now it’s “her administration”. Hell, even Limbaugh said Hillary should start getting ready for 2012.

  64. Hill told Tavis Smiley that she absolutely will not do a second term as SOS. He says she almost jumped up out of her chair when he asked her – NO! Not gonna happen.

  65. “If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said moderate — and sentient — Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.”

    I say: Let them sleep.
    ———————————-
    Oh I agree. Let them sleep

    with the fishes–

    metaphorically speaking.

  66. Great video on this site of Bill Clinton being interviewed

    ———————-
    Updated: January 23, 2010

    Clinton teams with NBA players

    NEW YORK — Los Angeles Lakers forward Pau Gasol was one of 10 NBA players donating $1,000 for every point he scored Friday night to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund.

    The players taking part, all clients of the Wasserman Media Group, included Rookie of the Year Derrick Rose, Atlanta All-Star Joe Johnson, rookie Tyreke Evans and Spencer Hawes of Sacramento, Wizards players Antawn Jamison and Mike Miller, Pacers guard Mike Dunleavy Jr, Celtics center Kendrick Perkins and Thunder guard Russell Westbrook.

    A total of 47 players from the agency planned to donate a minimum of $500,000 to the fund. Former President Bill Clinton spoke at Friday night’s Lakers-Knicks game, where he announced the program at halftime during an ESPN interview.

    “[The situation in Haiti] is awful,” said Clinton, who has traveled to country since the earthquake. “There is no way to put a nice spin on it. But I have confidence the people of Haiti that they can get through this.

    “I think their spirit is great.”

    http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=4850804

  67. *bangs head* The NooDems and their media lapdogs will never learn. Please repeat slowly after me: “Insulting and denigrating voters is a bad idea. Insulting and denigrating voters is a BAD idea.”

    Guess who’s under the bus now? Why, it’s INDEPENDENTS!!

    a disturbing catch of a segment on CNN letting us know just what they think of Independent voters. Apparently, indies are like “feathers in the wind” and are simply starved for attention. Does anyone else find it odd that a “journalist” would make such comments about the voter group which decides pretty much every election, is growing faster than any registered party, and will without question determine how the chips fall in the 2010 mid-terms across pretty much the entire nation?

    http://themoderatevoice.com/60295/thanks-cnn-independents-are-dumb/

    Hotair had this to say about the sudden change of opinion on Independents, (who were cool and bi-partisan when they went to Obama in large numbers):

    Suddenly, independents are “feathers in the breeze,” drama queens with a constant need for attention fixes, people who have no idea what they want and can’t articulate any principles at all.

  68. this is just too juicy 😀

    White House nightmare persists

    At the end of Barack Obama’s worst week since taking power a year ago, the US president’s fortunes look set only to deteriorate over the coming days. Following the shock defeat of the Democratic candidate in Massachusetts on Tuesday, a move that deprived the president of his 60-seat super-majority in the Senate and left his legislative agenda in tatters, Mr Obama has just four days to reboot the system.

    SNIP
    However, even a more modest agenda looks tough for Mr Obama now. Believing their strategy of total opposition was vindicated by the voters last Tuesday, Republicans are in even less of a mood to co-operate with Democrats than before. The difference is that with 41 seats in the Senate they are in a position to block almost anything Mr Obama proposes – including the Wall Street regulatory measures he announced on Thursday.

    SNIP

    “Obama has to decide whether he wants to be a transformational president, which looks optimistic at this stage, or merely an effective president,” says Bruce Josten, head of government affairs at the US Chamber of Commerce, which has spent tens of millions of dollars opposing healthcare. “My advice would be that he pick up the phone and ask for Bill Clinton’s advice on how to recover from a situation like this.”

    Nor can Mr Obama rely on unity within his own party, which has been in disarray, if not panic, since Tuesday. For example, Mr Obama’s more populist tack on Wall Street re-regulation failed to attract endorsement from Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, even though he was present when Mr Obama made the announcement.

    SNIP

    Worse, most people do not think Mr Obama can even command unity within his own administration on the Wall Street proposals amid growing speculation about whether Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, can survive in his job.

    SNIP

    The speculation about Mr Geithner is only likely to grow. “The Obama proposals were clearly politically motivated and came from the White House not the Treasury,” says a Democratic adviser to the administration, who withheld his name.

    Finally, there is increasingly open Democratic disaffection about the way Mr Obama is managing relations with Capitol Hill. Many believe that Rahm Emanuel, Mr Obama’s aggressive chief of staff, served Mr Obama badly by persuading the president that his election was a transformational moment in US politics that gave him the opportunity to push through long-cherished Democratic goals, such as healthcare reform.

    By leaving the scripting of the details of the healthcare bill to Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, the White House openly courted the risk of chaos. Tellingly, in his victory speech in Boston on Tuesday, Scott Brown, the new Republican senator, cited voter disdain for the sight of lots of “old men” on Capitol Hill bickering over healthcare reform at a time when their priority was jobs.

    SNIP

    In short, Mr Obama’s nightmare January could easily slip into a nightmare February. “Unless and until the president changes the way his White House, works, things are going to continue to go badly for him,” says the head of a Democratic think-tank. “Heads still have to roll.”

    .ft.com/cms/s/0/821dce96-0786-11df-915f-00144feabdc0. h t m l

  69. pm317

    watching that clip illustrates everything i find repulsive in the man. all rehearsed, staged phoniness. from his orchestrated cadences and pregnant pauses to his down-home dialect (dialect determined on geographic area of country speech is performed)to his “i’m one of the average joe’s” shirt w/o tie.

    reminds me of a certain seinfeld episode where elaine exclaims “fake!fake!fake!”

  70. Years ago the Chief Executive Officer of a then viable company, Boise Cascade, made a statement to a journalist which some at the time found rather stupid. He said this: “we have a great marketing plan. The only problem is the market is not smart enough to understand just how good it really is”. He was a brilliant Harvard trained prodigy therefore his arrogance was perfectly understandable. And where is that benighted leader and his proud company today? Where they belong: in the dust bin of history. Caveat: there is such a thing as an over-educated idiot, and surely he was one shining example.

    Want another example? Guess who? Yes, yes someone near and dear to all of our hearts. That race baiting, America hating, bloviating, election stealing, middle class destroying, narcissist and best friend a terrorist ever had–Barack Hussein Obama–heartthrob of a nation of pre pubescents.

    Bacarat Barack is an academic genius and first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. Of course he never published a single article in that journal, but that would require hard work and hard work is not his thing. Why labor in the vinyard when you can lapdance with the Nobel Prize Committe and walk away with something for nothing? Why not fiddle while Rome burns? Don’t send that construction crew to Mount Rushmore just yet. Wouldn’t want to get ahead of ourselves now would we?

  71. alcina, calling out on media critics with mockery worked during his campaign (and may have silenced many of them) but does not seem too presidential now. There is a lack of seriousness there. He says it is not about him — sure not about the person Obama (though he likes it very much to be if it is all glowing) but it is about the president Obama and that he can’t distinguish between the two (or conflates the two deliberately) is repulsive. The analysis that is coming out that he is in trouble is not about his personal fortune but about his effectiveness as president. Somebody ought to tell him that, loud and clear.

  72. wbboei, I have a perfect saying for it (from my native language) — the dancer who could not dance blamed the ground (as being crooked).

  73. The irony is, health care wasn’t even a priority for Obama during the campaign. It was Hillary’s signature issue.

  74. My sense is he started the HCR as a “I will show those Clintons” kind of way. I really do because I think he is that petty and it has backfired because he was never capable of pulling it. In the campaign he could never match her with his plans or rhetoric on that topic.

  75. wbboei, I have a perfect saying for it (from my native language) — the dancer who could not dance blamed the ground (as being crooked)
    ——————-
    How apropos pm317!

  76. Paula, that is the very reason that the NooDims are so determined to get it done. The thing driving them and Obama is the desire to gloat that they accomplished what the Clintons couldn’t.

    He has a deep-seated childish and envious need to piss higher on the tree than Big Dawg. And he never will.

  77. H4T, I think your right and that is what will cause the end of Obama. People are saying he should call Bill CLinton for advice, he would NEVER do that, he is way to childish and envious for that.

  78. Scorned Mistress of Married Obama Adviser Posts Billboards Nationwide
    Friday, January 22, 2010

    Print ShareThis
    .

    Jan 22: A mistress catapulted retribution by plastering the country with billboards that show her nuzzling her married lover, an Obama adviser.
    On first glance, it could be the ultimate Valentine’s Day card — a gigantic billboard that towers over New York’s Times Square, featuring a happy couple with the text: “You are my soulmate forever, Charles & YaVaughnie.”

    But as every scorned lover knows, looks can be deceiving. This billboard — which also has gone up in Atlanta and San Francisco — is the ultimate act of revenge — a very public retaliation by a dumped mistress aimed at a very wealthy, and married, businessman who is an adviser to President Obama.

    YaVaughnie Wilkins posted the signs after she learned that her lover, Charles E. Phillips — president and director of the tech conglomerate Oracle Corporation and a member of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board — had reconciled with his wife, the New York Post reported.

    The billboards — there are three in New York and one apiece in Atlanta and San Francisco, where Phillips lives — may have cost Wilkins up to $250,000, at an estimated $50,000 each.

    After the billboards surfaced, Phillips fessed up to his longtime affair through a spokesman on Thursday.

    “I had an 8-and-a-half-year serious relationship with YaVaughnie Wilkins. The relationship with Ms. Wilkins has since ended, and we both wish each other well,” he said.

    The billboards also feature a URL of the Web site http://www.charlesphillipsandyavaughniewilkins.com, which features photos of Phillips’ and Wilkins’ lengthy relationship.

    In an Oracle newsletter from 2006, Phillips was described as an ex-marine and “family man” who has a wife and 10-year-old son, Chas, the New York Times reported.

    Click here to read more from the New York Post.

  79. I always wondered, if the push for health insurance reform was pushed so early, because of Kennedy’s terminal illness? This factor, in addition, to outdoing the Clintons.

  80. Wbboei, Did you notice this comment post by H4T??

    Hill told Tavis Smiley that she absolutely will not do a second term as SOS. He says she almost jumped up out of her chair when he asked her – NO! Not gonna happen.

    Whats your take on this, if this is truly how she reacted?? I find it unusual, if she is unhappy with her job, she can quit? It would not be the first time a SoS has left their job before their term was done??
    I am very suspicious of how that question was answered by Hillary. It almost sounded as if she was mad.

  81. The video below will be relevant when the Senate returns to cap and trade. John Kerry has made this his mission–he has promised to do this for his president. That it will wreck the economy is of no consequence to blue blooded Kerry. In the alternative, Obama could try to do this by executive order. Either way the issue is not dead. What he could not achieve by treaty he will attempt to do through domestic legislation, or executive order. Here then is a cogent rebuttal sent to me by a local political group.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIZqHGi2EfE

  82. By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers – 47 mins ago
    WASHINGTON – Cool and confident, President Barack Obama basked in applause as he promised jittery Democratic lawmakers a coast-to-coast health care victory tour to sell the bill’s benefits upon its passage.

    It seemed like a foregone conclusion at that point, just over a week ago. Now a rebuke from voters in Massachusetts has brought Obama’s health care overhaul to a defining moment. Having reached closer than any president to making health-care-for-all part of the social safety net, Obama may yet see his goal slip away.

    The loss of their 60th Senate seat on Tuesday night in Massachusetts struck fear into Democrats. The president, who two weeks ago was driving deals to settle disagreements among House and Senate Democrats, sent mixed signals this past week that betrayed a lack of certainty about his intentions.

    Old divisions resurfaced, leaving Democrats confused and frustrated.

    Obama on Friday sought to recover his equilibrium. “I didn’t take this on to score political points,” a defiant Obama told workers in recession-weary Ohio. “And I’m not going to walk away just because it’s hard. We’re going to keep on working to get this done — with Democrats, I hope with Republicans — anybody who’s willing to step up.”

    Step up. That’s what some Democratic lawmakers are saying Obama needs to do.

    “I think he has got to get even more deeply involved,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. “He’s a key factor and we have to see exactly to what degree he wants to play that role.”

    “He has the ability to bring us all together,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., one of the negotiators in recent White House talks. “He did that … to try to resolve the differences between the House and Senate. Again, it’s going to take that kind of leadership.”

    Associated Press reporters interviewed lawmakers and other important players to reconstruct a pivotal moment for Obama’s signature issue — and his presidency.

    ___

    SO NEAR

    Detached and cerebral Obama was not. Two weeks ago, the president cut through the mind-numbing details of the 2,000-page Democratic health care bills to find workable compromises.

    Summoning House and Senate leaders to the White House, Obama sat them down to settle their major remaining differences. Among the issues: a Senate tax on high cost insurance plans deeply opposed by labor, and a strong desire by House lawmakers to make premiums more affordable.

    Obama listened to each side, but kept pushing lawmakers to find middle ground, participants said. He made rapid progress, working past midnight as he also coordinated the U.S. response to the earthquake in Haiti. A deal was reached on the insurance tax.

    A week ago Thursday, Obama went to the Capitol to address House Democrats at their issues retreat. He beamed with optimism.

    “It’s reform that finally offers Americans the security of knowing that they’ll have quality, affordable health care whether they lose their job or change their job or they get sick,” he said. “And that’s why I’ll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain.”

    Things were about to change.

    That same day, a respected independent poll showed Republican Scott Brown overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, with the race to succeed the champion of health care — the late Edward M. Kennedy_ too close to call.

    Political alarms went off at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue even as the health care talks were close to concluding. By Friday a week ago, Obama and the congressional leaders were down to final options on the major disputes. The White House also scheduled a last-minute trip by Obama to try to save Coakley’s campaign.

    Last Sunday, as Obama campaigned in Massachusetts, White House aides and their allies began floating a fallback plan if Coakley were to lose, depriving Democrats of undisputed control over the Senate. Audaciously simple, it called for the House to swallow hard and pass the Senate bill, maybe fix it later.

    ___

    DISARRAY

    The scene Tuesday evening in the cavernous meeting complex beneath the Capitol was like a mirage. House leaders were briefing Democrats on progress at the White House talks the week before. It would be rendered moot by the results from Massachusetts.

    Lawmakers came to work Wednesday morning facing a new reality. Democrats no longer had the votes in the Senate to keep Republicans from blocking the health care bill, and the rest of Obama’s agenda. With the loss of Kennedy’s seat, Obama seemed to retreat — and stumble.

    In an interview with ABC News, the president who only days before had been functioning as nightshift foreman of the health care talks said it wasn’t his role to delve into the details of legislative strategy. He suggested lawmakers might want to regroup around a smaller package of popular measures.

    With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., trying to gauge support for passing the Senate’s bill, Obama’s candor unnerved White House aides, who scrambled to reinterpret their boss’ remarks.

    It was no use. After meeting with Democratic lawmakers Thursday morning, Pelosi delivered the news that she didn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill.

    Suddenly every Democrat had his or her own idea about what to do next. Some wanted to move on, noting that jobs and the economy are more important to voters than health care. Many called for scaling back the bills to more manageable and understandable dimensions. Some demanded a heroic attempt to enact comprehensive changes.

    Old divisions broke into the open again.

    Not two weeks ago, Pelosi was close to a final handshake with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. By Thursday, she dismissed the Senate bill as a nonstarter tainted by backroom deals. Reid complained that the House doesn’t listen to him. Pelosi huffed that the House, unlike the Senate, doesn’t have surprise elections.

    By Friday, Obama was back to arguing that comprehensive health care legislation remains the best route for the nation.

    Democrats are now in a self-imposed cooling off period of uncertain duration. No decisions have been made on how to salvage health care.

    “This was always threading a needle,” said Dodd.

    The irony, he went on to say, is that the loss of Kennedy’s seat has brought Democrats to their current predicament. Dodd said he wouldn’t want to go visit Kennedy’s grave at Arlington National Cemetery right now, as he did on Christmas Eve when the Senate passed its version of the bill.

    “I’m afraid he might pop out at me.”
    —-

    dodd is chicken shit…cannot even visit his buddy’s grave!!!

  83. confloyd @ 1:46

    It was on morning joe, and the clip is here:

    http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-only-going-to-serve-one-term/

    It’s a long clip with a bunch of non-Hillary crap early on, but Tavis talks about her at about 11:20 in, almost at the end. He says she said “ABSOLUTELY not.” when asked if she would serve a second term as SOS. She was adamant.

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  84. I agree with you Connie. I can only speculate. First of all, the question is absurd on its face, since it assumes that Obama would get a second term. No serious person believes that will happen. But assuming the unthinkable happened, do you believe she would want to spend four more years propping up this incompetent bastard? Surely she recognizes the risk to her standing with foreign officials, her legacy and future election prospects by being part of this benighted administration. The recent attack upon her by Susan Collins is a perfect example of the vulnerability of being where she is now, even though she did everything right. And while she was working to protect the country her boss is out on the links having a gay old time. The question is the same kind of crap she got then she was in Africa and the reporter asked about Bill’s opinion. She is entitled to be recognized for who she is and not as part of a dysfunctional administration.

  85. Apparently, indies are like “feathers in the wind” and are simply starved for attention.

    ———————-

    My goodness! That’s how my friends and I always describe the dimwitted dims.

  86. The fast push for healthcare was because the Democrats understood, I believe, that a significant segment, at least the majority, did not want it. They realized that if it wasn’t passed quickly, and as more and more time went on, the public opposition to their plan would mount. They KNOW that this is a socialistic, behemoth money wasting plan, and that once the vast majority of Americans at least had an idea of its cost, there would be no way that it would pass.

    The scumbags almost suceeded. Now it’s time to go after EACH and EVERY ONE of these Senators and Reps who voted for this. They need to pay for their vote the way that they were going to make us pay for it if Obamacare passed. This is the American public’s golden opportunity to tell ALL politicians that they serve US, and when they don’t listen to US, they get sh!tcanned.

  87. H4T, What bothers me is that he said “she almost jumped out of her seat”. Why would she do that?? Was she forced into this job? Obviously she has put her heart into it so she likes the job, but why would she be so adament that she jumped out of her seat. Hillary is a very poised person, she wouldn’t of jumped ot of her seat unless a raw nerve was struck.
    IF you remember when she was in Africa, she was irritated with the question she shifted her weight in the seat because she was mad, so I wonder if she was mad again.

    I JUST REMEMBER BRAZOID SAYING HILLARY AND BILL WILL DO WHAT WE TELL THEM TO DO! Do you remember that??

  88. By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writers Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar And Erica Werner, Associated Press Writers – 47 mins ago
    —————————-
    These people are on the White House payroll. Have you ever seen them hold Obama accountable at any time for anything? Stumble is as close as it gets. The greatest mistake anyone can make in political life is to confuse form with substance.

  89. Populist, schmopulist. Look at this:
    WASHINGTON — Voter discontent with the direction of the government, economy and the health care overhaul helped send Republican Scott Brown to his Senate victory in Massachusetts, a poll says.
    www dot washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012301257.html

    And yet:
    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders insist they will push ahead with efforts to overhaul health care despite losing undisputed control of the Senate. They just haven’t decided what it will look like or how they will pass it. In fact, they aren’t explaining much. A senior Democratic aide said Saturday that House and Senate leaders are considering changes to the Senate bill that could make it acceptable to the House. Under one scenario, Democratic senators would make the agreed-upon fixes using a special budget procedure that requires only 51 votes to overcome Republican delaying tactics.

    The House would then pass the Senate bill, sending it to Obama for his signature and allowing the health care remake to become law.
    But the aide, who described the discussions on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said no decisions have been made. The strategy would be politically risky because it would enrage Republicans, and the legislation itself lacks strong public support.

    www dot nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/23/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html

  90. I JUST REMEMBER BRAZOID SAYING HILLARY AND BILL WILL DO WHAT WE TELL THEM TO DO! Do you remember that??
    ——————————–
    I would venture to guess that Donna’s fat ass is dragging right now, knowing that her day of political reputation is coming. She is a cross between Butterfield McQueen and a hela monster–and dumb as a rock and anti-American to the corps.

    For her the old saying holds particularly true: be nice to the people on the way up because you will meet them again on the way down. Funny how that works.

  91. political retribution, not reputation. Her reputation will be in the dirt when this presidency runs its course.

  92. Latest Rasmussen out, and Obama still tanking.

    Biggest shocker – his strong approval among Democrats has now fallen by 7 points to 48%.

  93. I watched the Scarborough and they are still drinking the koolaide. They assume a second term. Frankly, with the way things are headed for the country I do not see how that happens. Have they learned nothing from the polls, and the past three elections. I guess the real point here is they are no more in touch with the country than Obama is. Again, as Krauthammer says it is the substance is the problem, and his response to the loss is one of denial. What is the matter with these people?

  94. I always wondered, if the push for health insurance reform was pushed so early, because of Kennedy’s terminal illness? This factor, in addition, to outdoing the Clintons.
    ——————————————————————-
    They are worse off really. Not only did their proposal fail, but the terms themselves are toxic. If I were a Republican candidate running against a Democratic incumbent who voted for this bill, I would release one bad provision a week between now and the election. The bad things in the bill are an embarrassment of riches for the opposition party.

  95. Plouffe’s back, and the permanent campaign is confirmed…

    Obama Calls Team From 2008 for Races in Fall

    Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24union.html

  96. #
    wbboei
    January 23rd, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    I always wondered, if the push for health insurance reform was pushed so early, because of Kennedy’s terminal illness? This factor, in addition, to outdoing the Clintons.
    ——————————————————————-
    They are worse off really. Not only did their proposal fail, but the terms themselves are toxic. If I were a Republican candidate running against a Democratic incumbent who voted for this bill, I would release one bad provision a week between now and the election. The bad things in the bill are an embarrassment of riches for the opposition party.

    ____________________________________

    Absolutely right!! that bill they all voted for is the TRUE GAME CHANGER IN NOVEMBER AND BEYOND.

  97. I guess he has asked hois team to call in the thugs, acorns etc etc etc!!!
    To start fraud dup registrations and so on!

  98. Wbboei, The clip clearly doesn’t show Hillary’s reaction to the question as to whether she will accept another stint as SoS, so its anybodies guess as to the reaction. It could be that since people say the job is a job of inches and not miles, it can be very stressfull, and thankless, although Hillary would never expect either she does I imagine want to see progress.

  99. Plouffe’s back, and the permanent campaign is confirmed.
    —————————————————-
    To be expected. However it is not the answer. The last thing Obama needs at this point is more emphasis on the campaign aspect. The thrill is gone, the rhetoric is empty, the track record is dismal, the dirty tricks are understood, the priorities are wrong, and the problems are not being solved. Lightening does not strike twice in the same place. Bush is a forgotten memory, Obama cannot blame the Republicans because they do not control either chamber and Obama himself is no longer trusted. The failed health care bill is a living example of why we need to restore checks and balances. The addition of pudding head Plouffe is a desperate attempt to stave off a loss of the House, and to prevent an impeachment proceeding which they know is coming. Again, lightening does not strike twice in the same place.

  100. I guess he has asked hois team to call in the thugs, acorns etc etc etc!!!
    To start fraud dup registrations and so on!
    ——————————-
    True. But now they are operating in a fishbowl and everyone knows how ACORN operates. The advantage of surprise is gone. The charge of racism does not work. They are screwed.

  101. wbboei, instead of worrying about “messaging” and running screaming with his hair on fire to Ploufe (Poooofy, saaaave me!), he’d be better served by actually running to some good policy people and getting some work done that benefits the American people.

    You can message all you want, but what are you going to run ON? Running as a challenger you can get away with running on no record and hopenchange. You CANNOT do that as an incumbent – you have to have something to point to that you accomplished. And the Dims CANNOT run blaming Republicans for blocking those accomplishments, because they had their freaking all-important supermajority.

    Challengers can run on unicorns and rainbows, but incumbents have to have something to POINT to and say, “I did that.”

  102. If Obama cannot govern effectively, if he cannot solve the problems of this country, if he cannot deliver on what he promises then there is no campaign strategy in the world that can save him. Dirty tricks will take you only so far–and not a wit further.

  103. Challengers can run on unicorns and rainbows, but incumbents have to have something to POINT to and say, “I did that.”
    ——————————
    That is the bottom line. And if his strategy is to rob the productive segment of society to reward the unproductive segment (which includes the so called creative class) that dog won’t hunt. The truth is undeniable, for anyone who lives in the same world as most of us, which is the world of deadlines, scoreboards, and other quantifiable metrics. Results talk and Obamabullshit walks.

  104. wbboei, I have been listening to FOx this evening and everyone is saying Obama is going to stay the coarse and try an make us believe he is going to do something about jobs and etc. What have you heard, anything different??
    ————————-
    Low end government jobs–infrastructure–the usual promises. That train left the station a year ago. Anything he promises to do now will be viewed cynically. He has made similar promises in the past–3.5 million new jobs, which became 3.5 million jobs created or saved, which became don’t blame me I inherited a bad economy. All he will ever be is a campaigner–or perhaps a preacher. Governing is not in his repertoire

  105. THE NEW WHITE HOUSE STRATEGY–SAUVE QUI PEUT

    Posted by Moe Lane (Profile)
    Saturday, January 23rd at 3:26PM EST
    5 Comments
    Oh, this should be fun:

    Plouffe stepping up role as adviser to White House

    David Plouffe, the man who managed President Barack Obama’s campaign, will be taking on an expanded role as an outside adviser to the White House, according to sources familiar with the plan, a move that comes just days after a stunning defeat for Democrats in a Massachusetts Senate special election.

    And why is it fun? Because as the Fix kind of notes, Plouffe’s relevant career can be summed up by two iterations of ‘OfA:’

    Obama for America. A group dedicated to electing Barack Obama President. Accomplishments: the nomination and election of a single-term Senator with no executive experience President of the United States, in the face of both primary and general election opposition.
    Organizing for America. A group dedicated to championing and popularizing the legislative and executive achievements of the Democratic party. Accomplishments: two words, one of which is ‘jack.’
    So… the White House is bringing in a guy that’s good at running a group that makes one other guy look good, and who is involved with a group that is noticeably bad at making a political party look good. And who has wasted no time whatsoever in telling members of said political party to simply intensify what they’re doing, now.

    I repeat: oh, this should be fun.

    Moe Lane

  106. It took Obama roughly nine months to change from a political asset to a political liability for dems in swing districts. That is reality for anyone who cares about reality. As we speak, many democrats are talking to each other about what they can do to distance themselves from him, and save their own skins. What typically happens when subordinates are dealing with an incompetent boss is they work around him. Behind his back they cut him no slack, until the day comes when he is gone and then criticism is all you hear. The problem here is that Obama will cannibalize the party in a futile attempt to protect himself.

  107. Lesson From Mass. Voters Reject Arrogance

    By COLIN A. HANNA,
    For The Bulletin
    Saturday, January 23, 2010

    Is there a single proposition that explains Scott Brown’s stunning win in the Senate race in Massachusetts?

    The concept of a single proposition is that it both simply and fully describes what causes something.

    Did Mr. Brown win because he ran a better campaign than Martha Coakley? Yes, but does that explain it all? Of course not.

    Did Mr. Brown win because he ran against the President Obama-Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid version of health-care reform? Yes, but that’s not the whole story.

    Did Mr. Brown win because people were angry, and he somehow managed to channel that anger into opposition to Ms. Coakley? Probably, but that’s only one of several dynamics at work.

    Did Mr. Brown win because America has suddenly turned more conservative, and he was seen as more in tune with this new ideological shift while Ms. Coakley was out of tune with it? There’s almost certainly some truth in that.

    Did he win because opposition to Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi, D-Calif., and Mr. Reid, D-Nev., has become so intense that any Republican can win against any Democrat in 2010, even in Massachusetts? That’s doubtful.

    So … is there a single explanation, a single proposition, which lies beneath each of these attempts to understand Mr. Brown’s victory. I submit that there is. Mr. Brown won because American citizens everywhere, even in the bluest of blue states, are fed up with what they see as arrogance in public life.

    It’s arrogant for Mr. Obama, Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and Ms. Coakley to say that they know what’s best for America better than the average citizen does. It’s arrogant for Ms. Coakley to take her election for granted simply because she represents the state’s majority party.

    The reaction against arrogance isn’t limited to this race — it’s been the pervasive political story of the last year. It’s arrogant for legislators to say that they don’t need to read the bills that they pass. It’s arrogant for them to meet with lobbyists and big donors but to dismiss ordinary citizens who take part in Tea Party demonstrations. It’s arrogant for legislators to assume that they can run banks, car and insurance companies better than anyone else. It’s arrogant for a candidate for president to campaign on not raising taxes for those earning less than $250,000 a year and then, once in office, to do exactly what he said he wouldn’t. It’s arrogant to think that the people won’t notice when you take what’s supposed to be an economic stimulus bill and, instead, turn it onto a squalid set of earmarks and payoffs to special interests. It’s arrogant to promise openness and transparency when campaigning for the people’s support, and then to shut them out when meeting behind closed doors to grease palms and hammer out sleazy deals.

    The reaction against all of these forms of arrogance is what came together and created an enormous force to carry Mr. Brown to victory. That’s the single proposition that encompasses all of the other reasons that the pundits are citing in countless analyses of this historic race. The reason that it’s important to understand this deeper force is that a misunderstanding of what drove the voters in Massachusetts will lead future campaigns to miscalculate.

    What America is calling for, even crying for, is the rarest of commodities in politics: humility. Humility embraces transparency. Transparency promotes integrity and accountability. A big part of Senator Obama’s appeal as a presidential candidate was that he was seen as humble and hopeful, while George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld were seen as swaggering and arrogant. But even though Mr. Obama was successful, he didn’t really understand this underlying force, and within days of taking office, he began to display arrogance.

    If conservatives are to truly learn from Mr. Brown’s success, the lesson that they must learn is that in the politics of 2010, arrogance is a terminal condition. Mr. Brown got it right: the seat he was running for is the peoples’ seat. Public service is actually about … serving the public.

    Colin A. Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring

    http://thebulletin.us/articles/2010/01/23/commentary/op-eds/doc4b5a2dc679871155215118.txt

  108. NBC Complains to White House About ABC’s Access

    Source says NBC wants more Obama interviews; network denies it

    Posted Jan 22, 2010

    NBC has filed a formal complaint with the White House, saying ABC is getting a disproportionate number of interviews with President Obama. The network cites recent sit-downs with George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson, and alleges that Stephanopoulos’ friendship with Rahm Emanuel is helping the network land the face time, according to TVNewser. NBC denies ever making such a complaint.

    http://www.newser.com/story/78901/nbc-complains-to-white-house-about-abcs-access.html

  109. Axelrod is dillusional as usual…

    ——————
    Obama’s State of the Union to defend agenda, not change it; emphasis on relating to daily life

    By Ben Feller

    WASHINGTON — Seizing a chance to reconnect, President Barack Obama will use his first State of the Union policy address to try to persuade the people of a frustrated nation that he’s on their side, with a familiar sounding agenda recast to relate better to everyday struggles.

    In a time of deep economic insecurity, Obama will use this stage on Wednesday to offer hope after a grueling, grinding first year of his presidency, aides say. For the many who think the United States is still on the wrong track, Obama will attempt to present a clearer sense of how everything he’s pursuing fits together to help.

    And for jittery Democrats facing re-election this fall, Obama will seek to give them an agenda they can sell to voters in his nationally televised speech to Congress.

    Obama will propose ways to help the middle class. But any new ideas probably will play a supporting role to the plainspoken narrative he wants to tell, that his agenda works for people despite their growing doubts. “Obviously you want to write a speech in a way that is interesting enough that people want to listen, and that leaves them feeling a sense of momentum and progress,” senior Obama adviser David Axelrod told The Associated Press. “But these are serious times. I don’t think this is a time for rhetorical flights of fancy.”

    What to expect in the speech, which comes during a rocky period for Obama? Heavy doses of health care, despite the setbacks of the past week, and job creation. Obama will address the budget deficit, his bid to take on the financial industry, energy, education and immigration. All those issue, he says, fit into his plan to rebuild the economy.

    On national security, he will address terrorist threats, the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan and nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea.

    Recent big events won’t escape notice, such as Haiti’s humanitarian crisis and the Supreme Court ruling allowing businesses and labour unions more power to influence elections. Obama will directly confront a seething frustration with Washington, evident in Republican Scott Brown’s stunning Senate victory in Massachusetts that rattled Democrats and cost Obama the supermajority voting bloc he needed in the Senate to advance legislation in the face of near unanimous Republican opposition.

    It all points to the message Obama wants to convey: Yes, I get it. Obama is emerging from a year in Washington that, he now says, has left the public with a sense of “remoteness and detachment” from what he’s been trying to do.

    The president says his agenda is not about him. But in important ways, this speech will be. Moments like this are opportunities for presidents to take or lose command. Obama’s poll numbers on how he handles major issues have been dropping; less than half the people support his management of the economy, taxes and other issues. Unemployment is in double digits and terrorism fears are rising.

    To regain his footing, Obama is putting himself on the side of the people. He’s challenging special interests on health care and banking. He’s reminding people that while he got an economic stimulus plan through, he bailed out Wall Street and the auto industry only by necessity.

    Expect plenty of looking back, too. Obama wants people who may tune in only occasionally to what happens in Washington to know, as he sees it, that he got some things done this year, particularly on the economy.

    Aides say the speech also will feature promises that Obama wants to return to – changing Washington and restoring trust in it. That case looks much more difficult than when Obama was sworn in, as partisanship is as entrenched as ever, and backroom side deals remain a messy part of legislation.

    What the speech won’t do is reshape Obama’s agenda. He ran on it and will defend it anew. “I didn’t run to kick these challenges down the road,” Obama told an audience in Ohio on Friday, seeming to find a campaign voice that had not appeared in so many of his remarks this year. “I ran for president to confront them – once and for all.”

    Those familiar with the address say it reflects Obama’s tendency toward consistency and his opposition to a laundry list of programs. “It’s not going to be a series of disjointed offerings, poll-tested offerings,” Axelrod said. “It’s going to be a narrative about where he wants to lead, and why, and for whom.”

    Obama gave his speechwriters an outline of what he wanted, and has exchanged drafts. He was spending more time on it over the weekend, and will keep doing so until he steps before a struggling nation on Wednesday night.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5j60PD-8OTOnXNJsyocU8B6U5DAdw

  110. I was out of town for a week and missed the last ppost on Schumer. I live in NY and am thrilled that there is a movement afoot to dethrone him.

    I hope that a democrat or independent will challenge him. I would love to campaign against him. He is beginning to represent everything wrong with the senate and no longer deserves to be there.

    Of course, the public pension package he would walk away with makes me ill. I would love to see new representation that takes away these ridiculous perks.

  111. JanH
    January 23rd, 2010 at 4:45 pm
    Axelrod is dillusional as usual…
    Obama’s State of the Union to defend agenda, not change it; emphasis on relating to daily life
    *************

    hhmm. emphasis on relating to daily life. will that includes countless rounds of golf, b-ball every morning, weekly nights out with the wifey at the most exclusive restaurants, party’s at the white house with cronies, vacations to Hawaii, etc.? yup, sounds like he relates to my daily life.

  112. Jan thanks for posting that, now i know i don’t need to “save the date” with that idiot who’s going to do nothing but try out his populist bamboozling bullshit.

    I will instead stay home and wash my hair. 😀

  113. Obama’s State of the Union to defend agenda, not change it; emphasis on relating to daily life

    By Ben Feller

    WASHINGTON — Seizing a chance to reconnect, President Barack Obama will use his first State of the Union policy address to try to persuade the people of a frustrated nation that he’s on their side, with a familiar sounding agenda recast to relate better to everyday struggles.
    ————————————-
    The Arabian Nights

    “Is it possible, that by telling these tales,
    one might indeed save one’s self?”

    The character, Scheherezade thought so. In fact, she tells each of the Arabian Nights tales in order to survive a little longer at the mercy of her listener, the Sultan.

    I guess what is good enough for Scheherezade is good enough for the creep named Bambi. The salient difference is she was not a liar, nor was she a big spender.

  114. LOL! From a comment about the SOTU speech:

    blockquote>January 27th presents an opportunity for the proletariat to watch in awe as a strong leader and gifted orator demonstrates what it means to be God-like. That leader is Steve Jobs. Later in the day Obama will mumble some shit.

    Jobs has a big unveiling of Apple’s new iTablet that earlier that day. 😀

  115. Obama’s State of the Union to defend agenda, not change it; emphasis on relating to daily life

    By Ben Feller
    —————–
    This asshole is an AP reporter. I wonder if he even wrote that puff piece. I had to google him to realize this. The article itself does not say it.

  116. Bambi is a New Age populist who makes Rezko deals under the table, and then does his little wink nod attacks against the party he made the deal with hoping the public will not catch on.

    “But Tommy ain’t no bloom’n fool
    You bet that Tommy sees.”–Kipling

  117. Tavis might be exaggerating. She probably leaned forward to emphasize her point. In any case, two terms for SOS is not the norm. I looked it up in wiki.
    Since 1900, only three served two (or more in one case) terms. Cordell Hull (under FDR) served three terms, John Foster Dulles (for Eisenhower) two terms, and Dean Rusk (for JFK/LBJ) two terms.

    Cordell Hull must have been very good, if FDR kept him for all of his admin, during those turbulent times.

    I never expected Hillary to serve more than one term.
    If there is a chance in 2012, she will leave after midterm. Otherwise, she will finish the term and become president at a university or foundation. Or, if she wants to run in 2016, she wil freelance for a couple of years, write a book, and start the run in 2014.

  118. I agree with you Carol with regards to Schumer, AND the perks that politicians receive for their “service”… more like self-service!

  119. What, they are still writing his STFU, I mean SOTU, speech?

    My authoritiative sources tell me Joe Wilson has already finished writing his speech: “Loser”.

  120. djia
    January 23rd, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    EXACTLY! Every Democrat who voted for the Obamacare bill, plus the Cap And Trade bill can be clobbered with questions as to why they voted for things that would only harm the country’s economy which shows especially bad judgment at a time when the economy really in not performing well.

    Democrat everywhere beware. Your days are numbered. Wasn’t it Bill Clinton that said “it’s the economy stupid”? Even if FObama were to blabber about the economy, I don’t think he will be received all that well by most people. You only give a hitter so many strikes, and FObama has been given more than his fair share. He’s O-U-T! Funny thing about that thing called “change”. It never seems to rest, albeit it may change its velocity, and its direction.

  121. So they never needed the 60 votes to pass healthcare?? This is by Jane Hamsher at FDL.
    60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit
    By: Jane Hamsher Saturday January 23, 2010 8:59 am

    One of the ways the administration tried to jam its PhRMA deal/Aetna bailout on the country was forcing a series of false choices onto the debate. Those who opposed this corrupt hijacking of the democratic process were told that the reality was, you gotta have 60 votes in the Senate. And Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln stood firm, so you had to give them what they wanted.

    It was that or nothing. What can you do? We now hear “If only we didn’t have the filibuster” as frequently as we heard “if only we had 60 votes” when the Democrats didn’t own the war.

    And now, we find out something that may surprise many (though probably not anyone who has watched politics for more than 6 months): it was all bullshit.

    Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure — or a “cleanup” bill — to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.

    There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said.

    “The Senate moderates’ viewpoint is, ‘We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.

    So how many “moderates” are there now?

    The 60 vote bar was always crap. Now that it only takes 51 votes to pass a public option (which the OpenLeft whip count says they have), they can’t clear that either. It’s all about kabuki — who gets to feign support for publicly popular legislation vs. who gets to take credit for bashing the hippies and killing it. The White House wants what it wants, and the Senate — largely insulated from the electoral consequences of the bill — is totally willing to sacrifice those in the House who are much more vulnerable in order to give it to them.

    Now the apologists are peddling the “it’s this or nothing” false choice about a bill that won’t even kick in for the next four years, as if their “60 vote” myth didn’t just explode. How is it suddenly Raul Grijalva’s fault if he stands firm and won’t accept a hideous bill crafted on the imperative of getting Joe Lieberman’s vote, which isn’t necessary any more?

    Meet 51: it’s the new 60

  122. I am sick of listening to him use Hillary’s line “I will never give up fighting for you”.

    So they did know she moved the “lunchbucket Dems”, they just did not give a damn about us until we got together and kicked his ass. Now its “I will never give up fighting for you”.

Comments are closed.