Tough Times Ahead For Hillary Clinton Supporters

As we wrote yesterday, there will be tough times ahead for Hillary Clinton supporters. The tough times will come because in order to do what is best for the country and to resurrect the now dead Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton we will have to assist in the destruction of the Obama Dimocratic Party.

Lifelong Democrats will find the purposeful destruction of a party disguised as the Democratic Party a difficult decision to make. We saw that in the Brown versus Coakley race in Massachusetts. Good people, even in our comments section, advocated for Martha Coakley. Good people, advocated for Martha Coakley on the grounds that she was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter and deserved our support in her hour of need. Good people, also advocated for Martha Coakley on the grounds that she is a woman and we need more women in positions of power. Good people, also advocated for Martha Coakley on the grounds that she was closer to our issues positions than the male Republican candidate, Scott Brown. We found those arguments insufficient because the election in Massachusetts became a referendum on Barack Obama and his many scams, particularly the health scam which is a mass transfer of wealth to Big Insurance and Big PhaRma.

We supported Martha Coakley in the primary because she was a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter and the establishment power represented by the Kennedys and Nancy Pelousy opposed her. Also, in the primary, Martha Coakley made a strong argument against the Obama health scam and distanced herself from the entrenched Kennedy power that has proved so detrimental to the people of Massachusetts and the people of the United States. We recall how “green” Ted opposed energy projects because they would ruin his great views from the Hyannis Port Kennedy compound. We also recall how the Massachusetts establishment played fast and loose with the the law of senatorial appointment – “for” a special election and against gubernatorial appointment when it was convenient in 2004 and yet flip-flopping for a gubernatorial appointment when it was convenient in 2008. This was not respect for the rule of law but for the manipulation of law to convenience the establishment.

In November the Martha Coakley choice will be multiplied a hundredfold in elections for every house seat and in many gubernatorial and senate seats, not to mention myriad local elections. What are Hillary Clinton supporters to do? We still believe that in order to bring sanity to the process we must make sure that the Obama Dimocratic Party suffers devastating defeat in election after election after election.

Recently the FDL website was under attack when they saw the wisdom of a united front with Republicans to defeat the Obama health scam. FDL was denounced by Obama websites. Now some of the very “creative class” clueless see the wisdom of that strategy. Even that petty Lenninist Obama supporter at Nothing Left had this to say:

If Bernanke is defeated, it will be because around ten progressive Senators joined with most Republicans. Such Progressive – Republican alliances are pretty rare, but successfully forging one would be big news. [snip]

Over the summer, we tried this Progressive Block strategy to get a public option in the health care bill. When the moment of truth came, and the public option was stripped from the bill, the strategy collapsed.

Even the Obama enablers now see the sheer stupidity of their approach – Obama love. We saw this stupidity before Obama became the nominee in Denver. Obama had emitted a great many words against FISA but when it came time to vote Obama voted for FISA (Hillary Clinton voted against FISA). That July 2008 we wrote:

Hillary Clinton voted AGAINST FISA.

Obama supporters do not care about the issues. If Obama supporters cared about the issues they would vote for Hillary.

Obama and his supporters did not care about the issues. It was all about the election of their precious Obama. Now their precious Obama has proven to be fools gold.

The day after our FISA article, Jesse Jackson had crude but honest things to say:

Yesterday, an angry Jesse Jackson threatened to slice off Obama’s testicles. Jesse Jackson apparently does not realize that Obama has no “nuts” to cut off.

Obama is a political eunuch who will never stand his ground. Rather, Obama will cower across the aisle and submit to Republican demands.

It’s a day like yesterday that we at Big Pink know beyond dispute that we are right and the incense burners are wrong. Democrats want a Democratic President who will fight for Democratic values.

It is not only Obama who lacks testicular/ovarian fortitude. It is Obama supporters who are getting the leader they deserve. Obama supporters deluded themselves with a creature of their own creation. Now, Obama supporters lack the fortitude to do what needs to be done to rid us of this Chicago flip-flop-flim-flam contortionist.

We have known all along that:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Those 5 simple sentences are now beyond dispute. Without meaningful rejection, Obama incense burners will prove themselves to be political eunuchs too.

As long as Obama “supporters” persist in supporting the unqualified, flip-flop-flim-flam Obama, any threat, even a Jesse Jackson type colorful threat will be empty.

We ended our Jeremiad with:

A New York Times commentor reminded us of Benjamin Franklin’s warning to a young nation: “Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.”

Those who persist in supporting Obama now have no excuse. They can no longer claim they did not know. They can no longer say they have not been listening to Obama. We have warned them enough.

Now the treacheries foreshadowed by Barack Obama’s entire career come home to roost and the Obama enablers whine and scheme against the very “One” they so clamored, and so protected. The Nutroots and the establishment Dimocrats in power share the blame. We cannot support these creatures.

To these Obama enablers, issues became a “red flag” not a conviction. They waved that red flag to try to get Hillary supporters to go against reason and support the flim-flam scam man from Chicago. We rejected that “issues” red flag argument:

After trashing the FDR coalition in favor of His “new” Democratic? Party Obama is now trying to bamboozle voters he is finally realizing determine elections. But the “red” flag campaign will not work this time because we’ve been fooled once too often. Women’s rights and respect do not begin and end with the usual Democratic? red flags.

We quoted some wise words:

The point I’m trying to make is that if women really care about their reproductive rights, then they’ll start demanding more from Congress then simple appeasement. By going into the voting booth every four years and pulling the lever for a Democrat out of habit, then you aren’t doing anything more than agreeing to let the Male dominated legislature control your sex organs for another four years. If you don’t start demanding something more for your vote, if you simply give in again because the Dems are dangling that damn abortion carrot as a threat, if you don’t demand that they do something to protect your rights other than paying lip service every four years, then this cycle will continue to play out from now until eternity. But at least you can still watch Oprah.

We believe the United States needs a fully functioning Democratic Party, a fully functioning Republican Party, as well as third party efforts which seek to move both major parties. Right now, we are devoid of a Democratic Party. What we have is a mockery posing as the once great Democratic Party.

The strategy we proposed in 2008 began with Massachusetts:

A bigger than expected vote for Ed O’Reilly in Massachusetts will send terror sweats throughout the unDemocratic Party. The election is this Tuesday, September 16. Hillary Clinton won the Massachusetts primary despite Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick. Let’s make some noise in Massachusetts this Tuesday as the first step to reviving the FDR coalition truly Democratic Party.

We utterly failed with Ed O’Reilly, but Scott Brown, showed the wisdom of our strategy. We distilled our strategy for the general election in our article called Voting For Hillary Clinton Or Voting “Present”

This election cycle is about the character of the Democratic Party as well as about its core principles. [snip]

Mothers are wise. Perhaps you have heard a parent say, or you yourself have said “If your friends jump off a cliff, (or out a window) will you jump too?” All our respect for Hillary guarantees is that when Hillary speaks, we listen. But we are not lemmings, we are not automatons, we do not live in dens filled with Hopium. We make up our own minds on who gets our votes.

If there was a mechanism whereby Hillary supporters could support the eventually nominee, whether that is Hillary or Obama or anyone else, and yet also have a way to remove those who stoked the race-baiting, gay-bashing and woman-hating of the primaries; a way to reject the ugly New Democratic Party Obama wants to create – perhaps then an argument could be made for voting for the Democratic nominee no matter who she or he is.

But that mechanism does NOT exist.

Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi believe they have Hillary supporters by the ovaries. Dean/Obama/Brazille/Pelosi think there is no where else to go – that women and all Democrats will have to vote Democratic, that Democrats will have no choice but to support the Democratic nominee no matter what ugly deeds, however much cowardice, however many insults and injuries they authored.

McCain was swamped when George W. Bush became a focus of national attention during the financial crisis just before the November elections in 2008. So scared and fearful were American voters that they put aside their qualms about Obama and decided to take a leap of faith, fingers crossed. They jumped from the frying pan and into the fire.

We still think our strategy is correct. But some good people question our “devastating defeat” strategy:

I know that many disaffected Democrats want to punish the party for its gutless congressional behavior over the past three years, for its kowtowing to Wall Street and the health insurance industry, and for its death-grip embrace of a cult of personality centered around a Chicago huckster. But in our zeal to punish, are we going to abandon principle?

The obvious riposte is “what principle?” How does a vote for a Dimocrat who mouths the words we like help? It’s not about “bitter, clingy” punishment as an end, it’s about punishment as a strategy.

The example cited against the “devastating defeat” strategy is that of Barbara Boxer. Barbara Boxer we are told “married into Hillary’s family.” But we remember the Barbara Boxer who announced she would support the winner of the California primary (who many believed would be Barack Obama) but when Hillary Clinton won overwhelmingly, Barbara Boxer was silent. Silent. Boxer, along with the Dimocratic establishment wanted Hillary Clinton out and Barack Obama in. How can we reward such a creature?

The argument is we must support Dimocrats who stabbed us in the back. Where does that get us? Where has that argument gotten the Nutroots?

Issues? We supposedly have overwhelming majorities of “our” people in congress and one of “our” people in the White House. What has that gotten us? Must we repeat “Obama is the Third Bush Term”? What have “our” overwhelming majorities produced? What has “our” Dimocrat in the White House produced?

Hundreds of military careers have been destroyed on his watch for no valid reason. The country has been deprived of the talents of these service members and has wasted millions of dollars on their training.

Many wonder when their president will show the same kind of concern for the constitutional rights of gay American service members as he has for enemy combatants held at Guantanamo Bay. Many wonder what the administration’s willingness to treat gay Americans as second-class citizens says to Uganda and other countries that are considering laws that would subject gays to imprisonment and even death.

Gay Americans have been among the president’s most ardent supporters. Their enthusiasm, and that of their families and friends, could be crucial in this year’s elections. The president’s action—or inaction—on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell will be noticed.

What has voting for “ours” produced? Bailouts for the nefarious schemers of Wall Street, attempted massive transfers of wealth for Big Insurance, death to real universal health care reform with secret deals with Big PhaRma, election year slush funds for Dimocratic elected officials, FISA, Guantanamo, higher war budgets, triumphant Big Media Obama enablers gliding into Obama jobs, debt and more debt, a not so secret war against “mediocre” Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, Fox News as truly “fair and balanced” and Big Media an Obama protection mob, a never ending campaign of fakery, Bush “terrorist” policies joined to weakness, unemployment, threats to Social Security, not socialism not capitalism but opportunism, gut cuts to Medicare, Red state Massachusetts, fake deficit cuts, shrinking incomes, TelePromTer “leadership”, publicity stunts, shifting sand “deadlines” on Iran, unqualified “heckofajob Brownies”, tax cheats, a back door away from the cameras for anti-Democratic base lobbyists, vacations for the sleeveless, parties and gardens and playhouses for the Rezko financed, scams, scams and more scams, – that is what “ours” have produced.

We’ll let a bamboozled independent explain:

I am a registered Independent. I voted for Barack Obama. And for that, I am sorry.

I’m not sorry for you. I’m sorry for me. Because I voted for Obama for me, not for you. I voted for hope and change and all the intangibles that Obama was peddling in the wake of the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, Sept. 11 and all the other ills that shook our country in the last decade. I wanted something new. Something different. What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for – a spin doctor. And not a very good one at that. [snip]

He is smart enough to seek counsel. I’m just outraged at the counsel he’s seeking these days. Key financial leaders who are tax cheats come immediately to mind, but as the recent terror attack made clear to me, the idea that a president of the most powerful nation in the world could think it was OK to have a Homeland Security chief with such a loose grasp of what terrorism is and how it works is troubling.

I was right there laughing when George W. Bush struggled with the names of countries around the world early in his tenure. And while my knowledge of foreign policy is limited, I thought Bush’s was lousy, too. But after Sept. 11, I saw a man with no charisma step up and fight for this country, its citizens and its freedom. Bush became a leader.

Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.

Where were “our” Dimocrats – enabling Obama.

But I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.

I watched with horror as Obama followed Bush’s lead in bailing out banks, auto makers, insurance companies, all of those companies deemed “too big to fail.” What does that mean? My small company got thrown under the bus and my savings were ravaged – perhaps Wall Street is using them for bonuses this year.

Not to mention President Obama is recklessly spending our country’s future into oblivion.

It was clear after just 90 days what a mistake I’d made. My taxes have gone up and my quality of life has gone down. Hope has given way to disgust and I see now that change is simply a euphemism for “big government.”

Where was Boxer? – and Reid, and Kerry, and Dodd, and Pelousy, and Schumer, and Feingold, and every one of “ours”? In bed with Obama looting the economy and enjoying the perks of power while hiding from and deriding “teabaggers” who expressed with vivid force the anger “we” felt. Who is on whose side?

Hence the spectacular rise of the “tea-party” movement, an alliance of ordinary people who are spooked by the huge amount of debt that is being racked up on Mr Obama’s watch. For Democrats to deride such people as “tea-baggers”, a term referring to a sexual practice involving testicles, is political stupidity of a high order.

Support these “ours”? No. “Ours” must be punished with the only currency Americans, Democrats, have left in the Obama economy -votes.

We’ll have to be very judicious, but the default position must be “devastating defeat”.

There will be tough times ahead for Hillary supporters because we will have to, once again, do what is right. We’ll have to choose sides that are as confused as Borgia Italy. We’ll have to choose sides and strategies to resurrect the Democratic Party and to benefit the nation. We’ll have to choose sides with cold, clear logic, not red flag emotion.

Whose side will you be on?


115 thoughts on “Tough Times Ahead For Hillary Clinton Supporters

  1. We’ll discuss the need for a NObama coalition of Democrats, Republicans and Independents later this week. Tomorrow we will focus on the big Obama publicity stunt before the congress and the nation.

  2. Bravo Admin! Very well said and documented.

    “Obama supporters do not care about the issues. If Obama supporters cared about the issues they would vote for Hillary.”



  3. White House Calls Critical Bioterrorism Report ‘Absurd’


    The Obama White House is pushing back against a federal panel’s “report card” giving it an F for failing to prepare the country’s defenses against a bioterror attack.

    “We think it’s absurd,” said a White House official, who didn’t want to be publicly identified criticizing the commission in public. “We think we’ve done a lot.” And while the official says the timing is purely a coincidence, Obama plans to address the issue in the State of the Union tomorrow night.

  4. White House Already Spinning Wildly: The “Freeze” Isn’t Really A Freeze At All

    Joe Weisenthal | Jan. 26, 2010,

    Could it be that The White House didn’t realize the intense blowback it would receive in liberal circles after leaking* news of a spending freeze?

    In a post over a HuffPo, Jared Bernstein, the chief economist for VP Joe Biden uses a lot of words to promise that they’re not taking the petal off the floor at all, and that the President has all kinds of job-creation goodies in the works.

    He then offers up a lesson in “Freeze-ology”, explaining that there are really two kinds of freezes:

    (1) an across-the-board freeze on every program outside of national security; and (2) a surgical approach where overall totals are frozen but some individual programs go up and others go down. In short, a hatchet versus a scalpel.

    So, okay, Obama’s going to use a scalpel, not a hatchet (which is how Bernstein justifies Obama’s criticism of McCains’ freeze proposal during the 2008 election.

    Now, here how he explains that a freeze can actually equal a spending hike!

    Take, for example, the policies we announced yesterday — a significant expansion (a 20% increase) in a program that provides services for seniors, like respite care and in-home services; a program to limit student loan repayments to 10 percent of income (after living expenses); an expansion of two tax credits, one for child care and another for retirement savings.

    How can we expand these programs in the context of a freeze? By making sure that the freeze either holds steady or increases those parts of the discretionary budget that support jobs and income security for folks who need them, while whacking the wasteful subsidies that support lobbyists and special interests.

    So basically, they’re going to spend money better, which almost everyone agrees is probably a good idea.

    The real point though is that it’s pathetic that before the State of the Union, they’re already getting wildly wishy-washy about what they’re doing, which just looks like bad politics.

    *According to Marc Ambinder, the news leaked before they’d intended it to. Still.


    President In Deep Trouble With Middle Class; Many Think His Attempt To ‘Reconnect’ Shows Serious Desperation

    President Barack Obama plans to use his state of the union address to “reconnect” with the middle class.

    Some say it’s an open admission to many here in the tri-state area that he has failed to feel our pain and our needs.

    From his war on the banks — the lifeblood of the metropolitan area economy — to his health care reform which could cost taxpayers here over $1 billion, President Obama’s policies have sent a strong message to the tri-state area that Washington doesn’t care about the middle class.

    Suddenly, he claims he wants to change that.

    “The middle class feels beleaguered, and I think the message of Massachusetts, which I believe the president is now heeding, was pay attention to our plight. We’re not as worried about changing the health care system as we are about getting by week to week,” Sen. Charles Schumer said.

    So at the urging of area Democrats like Sen. Schumer, President Obama will use his State of the Union address to tack to the middle — with child-care tax breaks and student loan deferments.

    “I think he’s pivoting, pivoting into dealing with middle class woes with jobs and the economy,” Schumer said.

    But not everyone thinks the president’s new found concentration on the middle class will help us here in the tri-state area — because there is still the war on banks and insistence on health care reforms that don’t help many of us.

    “No, I don’t see any real relief coming from Barack Obama to the middle class. I think he is still on a very liberal agenda. He’s mouthing some words which maybe will play in some states but his policies are devastating to New York,” Rep. Peter King said.

    Congressman King said one thing that would help taxpayers in our area is a cost of living adjustment on federal taxes that takes into account how expensive it is to live here.

    “If he’s serious about the middle class there should be an allocation or adjustment made for people living in a high-income area, high-expense area, high cost of living area,” the Republican from Long Island said.

    New Yorkers seem to agree.

    “Who wouldn’t like to have some extra help in a place that’s really expensive?” asked Tom Falcone of Queens.

    “Everybody needs a little more money in their pocket. It would stimulate the economy,” added John Forst of Brooklyn.

    Schumer said the Massachusetts election was a wake-up call for Democrats in Washington, but only time will tell whether voters will buy the “new” Obama.

    The president will get a referendum on his policies during the November mid-term elections.

  6. Admin: you make a compelling argument.

    When Franklin was asked what kind of a government do we have he said this: “a republic sir. If you can keep it.”

    The Democratic Party which we grew up with and my godfather was a leader in exists today in name only.

    The entity we see now has willfully abandoned the FDR coalition.

    The entity we see now is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chicago Political Machine.

    The entity we see now is openly contemptuous of the American People.

    If that entity is allowed to go unchecked it will destroy the nation.

    Domestically, it will bury us in debt, invalidate our constitution, eviscerate our bill of rights.

    Internationally, it will surrender our sovereignty to international bureaucrats, and end our world leadership.

    The Democrats in the Senate knew this but they chose Obama over Hillary and the American People.

    In view of all this, the only hope for the party and country is to throw these people out of office.

    That is an easy decision for me since I did it before to the other party. For others it may be more difficult.

    But in the final analysis it gets back to what Franklin said: “a republic sir. If you can keep it”.

  7. Now this is an interesting rumour i’ve heard, what if the guys arrested in Landrieu’s office were removing a device and not putting one in, perhaps they have what they needed now and Landrieus about to be busted.

    A clue perhaps because they have been released now and O’Keefe mad a coment of “Veritas” (truth)

    CHALMETTE, La. (AP) – Three men suspected of trying to tamper with phones at Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office have been released from a suburban New Orleans jail.

    Among them was James O’Keefe, a conservative activist who posed as a pimp to target the community-organizing group ACORN. O’Keefe said “veritas,” the Latin word for truth, as he left the jail with suspects Stan Dai and Joseph Basel, both 24.

    They declined comment, and Dai said there will be a time for that.

    The fourth suspect, Robert Flanagan, the son of Shreveport-based acting U.S. Attorney Bill Flanagan, was not with them. A judge said earlier all four would be released Tuesday.

    Federal authorities say the men went to Landrieu’s New Orleans office Monday and Basel and Flanagan pretended to be phone repairmen. It wasn’t clear what exactly they were trying to do.

  8. “We think it’s absurd,” said a White House official, who didn’t want to be publicly identified
    Well then we should give no weight to his opinion. If he is a government official on the public payroll and he wants to attack a finding without owning up to who he is then he should not even be quoted. Whatever we are paying him it is too much.

  9. Admin, I am reposting Jan’s post regarding Bill Clinton’s war strategy used as “punishment” for the inhumanity of rogue dictators (and also for shaping their future actions) below. BC’s machinations fall right in with your strategy for handing the dems a devastating defeat next election cycle.

    Great Analysis, admin:

    “We still think our strategy is correct. But some good people question our “devastating defeat” strategy:”

    “I know that many disaffected Democrats want to punish the party for its gutless congressional behavior over the past three years, for its kowtowing to Wall Street and the health insurance industry, and for its death-grip embrace of a cult of personality centered around a Chicago huckster. But in our zeal to punish, are we going to abandon principle?”

    The obvious riposte is “what principle?” How does a vote for a Dimocrat who mouths the words we like help? It’s not about “bitter, clingy” punishment as an end, it’s about punishment as a strategy.


    January 26th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Tue, Jan. 26, 2010

    Commentary: Bill Clinton, the reluctant warrior, reinvented the American battle strategy

    Richard Sale
    The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, Va.)
    January 26, 2010

    STAMFORD, Conn. — I recently wrote a book, “Clinton’s Secret Wars: The Evolution of a Commander-in-Chief,” that was to me an attempt to right a wrong. The motivating passion behind the book was to correct the snide trivializing of President Bill Clinton’s foreign-policy performance. Since I am not a Democrat and harbor great suspicion of anything political, I felt I could attempt the task without disfiguring it with bias.

    At the beginning of his presidency, Clinton had misgivings about presidential power because it was connected with force. He had been against the Vietnam War, and he had a personal horror of inflicting casualties. Reluctance to use force was part of his nature. But reluctance to use force is not refusal to use it. According to Alan Greenspan, Clinton was one of the most intelligent of American presidents, ranking with Reagan and Nixon.

    From studying Clinton, it is clear that Clinton was a man who learned from his predicaments. Before the end of his first term, he had developed the soldier’s basic virtue of liking to fight. He used force in Haiti, he wanted to go to war against North Korea but was dissuaded from it, and he had demanded all-out war with Iran after the terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers facility in Saudi Arabia. Further, Clinton used force in Bosnia, first by means of Croatian proxies, and then by NATO bombing raids.

    To counter the menace of Iraqi bully Saddam Hussein, Clinton almost toppled the dictator following a savage 1998 bombing of Baghdad, and – almost unnoticed by the public – he conducted an incessant air war against Iraq, dropping 2,000 bombs that reduced to a miserable shambles Saddam Hussein’s entire air defense network. He had also tried to have Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden killed.

    As early as 1994, Clinton assigned the CIA to develop a plan to topple Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic from power. This covert operation turned the dictator out of power in the Serb elections of 2000 and was followed in 2001 by a SEAL team who kidnapped Milosevic and sent him to the Hague, the first head of state to be arrested as a war criminal. (This SEAL operation was carried out by the Bush team, but it was a Clinton plan.)

    The “test of command” is the test of the commander, as the saying goes, and as a commander in chief, Clinton has been vastly underestimated. When it came to Kosovo, many argued that the Clinton administration had no coherent war plan and was strategically confused. But Clinton was an excellent war leader whose real importance as commander in chief rests on his introduction of a new way of war.

    As military historian Eliot Cohen has explained, war to Americans was to be “simple, direct, and overwhelming.” In the past, the American way of war was one of aggressive ferocity; inflexible pressure for the battle that decides everything at a stroke. It entailed huge risks for the sake of huge rewards. Military professionals said with hauteur that the war in Kosovo wasn’t a real campaign because it had no clear-cut objectives. In other words, the NATOSerb war didn’t resemble the wars they were used to.

    The truth was that Clinton’s aim was entirely different. Clinton made war to inflict punishment on Milosevic – to use war as a way to shape the international environment, to impose enough pain to coerce the enemy to adopt a new line of conduct. This was a new way of making war and applying force because it aimed to attain a diplomatic, not a military, objective.

    Clinton faced an American public that was fickle, distracted, and unable to distinguish between war and mere force. There had never been popular groundswell of support for the war, and by May 18, 1999 – with the war less than a month old – Clinton’s poll numbers had begun to slip. Although NATO was winning, the public had grown weary of the war, and most were urging an immediate negotiated settlement. Fifty-six percent opposed sending in any ground troops, despite the fact that by then the Serbs had taken 250 Kosovar towns, burned 50 of them to the ground, and caused a humanitarian catastrophe. When the war ended in victory, Clinton’s poll numbers dipped instead of rising.

    Public apathy accounts for much of Clinton’s secrecy. Like FDR, when Clinton found he could not carry the public, the Congress, or parts of his bureaucracy with him, he resorted to keeping his moves secret from them. No president after FDR except Eisenhower shared such a love of artifice and covert maneuver as did Clinton. He resolved to wage war by – in historian Andrew J. Bacevich’s words – “decoupling the people from military affairs.” Clinton decided as president that he would wage war in a way that would do the least political damage while achieving the maximum beneficial effect.

    Clinton almost entirely ignored Congress, refusing to consult it because most of its members were incredibly ignorant or indifferent to military affairs, or needlessly critical. (Republican leader Trent Lott at the time was urging Clinton to “give peace a chance.”) Nor did Clinton bother to consult the joint chiefs of staff as FDR had, dealing instead mainly with its chairman, Gen. Hugh Shelton, a mild, torpid man who was not likely to make waves or say no.

    What Clinton did was astonishing. Using air power alone, he embraced gradual escalation, a tactic thought to have been discredited once and for all by President Johnson in Vietnam. In spite of the ineptitude that characterized the beginning of the Kosovo war – especially the failure to halt Serb eviction of the Kosovars – NATO remorselessly tightened the pressure, using attacks on Milosevic and his key political supporters, the Yugoslav army, and country’s infrastructure, until growing despair and hardships provided the decisive pressure that made the stubborn Serb submit.

    The chief difference between George W. Bush and Clinton as military commanders lies in the fact that historically there are two parties in the Congress when it comes to foreign affairs. There are internationalists, like FDR and Clinton; and isolationists/unilateralists, like Republicans before World War II and neocons under George W. Bush. Such parties shun collaboration: America can best look after itself. (But great power flows to the executive during war, and Congress is always attempting to steal it back. The Clinton-Gingrich struggle exemplifies that fact.)

    Clinton was always alert for ways to expand American influence. In the case of NATO, he used the alliance to rethink the European chessboard, changing it from a 1949 defensive alliance to counter Soviet conventional war in Germany, to a force able to impose stability and fight terror not only in Europe, but in the Middle East and Central Asia. George W. Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 is due to Clinton’s vision of NATO.

    Throughout the Kosovo conflict, Clinton ensured that America was by far the major player in the NATO alliance, and he kept the coalition from paralyzing allied target selection by using American planes not subject to NATO’s jurisdiction. The message was there: Under Clinton, there would be no long, wearing campaigns, but instead “brief, measured ripostes calibrated, judicious, precise.” As Bacevich goes on to say, force was used “not to achieve decision, but to signal, warn, contain, punish, or at least to avoid the appearance of weakness and inaction.”

    Because of the skill with which Clinton “recast America’s strategic purposes,” because of his new way of war and his ability to fashion a “new post-liberal civilmilitary relationship,” Bacevich asserts that Clinton “deserves to be ranked along with FDR and Reagan as one of the most influential commanders in chief in modern American history.” This is an honor the former president has long been denied.

    I am not a military expert. Bacevich is.

  10. Schumer said the Massachusetts election was a wake-up call for Democrats in Washington, but only time will tell whether voters will buy the “new” Obama.
    Before the Massachusetts Miracle the attitude of this Judas was: ” Pork? No pork! Just some little piggies. Te he he”. Was he lying then? Is the lying now? Or is he not in fact a chronic and habitual liar?

  11. Thanks Mrs. Smith. That is an interesting, and flattering, comparison you make. We get the connection, and like it. Thanks again.

  12. If Robert Mueller is still head of the FBI then I assume it is well led. If not and they have installed a Holder crony I would feel differently. The reason I mention that is because the incident itself is bizarre and it is equally bizarre that a special agent would be making a statement of the subject which seems to be contradicted by the evidence. And it is stranger still when you find that one of the alleged conspirators is the son of the acting US Attorney. This may get real interesting.

  13. I encourage everyone to not vote. If you vote Republican, it just moves the Democratic party farther right and Obama is already to the right of Bush on many issues. IF I wanted a Republican in office, I would have voted for McCain. In retrospect, McCain is probably to the left of Obama. Anyway, it has certainly been noted how many Obama voters didn’t bother to show up and vote for Coakley.

    Not voting sends a message that is difficult to misinterpret. Voting Republican sends a message that every corporate lobbyist, every Republican and Blue dog Democrat and virtually all media figures want sent – that is, that America is a conservative nation.

    We are not conservative. we are liberal. And I won’t send a message that i am conservative. I will send a message that I am so underwhelmed by the action of this administration and it’s supporters in Congress, that I can’t be bothered to vote for them.

  14. and let us not forget the massive FAILURE of the Obama’s Foreclosure Prevention Plan -Obama’s plan allowed home foreclosures to increase by 14 per cent nationwide during his first year in office…

    Hillary wanted to freeze interest rates for five years and really save and keep people in their homes…Marcy Kaptur screams from the House floor to “stay in your homes – do not let them push you out of your home”

    …Obama goes golfing and shoots some baskets…uh, not on his radar…foreclosures up 5%, 10%, 14%…let’s try for 20% – 25%…do I hear 30%? great, all that new property for his bank buddies…

  15. Whose side will you be on?

    I will stand with Americans, for Americans, toward a better World. I am a Hillary Dem, Indendent Tea party supporter!

  16. The man I would not want to be now is Senator Jim Webb. He is a great man, a true blue American and a man of honor. Surely he knows there is no honor in this telepromptered smoke and mirrors president, or the un-American policies he is foisting upon the American People. Nor is there any honor in the people who put him there–Soros, Zbig, the Chigago Machine, the Saudis and the flotsam and jetsom of the party. War makes strange bedfellows and so does politics. But there must be limits.

  17. basement angel
    January 26th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
    I encourage everyone to not vote

    If you don’t vote you don’t have a pony in the race and I for one am a fiscal conservative, social progressive

  18. Moon, That is delicious!!! Why would they put a bug IN in the light of day, when they could merely bribe a office housekeeper to get in. They wanted this to be televised that they actually did it.

    Sweaty balls are happening in D.C. these days. Excuse my crudeness, I am just a redneck from Texas, you can’t expect any better!! LOL!!

    ADMIN: Great article. Obama=Fools gold LOL! You just can’t describe him any better than that.

  19. the chatter on boston talk radio this evening revolved around whether scott brown would be seated at the SOTU. one woman caller said she phoned kerry’s office to ask the question and was told they might consider having a chair placed so brown could sit next to horse-head-kerry and paul kirk. unbelievable.

  20. Basement Angel, we’ll address the ideas in your comment in the Left/Right NObama Coalition article after tomorrow. But indeed your are right. Just as consumers can vote with their dollars, voters can, um, vote with their votes or non-votes. Showing up to the polls is still important but it is easy to vote only in one obscure race and leave the upper ballots uncast. Maybe we need a “voters strike”.

  21. Wbboei, Webb today announced he is working to block the “terror trial” in New York. We wonder if this was part of the conversation with a certain plucky blond lady?

  22. It doesn’t matter to me if you are a Indendent Tea party supporter or a Independent Tea Party supporter – I’m with you and I am going to vote.

    Whose side will I be on?

    No democrat will get by me till admin puts up a banner yelling: “MISSION ACCOMPOLISHED!”

  23. admin
    January 26th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
    Wbboei, Webb today announced he is working to block the “terror trial” in New York. We wonder if this was part of the conversation with a certain plucky blond lady?

    Hmmm……..I agree, the “terror trial” should not be held in New York. Wouldn’t Webb discuss this with Homeland Security or the Justice Department?

  24. from BP

    Cool! Hillary doesn’t have to clap and stand up for O on Wednesday night. Woo hoo.

    Clinton to London, Paris

    Secretary of State Clinton will travel to London and Paris from January 26 to 29, 2010, the State Department announced.

    Last week, when the White House announced that Obama’s State of the Union address would be January 27, diplomats said they were no longer sure if Clinton would attend the Yemen meeting in London.

    But now it’s been decided that she will be at least one cabinet official not in the Capitol when Obama gives his address.

    “In London, Secretary Clinton will attend a ministerial meeting on Yemen on January 27 and the International Conference on Afghanistan on January 28,” State Department spokesman PJ Crowley said in a statement.

  25. basement angel, after 2008 I will never, ever presume to tell another person how they “must” vote. You have to do what your conscience dictates, even if we agree on the general strategy to get Obama and his Dims OUT. You own your vote. Use it or withhold it as you see fit.

  26. Not a Sean Hannity fan at all but he is ripping into Obama right now. He has a leaked white house talking points memo for tomorrows speech.

  27. Today is Hillary’s one year anniversary as SOS. And it amazes me that only a foreign press group acknowledged it.

    Clinton marks year as Secretary of State

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (Xinhua) — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday marked her first year as the government’s top diplomat in a town hall style meeting with department employees, promising to elevate the status of diplomacy and development in the U.S. government alongside defense.

    “We began with the idea of smart power, elevating diplomacy and development alongside defense,” Clinton said, promising employees she would use her influence in the administration and Congress to obtain greater resources for diplomacy.

    She said development in the 21st century will be guided by partnership, not patronage, echoing a speech earlier this month in which she pledged to work with developing countries in development.

    Clinton was sworn in as Secretary of State on January 21, 2009, after eight years as the first lady, eight years as U.S. Senator of New York, and an unsuccessful, although close, bid to become the first female president of the United States.

    She defended the administration’s disaster relief efforts in Haiti, portraying it as an example of the emphasis on development.

    She also criticized Nigeria, which is home to the Christmas plane bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, saying the country “faces a threat from increasing radicalization.”

  28. Wbboei, Webb today announced he is working to block the “terror trial” in New York. We wonder if this was part of the conversation with a certain plucky blond lady?
    Hillary has seen the devastation inflicted on New York City by terrorist attacks and knows that trying those confessed killers in that venue would increase the risk of another attack. Jim Webb is also aware of that risk, spent his youth defending this nation as a Marine Corps company commander in Viet Nam, and has the guts to oppose the improvident decision by Obama to try them in that venue. Thus, I think we can safely assume this was part of the conversation between these to patriots.

  29. Did I just hear that Liberman is going republican. Well that for sure answers my question on what my mom would be doing now.

  30. OMG!! Drudge has this for a headline:


    with a pic of “super obamaman” which is so hilarious!

  31. admin: I just got a threat advisor from my McAfee virus protector when I posted my last comment. I think this blog is going to be attacked.

  32. Thanks Confloyd, we’re on alert. No surprise. This happens every time Obama is about to make a big publicity stunt.

  33. We’re disgusted that Michael Moore (Obama enabler) might agree with us:

    MICHAEL MOORE: Oh, my god. Well, this—no, this is the National Nurses Union. This is the saddest thing that’s happened. And I would hope anybody listening to this or watching this would respond and put pressure on the Bush administration. The National Nurses Union—

    AMY GOODMAN: The Obama administration?

    MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, the Obama. What did I say? The—

    AMY GOODMAN: Bush administration.

    MICHAEL MOORE: Yeah, yeah. We already put pressure on them. They’re no longer with us. But that wasn’t just Freudian. That’s really—that is my state of mind. That is how I’m, you know, feeling, because I won’t accept the sugarcoated difference between the Obama administration and the Bush administration. And you can say, on the surface, just how great things are in terms of compared to the last eight years, but the substance, when it comes to, you know, the rubber meeting the road, I can’t tell you how profoundly disappointed I am at this point. [snip]

    MICHAEL MOORE: Well, I wrote a—actually, I did—I sent a note off to the White House the night of the Massachusetts election, and I said to President Obama, “I’m sure you’re not surprised. What did you think was going to happen after a year of completely going back on everything you promised in terms of real universal healthcare, a year of you not getting us out of Afghanistan but escalating the war to a degree that is shocking? What did you expect to happen after a year of, instead of coming in to tie these banks and these institutions down and make them pay for what the damage they’ve done to the average American, instead giving them more help, more of a bailout? It’s like, what did you think was going to happen in Massachusetts, that your base was just going to wake up on Tuesday morning and go, ‘Oh, I can’t wait to go to the polls and vote for somebody to back everything that’s been going on”? I think a lot of people woke up and said, “I could care less at this point. I’m so upset. And I’m not going to—I’m not going to go vote.” [snip]

    I think, all kidding aside, that this is another example of the Democrats are essentially a bunch of wimps. They don’t have the guts. They don’t have the courage of their own convictions. They’re disgusting. I’m embarrassed. I want really nothing to do with them. And if they don’t find their spine, well, they’re in for a huge surprise in November.

  34. I have no idea what a virus even is, I’ve been using a Mac for so many years. 🙂

    BTW, many of the anti-Obama sites, if you search for them on Google, now have a “this site may not be secure” warning on the link, to discourage people from clicking. Google is helping out Teh One again, I see.

  35. Basement Angel, Michael Moore is voicing your concerns, tho I think for different reasons in part
    I think a lot of people woke up and said, “I could care less at this point. I’m so upset. And I’m not going to—I’m not going to go vote.” [snip

  36. Clinton stands for America…we know the Fruad would just agree with the forign press.

    Clinton ‘deeply resents’ foreign criticism on Haiti
    Jan 26 11:12 AM US/Eastern

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at a press conference at the e…

    Doctors Without Borders Turn to Inflatable Hospitals in Haiti

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday she “deeply resents” foreign criticism of the US response to the earthquake in Haiti, saying the United States was doing as much as it could.
    “I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake,” Clinton told State Department employees at a forum marking one year in office.

    Clinton did not single out critics but said that “some of the international press either misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued” the US decision to send troops along with civilians to Haiti.

    A senior Italian official on Sunday criticized the lack of a coordinated international aid effort in Haiti, saying that the United States had “too many officers” there and could not find a capable leader.

    Copyright AFP 2008, AFP

  37. You know for a man who researchs and exposes everything political, why the hell did he not know that Hillary was the first to say that the dims had no spines. The stupid SOB is ignorant, he should have voted and helped Hillary and we would not be where we are today. Sure we would be in Afganistan, but Moore doesnt have a high security credential so how does he know why we need to be in Afganistan?? He needs to realize the people we vote in must be able to make decisions based on the facts that are not available to the general public. We have to TRUST the people we vote for, why did he not research the “anointed one”???? He fell for the speech, just like every goofup that voted for the idiot. He shouldv’e went with experience and values.

  38. I’ve been away from TV for a few days so I just saw an ad featuring ME-chelle asking for aid money for Haiti.

    WOW! She and Nancy Pelosi are, no doubt, in a race to see who’s eyebrows can reach their hairlines first. Every time I see ME-chelle on TV her eyebrows are creeping up, up, up.

  39. Southern Born
    January 26th, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    It’s very disturbing add. It is from a very odd angle. It appears the camera is looking down. Gives me the creeps.Eyebrows and all.

  40. Haywoth is a real creep. As much as I want to see the incumbants out, he is not an alternative

    Media profile
    Known for his outspoken nature — he called President Clinton an “unprincipled philandering president” who had “the most corrupt administration in U.S. history” — Hayworth is a frequent guest on conservative TV and talk radio. He sometimes substitutes as host of the nationally syndicated Laura Ingraham political commentary show on the Talk Radio Network.

    In 1998, Hayworth was voted the second biggest “windbag” in Congress in Washingtonian magazine’s survey of 1,200 congressional staff members of both parties. “I was hoping to get the number one spot,” Hayworth said. “I was last time.”

    Hayworth has never shied from controversy. In the same campaign letter in which he criticized Clinton, he said his Democratic opponent was “bankrolled by trial lawyers, radical homosexual rights groups, environmental extremists … along with almost every other left-wing wacko group you can think of.”

  41. admin
    January 26th, 2010 at 7:31 pm

    Admin- your due diligence is awesome. Your insightful direction helps us understand where we need to be and how to get there.


    January 26th, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    Mrs. Smith,

    How are you feeling?


    Feeling stronger everyday, Jan- TG..

    thanks for asking 🙂

  42. Wbboei, Yeah, He doesn’t seem like a person that could beat McCain. He definitely has CDS, but I do like he saying we need to see the birth certificate. You can’t play little league baseball in this country without bringing your birth certificate in and they make a copy of it and keep it on file.
    So why can’t we get a REAL copy of Potus’s.

  43. wbboei, O’Keiffe said as he got in the cab after being released from jail, “the truth will set me free”. So I guess we will see someday what he meant by that.

  44. Perhaps not Confloyd. The question is how tired are the voters of McCain. To many conservatives McCain is a RINO. During the 1990s he was the the hero of the New York Times and the animosities within the party against him ran rather deep. I know people whose parents were close to Goldwater and they have a negative opinion of John.

    The big issue for them is illegal immigration and John is on the wrong side of that issue as is Lindsay Graham from their perspective. Some of it is nativism, some of it is Mexican drug gangs and some of it is the way it is being used by employers to reduce area standards wages. JD Haworth is a hawk on border security and an opponent of illegal immigration.

    There are equities on the side of the illegals too, since some of them have been displaced from their villages by world trade policies where they cannot make a living selling their the farm products because US agribusinesses have wiped them out just as they did the small farmer in this country. But the people in Arizona that I know do not feel that they are responsible for the predations of globalists, and fear that if they do not take a stand they will be overrun.

  45. Thank you for the well wishes, djia and H4T.. and anyone else not previously mentioned. (sorry)

    Even the universe is balking at Obama’s delusions of grandeur. We aren’t alone anymore.

  46. Some of the people who were fierce partisans and adversaries of Bill and Hillary in the 1990s have grown up and now see them in a more objective light, and like what they see. Joe Scarborough is one. I believe Larry Johnson was not a supporter until he met Hillary and that changed everything. Richard Mellon Scaife was a finacier of the Clinton wars yet he turned around and endorsed Hillary in the primary in very glowing terms and works with Bill on Global Initiatives. There are others as well. Politics is not always a zero sum game, and in times of crisis leadership ability matters more than party label. The point is not what Hayworth said fifteen years ago but what he would say now. We need people who put America first and he appears to do that. If that is true then there is no room for Hillary hate. The people who hate Hillary also hate this country whether they realize it or not.

  47. Well I don’t like McCain, I think he is a secret Obama supporter. Why else would he just rollover to let him win.

    Has Lieberman turned into a republican now? I caught the tail end of it on Greta.

  48. Confloyd: Lets wait and see what the investigation shows. Right now nobody has all the facts. Consequently I think it was irresponsible for the special agent to make any statement at this point. They are always so anxious for a headline to justify their existence. Hoover was the worst of the lot where that was concerned.

  49. I thought you might like to see this small item from a major New Zealand paper entitled “Hillary Clinton trumps Obama”. Unfortunately, being small, it did not make it to the internet, so I’ve typed it out. It’s written by a local radio personality.

    Hillary Clinton trumps Obama

    Greetings from the United States. As President Obama prepares to commemorate his first anniversary in the White House, his approval ratings are heading south. In contrast to the soaring rhetoric that whipped Americans silly 12 months ago, the mood has changed markedly. The veritable industry of Obama memorabilia, ranging from souvenir dolls to “Yes we Can” condoms, that littered Main Street last January is nowhere to be seen. The public’s hero worship of Obama has collapsed, proving to be as brittle as Britney Spears on the turps.

    In conversation with various Americans, the overriding concerns are Obama’s spectacular failure to address unemployment, the inexorable surge in federal debt (which now exceeds $13 trillion), his kiddie glove treatment of terror suspects like the underwear bomber and his perceived pandering to the far Left of the Democratic Party. And just what has Obama got to show, after a year in office? A premature peace prize is about it.

    Interestingly, Hillary Clinton’s popularity is riding the crest of a wave, trumping Obama in the performance and approval stakes.

    Clinton is now the most admired political figure in the United States. Did America get it wrong when they chose their last President? Was Hillary the better bet? I think so.”

  50. Thanks Linda. That is a wonderful article. Campaigning is about hope and governing is about results. The results have not been forthcoming. Big media in this country still carries the torch, and defends an indefensible position. But the public has caught on to them and to Obama. Tonight he will make more promises and if past is prologue he will not follow through or fail in an artless attempt to implement them. We shall see whether they go back to swooning or treat those commitments with an air of skepticism which they deserve in view of his history.

    One question I am curious about since you apparently live in New Zealand. Did you have the opportunity to watch the speech by Charles Krauthammer at the Heritage Foundation which Dija published on this site yesterday January 26 at 2;12 am. From my perspective, it is spot on. It serves to illustrate what Hillary has to deal with as Secretary of State and I said as much at 1;54 p.m. But I wonder how the Krauthammer critique is perceived abroad. Would you care to comment on that?

  51. Following the Scott Brown destruction of the super majority I was questioning my stance. Then waffles dissed Clinton and all doubt was eradicated. Thanks again admin for being here and providing some perspective.

  52. Voting against Democrats is common sense, not revenge. What else do we have that would cause them to return to basic principles?
    I pledge allegiance to the flag
    And to the Republic for which it stands….

  53. Linda192
    January 27th, 2010 at 4:06 am


    Thanks for posting that small but mighty article.

  54. Clinton arrives in London for Yemen, Afghan talks

    LONDON — US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Britain on Wednesday to attend talks on Yemen and Afghanistan, an AFP correspondent travelling with her said.

    Clinton is expected to hold discussions with counterparts including Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov before the Yemen meeting, which is due to start at 4 p.m (1600 GMT).

    World powers will seek ways to support the Yemeni government in its efforts to combat a resurgent branch of Al-Qaeda, which claims it trained a Nigerian student who allegedly tried to blow up a US-bound airliner.

    Clinton is also expected to meet President Hamid Karzai before Thursday’s 60-nation conference on stabilising Afghanistan and transferring control from international forces to Afghan institutions

  55. Hillary Clinton will be in London for State of the Union

    By Al Kamen
    Wednesday, January 27, 2010; A17

    Madam Secretary sends her regrets.

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton got a pass last week from President Obama to skip Wednesday night’s State of the Union speech. (We had heard she begged to be excused, but apparently it didn’t come to that.)

    Seems there’s an important international meeting Wednesday in London on battling radicalization in Yemen, and then another, long-planned conference there Thursday on development and security in Afghanistan.

    Once the Wednesday meeting was “locked in,” we were told, the State Department and National Security Council staffs agreed that Clinton had to be in London. These are both big administration priorities. Key allies will be gathering there to discuss Yemen, an uber-concern of late, especially since the Christmas Day airplane bombing attempt.

    And everyone who’s anyone — including maybe the neo-Soviets and the Chicoms and possibly even the Iranians — will be there to talk about Afghanistan.

    Clinton laid out the situation in a meeting last week with Obama, and he agreed that she should go.

    But London does not qualify as an “undisclosed location.” So this means there will be two Cabinet officers not attending the speech: Clinton and the designated holdback in case of terrorist attack. (Or in case everyone falls asleep at the same time.)

    Our plugged-in prez

    The White House blog said Tuesday morning that it was “excited to announce” that the president will be using the Web “to offer the public a direct and participatory way to communicate back to him” during Wednesday’s speech. Presumably this would be something a little more substantive than that “You lie!” outburst last year by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.).

    The blog announced that after the speech begins, “anyone will be able to submit a follow-up question and vote on others at Then next week, the president will answer questions in a special online event, live from the White House.” This is the latest in a White House effort to use new media to get their message out.

    But the Brits continue to be at least a step ahead on this. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, in town Thursday for various meetings with administration officials and congressional folks — including testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the upcoming Afghanistan conference — had a “Twitter press conference,” the embassy here said, “to answer questions on Afghanistan from the online community, to run over the course of the day.”

    An embassy spokesman pronounced the effort “worth doing.” Miliband was on the run most all day, and there were inevitably “more questions than answers,” the spokesman said, but Miliband managed to answer “eight or so different questions.”

    Maybe Obama could go him one better and just tweet the whole State of the Union. Save everyone a lot of trouble. Limit is 140 characters? No problem. “I think the State of the Union,” he could type, then pick one: “is okay,” “could be better,” “is really messed up” or “is looking real good (well, maybe not just right now).”

  56. I am so pleased that Hillary will be far away from our White House Temple of Gloom while Hocus Pocus Lies diverts blame and feeds his dwindling remnants of support that put him in the Oval Office with the constant drumbeat of his “Legacy of retribution and retribution”.Empowerment has resulted in a widespread use of weapons and murders during the nights of drug deals gone bad.The BO hope and change has become a stimulus bonanza for local Funeral Homes.
    Do not miss the Tavis Smiley Special all about our wonderful President in waiting for the Obama exit. 8pm this evening on PBS.A very appropriate time prior to the Feuhrers Propaganda Session we call SOTUS.
    Hillary the World needs you like no other before you. “WE WILL HAVE HILLARY IN THE OO”

  57. I have long admired the people in New Zealand and Australia. Their newspapers really perform like newspapers. The American newspapers somehow got lost along the way, and became not agents of the people, but agents of political parties.

  58. We should be grateful that Bill and Hillary are so loyal to this country and the safety of people around this troubled world.Hillary is in charge of her position as SoS.There is no way that she would have taken the job unless she held a firm hand for h
    er decisions schedules and actions.Obama has no control over her and any attempt to restrict her or fire her would be the last nail in his political coffin.For those mercenary critics on FOX and MSNBC if you still think that you must get up early to beat her I have some bad news for you and your treasonous efforts to destroy her,”HILLARY NEVER SLEEPS”.She is far away and her absence will be very obvious tonight as he spreads the waste from his Livery STable Cocoon via Tele Pee.

    Daily Appointments Schedule for January 27, 2010

    Washington, DC

    January 27, 2010





  59. Oh, great. The Dims are going to do more “stimulus”, that will be exactly like the last “stimulus”, and target the money to state and local governments via block grants. This is so they can shore up their budgets and not have to, say, trim out the assistant to the assistant of nose-picking at the Institute of Cockroach Studies on route 42 . Can’t have that.

    When will they learn? Continually bailing out bloated govts does NOTHING to create private sector jobs or stimulate the real economy! We don’t need more govt employees, we need BUSINESS to rebound! Rep. Brad Sherman is heard on tape saying they have been instructed NOT to call it a stimulus bill, but a jobs bill. Just re-name it, and the stupid voters will never know…..

  60. What I love about Hillary is that she ALWAYS invokes his name in every speech and interview. These are his “doomed to fail” policies that she is following and she is doing it with as much grace and honesty as she can.

  61. Interesting but not surprising..

    I’ve just read the transcript of the president’s remarks about Haiti, the ones he made on January 15. He noted that, in addition to assistance from the United States, significant aid had also come from “Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others.” Am I missing another country that truly weighed in with truly consequential assistance? Ah, yes. There it is. Right there “among others.” Yes, the country to which I refer is “among others,” that one.

    The fact is that, next to our country, Israel sent the largest contingent of trained rescue workers, doctors, and other medical personnel. The Israeli field hospital was the only one on the ground that could perform real surgery, which it did literally hundreds of times, while delivering–as of last week–at least 16 babies, including one premature infant and three caesarians. The first 250-odd Israelis were real professionals, and they were supplemented by others, also professionals. And to these can be added the many organized Jews from the Diaspora who, in solidarity with Israel, also went on a work pilgrimage, an aliyah, in solidarity with Haiti.

    It’s not that Israeli participation in the Haiti horror was being kept secret. I myself saw it reported several times on television—on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.

    So didn’t Obama notice? For God’s sake, everybody noticed the deep Israeli involvement. I understand that Obama doesn’t like Middle East narratives that do not contain “one side and the other side” equal valence. But he couldn’t have that here. The Arabs don’t care a fig, not for their impoverished and backward own, and certainly not for strangers. That’s why their presence in Haiti amounted to a couple of bucks from Saudi Arabia and maybe from some other sheikhs.

    An afterthought: Who would want Arab participation in the rescue effort? This was serious work and dangerous work. Amateurs weren’t welcome.

    Yes, I think that the labors of the Israelis were edited out of Obama’s speech, either by his speechwriters (who have made dissing Israel their forté) or by his own oh-so-delicate but dishonest censoring mechanism.

  62. pm, Obama hates Israel. And if Iran succeeds in their nuclear ambitions, and Israel takes the reactors out (because His Fecklessness was too busy trying to befriend and offer open hands to dictators instead of standing up to them) , he will throw them under the bus.

    I personally think he is being deliberately soft on Iran to goad Israel into having no choice but to act. Then he has an EXCUSE to rail against them and destroy our relationship with them. If that happens, he will be on teevee every day loudly decrying their “brutality”, despite the fact that he’s been mostly silent while Iran and other nations murder civilians and have oppressive “crackdowns”.

  63. pm317
    January 27th, 2010 at 10:03 a.m.

    Thank you so much for posting that. Yes Israel had the very first operating field hospital set up within 48 hours of their arrival. Their amazing rescue groups have worked world over to help during catastrophes, including places like Turkey.

    And it isn’t just obama and his thugs who are dissing them. Anti-semitic hate groups/Arab enemies are attacking them for helping in Haiti but not in Gaza.

    A little published fact is that Israel, on a daily basis, sends in many truck loads of food and other basic needs to the Palestinians without being acknowledged.

    This bias makes me sick.

  64. For anyone interested…

    Rescuing Israel’s image in the rubble of Haiti

    By Ayala Tsoref
    Tue., January 26, 2010

    “One day last week, while driving through Port-au-Prince, two people ran up to us,” says Amos Radian, Israel’s ambassador to the Dominican Republic, who has been coordinating Israeli aid to the earthquake-stricken island nation of Haiti. The security officer thought they were under attack, but the “assailants” turned out to be British correspondents from the Sun and the Mirror. They’d seen the Israeli flag on the car and having heard about the field hospital Israel had set up, wanted to be taken to it, Radian says.

    It’s a nice change for foreign correspondents to be chasing Israeli representatives for positive reasons. For years Israel has been depicted as brutal and inhuman, but the tone changed last week, with media coverage focused on the hospital Israel had put up – enabling complex surgery under field conditions, and even sporting facilities for birthing and for premature babies. MSNBC for instance, which broadcasts to some 78 million households in the United States, sang the Israeli team’s praise, noting the chaos and collapse of communications. The Israelis were the exception, MSNBC reported: Their 747 landed at the airport, with the Israelis immediately unloading equipment to set up a state-of-the-art field hospital. Exactly as one might expect of Israelis, the cable news channel gushed, their arrival was efficient, thorough and well-managed, and they got down to work straightaway.

    When MSNBC’s anchor wondered why the Israelis were more organized than the Americans, the reporter on the ground in Haiti answered that the Israelis had arrived far more prepared than the other rescue teams. Within hours they had operating theatres up and running, she said.

    CNN reported much the same and even asked an American general how a tiny nation like Israel managed to do what no other delegation to Haiti had.

    Radian himself trekked through the debris, from one improvised clinic to another, urging that the worst cases be sent to the Israeli hospital, as it had the best care available in Haiti, he explains. “It’s gotten so reporters wandering between the camps come to me, telling me about tough cases in other camps – such as a woman needing an urgent Cesarean section. They ask if they can send Israeli teams in,” he says.

    The army estimates the cost of the Haiti operation for last week alone at NIS 30 million, three-quarters of what Jerusalem spent on its image in 2009. Of that, NIS 10 million went toward building and the use of satellite communications; the same was spent on sending over the Jumbo jets with the medical equipment. Each day the 230-man medical team is there costs more than NIS 1.5 million, not including communication costs.

    As the army spokesman put it, cost becomes secondary on a humanitarian mission like this.

    Beyond rescuing lives, the Israeli team in Haiti is also helping to rescue Israel’s image in both the press and diplomatic circles. “I ran into the Japanese ambassador at one of the ruined sites and told him about the hospital,” says Radian. “An hour later he’d brought the entire Japanese delegation over to come and learn. The Colombian army asked to append their operating theatre, with 16 surgeons, to our camp. Now our camp has the Israeli flag, the Red Cross flag and the Colombian flag. Israeli, Colombian and British teams are operating together at our camp, which has increased from 230 to 300 people.”

    No one at the airport could have missed the Israelis’ arrival. “Two El Al jets with the Israeli flag on their tails landed… Two hundred and thirty Israeli soldiers disembarked, and who guarded them en route? Jordanian armored vehicles. It was surreal,” says Radian.

    One critic of the Israeli effort is Yoel Donchin, head of patient safety at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem in Jerusalem. In an article published on Ynet, he wrote that what the Haitians need most isn’t a field hospital, but field toilets. More than they need doctors, he said, they need bulldozers to dig sewage lines.

    “A country seeking to bring humanitarian aid, without thinking about its image, should send what the victims need, not what it wants to give,” Donchin wrote. But would the news programs cover an Israeli commander next to a site with 500 chemical toilets? Hospitals with devoted doctors and nurses bearing the Star of David are sexier, he concluded.

    Yossi Levy of the Foreign Ministry dismisses the charge that it’s all a public relations stunt. “We sent the best of our people – not to get [good PR], but to save lives,” he says. After years of bad images, he adds, the photographs of the Israeli hospital speak for themselves. Even the Guardian, not known for its pro-Israeli coverage, was adulatory.

    After foreign journalists started to crowd the field hospital, the army set up procedures to handle them, says Matan Greenberg, soldier and spokesman for the delegation. They are met by a colonel who explains how Israel’s Home Front Command and rescue teams work. They meet with the hospital commander, who reviews what happened that day events. They can tour the tents, says Greenberg, and are finally brought to a tent that offers satellite Internet communication, a precious commodity in the disaster zone. The army PR team in Haiti even has press kits ready to go.

    Is the Arab press also covering the Israeli activity in Haiti?

    “We tried to attract Arab papers. We invited them, but they didn’t come,” says Greenberg. “But there are a lot of [press] teams from Europe [covering our work].”

    Israel has previously sent rescue teams to Turkey, Armenia, India, Kenya and Thailand – the latter after the 2004 tsunami. Coverage was adulatory in all cases, but the applause waned quickly. The chill in Israeli-Turkish relations these days demonstrates just how short that appreciation can last.

    “We have no illusions,” says Levy. They know the positive coverage won’t last; Israel will again be portrayed as Goliath. But the Foreign Ministry is convinced that the positive reports will still help Israeli economic interests.

    “The fact that [U.S. Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton mentioned us in her speech is of the utmost importance,” says image consultant Roni Rimon. “As long as Israel leverages [the positive coverage], it will last.”

    His advice (long stated but never taken): Israel should buy ad space in the foreign press and on Web sites, where it could publish images and clips from its Haitian rescue mission. That said, “This is one of the few times I don’t feel things should have been done differently,” Rimon says. “As an adviser, I would advise them to keep doing exactly what they’re doing.”

  65. Moody Blues
    Barack Obama, the Angry Left and the politics of intellectual contempt.

    WSJ’s James Taranto nails the punditry for their condescension and links it to Dem leadership:

    “People will never know” is gentler than “a nation of dodos,” but the underlying message isn’t that different. Axelrod, speaking of the president, tells the Washington Post: “This is someone who in law school worked with [Harvard professor] Larry Tribe on a paper on the legal implications of Einstein’s theory of relativity.” That’s got to be a joke, but the message is clear: President Obama and his men are a lot smarter than the average voter.

    It is likely that this is true. Shockingly, half of all Americans have IQs below the median. But intelligence is not the same thing as wisdom or sense. Very intelligent people have been known to advance very compelling arguments on behalf of very bad ideas.

    What’s more, there is a particular type of stupidity to which intelligent people are uniquely prone: intellectual snobbery, or the tendency to cultivate an attitude of contempt toward those who are not as bright. This may appeal to New York Times readers or voters in, say, Hyde Park–that is, to people who think they’re better than everyone else too. But it may prove Barack Obama’s undoing as a national politician.

    Bob Menendez, Birther
    “Democrats are looking for someone to blame for their electoral woes — and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez is working hard to make sure it’s not him,” Politico reports.

    Menendez, who is from New Jersey, plans to “distribute a memo Tuesday advising Democratic campaign managers to frame their opponents early–and to drive a wedge between moderate voters and tea-party-style conservatives”:

    The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions:

    “Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? . . .”

    If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois.”

    If you want to read the rest of the questions, click through to the link atop this item. We truncated the list because the first item is absolutely jaw-dropping. Are we given to understand that the Democrats intend to run for office by raising questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president?

    That has got to be the most brilliant campaign strategy since Michael Dukakis and Max Cleland raised questions about their own patriotism.

  66. Ok, the teleprompter shot of the day at h t t p : // makes me think that that really isn’t a teleprompter.

    It’s a kryptonite shield! 😆

  67. I sense another failure on the horizon. We’ll get something done (eventually), but the inspector issue will come at the price of the Polish missile batteries.

  68. For the high-minded, don’t read this (the latest gossip on John (“you are my daddy”) Edwards from the forthcoming book The Politician):

    Here are some of the highlights, which Young says are all based on eyewitness accounts and conversations he had with the Edwardses and Hunter, and in some cases, he writes that he has voicemails, emails and notes to back up his story.

    Donations: “S–t, they love me — they would do anything for me,” John Edwards would say after getting a big donation, Young writes. If refused, he would say, “What the hell — why are they wasting my time? I’m going to be president. I don’t have time for this s–t. Everyone wants to give me advice. I don’t want their advice. I want their money.”

    Made in USA: Young says Edwards is an Atkins-dieter who hated making appearances at state fairs where “fat rednecks try to shove food down my face. I know I’m the people’s senator, but do I have to hang out with them?” Before a SEIU candidate forum in Las Vegas, Young says Edwards made him cut out a “made in the USA” label from Young’s own suit to sew in place of Edwards’s “made in Italy” label.

    Edwards’ hair: “Naturally thick and lustrous, his hair was a fixation with him. He insisted on using just one kind of shampoo — HairTec Thick & Strong Shampoo for Fine, Fragile Hair,” Young writes. He says that for years he or Edwards personally paid for the expensive haircuts rather than publicly list them as campaign expenses. He blamed the gaffe – Edward’s campaign committee picked up the tab for two $400 haircuts — on “new, inexperienced staff.”

    A confrontation: Shortly after John Edwards and Hunter returned from a trip to Uganda in 2006, Elizabeth Edwards answered a cell phone call to hear Hunter who “launched into a romantic monologue,” Young writes. According to Young’s account, Elizabeth confronted her husband who “confessed to having had a one-night stand but didn’t say with whom.” He called Hunter in front of his wife to end it, but later called her back to say he didn’t mean it.

    Thoughts of leaving: Young says that Edwards would confide in him about how he thought about leaving “crazy” Elizabeth, but how she plays better with American voters than he. “I cringed when he said this,” Young writes.

    Time together: While Elizabeth was on a book tour for “Saving Graces,” Hunter allegedly spent time at the Edwards home. Young writes that Hunter slept in their bed and entertained the children. He also writes that he listened as Edwards told her that one day they would form their own family and have a wedding where the Dave Matthews Band would play.

    Hotel reservations: Keeping the affair running throughout the campaign wasn’t easy. “When I knew where the senator was staying, I made reservations in my own name, faxed copies of my credit card and state identification card, and told the hotel staff that my ‘wife’ would be checking in on my account,” Young writes. He said he paid for much of Hunter’s expenses out of his pocket, and Edwards promised reimbursement when they found wealthy campaign donors or when Elizabeth died and he no longer had to cover up such costs. “I’ll take care of you, Andrew,” he quotes Edwards as saying. “You know I’m good for it.”

    Incurable cancer: Elizabeth Edwards said publicly that she discovered her cancer had returned shortly after a rib broke from a strong hug from her husband. Young writes that she broke her rib while she was moving boxes and her husband was in Iowa planning a tryst for Hunter’s birthday. Young writes that Edwards got the call and hurried home – and sent flowers to his angry mistress.

    Hunter’s pregnancy: According to Young, Hunter called him in May 2007 to say she was pregnant. Young says that when he informed Edwards, the senator told him to “handle it,” to which he replied: “I can’t handle this one.” Young writes that Edward unloaded on Hunter as a “crazy slut,” said they had an “open relationship,” and put his paternity chances at “one in three.” Young says that Edwards asked him for help persuading Hunter to have an abortion. Young writes that Hunter believed the baby to be “some kind of golden child, the reincarnated spirit of a Buddhist monk who was going to help save the world.”

    A move: Right before the Iowa debate, Young says Edwards asked him to take his family and Hunter and move away – all on the dime of trial lawyer friend Fred Baron. On Dec. 15, 2007, Young released a statement claiming paternity. Baron died in October 2008.

    The decision to hide: Young writes that Edwards promised “He would make sure I had a job in the future,” and told him: “You’re family. A friend like no friend I’ve ever had.” Young goes on to say that Edwards concluded “that if I helped him, I would make Mrs. Edwards’s dying days a bit easier. ‘I know you’re mad at her, Andrew, but I love her. I can’t let her die knowing this.’”

    The benefactors: Baron provided a private jet and accommodations for the Youngs and Hunter while they lay low, Young writes. To hide Hunter’s expenses during her pregnancy, Edwards tapped funds from heiress and socialite Bunny Mellon, known as “the Bunny money,” as Young tells it, with payment totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. “She did not know that money was being used in part for Rielle,” Young says.

    Mellon’s lawyer, Alex Forger, said that Mellon had sent money to Edwards for his personal use, had paid gift taxes on it, and did not know how Edwards used it. “Good old Andrew Young said it was for a personal need and she responded,” Forger told Washington Wire in an interview.

    Antipoverty foundation: Young says he and Edwards made plans to use Bunny Mellon’s money to set up an antipoverty foundation which Young would work for and Edwards would use to circle the globe campaigning. Young set up a nonprofit corporation, and Edwards left him a voicemail telling him, “I really love you, Andrew.”

    Forger said Young had approached Mellon asking for money but she had refused to give him any because she did not have enough liquidity to do that. When Young suggested she mortgage her farm, Mellon was upset and complained to Edwards, Forger said.

  69. admin
    January 27th, 2010 at 11:21 am


    words like scumbag, jerk, narcissist, a**hole, sociopath are not enough to describe this awful human being. Thank heavens he isn’t president or VP. Unbelievable that none of this came out during the campaign. Don’t you think the Clinton campaign also knew about this?

  70. birdgal, none of this came out in the campaign because Obama wanted it hidden until he was done using Edwards.

    And Edwards and his wife knew all along, and KNEW that Edwards was never going all the way. He stayed in the race SOLELY to split the white working class vote from Hillary – that is clear as a bell, now.

    I hope his pecker rots off and he goes bald.

  71. I hope his pecker rots off and he goes bald.

    That would be appropriate karma.

    Do you think the Clinton campaign knew about this? I can see Obama keeping it hidden until he needed to use it, but what about the Clinton campaign?

  72. birdgal, if they knew, what could they do? They couldn’t “out” him publicly, as the media would have just spun that as those dirty conniving Clintons knee-capping their opponents.

    It’s possible they DID tip off some in the media, and assumed they would do their jobs. But the media likely already knew, and deliberately sat on the story until Edwards had done his job of splitting the vote.

  73. birdgal
    January 27th, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    Couldn’t have said it any better. I wonder how he and his wife and mistress will spin this.

  74. Jan,

    If Elizabeth and Reille are smart, they’ll stay away from the press. Neither can help themselves or him.

  75. The last paragraph particularly caught my attention

    Clinton to be on PBS tonight

    By Preeti Aroon
    Wednesday, January 27, 2010

    Secretary Clinton won’t be able to attend President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight because she’s in London for a meeting about Yemen (today) and a conference on Afghanistan (tomorrow). She will, however, be featured on PBS tonight on Tavis Smiley Reports. It’s supposed to air at 8 p.m. Eastern time, an hour before the State of the Union, but check local listings.

    Here’s what the news release that was emailed to me says:

    A candid and revealing profile of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the focus of the first TAVIS SMILEY REPORTS, a series of four hour-long primetime specials premiering tonight on PBS. For this special program, Smiley leaves his studio chair in Los Angeles and goes on the road with Secretary Clinton. During the report – debuting one hour before the State of the Union in most markets — Smiley and Clinton examine some of the country’s defining moments, analyze the major events in President Obama’s first year in office, and talk frankly about what’s next for her career.

    Smiley was granted exceptional access to Secretary Clinton and accompanied her on diplomatic missions abroad, to meetings on Capitol Hill, and within the State Department itself to give the American public an up close and comprehensive view of the inner workings of U.S. diplomacy and international relations. During the episode, Clinton discusses her relationship with the press, her thoughts on the surge in Afghanistan, and her views on how women are essential to improving developing economies.

    In particular, Clinton notes a shift in attitude towards the United States since President Obama’s election. She says: “Now, there’s a lot of work to be done; we still face many threats and other issues that we have to deal with, but I think we’ve changed the tone, we’ve changed the attitude, and there’s a great deal more openness to the United States.”

    Additionally, Clinton points out how reading the press’ criticisms during her presidential campaign shed light on the larger issue of gender equity which needs to be improved across the U.S. She notes: “What I was not prepared for was a lot of the criticism that I thought had less to do with me and more to do with attitudes about women, that was surprising to me. I mean, it was 2007 and 2008, but you know, that’s something we still have to work on in this country.”

  76. djia-

    Thanks for posting this- The ramifications of this split are huge. 🙂
    January 27th, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 27 (Reuters) – Billionaire financier George Soros said on Wednesday U.S. President Barack Obama’s plan to impose a tax on large banks was premature and his wider proposals to rein in banks’ activities may not go far enough.


    First solid indication I’ve seen Obama has broken with Soros and is operating under his own power basically not following orders given to him by his benefactor and handlers Soros and Z-Big.

    This is a huge development I suspected was happening a few days ago but didn’t have proof enough to put it in print. Now, here it is-

  77. Obama’s State of the Union Address: An Opportunity, Overhyped

    January 27, 2010
    By Robert Schlesinger

    Gallup brings some bad news for Obama partisans: State of the Union addresses don’t typically give presidents a polling bump. The polling organization looked at its pre- and post-State of the Union polling numbers for presidents going back to Jimmy Carter. The only one who came out ahead was Bill Clinton, who averaged a three point boost in his approval ratings. Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush averaged a point decline, while George H. W. Bush averaged a three point drop.

    Those statistics help explain why tonight’s speech presents an opportunity for President Obama, but perhaps not the one sought in instant analysis and overnight poll numbers.

    It really shouldn’t be surprising that presidents get such a small bump from the speech. For such a celebrated and ceremonial moment, the State of the Union is often a crashing bore. Part of the reason for that is endemic to the speech. Yes, it’s the president’s one guaranteed moment to commune with the country and lay out his agenda for the year. But for that reason, policy suggestions have been pouring in to the White House speechwriters’ offices for months now, every agency hoping to get a precious line for their pet program.

    So the speech often turns into a laundry list. It has to cover the policy waterfront–a presidential agenda is a sprawling thing, even for presidents who try to take on less at once than has Obama (which is to say, most of them).

    As a result the State of the Union has brought few memorable moments. FDR introduced the “four freedoms” in 1941; Truman’s 1949 speech included his promise of a “fair deal”; JFK announced his plans for a manned moon mission in a special “second” State of the Union speech in 1961; in 1982, Reagan inaugurated the tradition of having a hero in the first lady’s box with Lenny Skutnik; Clinton declared the end of the “era of big government” in 1996; and W. gave us the “axis of evil” in 2002. That’s a half dozen examples in nearly 70 years. And for each one there’s a “new federalism” (Nixon, 1970) or a “new foundation” (Carter, 1979), not to mention scores of other pieces of long-forgotten rhetorical detritus.

    And while Obama is a remarkable speaker, he is at his best when seeking oratorical heights (hope and change) or when tackling a single issue with nuance and depth (race, during the primary or just wars, during his Nobel acceptance). The State of the Union doesn’t play to either strength.

    That’s not to say that Obama won’t give a good speech; and it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a long term opportunity. This is a chance for him to reset, restart and reintroduce himself to voters. His speech won’t itself turn around Obama’s slide, but it can provide a road map and a first step–with the proper follow-up. Clinton’s “era of big government” speech worked in part because it was thematically of a piece with the tone he would set throughout the year.

    Obama’s speech is expected to be long on populism and fighting. In that regard it may most closely hearken to Truman’s 1948 address. “Congress meets–Too bad too,” Truman recorded in his diary before the speech. “I’m to address them soon. They won’t like the address either.” His address was a keynote for the campaign, drawing sharp lines with the Republican Congress. Obama has a trickier task: He needs to draw bright lines and take a combative tone, not with Republicans (voters want everyone to get along), but with big business, special interests, and so forth.

  78. #
    January 27th, 2010 at 12:38 am

    Right now nobody has all the facts. Consequently I think it was irresponsible for the special agent to make any statement at this point. They are always so anxious for a headline to justify their existence. Hoover was the worst of the lot where that was concerned.


    wbb- you’ve piqued my curiosity about Hoover. Can you think of any examples Hoover used for grabbing headlines to fuel foregone conclusions?

  79. January 27, 2010

    Clinton signals not a two-term Secretary of State

    In an interview to air at 8pm tonight on PBS’s Tavis Smiley Reports, Hillary Clinton tells Smiley she does not envision serving as Secretary of State for a second term. She also tells Smiley she is “absolutely not interested” in another presidential run:

    TAVIS SMILEY: Finally, there’s already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full first time, and whether or not she has any interest if asked to stay on to do it for eight years? You see how tough the job is, can you imagine yourself doing all four years and, if asked, doing it for another four years?

    HILLARY CLINTON: No, I really can’t. I mean, it is just…

    TAVIS SMILEY: No to what? All four or eight?

    HILLARY CLINTON: The whole, the whole eight, I mean, that that would be very challenging. But I, you know, I don’t wanna make any predictions sitting here, I’m honored to serve, I serve at the pleasure of the President, but it’s a, it’s a 24/7 job, and I think at some point, I will be very happy to LAUGHS pass it on to someone else.

    TAVIS SMILEY: That opens the door for the obvious question, what would Hillary Clinton want to do when she is no longer Secretary of State?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, I, there’s so many things I’m interested in, I mean, really going back to private life and spending time reading, and writing, and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel, not the kind of travel where you bring along a couple of hundred people with you. Just focusing on, on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what’s considered ‘real politique’ and real life politics, which has always fascinated me.

    TAVIS SMILEY: And finally, just for the record, you have said before, emphatically, in fact, that you are not interested in running again for President of the United States, I’m taking your answer now to mean that that’s still the same?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely not interested.

    Clinton previously told the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler much the same thing: “Clinton said she loves being secretary of state, but conceded, ‘It is a really hard job . . . a 24-7 job,’ and ‘I feel the weight of it pretty significantly.’ Asked if she would be sitting in the same office for eight years, Clinton shuddered. ‘Please! I will be so old,’ she said with a shake of her head.”

    (That said, she showed extraordinary stamina and few signs of fatigue on a trip to Pakistan and the Middle East last fall.)

    She also tells Smiley that husband Bill has been an asset in the job:

    TAVIS SMILEY: You’ve made it clear that you are your own person but I would assume that having Bill Clinton is an asset.

    HILLARY CLINTON: It sure is an asset LAUGHS because the people I don’t know he does know LAUGHS and the places I haven’t been, he’s been. We talk all the time, I ask advice about every issue you can imagine. I, I have such a, you know, great ongoing conversation with Bill that’s lasted for so many years, and I find him a great sounding board for me.

  80. admin
    January 27th, 2010 at 11:21 am

    all I can say is with all the sudden ‘news’ coming out about Edwards…’news’ that the newspeople somehow missed and knew nothing about during the campaign…but now, VIOLA!, details galore…

    well, one can only imagine how much ‘they’ the news people -know about O now and will someday suddenly find the where with all to report…of course, only when it is convenient for ‘them’…until then, O’s secrets are safe…hmmm!

    …with the size of O’s ego…one can only imagine…

  81. I wish Hillary could see the light on this. Our foreign policy is in spinning its wheels, not because of her, but because of Obama’s unenlightened view of the world. We will see more signs of it as time goes on. This is not the safe harbor she thinks it is. She will be blamed by the Obamaites, the press and the right when something, anything goes wrong. Maybe I have tunnel vision on this–maybe–but I do not think so. I am not talking about another run–I am talking about legacy.

  82. JanH-

    The Israeli field hospital is very impressive. CNN gave a tour of the facility after it arrived in Haiti and was set up and ready to go. I haven’t seen a repeat of the hospital in full swing- but they certainly are the most prepared country on earth having cutting edge technology able to communicate results with any doctor or hospital at any location on the planet.

    I missed very little on tv laying in a hospital bed for 2 weeks waiting until I could go home.


    In an interview to air at 8pm tonight on PBS’s Tavis Smiley Reports, Hillary Clinton tells Smiley she does not envision serving as Secretary of State for a second term. She also tells Smiley she is “absolutely not interested” in another presidential run:

    TAVIS SMILEY: Finally, there’s already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full first time, and whether or not she has any interest if asked to stay on to do it for eight years? You see how tough the job is, can you imagine yourself doing all four years and, if asked, doing it for another four years?

    HILLARY CLINTON: No, I really can’t. I mean, it is just…

    TAVIS SMILEY: No to what? All four or eight?

    HILLARY CLINTON: The whole, the whole eight, I mean, that that would be very challenging. But I, you know, I don’t wanna make any predictions sitting here, I’m honored to serve, I serve at the pleasure of the President, but it’s a, it’s a 24/7 job, and I think at some point, I will be very happy to LAUGHS pass it on to someone else.

    TAVIS SMILEY: That opens the door for the obvious question, what would Hillary Clinton want to do when she is no longer Secretary of State?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, I, there’s so many things I’m interested in, I mean, really going back to private life and spending time reading, and writing, and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel, not the kind of travel where you bring along a couple of hundred people with you. Just focusing on, on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what’s considered ‘real politique’ and real life politics, which has always fascinated me.

    TAVIS SMILEY: And finally, just for the record, you have said before, emphatically, in fact, that you are not interested in running again for President of the United States, I’m taking your answer now to mean that that’s still the same?

    HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely not interested.

    Clinton previously told the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler much the same thing: “Clinton said she loves being secretary of state, but conceded, ‘It is a really hard job . . . a 24-7 job,’ and ‘I feel the weight of it pretty significantly.’ Asked if she would be sitting in the same office for eight years, Clinton shuddered. ‘Please! I will be so old,’ she said with a shake of her head.”

    (That said, she showed extraordinary stamina and few signs of fatigue on a trip to Pakistan and the Middle East last fall.)

    She also tells Smiley that husband Bill has been an asset in the job:

    TAVIS SMILEY: You’ve made it clear that you are your own person but I would assume that having Bill Clinton is an asset.

    HILLARY CLINTON: It sure is an asset LAUGHS because the people I don’t know he does know LAUGHS and the places I haven’t been, he’s been. We talk all the time, I ask advice about every issue you can imagine. I, I have such a, you know, great ongoing conversation with Bill that’s lasted for so many years, and I find him a great sounding board for me.

  84. HillaryforTexas
    January 27th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
    birdgal, if they knew, what could they do? They couldn’t “out” him publicly, as the media would have just spun that as those dirty conniving Clintons knee-capping their opponents.


    You’re right. The media would have said that she was being “negative” and just playing “dirty.” They probably knew, but sat on the information, probably at the behest of the Obama campaign.

  85. “She will be blamed by the Obamaites, the press and the right when something, anything goes wrong…”

    That is a given, but it won’t hold any water because these are definitely HIS policy directions as flaunted by him during the debates. Hillary attacked him time and again for wanting no preconditions set and she constantly goes on the record that she is simply following his mandate.

  86. Hillary has now gone on record that she is ‘outta there’ for the second term…she has put her stake in the ground…no one can say she was pushed out bla, bla…she clearly is on record that she does not want to be O’s SOS in any possible second term…

    poor O…he is going to be all by his lonesome…a house member leaves here, a senator leaves there, his SOS bows out…poor O…little boy all by himself in the big, big world…

Comments are closed.