The Obamahood – Barack Obama Is The Problem

The Obama Defense Industry is busy. Excuses must be found. Scapegoats must be scaped. Blame must be assigned. The rush rush deployments of new Obama defenses by the Obama Defense Industry is due to the race Obama is now in – the race to the bottom. Obama is sinking in polls (47% disapprove in the latest poll, only 44% approve) faster than the stock market sinks. Which will reach bottom first?

As in last year’s campaigns, Obama lovers pose as “fair players” who will criticize Obama when criticism is due, but all the fake “criticisms” are another clever way to defend Obama. The defense ploy of the week is a return to “blame the staff“.

“Blame the staff” has made a triumphant return because other defend Obama ploys have not worked.

The “he’s doing the best he can” ploy has not worked because of the inherent truthfulness of that statement. Obama is doing the best he can for his friends and himself, but for the American people Obama is doing nothing. Also, Americans understand that if this is the best Obama can do – boy oh boy are we all in trouble. The “he’s doing the best he can ploy” was abandoned.

The “he needs more time” ploy has collapsed under the weight of time. With every passing minute the ploy limps, weaker and weaker. The “he needs more time” ploy also demonstrates the truthfulness of what Hillary and Hillary supporters have said since early 2007 – Obama is not ready. Obama was not ready on Day 1, Obama was not ready on Day 2; Obama was not ready on Day 3; Obama was not ready on Day 365, ad infinitum. The “he needs more time” ploy was abandoned too.

So the Obama defense industry is back to “blame the staff”. The staff to be blamed this time is the Obama staff at the highest levels, what we prefer to think of as the lowest of the low, of Obamahood. Edward Luce was the first to publish a long article to exculpate Obama and “blame the staff” – Emanuel, Jarrett, Gibbs, and Axelrod. Steve Clemons then chimed in with his “blame the staff” article.

Both articles are gossipy at points (check out Jarrett’s lies about an emergency and having to rush to the White House only to be uncovered at Cafe Milano with the lounge lizards) but both articles are “blame the staff” excuses. The Problem is Obama. We are not saying that these people, Jarrett, Gibbs, Emanuel, Axelrod are anything but the bottom of the barrel, but they are not the ones that are ultimately the problem. Obama is the Problem.

We are not going to dwell or quote from those “blame the staff” articles. We want to look at a short lived, but new excuse that has been trotted out to defend show horse Obama. The new ploy is the “America is not governable” ploy. This new ploy will not work and that is why the Obama defense industry prefers the “blame the staff” ploy.

Why won’t the “America is not governable” ploy work? Because Jay Cost has done such a wonderful job of clobbering this dumb ox argument. Let’s indulge ourselves this Monday with a full examination of Jay Cost’s “America Is Not Ungovernable” article.

Jay Cost begins with the purveyors of the “America is not governable” ploy:

Recently, some analysts have suggested that the lack of major policy breakthroughs in the last year is due to the fact that America has become ungovernable. Ezra Klein argued that it was time to reform the filibuster because the government cannot function with it intact anymore. Tom Friedman suggested that America’s “political instability” was making people abroad nervous. And Michael Cohen of Newsweek blamed “obstructionist Republicans,” “spineless Democrats,” and an “incoherent public” for the problem.

Nonsense. America is not ungovernable. Her President has simply not been up to the job.

What joy Jay brings! He states the problem so clearly, almost as clearly as us. Jay says Obama “has simply not been up to the job”; we say “Obama is the problem”. It’s almost as if the celestial choirs have sung “Obama is not ready”, just like Hillary used to politely make clear.



Jay Cost looks to history for answers as to why America is indeed governable. There are structural safeguards built into the American system to prevent clods like Obama from devastating the republic beyond repair. The founding fathers and founding mothers were a wise group and they suspected that factions would be a problem always and that Hopium guzzling factions could be a true danger to the republic. So our founding mothers and fathers built in those Obama-proof safeguards:

Let’s acknowledge that governing the United States of America is an extremely difficult task. Intentionally so. When designing our system, the Founders were faced with a dilemma. How to empower a vigorous government without endangering liberty or true republicanism? On the one hand, George III’s government was effective at satisfying the will of the sovereign, but that will had become tyrannical. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation acknowledged the rights of the states, but so much so that the federal government was incapable of solving basic problems.

The solution the country ultimately settled on had five important features: checks and balances so that the branches would police one another; a large republic so that majority sentiment was fleeting and not intensely felt; a Senate where the states would be equal; enumerated congressional powers to limit the scope of governmental authority; and the Bill of Rights to offer extra protection against the government.

The end result was a government that is powerful, but not infinitely so. Additionally, it is schizophrenic. It can do great things when it is of a single mind – but quite often it is not of one mind. So, to govern, our leaders need to build a broad consensus. When there is no such consensus, the most likely outcome is that the government will do nothing.

That is a history lesson the Hopium guzzlers need to learn. The very system is designed to prevent them from complete and total destruction of the republic. Yes, these Hopium guzzling thugs can cause damage, but the damage will be reparable. They will not win. The founders, mothers and fathers, continue to protect.

Jay Cost analyzes why Obama has been such a bust:

The President’s two major initiatives – cap-and-trade and health care – have failed because there was not a broad consensus to enact them. Our system is heavily biased against such proposals. That’s a good thing.

Jay Cost then takes on the other “blame everyone and everything but Obama” ploys:

It’s not accurate to blame this on the Republicans. From Arlen Specter’s defection to Scott Brown’s swearing in, Democrats had total control over the policy-making process. The only recourse the Republicans had was the First Amendment. They used it well, but don’t let it be said that the President lacked access to it. Given Mr. Obama’s bully pulpit and his omnipresence on the national stage, his voice has been louder than anybody’s. If Mr. Obama has lost the public debate to the beleaguered rump that is the congressional GOP, he has nobody to blame but himself.

It’s not accurate to blame this on “spineless Democrats,” i.e. rank-and-file legislators who balked at the various solutions offered by Mr. Obama. Moderate Democrats might have defected because they were worried about their jobs – but the point of popular elections is to link the personal interests of legislators with the interests of their constituents. It often fails to work – but in a situation where “spineless Democrats” clearly voted with their districts, it seems to have been working pretty well. One might argue that they should have shown some leadership – voted for unpopular bills because they were good for the country. But ask those thirty to forty House Democratic defectors on the health care, cap-and-trade, and jobs bills whether they thought the bills were good for the country, and you’ll hear a different answer than the one Newsweek is quick to give.

It’s not accurate to blame this on the people. This country is most certainly divided, but not deeply so. Consider, for instance, the enormous goodwill that greeted Mr. Obama upon his inauguration. It is not tenable to suggest that there was no way to turn that into a broad consensus for policy solutions.

The responsibility for the government’s failure in the last year rests with President Obama. Two significant blunders stand out.

That’s right – Barack Obama Is The Problem.

Cost identifies as blunder 1, Obama’s installation of “Nancy Pelosi as de facto Prime Minister”. Cost is too polite to mention that perhaps that was the motivation if not the price Pelosi extracted from Obama in return for her behind the scenes trashing of Hillary and support of clearly unqualified and inexperienced Barack Obama – the Chicago flim flam man.

Cost identifies as blunder 2, well, let’s let Jay Cost describe blunder 2 with his sharp quill as it stabs at Obama:

The President’s second major failing has been his stubborn insistence on comprehensive reforms. Perhaps this is due to his inexperience in the federal lawmaking process, or his extraordinary vanity, or both. Still, this has been a grave mistake. If the truly great Henry Clay could not pass the Compromise of 1850 through the Congress in a single package, what made Barack Obama think he could sign comprehensive energy and health care reforms?

In January of 2009 we made our opposition to Obama’s scams clear. We thought Obama had to focus and clearly explain economic programs. “Focus” we advised. “Think like Hillary” we advised:

We opposed the Obama fake “stimulus” and argued the little money left should be spent wisely. A HOLC and a genuine universal health care plan which would help American businesses and workers, we argued, would be a wiser use of funds than the slush fund to help the Dimocrats in the 2010 elections called the “stimulus” and TARP. We have been proved correct.

But Obama chose to do things his boob way.



Obama promised he would not be like “polarizing” Hillary Clinton. Now Obama is stuck with his bipartisan mumbo-jumbo. Obama lovers want Obama to abandon what they now know is “mumbo-jumbo”. But Americans were promised “a uniter not a divider” and we will hold Obama to his boob promises. Jay Cost continues his analysis:

President Obama’s desire for comprehensive legislation seriously damaged the chances for bipartisanship, given his decision to let Nancy Pelosi and her allies write the bills. Republican “extremism” is an easy rhetorical foil – but when we’re talking about Mike Castle and Olympia Snowe voting against the President, it fails to explain the full story. Bipartisanship implies legislators with different world views working together. The larger a bill’s scope, the more likely it favors one worldview over another, and the less likely it will attract bipartisan support. With an extremely liberal Speaker and a supporting cast of left wing committee chairs running the process, comprehensive legislation was bound to favor heavily the liberal worldview. Even the most moderate of Republicans would always have trouble with that. In fact, thirty to forty House Democrats have defected on the President’s key items, meaning that the bipartisan position has been opposition to President Obama. This has made it difficult for a centrist public to support reforms. With very limited information on specifics, the public took unanimous Republican and substantial moderate Democratic opposition as cues about the merits of the bills. Public opposition is what ultimately ended the Democratic supermajority – in Massachusetts, of all places.

We wanted a fighter. Hillary Clinton says that she is not afraid to reach out for common ground, but that she will also fight to hold her ground. We could have had Hillary. But the Hopium guzzlers wanted the celestial choirs and an end to all the old battles – the fights Hillary supporters think are worth fighting for – the Hopium guzzlers sided with the establishment and got their man. Now the Hopium guzzlers must pay the price.

Barack Obama Is The Problem:

Both of these failures get back to the idea that this country can only be led effectively when there is a broad coalition supporting her leaders. That requires those leaders to have a breadth of vision that this President has so far lacked. He has allowed a very liberal Speaker to lead the House too far to the left, and he has demanded comprehensive reforms that were destined to alienate a significant portion of the country.

He has been narrow, not broad. He has been partial, not post-partisan. He has been ideological, not pragmatic. No number of “eloquent” speeches can alter these facts. This is why his major initiatives have failed, why his net job approval has dropped 50 points in 12 months, and why he is substantially weaker now than he was a year ago.

This strategy might have made sense if the country was really in the midst of a “liberal moment.” But it is not. While the President won a decisive victory in 2008, his congressional majority in both chambers depends entirely upon members whose constituents voted for John McCain. In fact, the President’s election 16 months ago was one of the most polarizing in recent history. This remains a divided country, which creates complications in a system such as ours. The President should have recognized this, and governed with a view to building a broad coalition. But he has not.

America is not ungovernable. Barack Obama has so far failed to govern it.

Barack Obama Is The Problem.

Share

100 thoughts on “The Obamahood – Barack Obama Is The Problem

  1. this hits the nail on the head, admin…amazing how clear and transparent O is becoming to one and all…what a blowhard…O was willing to say anything and now can neither honor nor deliver on any of it…wasted time and disappearing borrowed money…he can’t even deliver on the policies and ideas he was against and is now for, the policies he attacked his opponents for but now become the ideas he steals and is for…what a phoney this man is…and now he is being exposed…talk, talk, talk…

  2. Jay has summed the situation up accurately. The question is where do we go from here? Obama gave his answer to congressional democrats: stay the course, meaning the course which has caused his legislation to fail, his poll numbers to drop from stratospheric heights to ground level, nations around the world to lose faith in US leadership, debt to consume gdp, small businesses to fail, unemployment to sky rocket and millions to suffer. There is no sense speculating who he is any longer. We know him from the pages of history. His name is Herbert Hoover Jr. Just another Republican in democrats clothing. But it is worse really because the economic peril is worse and Obama was installed to serve the elites at the expense of the people.

  3. The problem that I see is that he is not liberal, not ideological and not partisan. Nor does he have a vision. He simply seems invested in giving more money to rich people and rich corporations. Typical narcissistic behavior.

    I have this theory about Obama’s leadership. it seems to me that what he does is mouth reasonably good goals that become an initiative (as would be expected). Then, rather than leading and shaping the national discourse and knowing that nature abhors a vacuum, he steps out of the way and allows the most corporate and corrupt of the interests to fill the void he has created. When his original initiative is now muddled beyond all recognition, and corporate America has gotten what it wanted at the expense of the American people, he simply descries the system. Voila! American is ungovernable.

    Nature-Abhors-A-Vacuum Obama. Kinda clumsy, huh?

  4. Yes S–it is Act III of the little western vignette. The townspeople who brought in the sheriff to clean up the town have come to the realization that his methods are brutal and he is not who they thought he was. In a word they are disenchanted. They struggle to explain what has happened to him which do not implicate their own bad judgment. As he becomes more dogmatic dictatorial and doctrinaire they fear for their lives, liberty and property. And they are forced to confront the next question which is how to protect themselves until such time as they can get rid of him.

  5. 02-08-10

    Democratic Push To Kill Filibuster Intensifies

    With the Democrats’ supermajority in the Senate now a thing of the past, the White House and some of its Congressional allies have been stepping up efforts to change Senate filibuster rules to deny Republicans the chance to “gum up the works,” as President Obama recently put it.

    As the Washington Posts’s Chris Cillizza reported on Monday, the White House is increasingly making filibuster reform a campaign issue for the 2010 midterm elections. Cillizza cites two theories about why their are doing so:

    The first is that the White House believes that the filibuster can be used as symbolic image for why the government (still) isn’t working and why it’s Republicans fault.

    “In the Senate, the filibuster only works if there is a genuine spirit of compromise and trying to solve problems, as opposed to just shutting the place down,” Obama told Senate Democrats last week. “If it’s just shutting the place down, then it’s not going to work.”

    The second theory, Cillizza writes, “is that it is a play to energize what has been, of late, a very listless Democratic base.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/08/democratic-push-to-kill-f_n_453633.html

  6. I agree. Terrific analysis Admin. The political consensus about Obama is coming around to your position–Cost included.

  7. America: A fearsome foursome

    By Edward Luce
    February 3 2010

    At a crucial stage in the Democratic primaries in late 2007, Barack Obama rejuvenated his campaign with a barnstorming speech, in which he ended on a promise of what his victory would produce: “A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

    Just over a year into his tenure, America’s 44th president governs a bitterly divided nation, a world increasingly hard to manage and an America that seems more disillusioned than ever with Washington’s ways. What went wrong?

    Pundits, Democratic lawmakers and opinion pollsters offer a smorgasbord of reasons – from Mr Obama’s decision to devote his first year in office to healthcare reform, to the president’s inability to convince voters he can “feel their [economic] pain”, to the apparent ungovernability of today’s Washington. All may indeed have contributed to the quandary in which Mr Obama finds himself. But those around him have a more specific diagnosis – and one that is striking in its uniformity. The Obama White House is geared for campaigning rather than governing, they say.

    In dozens of interviews with his closest allies and friends in Washington – most of them given unattributably in order to protect their access to the Oval Office – each observes that the president draws on the advice of a very tight circle. The inner core consists of just four people – Rahm Emanuel, the pugnacious chief of staff; David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett, his senior advisers; and Robert Gibbs, his communications chief.

    Two, Mr Emanuel and Mr Axelrod, have box-like offices within spitting distance of the Oval Office. The president, who is the first to keep a BlackBerry, rarely holds a meeting, including on national security, without some or all of them present.

    With the exception of Mr Emanuel, who was a senior Democrat in the House of Representatives, all were an integral part of Mr Obama’s brilliantly managed campaign. Apart from Mr Gibbs, who is from Alabama, all are Chicagoans – like the president. And barring Richard Nixon’s White House, few can think of an administration that has been so dominated by such a small inner circle.

    “It is a very tightly knit group,” says a prominent Obama backer who has visited the White House more than 40 times in the past year. “This is a kind of ‘we few’ group … that achieved the improbable in the most unlikely election victory anyone can remember and, unsurprisingly, their bond is very deep.”

    John Podesta, a former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, the most influential think-tank in Mr Obama’s Washington, says that while he believes Mr Obama does hear a range of views, including dissenting advice, problems can arise from the narrow composition of the group itself.

    Among the broader circle that Mr Obama also consults are the self-effacing Peter Rouse, who was chief of staff to Tom Daschle in his time as Senate majority leader; Jim Messina, deputy chief of staff; the economics team led by Lawrence Summers and including Peter Orszag, budget director; Joe Biden, the vice-president; and Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser. But none is part of the inner circle.

    “Clearly this kind of core management approach worked for the election campaign and President Obama has extended it to the White House,” says Mr Podesta, who managed Mr Obama’s widely praised post-election transition. “It is a very tight inner circle and that has its advantages. But I would like to see the president make more use of other people in his administration, particularly his cabinet.”

    This White House-centric structure has generated one overriding – and unexpected – failure. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Mr Emanuel managed the legislative aspect of the healthcare bill quite skilfully, say observers. The weak link was the failure to carry public opinion – not Capitol Hill. But for the setback in Massachusetts, which deprived the Democrats of their 60-seat supermajority in the Senate, Mr Obama would by now almost certainly have signed healthcare into law – and with it would have become a historic president.

    But the normally liberal voters of Massachusetts wished otherwise. The Democrats lost the seat to a candidate, Scott Brown, who promised voters he would be the “41st [Republican] vote” in the Senate – the one that would tip the balance against healthcare. Subsequent polling bears out the view that a decisive number of Democrats switched their votes with precisely that motivation in mind.

    “Historians will puzzle over the fact that Barack Obama, the best communicator of his generation, totally lost control of the narrative in his first year in office and allowed people to view something they had voted for as something they suddenly didn’t want,” says Jim Morone, America’s leading political scientist on healthcare reform. “Communication was the one thing everyone thought Obama would be able to master.”

    Whatever issue arises, whether it is a failed terrorist plot in Detroit, the healthcare bill, economic doldrums or the 30,000-troop surge to Afghanistan, the White House instinctively fields Mr Axelrod or Mr Gibbs on television to explain the administration’s position. “Every event is treated like a twist in an election campaign and no one except the inner circle can be trusted to defend the president,” says an exasperated outside adviser.

    Perhaps the biggest losers are the cabinet members. Kathleen Sebelius, Mr Obama’s health secretary and formerly governor of Kansas, almost never appears on television and has been largely excluded both from devising and selling the healthcare bill. Others such as Ken Salazar, the interior secretary who is a former senator for Colorado, and Janet Napolitano, head of the Department for Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, have virtually disappeared from view.

    The Hollywood touch

    Political scientists credit Ronald Reagan with having managed the best transition from campaigning to governing when he moved to the White House in 1981. While lacking in intellectual skills, Reagan was often a shrewd judge of character. Following his victory in a bitter primary campaign with George H.W. Bush in 1980, Reagan promptly hired his defeated opponent’s campaign manager, James Baker, to be his first chief of staff. Understated but authoritative, Mr Baker is considered one of the most effective performers in that role, to which he brought a good managerial background and an ability to play honest broker.
    ..
    Administration insiders say the famously irascible Mr Emanuel treats cabinet principals like minions. “I am not sure the president realises how much he is humiliating some of the big figures he spent so much trouble recruiting into his cabinet,” says the head of a presidential advisory board who visits the Oval Office frequently. “If you want people to trust you, you must first place trust in them.”

    In addition to hurling frequent profanities at people within the administration, Mr Emanuel has alienated many of Mr Obama’s closest outside supporters. At a meeting of Democratic groups last August, Mr Emanuel described liberals as “f***ing retards” after one suggested they mobilise resources on healthcare reform.

    “We are treated as though we are children,” says the head of a large organisation that raised millions of dollars for Mr Obama’s campaign. “Our advice is never sought. We are only told: ‘This is the message, please get it out.’ I am not sure whether the president fully realises that when the chief of staff speaks, people assume he is speaking for the president.”

    The same can be observed in foreign policy. On Mr Obama’s November trip to China, members of the cabinet such as the Nobel prizewinning Stephen Chu, energy secretary, were left cooling their heels while Mr Gibbs, Mr Axelrod and Ms Jarrett were constantly at the president’s side.

    The White House complained bitterly about what it saw as unfairly negative media coverage of a trip dubbed Mr Obama’s “G2” visit to China. But, as journalists were keenly aware, none of Mr Obama’s inner circle had any background in China. “We were about 40 vans down in the motorcade and got barely any time with the president,” says a senior official with extensive knowledge of the region. “It was like the Obama campaign was visiting China.”

    Then there are the president’s big strategic decisions. Of these, devoting the first year to healthcare is well known and remains a source of heated contention. Less understood is the collateral damage it caused to unrelated initiatives. “The whole Rahm Emanuel approach is that victory begets victory – the success of healthcare would create the momentum for cap-and-trade [on carbon emissions] and then financial sector reform,” says one close ally of Mr Obama. “But what happens if the first in the sequence is defeat?”

    Insiders attribute Mr Obama’s waning enthusiasm for the Arab-Israeli peace initiative to a desire to avoid antagonising sceptical lawmakers whose support was needed on healthcare. The steam went out of his Arab-Israeli push in mid-summer, just when the healthcare bill was running into serious difficulties.

    The same applies to reforming the legal apparatus in the “war on terror” – not least his pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay detention centre within a year of taking office. That promise has been abandoned.

    “Rahm said: ‘We’ve got these two Boeing 747s circling that we are trying to bring down to the tarmac [healthcare and the decision on the Afghanistan troop surge] and we can’t risk a flock of f***ing Canadian geese causing them to crash,’ ” says an official who attended an Oval Office strategy meeting. The geese stood for the closure of Guantánamo.

    An outside adviser adds: “I don’t understand how the president could launch healthcare reform and an Arab-Israeli peace process – two goals that have eluded US presidents for generations – without having done better scenario planning. Either would be historic. But to launch them at the same time?”

    Again, close allies of the president attribute the problem to the campaign-like nucleus around Mr Obama in which all things are possible. “There is this sense after you have won such an amazing victory, when you have proved conventional wisdom wrong again and again, that you can simply do the same thing in government,” says one. “Of course, they are different skills. To be successful, presidents need to separate the stream of advice they get on policy from the stream of advice they get on politics. That still isn’t happening.”

    The White House declined to answer questions on whether Mr Obama needed to broaden his circle of advisers. But some supporters say he should find a new chief of staff. Mr Emanuel has hinted that he might not stay in the job very long and is thought to have an eye on running for mayor of Chicago. Others say Mr Obama should bring in fresh blood. They point to Mr Clinton’s decision to recruit David Gergen, a veteran of previous White Houses, when the last Democratic president ran into trouble in 1993. That is credited with helping to steady the Clinton ship, after he too began with an inner circle largely carried over from his campaign.

    But Mr Gergen himself disagrees. Now teaching at Harvard and commenting for CNN, Mr Gergen says members of the inner circle meet two key tests. First, they are all talented. Second, Mr Obama trusts them. “These are important attributes,” Mr Gergen says. His biggest doubt is whether Mr Obama sees any problem with the existing set-up.

    “There is an old joke,” says Mr Gergen. “How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one. But the lightbulb must want to change. I don’t think President Obama wants to make any changes.”

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b6b4700a-10fb-11df-9a9e-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=03d100e8-2fff-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8,print=yes.html

  8. The first is that the White House believes that the filibuster can be used as symbolic image for why the government (still) isn’t working and why it’s Republicans fault.
    ———————————————-
    Really. If that is true, then how does he explain his failure to achieve his legislative goals in the first year during which time he had 60 votes and the filibuster could not be deployed. He is a liar.

  9. admin: That is a good article. I have to agree there are no excuses. What I also think happened was that on day one he started campaigning for his second term instead of fullfilling his campaign promises. He, afterall, is for himself and whatever he wants. He wanted to be a two term President and get HC reform so he could tell himself he was a better Potus that Bill Clinton. Now he will be lucky to finish his first term as the police are knocking at the WH door.
    He had a super majority, the good will of the American people and the help of BIg Media, had he pushed HC thru instead of worrying about his second term he could have gotten it done before summer. Now he is a lame duck. The trouble with Obama is he wasn’t ready on day one and he will never be ready because the man is not a leader, he is the teleprompter President.

  10. wbboei, you know you have to be a little worried when this Potus says that America is ungovernable=dictorship. SO what does he think he needs to do to make it so. The red flags should be going up on that statement.

  11. I got no problem with eliminating the procedural filibuster. If one senator is going to singlehandedly derail legislation that the majority of America supports, and if passing any legislation requires a super-majority to avoid that prospect, then we aren’t really a democracy.

    Let’s make the people who want to derail legislation supported by the majority of the senate, own their opposition. Let ’em stand up there in the well of the senate in diapers with a phone book in their hand and make their case to the American public as to why the legislation at hand should be stopped. But this sneaky shit, where one phone call to Reid from one senator shuts legislation down, is preposterous.

    it’s rule by minority. It’s a bad deal and it should be stopped.

  12. He has been narrow, not broad. He has been partial, not post-partisan. He has been ideological, not pragmatic.

    His orientation is not political in any sense nor driven by ideology but is solely narcissistic. One of the hallmarks of a narcissist is their belief that they are entitled to be a member of whatever they perceive as the elite and that is who they cater to. Obama, like Reagan and his supporters, is deeply narcissistic and he is catering to much the same people that Reagan did and for the same reasons Reagan did.

    Pelosi was catered to when she could serve his agenda and is since dumped. She’s not really any more liberal than most of America but she is more liberal than the people that Obama yearns to impress. Some people call them the elite. Obama would call them his base – or at least, that’s what he hopes.

    Ahhh, all the armchair psychiatry. Pretty cheesy of me but I can name this tune in no notes.

  13. Basement Angel, a couple of responses to your comments:

    We’ve written repeatedly, to the annoyance of some, that Obama is neither a capitalist nor a socialist. Obama we contend is an opportunist. Opportunism can be identified as an ideology. Your statement “His orientation is not political in any sense nor driven by ideology but is solely narcissistic” is one we can agree with however we do think that in Obama’s case that “narcissism” (which we see as “opportunism”) is ideological. It’s a distinction from your formulation but probably not a very major distinction.

    As to the question of eliminating the filibuster, we doubt that will happen at all, but certainly the Dimocrats would be particularly Dim to do so now. If the Dimocrats ever succeed in removing the filibuster this year it will not help them electorally to pass the legislation that has so far been proposed.

    It would be good to force senators, to as you put it “own their opposition” but that might also really grind everything down as senators will be adverse to closing debate in committees. We suspect that senators will find myriad ways to avoid taking a stand on anything that might hurt them.

    But politically, why would the Dimocrats end the filibuster now with the full knowledge that the Republicans might be in the majority very soon and then the ability to filibuster will become a Dimocratic tactic?

  14. Admin:

    Here is 2min video of the Couric interview last night of Obama. It’s just a small part of the entire interview. If you can find the entire interview, the part I was interested in bringing here was when Couric remarks about his plummeting poll numbers and whether he is concerned his unpopularity will have a devastating effect on the Party’s elections. (His short answer is “NO”) His explanation of the “no” is convoluted mumbo-jumbo with a tie in to affirmative action. (Pinkers and you, Admin would appreciate the response demonstrating the doubletalk he gets away with unquestioned.)

    Obama caps the discussion with Michelle’s perception of the reason for the lowering numbers. Michelle says: polling people when they’re unhappy due to losing their homes or their jobs is never going to result in high polling numbers.. (Can you believe this BS is passing for a quantitative response between a (supposed) Law Professor and (Katie)a supposed College graduate? Ending his statement with how he wants to preserve the notion every kid having the same chance he did of becoming president.

    Never once mentioning he and his team are working on solutions to ease the publics suffering..and return the country to a thriving energetic economy..

    Bizarro time!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_g65uzb-jA

  15. it appears to be a rule of thumb…whatever O says he intends to do…then expect the polar opposite or nothing at all…he has reneged on just about everything he promised…

    (he reminds me of a nonstop, blabbing bystander…barking (reading) out all these plans and then he goes on espn or to play some basketball or whatever pleasurable distraction he can find…classic attention deficiet disorder personality…

    …any other politician, Hillary or Sarah, would have headlines 24/7 pointing out every tiny infraction…any i not dotted and t not crossed…slowly but surely, the “lamestream media” is waking up…(i like that term, i heard it for the first time in sarah’s speech, however perhaps it has been used here)…lamestream media, that about sums them up…

  16. I hope Admin- can find and post the entire CBS Couric/Obama interview. The above video has been heavily edited but there has to be an original cut on the network’c video site…

    admin
    February 8th, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Yes, the same thing has happened to me a few times; losing a shoe at an inopportune moment. Hillary took it all in stride and Sarkozy, the gentleman he is, responded with just the right touch to ease Hillary’s Cinderella moment.

  17. I know a lot of people were angry at Murtha, but he was a Hillary backer and strong advocate for the men and women in uniform. Sure, he got a lot of “porK”, but mo worse than what we saw in the HC bill for Louisiana and Nebraska.

    As for Obama, what is he going to do to stop Iran which seems to become more and more bellicose in words and actions every day! Bibi MUSY strike soon imo, using tactical nuclear war heads,,,Israel is going to be hated with ou without action, so Bibi must save his people and country.

  18. The Fearsome Foursome, or the Fuerher Bunker Quartet or The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse?

    Bambi, Grease, Rhambo, Jarrett?

    When I was canvassing in Western PA, people warned me about this.

    I am not proselytizing. I am simply making an interesting historical comparison.

    The judgment I fear is the one which will be rendered by future generations that we ever elected this idiot.
    ——————————————————————————–
    The four horsemen of the Apocalypse are described in Revelation chapter 6, verses 1-8. The four horsemen are symbolic descriptions of different events which will take place in the end times. The first horseman of the Apocalypse is mentioned in Revelation 6:2: “I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest.” This first horseman likely refers to the Antichrist, who will be given authority and will conquer all who oppose him. The antichrist is the false imitator of the true Christ, who will also return on a white horse (Revelation 19:11-16).

    The second horseman of the Apocalypse appears in Revelation 6:4, “Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword.” The second horseman refers to terrible warfare that will break out in the end times. The third horseman is described in Revelation 6:5-6, “…and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, ‘A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!’” The third horseman of the Apocalypse refers to a great famine that will take place, likely as a result of the wars from the second horseman.

    The fourth horseman is mentioned in Revelation 6:8, “I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth.” The fourth horseman of the Apocalypse is symbolic of death and devastation. It seems to be a combination of the previous horsemen. The fourth horseman of the Apocalypse will bring further warfare and terrible famines along with awful plagues and diseases. What is most amazing, or perhaps terrifying, is that the four horsemen of the Apocalypse are just “precursors” of even worse judgments that come later in the tribulation (Revelation chapters 8–9 and 16).

  19. Admin:

    But politically, why would the Dimocrats end the filibuster now with the full knowledge that the Republicans might be in the majority very soon and then the ability to filibuster will become a Dimocratic tactic?
    ————————————————————————

    Now that’s something to consider!

  20. I got no problem with eliminating the procedural filibuster. If one senator is going to singlehandedly derail legislation that the majority of America supports, and if passing any legislation requires a super-majority to avoid that prospect, then we aren’t really a democracy
    ————————–
    But that is not what is going on here. What is happening here is the majority of the American People do not favor the proposed legislation, but corrupt party elders have prevailed upon members to vote in favor of it and effectively shove it down their throats. In that case the filibuster is not a tool to thwart the will of the American People but is in fact a vehicle to protect the American People and to effectuate their will over that of the party.

  21. wbboei, Has there been anymore scuttlebutt as to why Bush and Jeb went to see Obama?? I mean real information not opinion??

  22. Wbboei, I think that third horseman is Eric Holder. I agree Obama has to the first one but I am not sure the rest of those folks you mentioned have enough sense to aid the antichrist. I would tend think that Soros and Zbig had to be one of the horseman.

  23. QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY
    (Palin vs Obama)
    from another blog where the writer gave it to Palin by a moderate margin–going down the list item by item.
    The comment is very good:

    ROFLMAO! 4-2? I bet you picked the Colts

    PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:

    1. CHARACTER: My dog has more character than Obama. (Score: Palin: 1—Obama: 0)

    2. COMMUNICATION: Sarah actually can talk. Obama can actually read. (Score: Palin: 2—Obama: 0)

    3. GOALS: Sarah returns America to Americans. Obama sellout America to the highest bidders. (Score: Palin: 3—Obama: 0)

    4. INSTINCTS: Sarah knows where her opponents jugular is. Obama knows where the mirror is. (Score: Palin 4—Obama: 0)

    5. POLITICAL WINNER: Sarah can draw crowds. At this point Obama can only draw flies. (Score: Palin: 5—Obama: 0)

    6. ADMINISTRATOR: Sarah has run a State. Obama has actually only run his mouth. (Score: Palin: 6—Obama 0)

    7. LEGISLATION: Sarah has passed legislation. Obama could not pass hc bill with supermajority. (Score: Palin; 4–Obama: 0)

    Question: So what’s the final score? Sarah 2012 ; Obama; jack squat

  24. AMEN TO THIS ARTICLE FROM NO QUARTER.
    —————————————-
    IS SARAH PALIN YOUR CUP OF TEA?
    Pat Racimora on February 8, 2010 at 6:00 PM in Current Affairs
    No Quarter

    I truly enjoyed Sarah Palin’s speech at the Tea Bag Convention. For starters, she did NOT use a teleprompter. That suggests confidence, even though she had to glance at a script. Nevertheless, she looked right at us often enough (no POTUS “tennis game head”). She was peppy and sometimes funny, and that felt sincere, even if I don’t agree with many of her positions and how she explains things.

    Also–and I don’t think it is sexist to note– she is really pretty.

    In short, Sarah Palin is a great spokesperson for the Republican Party. She is likable as well–I never understood the hate and ridicule that some spewed out. She has accomplished more in her 40-some years than anyone I heard putting her down. Jealousy, probably.

    She is adept at pointing out what is wrong with the current administration and Congress in an enganing manner. She nailed a lot of it, yet that’s not difficult to do with so much material to work with! But, when it comes to what needs to be done instead, well, she was rather weak and general. And, as helpful as I think she can be to the GOP, I don’t see her as a presidential candidate. She has more experience than our current POTUS, but, sadly, I see her as one more attractive rock star in a time when we need so much more at the helm. (HILLARY–ARE YOU LISTENING AT ALL? Bill, could you talk to her?)

  25. wbboei, Has there been anymore scuttlebutt as to why Bush and Jeb went to see Obama?? I mean real information not opinion??
    ———————-
    None that I have heard. But I continue to believe he called them to carry a message from himself and the people behind him. Tell the Republicans to play ball or my people will destroy them. The proper response to that threat is thank you Obama and just so you know we are wearing a wire. We know what you are and have taken the necessary precautions.

  26. wbboei
    February 8th, 2010 at 9:50 pm

    AMEN TO THIS ARTICLE FROM NO QUARTER.
    —————————————-
    IS SARAH PALIN YOUR CUP OF TEA?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Tonite’s CBS video commentary about Sarah Palin made note of her speech lambasting the president for using a teleprompter. As their video closed in focusing on and enlarging the notes to herself penned in the palm of her left hand during her interview.

    It was no bigee just a few trigger words noting the points she wanted to be sure to cover in her speech… BUT- she was almost being accused of something akin to cheating… I don’t have a word for it- If you do, please tell me.

    Sarah had better do a little housekeeping with her staff and find the mole who is leaking private info to the Obama oppos.

  27. wbboei
    February 8th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
    QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY
    (Palin vs Obama)

    ——————–
    I would like to see “experience” as one of the qualities listed.

    I would also like to see how Hillary would fare against Sarah with the same yardstick.

    I know that many here are on the Sarah bandwagon. It’s not that I don’t think Sarah would make a good president someday and it’s not that I don’t think she has more experience to lead than obama does. For me though, if you take obama out of the equation, I still think she needs a bigger resume to do the biggest job in the land. In 5-10 years, I could see her being a viable candidate. For 2012 though, I still don’t think either of them are ready to be potus.

    This is just my opinion and not meant to insult anyone else’s on the matter.

  28. No matter what campaign it is, it seems there is ALWAYS someone leaking private info to Obama and his thugs. Bad stuff.

  29. Mrs. Smith,

    This is once again a smear campaign against a threat to the idiot.

    A few words written on a palm are a far cry from a teleprompter attached to obama with idiot strings.

  30. I am disappointed by CBS. Their coverage has been more fair and balanced prior to this. But if the little humming bird made nice with Obama then perhaps they are following the lead of nbc and abc and falling on their sword.

    The proper response is I deliver my own speeches in my own words without the aid of a teleprompter. That is the difference between me and him. From time to time I may write down a word or two of what I want to cover–but surely not the speech. If you find that amusing I will make a point to do it more often because I want you to watch and listen. Hi Mom.

    The word you are probably looking for Mrs. Smith is “bad faith”. But if Sarah explains it in the manner suggested above she can turn it around on the media whores–and make them look like humorless scolds. As we know, their gotchas only apply to Obama’s opponents. They are cowards.

  31. There is an important principle of equity which arises in certain areas of the law. It is not one of the 14 common law maxims of equity, but it applies in much the same manner.

    It is the concept of proportionality.

    This is the tendency of Axelrod and his media whores to the bamboozle the public into believing that a hang nail and sprained ankle are the same because each involve injury and illness to the body.

    The media whores used this concept repeatedly against Hillary during the campaign. Minor things were blown up out of perspective and then equated to something really nefarious that Obama’s thugs did.

    And now you see it with this false comparison between 3 words on the hand vs. reading an entire speech he did not write through a teleprompter. There is no way the two are comparable except to the likes of Joseph Goebbels.

    This is more of the same thing–disingenuous media coverage aimed at dumbing down the public and getting them invites to superbowl games and interviews.

    They are not worth listening to.

  32. The word you are probably looking for Mrs. Smith is “bad faith”. But if Sarah explains it in the manner suggested above she can turn it around on the media whores–and make them look like humorless scolds. As we know, their gotchas only apply to Obama’s opponents. They are cowards.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Agreed, Jan and wbb. I’m familiar with their revisionist history but we seem to be arcing towards some new type of allowable interpretation of reality. A revisionist creep of what we are actually experiencing in real time and no one speaking up to question the meaning of what they said as it applies in RT to the question.

    What I mean is this seems to be an attempt to reevaluate and restate the present based on acceptable newly acquired standards by the media.

    This is very dangerous and scary.. imo- anyway..

  33. wbboei
    February 8th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
    QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY
    (Palin vs Obama)

    ——————–
    I would like to see “experience” as one of the qualities listed.
    ——————————–
    Jan: you are preaching to the choir. That wasn’t my list–it was another blogger. Be advised that I felt experience was critical–and in Obama’s case he was woefully deficient. The only thing he was more deficient in was character.

    But sticking with the point, this was the document I prepared for caucuses in my state to emphasize Obama’s lack of experience and what it would mean to his ability to govern. I prepared this in January 2008, and it has come to pass.

    -RESUME OF BARACK OBAMA-

    POSITION SOUGHT: PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
    ——————————————————————————————
    JOB DESCRIPTION: the successful candidate must have the ability to effectively manage and resolve a wide range of complex problems which significantly affect the welfare of 300 million Americans and billions of human beings in other countries around the world including but not limited to: national security, terrorism, economic recession, Iraq War, spiraling national debt, heath care crisis, shrinking job base, endangered middle class, educational deficit, immigration mess, global warming, loss of international prestige, competition for resources, etc.

    It is essential for the candidate to have job related experience for two reasons: i) past experience is the most accurate predictor of future performance, and ii) the nature and urgency of our problems are such that the next president must be capable of addressing them on day 1.

    In addition, the candidate must be a strong decisive leader who can provide a new sense of direction and overcome the institutional resistance which exists within the system. This means she or he must have the proper management philosophy, style, message, character, judgment, and moral courage. Why? Because in the immortal words of Harry Truman: “The buck stops here”.
    ——————————————————————————————
    QUALIFICATIONS: here are the job related qualifications of Barack Obama, as I perceive them:

    PRIOR EXPERIENCE: Freshman Senator (D-Il). Illinois State Legislator, Community Organizer, President of Harvard Law Review. Lived and travelled abroad. Close ties to Daley Machine. He has written two books about his life which have inspired people. No significant legislative accomplishments. He is married, 2 children.

    MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY: Insists he is not a Chief Operating Officer. Instead, he believes his role is to set the direction for the country, and hire other people (as yet unidentified) to actually run the government. Yet, the evidence to date from the campaign trail suggests he does not hold subordinates accountable for their actions (i.e. South Carolina campaign staff, Jessie Jackson Jr., General Mc Peak, Axelrod, etc.)

    MANAGEMENT STYLE: In public, he favors huge meetings, inspirational speeches, and mass movement politics tilted toward young people and the media. But, behind the scenes he is the exact opposite, i.e. very deferential to powerful interests, and willing to concede a publicly held position as long as he can get a positive headline. Sometimes he gets political contributions too, i.e. Excelon. Uses consultants and lobbyists to steer his campaign and spread false stories about opponents. Plays the race card– offensively and defensively, with plausible deniability.
    POLITICAL MESSAGE: Decries the old politics, i.e. clash of interests, baby boomer conflicts, lobbyist control, and claims to offer a new kind of politics, i.e. transcendence, common purpose, rule by the people. But this is an utterly utopian construct. You cannot govern without politics. Our country is too complicated for that. This approach has been tried before by people like Adlai Stevenson, Bill Bradley, Deval Patrick. It leads to political gridlock and nothing gets done.

    PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE: He is a narcissistic personality. He preaches themes of empowerment and unity. But when challenged, he becomes very defensive, pouts and tends to demonize opponents, i.e. Wal Mart charge. And when he does not get his way threatens to pick up his marbles and go home, i.e. the veiled threat that he may not support the nominee if it is not him. Finally, his attitude toward women is suspect, i.e. the snub, likeable enough, turning his back, not feeling well, etc.

    JUDGMENT: He claims that he is always right on day 1. He cites a speech in Illinois legislature opposing Iraq War as proof–but concedes that he does not know what he would have voted if he had been in the Senate at the time. He dismisses his 17 year political and financial entanglement with an indicted political fixer as a “bone headed mistake”. He leaves hard decisions to others and critiques them later.

    MORAL COURAGE: He failed to show up for Kyle Lieberman, but criticized the votes of others who did. He voted “pass” 129 times on various pieces of legislation, on controversial issues. Says he pushed the wrong button six times. When he lost the Nevada primary, he left town without thanking supporters, delivering a concession speech and congratulating his opponent per customary practice. This has caused some to say that he is never there when you need him.

    REFERENCES: Oprah, Ted Kennedy, Daley Machine, Rezko, Media Whores, Big Blogs, Limousine Liberals and Political Opportunists who know as well as we do that that he is unqualified for the job but seek to exploit that fact for their own personal gain.
    ——————————————————————————————–

    CONCLUSION: if you set aside all the hype about the first black president, and the one-sided media coverage which has defined his candidacy, it is becomes obvious that Barack Obama is not qualified for the job of President of the United States of America.

    It is unreasonable to expect that he could deliver the kind of leadership which the country needs at this watershed moment in history. We do not need hope, and utopian rhetoric. We need a realistic vision, moral courage, coalition building, and the adroit use of the levers of power, if we are to succeed and prosper as a nation in the 21st Century.

  34. wbboei
    February 8th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
    QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENCY
    (Palin vs Obama)

    ——————
    Excellent analysis, wbboei.

  35. founding fathers and founding mothers were a wise group … So our founding mothers and fathers

    I’ve never seen anyone acknowledge founding mothers. Very empowering to read!

  36. What I mean is this seems to be an attempt to reevaluate and restate the present based on acceptable newly acquired standards by the media.

    This is very dangerous and scary.. imo- anyway..
    ————————————————-

    True enough. But the evidence shows it is not working. The public is voting with their channel changers. Die CNN, die NBC, die MSNBC, die ABC and I guess now it will have to be did CBS as well.

    With apologies to the Kingston Trio–which was before your time Mrs. Smith and Jan . . . let me crucify a verse to where have all the flowers gone

    To All The Big Media Whores

    Where have all your viewers gone?
    Long time passing
    Where have all your viewers gone?
    Long time ago (like last year)
    Where have all your viewers gone?
    Gone to Murdock everyone

    When will you ever learn?
    When will you evvver learn (to tell the truth and stop doing Axelrod’s dirty work)?

    3. Fox News Has Best January Ever

    Fox News had all 13 of the top cable news shows in total viewers for the fifth month in a row in January, and had the best January in its history.

    Fox was up 22 percent in total viewers in January compared to January 2009, and up an extraordinary 51 percent in the key 25-to-54 demographic.

    CNN was down 34 percent in total viewers in January compared to the previous year, and MSNBC was down 26 percent.

    Fox dominated its rivals in covering the major political event of the month, Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, mediaite.com reported.

    Fox was also helped by Sarah Palin, who joined the network as an analyst and drew 3.95 million viewers for her first appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor” on Jan. 12.

    For the month, Fox averaged 2.94 million prime-time viewers, compared to 946,000 for CNN and 838,000 for MSNBC, according to Nielsen.

    CNN topped MSNBC in weekday prime-time viewers during January for the first time in six months, helped by its comprehensive coverage of earthquake-ravaged Haiti.

    And MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann slipped to third in his time slot behind Bill O’Reilly on Fox and HLN’s Nancy Grace.

  37. wbboei
    February 8th, 2010 at 11:22 pm
    True enough. But the evidence shows it is not working. The public is voting with their channel changers. Die CNN, die NBC, die MSNBC, die ABC and I guess now it will have to be die CBS as well.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I hope you’re right, wbb- I hope you’re right.

    logging out.. nite all

  38. lorac
    February 8th, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    founding fathers and founding mothers were a wise group … So our founding mothers and fathers

    I’ve never seen anyone acknowledge founding mothers. Very empowering to read!
    ———————-
    You would enjoy reading about Abagail Adams, Dolly Madison and some of the others. While Sally Quinn’s forbearers were making woopie with the redcoats, these women of substance were using their considerable intellect and knowledge of people and sense of the possible to establish this nation and to guide it through perilous times. Like Washington said it was almost a miracle.

  39. This is an article from the American THinker, a reputable source. I thought this story was interesting.

    The murky circumstances of Obama’s birth invite attempts to make the known facts fit together. This article was prompted by two e-mails. The first asked me why I had never weighed in on the birth certificate controversy surrounding President Barack Obama.

    I responded that although I was troubled by the lack of documentation regarding all phases of Obama’s history — I’d be content with his SAT scores — I could not understand why any pregnant American woman would go anywhere near Kenya.

    The second e-mail was more interesting. It came from a Michigan entrepreneur named Don Wilkie, with whom I had not previously communicated. Knowing my interest in the authorship questions surrounding Obama’s writing, he presumed that I was intrigued as he was by a cryptic poem the nineteen-year old Obama wrote called “Pop,” the best thing that Obama himself has actually written. He was right.

    “Pop” relates an encounter between Obama and a man most reviewers presume to be Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Dunham would have been in his early sixties at the time. In the poem, Obama has “Pop” wondering drunkenly about the boy, “What to do with me, a green young man.”

    The Obama of the poem is cynical, even a little bitter. He makes several allusions to the fact that he and the old man look and even smell alike, a fact that strikes Obama as more ironic than reassuring. The poem ends, however, with reconciliation when Pop stands and asks for a hug. Writes Obama:

    I see my face, framed within

    Pop’s black-framed glasses

    And know he’s laughing too.

    Wilkie offers a novel interpretation of “Pop.” Says Wilkie, “I think the poem zeros in on that poignant moment when Obama was told that his grandfather was in reality his father.”

    Wilkie concedes his theory is “off-the-wall,” but he also offers photographic evidence to show that Obama much more closely resembles Dunham — especially by the telltale ears — than he does Barack Obama, Sr.

    Intriguing as the theory is, I thought it would be easy to disprove. I was wrong. For starters, in his 1995 memoir Dreams From My Father, Obama refers to his grandfather not as “Pop,” but as “Gramps.” If he were writing about his grandfather in this poem, the title “Pop” may very well be suggestive of a more direct kinship.

    For another, there is little known about the marriage between Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s presumed mother, and Barack Obama, Sr. According to most accounts, Dunham and Barack Sr. were married on the Hawaiian island of Maui — in some reports on February 2, 1961, and in others, on February 21.

    Obama knows little about the wedding. He writes in Dreams, “In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I’ve never quite had the courage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, a ring, a giving away of the bride.”

    In his fair-minded biography, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage, Christopher Andersen concedes, “There were certainly no witnesses — no family members were present; and none of their friends at the university had the slightest inkling they were even engaged.”

    Another conflicting bit of evidence is that at the time of his alleged marriage to Ann Dunham, Barack Sr. had a pregnant wife and a son back in Kenya. There is more. In July 2008, speaking at a university roundtable, Michelle Obama said of Barack’s mother that she was “very young and very single when she had him.” This could well have been a slip of the tongue, but it may not have been.

    Obama was reportedly born roughly six months after the February wedding date on August 4, 1961. Andersen reports that Barack Sr. drove Ann to Honolulu’s Kapiloani Hospital for Women and Children to have the baby.

    Andersen’s account, however, suffers from chronology problems. He relates that Ann told the Dunhams of her pregnancy in “late October.” Even if she had she been impregnated in early October — it probably would have been earlier — Obama’s official birth date came ten months later.

    In any scenario, Obama had at least one black parent, and if it is not Obama Sr., who then is it? Obama offers a possible clue in Dreams:

    I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes. The visits to his house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn’t fully understand. The same thing I felt whenever Gramps took me downtown to one of his favorite bars, in Honolulu’s red-light district.

    The “Frank” in question is Frank Marshall Davis, a black communist, pornographer, and poet who had abandoned Chicago for Hawaii. In “Pop,” it should be noted, the Pop character “recites an old poem” just before the reconciliation and reeks of whiskey. Davis would have been in his mid-seventies at the time. Some have theorized that Davis, in fact, is Obama’s father and the “Pop” of the poem. This theory, though tenuous, cannot be ruled out. A grandson can look more like his maternal grandfather than his father. That happens. And then, too, there is Davis’s Chicago connection.

    The “Frank” passage and the ones that follow, however, tell us something suggestive about Stanley Dunham, namely that he frequented otherwise all-black bars in an area rife with prostitution. That a black woman — perhaps a friend of Davis’s — gave birth to a child of Dunham’s may explain “the complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men.” If this were the case, it would have caused far less societal stress for Ann Dunham to assume maternity of her little brother than for Stanley Dunham to assume paternity of his son.

    We also know that Stanley Dunham so desperately wanted a boy that he named his only child “Stanley Ann.” That he chose to raise the young Barack would not have been out of character.

    Is it possible that Barack Sr. obliged the Dunhams and went along with the charade? If so, as Andrew Young attests in The Politician, he would not have been the last good friend to claim false paternity for a larger cause.

    As a Kenyan, Barack Sr. would have given the boy more than a name. He would give him a distinctive identity as an “African,” a more respected ethnicity in the America of the 1960s than “Negro.” Indeed, Obama has built his career around his exotic identity. Were he named after an American father — say “Darnell Johnson” — he may never have been elected president.

    This hypothetical extended charade would help explain why Barack Sr. blithely blew off his new family when he headed for Harvard a year later, rejecting a reported opportunity to take both wife and child to New York, and began dating as soon as he arrived at Harvard. It would explain too why Ann Dunham felt free to leave young Barack with her parents for years at a time when her career beckoned.

    Barack Sr.’s cooperation would also put Stanley Dunham’s fondness for him in perspective. In Dreams, Gramps speaks so respectfully of his prodigal son-in-law that the whole opening sequence rings false to anyone who knows the larger story. A man, and a black man at that, has knocked up Dunham’s daughter. Ann and Barack Sr. marry despite reported opposition from both families. The man then abandons wife and child, and the grandfather can only sing his praises to the man’s son. This makes no sense at all and would have made even less sense in the racially charged 1960s.

    Jerome Corsi of WorldNetDaily has found additional evidence that argues against Obama’s birth to Ann Dunham in August 1961. As the records clearly show, “Stanley Ann Dunham” enrolled for classes at the University of Washington at Seattle on August 19, 1961, fifteen days after Obama’s presumed birth. It defies all logic — and logistics as well — that Dunham would have flown her newborn across the Pacific, found an apartment and a job, and enrolled at school all within two weeks of the birth.

    Most accounts put young Barack with Dunham in Seattle when she was attending college, but the sourcing on these accounts is suspect. One person cited often is Dunham’s good childhood friend, Maxine Box. In February 2008, Box told the Seattle Times that the last time she saw Dunham was “in 1961,” when, says Times reporter Nicole Brodeur, “[Dunham] visited Seattle on her way from Honolulu to Massachusetts, where her then-husband was attending Harvard.”

    “She seemed very happy and very proud,” Box tells the Times of Dunham. “She had this beautiful, healthy baby. I can see them right now.”

    There are any number of problems with this account, beginning with the fact that Barack Sr. did not attend Harvard until the fall of 1962. Box also gives no sense that Dunham lived in Seattle or attended classes there through the winter and spring sessions of 1962, as records show she did. Whether Dunham was actually heading for Harvard, we have no real way of knowing.

    A seeming hole in Andersen’s account is that he missed the Washington adventure and has Ann remaining in Hawaii through Obama’s first few years. He makes no mention of any trip to Harvard by Ann.

    One other scenario makes sense out of a falsely assumed paternity by Barack Sr. This begins with the abrupt departure of the Dunham family from the Seattle area in the late summer of 1960. In Dreams, Obama tells how pleased the senior Dunhams were with the success of Ann in high school, but Stanley forbade her to go to the University of Chicago, “deciding that she was still too young to be living on her own.”

    Soon thereafter, however, the family decamped for Hawaii.

    “Something must have still been gnawing at my grandfather’s heart,” writes Obama. He attributes the move to his wanderlust and the “limitless” prospects offered by a new furniture store in Honolulu. Adds Obama, “He would rush home that same day and talk my grandmother into selling their house and packing up yet again.”

    What Obama does not mention is that even at this time, his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, likely earned more than her furniture salesman husband. To move, she had to give up her job as a bank officer in Seattle. Arriving in Honolulu, she worked as a by-the-hour bank teller. This job would, however, have given her the opportunity to tend to the young Barack.

    It seems altogether possible that the progressive and adventurous seventeen-year-old Dunham was impregnated by a black man while the family was still living in the Seattle area. If so, this pregnancy could have prompted the family to uproot to Hawaii, where no one knew them and where mixed-race babies were more accepted. According to the Andersen account, whose source was Maxine Box, “There were loud arguments between father and daughter — fights that sometimes turned violent.” Ann did not want to go.

    Both the “Dunham as father” and the “anonymous black father” scenarios would make the Obama camp wary of sharing Obama’s actual birth certificate, either because Dunham was not Obama’s mother, or, if she were, because Obama was born much earlier than August 4, 1961.

    If Obama were born, say, in February or March 1961, it would clarify why, as documented, Dunham attended the University of Hawaii at Manoa in the fall semester of 1960, but not in the spring semester of 1961. This timetable would have also allowed Dunham enough time to recover and prepare for a return to college in Seattle in August with or without the baby. Dunham would not return to the University of Hawaii until 1963. She filed for divorce in 1964, and little was heard from Barack Sr. ever again.

    Scientists use the phrase “inference to the best explanation” to illuminate an unproven phenomenon. Given the available evidence, including the fact that some evidence has been strategically withheld, one can infer that Obama likely was born in Hawaii but that Ann Dunham did not give birth to Barack Obama, Sr.’s child on August 4, 1961.

    So much depends on Obama’s fabled “story,” however, that the mainstream media have chosen not to investigate. When Christopher Andersen tried, he found himself immersed in a swamp of conflicting and concocted stories that tested the savvy of even a veteran biographer.

    And so Obama’s birth remains a mystery a year after his inauguration. The mainstream media, meanwhile, have paid more attention to the origins of Trig Palin than to those of the president, and they have spent their excess energy mocking those who do the reporting they once did.

    \

    About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy © American Thinker 2010

  40. confloyd
    February 9th, 2010 at 12:01 am

    This was an interesting article with an interesting premise. Gramps may have impregnated a black female, and then had his own daughter present herself as his mother when she was actually his half sister. The birth certificate may show Stanley Dunham as the father, and some strange female name as his mother. What I don’t understand is why the state of Hawaii would seem to lie about Barack’s birth certificate. Wait…. They aren’t claiming anything other than that he was born in Hawaii. What they might be hiding is the truth of his actual parents. All this speculation would be put to rest if he would just present the ORIGINAL birth certificate. This just reinforces his untrustworthiness.

    Thanks for posting his.

  41. Nobama, I was surprised that American Thinker had this article. The republicans coming back in, a leak could happen.

  42. wbboei
    February 8th, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    I read something in the comments area of another blog yesterday in which the commenter speculated that the words that Sarah Palin had written on her hand were actually done in mockery of FObama’s use of a teleprompter for his speeches.

    This made me think some more about this. If one considers what the words were, and how these words were not particularly significant, but rather ordinary, and mundane, it’s entirely possible that the media got played by Sarah during her Tea Party speech, and they are too stupid to have realized. If so, that’s even more brilliant than her “Hi Mom” in Texas.

  43. Here is another rule of equity and evidence which Big Media violates every day in terms of their biased coverage. Besides the rule of proportionality, there is the rule of completeness. N.B. the two purposes for the rule.

    CORE CRIMINAL LAW: Evidence: Rule of Completeness

    The rule requires that if a portion of a document, recording or conversation is put in evidence, then the adverse party has a right to demand that the entire document, recording or conversation be put in the record. This rule its roots in common law and has two distinct purposes: (1) to ensure that the court not be misled because portions of a statement are taken out of context, and (2) to avoid the danger that an out-of-context statement may create such prejudice that it is impossible to repair by a subsequent presentation of additional material).
    —————————–

  44. This made me think some more about this. If one considers what the words were, and how these words were not particularly significant, but rather ordinary, and mundane, it’s entirely possible that the media got played by Sarah during her Tea Party speech, and they are too stupid to have realized. If so, that’s even more brilliant than her “Hi Mom” in Texas.
    ——————————————–
    It is possible. But if it is so then she really needs to out them.

    Whenever they do something which offends our sense of decency and fairness, I would wonder are they too stupid to see what is going on, or do they see it and are they just corrupt to report what they see.

    Then one day the right answer just dawned on me: big media is stupid AND big media is also corrupt.

  45. Admin, this blogpost was, as usual, very insightful. Being a legend in his own mind blinds FObama to his lack of management and decision making skills. He is blinded to his inadequacies. He must have been told he was perfect throughout his childhood, and now he believes that he can do no wrong.

  46. wbboei
    February 9th, 2010 at 1:27 am

    First, I agree that Sarah should have said immediately after she was accused of needing notes on her hand that she wrote them as a joke. I guess the “Hi Mom” might have been her answer, but her verbalizing it would have been a better strategy in my opinion.

    Second, much of the MSM is stupid. In reality, all the newsanchors have to do is look good and read a screen effectively. It’s not like they need to even know or understand what they are talking about. When they do interviews, I bet most of the questions that they ask are thought up by people in the background. As for reporters, most are obviously vacuous to a fault. Again, all looks, but not much substance. I’ve seen many a news program that made me question the intelligence of the host or his/her reporting staff.

  47. I hope the Republicans lay the right ground rules for this televised discussion with Bambi over health care.

    1. They must lay out their demands in the beginning–hitting the issues that matter to voters

    2. They must identify and specifically reject the provisions which voters were strongly against.

    3. The must force Obama to explain his glittering generalities and let voters see how nasty he can be

    4. They must insist on equal time–none of the kind of crap we saw from CNN where they would cut away from Hillary so they could cover Bambi who would go on and on, and then they would never come back to her.

    5. CNN should be talked to specifically about this since they are a known offender. They should be told that the fairness of their coverage will be a factor in deciding whether to schedule future debates on their network.

    If they do not take the bull by the horns with the media they are the ones who will get slaughtered. The rule of completeness and the rule of proportionality should be adhered to scrupulously.

  48. You just know at this health care dog and pony show Obama will come out swinging. He has to. He is will try to shore up his progressive base. I hope the Republicans ask him why he promised transparency before and then cut a deal with big pharma while the cameras are rolling. They should ask him about the quid pro quo in terms of free advertising, limitation of liability and campaign contributions. Its like rapping a dog over the nose with a newspaper to show him who is boss. Don’t worry Mrs. Smith I did not mean Tellie. Get the dims howling mad.

  49. Morris tonight was saying that Obama’s support level may drop into the 30s. Now wouldn’t that be grand? Hannity asked him if the Rs were peaking too soon and Morris said no. He said even if there is a slight upturn on the job market it will not matter because if it continues on for any length of time then 1/3 of the workforce will experience unemployment. That is tough on a Messiah, and it makes me wonder why since he has the powers of Merlin according to him, why does he not just solve the problem rather than talking about them and doing nothing. He listed 60 seats which are vulnerable now.

  50. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/bush_miss_me_yet_billboard_is.html

    There is a billboard along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., with a huge photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: “Miss Me Yet?”

    Now, the push is on to find out who paid to have it put up.

    Bob says there’s no readily apparent claim of ownership on the billboard, so he’s heading back to the scene to see if he can find out who’s behind the message. He’s also got some local politicos looking into it. He’ll keep us posted.

    At first glance, it would seem to be from some person or group who isn’t thrilled by President Barack Obama’s performance so far — unless it’s a more ironic message from those who didn’t think too much of Bush and want to remind voters about him.

  51. Admin: Glenn Beck has this same pic and message on his Glennbeckclips. It was there the last time I looked so I image they’ll find out its whoever likes Glenn Beck.

  52. admin, wbboei, hwc, others.
    thank you for the education regarding ms. quinn. i see my initial gut reaction to her was correct. she is most vile.

  53. I just wanted to write that I believe you are all being fooled if you believe that Obama is not ideological, liberal, and partisan. Personally, I believe he is an opportunist that practices politics by stealth. He will do whatever he finds necessary to get his desired result. If that means that he needs to play a role of being corporate friendly, or the corporate shill, he will do so because if he is a subversive who will then make/take incremental steps to further his goals from within his enemy’s house. It’s the way that marxists accomplish their objectives when they can’t outright force their agenda on society. Don’t think for one moment that a much watered down and modified health scam bill will not eventually turn into what the liberals wanted in the first place. Their foot will be in the door if this Obama bill gets passed regardless of whatever is actually in the bill. Incremental changes will then occur over time as the bill is modified to meet liberal’s desires. This is subversion from within. They cannot be trusted. Progressivism is a euphemism for Marxism since Marxism is such an unpalatable word to people who believe in democracy, so what better way to present it in disguise.

    Yes, FObama is an ultra-liberal with a voting record to support this contention. And please do not forget his past associations because they DO matter. Do not forget his lies about these associations. Yes, he is an ideologue with the stated goal of changing American society. And yes, he is a partisan through his actions. He doesn’t want the input of the opposition, but he will pay lip service to it if it gets him that which he wants. He is an Alinsky-ite who believes all is fair in the struggle. Don’t be fooled or you’ll wake up some day to something you would never have thought could happen. Oh yeah. Please don’t forget about his proposal for a generously funded civilian militia. Geez, he’s even letting everybody know of his anti-democratic stances in advance! Please, please don’t be lulled into complacency! He and his minions are a danger to America, regardless of what your political persuasions are.

    I do agree, though, that Obama is a narccicist. He would love to have his name go down in history books as “the One” who forever changed the politics of America.

  54. One more thought in regards to what Carol wrote concerning being fiscally responsible. In my opinion, government funded universal healthcare and The idea of being fiscally responsible are opposing concepts. There isn’t a country in the world that I am aware of that has managed to have an universal health care system that is operated fiscally in the black.

  55. Republicans may opt out of Obama’s health-care summit

    By Michael D. Shear
    Tuesday, February 9, 2010

    Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they may decline to participate in President Obama’s proposed health-care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.

    In a letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) expressed frustration about reports that Obama intends to put the Democratic bills on the table for discussion at the summit, which would be held Feb. 25.

    “If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate,” Boehner and Cantor wrote.

    Obama proposed the half-day summit on national television Sunday, but in their letter, the two GOP leaders offer their suspicion that the president is not serious about opening bipartisan negotiations on health-care reform.

    ” ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support,” Boehner and Cantor wrote. “Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.”

    White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded by saying that Obama has sought Republican input since early last year, and that the president remains interested in hearing ideas that the GOP thinks will advance the reform cause.

    But he appeared to give little ground on the idea that Obama might abandon the months of work that produced Democratic bills that passed the House and the Senate late last year. “He’s been very clear about his support for the House and Senate bills because of what they achieve for the American people: putting a stop to insurance company abuses, extending coverage to millions of hardworking Americans, getting control of rising premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and reducing the deficit,” Gibbs said in a statement. He added: “The president looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals that meet the goals he laid out at the beginning of this process, and as recently as the State of the Union address. He’s open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny. What he will not do, however, is walk away from reform and the millions of American families and small businesses counting on it.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/08/AR2010020804202.html

  56. I also believe that Sarah Palin, with the right set of advisors, would be a capable president. I believe Hillary to be more capable, though. I would be satisfied with either one of them. I do view Sarah as the outsider, and that is something that just might be what is needed at his time to shake things up. She shook up the Republican party in Alaska which is something to be admired since it showed that she has the capability to do what is right regardless of party labels. I am not sure if Hillary has ever put herself so far out on a limb. Maybe someone here can let me know this. Has Hillary ever gone after the Democratic party for perceived misdeeds? I think she has it in her to do so, but I just can’t think of anything right now.

  57. The local news is doing an exposey on Judas (Richardson of course), about his abuse of powers, and payback. It will air tonight, so I will try to link something tomorrow.

  58. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded by saying that Obama has sought Republican input since early last year, and that the president remains interested in hearing ideas that the GOP thinks will advance the reform cause.
    ——————————–
    Really. A clever choice of words. Input as opposed to participation. It is a little tough to provide either when you are locked out of the secret discussions. What ever became of the Republican proposals they offered to him? Does those qualify as input? Where did it get them. Did the sum and substance the input he sought consist of whispering sweet nothings in the ear of Olympia Snow in an effort to get her to defect so he could call the draconian bill “bi-partisan”.

    I very much doubt Obama is operating in good faith when he offers to hold a health care summit on C-Span. He knows and so do we that that environment is well suited for speeches and ill suited to compromise. Rather, it is an effort for him to establish the health care deform legislation they came up to as the baseline, and get the Republicans negotiating off of this document. Years ago BNA used to recommend this approach to management until the unions caught on. Sometimes the union negotiator would make a big showing of throwing the management proposal in the waste bin.

    But the better approach was to do what the Republicans are doing here which is to establish a precondition for negotiation which says I will negotiate with you in the gladiators arena, but only if we set aside your draconian health care bill which costs jobs and the American People have soundly rejected. If you want a health care agreement with us then you must listen to what we and the American People have been saying, and focus on the specific issues where we can find agreement. Otherwise we intend to proceed through the normal legislative process and if you attempt to shove your current bill down the throats of the American People again then you will leave us no choice but to take advantage of the rules to defeat it.

  59. “Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they may decline to participate in President Obama’s proposed health-care summit “IF” the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over.”

    Rather than a piecemeal plan- starting over from scratch is sound advise.

    ” ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support,” Boehmer and Cantor wrote. “Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.”

    Boehmer and Cantor make a good point.

    Now here comes “the LIE”:

    “Gibbs said in a statement. He added: “The president looks forward to reviewing Republican proposals that meet the goals he laid out at the beginning of this process, and as recently as the State of the Union address. He’s open to including any good ideas that stand up to objective scrutiny. What he will not do, however, is walk away from reform and the millions of American families and small businesses counting on it.

    We all know and agree Americans do not want the Health Care Bill passed in it’s present form. Especially, where the IRS is the prescribed method for collecting unpaid Health Insurance premiums from deliquent participants. Plus, Obama HAS NOT revoked his behind closed doors, multi-million dollar contract with BIG PHARMA that expires to the detrement of the insureds after 10 yrs.

  60. The local news is doing an exposey on Judas (Richardson of course), about his abuse of powers, and payback. It will air tonight, so I will try to link something tomorrow.
    ————————————————–
    The death of a thousand cuts and it could not happen to a more honest, decent and loyal guy. It needs to go viral and on Frontline. Show pictures of him endorsing and campaining for Bambi with caption to read–birds of a feather?

  61. millions of American families and small businesses counting on it.”
    ————————————————————-
    So are billions of Chinese.

    That is one lie alright.

    The other is that uninsured people are dying because we do not have Obama care (as opposed to any other option)

    A few weeks ago they were calling key democrats in states around the country. My friend told them to peddle that nonsense to someone who believes it. She then told them if you were really concerned about the uninsured you could solve that problem with less costly and restrictive alternatives. Goodbye.

  62. I see now that their position is not as strong as I assumed.

    May be reluctant to participate says we will participate but reserve the right to pull the plug.

    We find out soon enough whether is was wise for them to pussyfoot in this manner.

    If it was me I would draw the line in the sand before submitting to a dog and pony show.

    But maybe they have a few tricks of their own up their sleeve. That would be novel.

  63. Brennan is losing his marbles.
    ——————————–
    First the White House National Security Advisor, John Brennan, said Republicans were briefed on the FBI detainment of the Christmas Day panty-bomber, including that the terrorist had been mirandized. In fact, that was not true.

    Now John Brennan says critics of the White House are serving ‘the goals of Al Qaeda.’

    When did Barack Obama become a White House critic? Chief among those helping Al Qaeda is Barack Obama.

    1. The mirandizing of the panty-bomber delayed vital intelligence collection.

    2. Shutting down GTMO and bringing those prisoners to the United States not only brings Al Qaeda loyalists closer in, but also creates more domestic targets.

    3. Giving Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a civilian trial so he has a soapbox to spew Al Qaeda propaganda before American media gives Al Qaeda a greater media megaphone than Al Jazeera.

    4. Leaking damaging information to demoralize CIA operatives as they go about trying to protect us from the shadows emboldens Al Qaeda.

    5. Broadcasting that the CIA sustains a serious setback due to Al Qaeda’s attack in Afghanistan gives Al Qaeda new recruiting PR.

    THERE IS NO GREATER AIDER AND ABETTOR OF AL QAEDA THAN BARACK OBAMA’S WHITE HOUSE. THROUGH SHEER INCOMPETENCE AND ARROGANCE THEY ARE:

    A. HANDING OVER TO AL QAEDA VITAL INTELLIGENCE

    B. GIVING THEM ALL THE PR THEY NEED TO EFFECTIVELY RECRUIT NEW TERRORISTS.

    QUESTION: HOW MANY AMERICANS WILL DIE BECAUSE OF BARACK OBAMA’S HANDLING OF NATIONAL SECURITY?

  64. HMMMM…INTERESTING

    weeklystandard.com/articles/clinton-voters-jump-ship

    The Clinton Voters Jump Ship;
    Obama’s shrinking base.
    ============================

    BY Jonathan V. Last
    February 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 21

    The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama’s decline in the polls represents a new, unexpected turn against him. But an examination of the results of the recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts suggests that what we might really be seeing is a return to the skepticism that significant portions of the electorate have showed about Obama from the beginning of his national career.

    For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee.

    On February 5—Super Tuesday— Obama did poorly in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, losing to Clinton by 10 and 15 points, respectively. The exit polls were in line with Obama’s performance throughout the primary race: He did very well with blacks, wealthy voters, highly educated voters, and very young voters. He did poorly with working-class whites and older voters. In New Jersey, Obama was +20 among voters under the age of 29, but about -26 among voters over 50. In Massachusetts, he ran even with young voters, and -31 among those over 65. As for education, Obama was -41 among voters with only a high school degree, but ran even, or just ahead, among voters possessing postgraduate degrees. And then there was gender and race. In New Jersey, Obama was -19 among white men; in Massachusetts he was +1.

    In addition to the demography, there was geography. Obama ran well in urban enclaves. He also did well in college towns and state capitals. But he did poorly in the suburbs and in smaller industrial towns.

    A week after Super Tuesday, Obama won the Virginia primary. He performed somewhat better in all categories, even winning white men by 18 points. But his victory came largely from blacks (who made up 30 percent of the vote, and whom he won 90 to 10) and the upscale Northern Virginia suburbs, increasingly home to a highly educated class of government and technology workers.

    Reviewing the primary fight, Michael Barone noted that Obama got majorities “from whites only in his home state (Illinois), in states where the white Democratic primary electorate is unusually upscale and non-Jewish (Virginia, Vermont), and in mountain states where the cultural divide is not black-white.” This racial divide, Barone explained, was part of a larger, cultural divide between Jacksonians and academics. “In state after state, we have seen Obama do extraordinarily well in academic and state capital enclaves. In state after state, we have seen Clinton do extraordinarily well in enclaves dominated by Jacksonians.”

    The Jacksonian Democrats tended to be white and working-class; the academics tended to be highly educated, and often government employees. This divide is often attributed to latent racism in the Jacksonians. But a suspicion of Barack Obama shouldn’t make you a racist. Consider the case of Buchanan County, a Jacksonian stronghold on the Virginia border next to both West Virginia and Kentucky. Obama lost Buchanan County to Hillary Clinton by a margin of 90 to 9. Which might make one view Buchananites with some suspicion—except that in the 1989 gubernatorial race, Douglas Wilder won Buchanan County by 18 points over his (white) Republican rival.

    In the general election, Obama was finally able to convert some of the voters who had resisted him. Massachusetts doesn’t have many Jacksonians, but it does have white ethnic enclaves. Obama went +7 among white Massachusetts men, and his share of white Democrats was nearly the same as his share of all Democrats, meaning that he brought home most of the Clinton voters. In New Jersey, he did less well in this conversion: His white Democratic share ran 4 points behind his overall Democratic share. In Virginia, the Jacksonians warmed to him. After getting shellacked in Buchanan County by Clinton, he lost to McCain there by only 5 points.

    The question, then, is how these various coalition groups—the white ethnic enclaves, the Jacksonians, the suburban and industrial town voters—have reacted to Democrats since Obama took office. And the answer is: Without enthusiasm.

    In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell won an 18-point victory in a state Obama carried by 6 points. Obama had been -24 among white men in 2008; McDonnell was +43. Obama had carried every income bracket under $75,000 by at least double-digit margins. McDonnell was -8 among those making between $15,000 and $30,000 a year. He was +6 from there up to $50,000 and +28 among those making between $50,000 and $75,000. Where Obama had lost whites without college degrees by a big margin—34 percent—McDonnell did even better than McCain had, rolling up a 51-point advantage. Buchanan County? McDonnell won it by 26 points, a 21-point swing against the Democrats.

    In New Jersey, it was worse. Chris Christie was outspent by a millionaire incumbent in a state Obama won by 15 points. Christie won by 5 points, and the exit polls showed defections among the same groups who had been against Obama in the presidential primaries. Where Obama had been only -3 among white men, Christie was +34; where Obama had run even with older whites, Christie was +25; where Obama had been competitive among non-college educated whites (he was only -4 in the general election), Christie was +34. In the rural south, Obama had won Gloucester and Salem counties easily. A year later, they went for Christie. In heavily industrialized Passaic County, Obama had won by 21 points; Christie came within 8.

    Which leaves Massachusetts. There were no exit polls for the January special election. One approximation comes from a Public Policy Polling survey conducted a few days before the election, which concluded with Scott Brown ahead by 5 points. Brown was +12 among white voters (Obama had been +20), and the poll suggested that Brown did very well among middle-aged voters: He was +14 among those age 30 to 44 and +3 from age 45 to 64. Among these groups Obama had been +18 and +20. The town and county results tell the same story. Plymouth and Worcester counties are two ethnic, blue-collar strongholds that went heavily for Clinton in the primaries, by 21 and 25 points, respectively. Brown won them by similar margins: +26 in Plymouth and +23 in Worcester.

    Caveats abound, of course. This is an exercise in apples and oranges, comparing Democratic primary voters with general election voters. It artificially claims three distinct Democratic candidates as generic proxies for Obama—and even uses a preelection poll sample in lieu of actual exit poll data. This can’t count for science, even on the Internet.

    But if we accept that the comparisons are at least marginally valid, then Obama is not encountering some new, unanticipated resistance from the electorate. Instead, it may be that his general election triumph was the aberration—that his coalition was never as strong as the financial panic of September 2008 made it seem. It would mean that he is now returning to his natural base of support and that the Jacksonians and others who resisted him in the primaries have turned away once again from his charms.

    But it also suggests something more, that the Democratic party is now the party of Obama, for good and for ill. While the president is no Jacksonian, his party has many in its ranks. Democratic officeholders should be concerned about their voters fleeing not just from Obama but from their party as well. The president may be in the process of trimming the Democratic base back into something that looks an awful lot like his own primary base.

    A few weeks ago Representative Marion Berry, a Jacksonian from Arkansas’s First District, recounted an exchange he had with the president. Asked how he was going to prevent a midterm disaster on the scale of 1994, Obama replied, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Which may be precisely the problem.

  65. Nonobama, Hillary has most certainly went against the democratic party, she did it when she went against Obama in the primary. At the end she chose to not divide the party. Had she went with the status quo she would have quit after super tuesday. She went all the way to the end so we the blue collar worker (Hillary voters) would get a fair shake and not forgotten. We have been forgotten much to the peril of Obama. I can imagine their is much kicking their own asses in the WH.
    Hillary hasn’t been in the same situation as Palin in order to go against the party. Had she been a governor she would have.

  66. nomobama, I can see why the republicans would want to make sure that Obama is labeled a liberal elite, but he has voted republican straight down the line since he was elected. This something the republicans don’t want people to realize.

  67. confloyd
    February 9th, 2010 at 12:37 pm

    ————
    I totally agree. Hillary also fought long and hard for benefits for military families when it wasn’t popular. She has fought for human rights and women rights over and over again no matter the challenge.

  68. …it may be that his general election triumph was the aberration—that his coalition was never as strong as the financial panic of September 2008 made it seem. It would mean that he is now returning to his natural base of support and that the Jacksonians and others who resisted him in the primaries have turned away once again from his charms….

    —————
    Exactly.

  69. JanH
    February 9th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
    …it may be that his general election triumph was the aberration—that his coalition was never as strong as the financial panic of September 2008 made it seem. It would mean that he is now returning to his natural base of support and that the Jacksonians and others who resisted him in the primaries have turned away once again from his charms….

    —————
    Exactly.
    ——————————————————–

    I have also wondered, if the base of support was always weaker due to the fraud committed during the primary? Also, proportional representation may have given a false sense of the magnitude of support.

  70. We also don’t know how much his friends at Diabold voting machines helped him get in either!

    So now the Republicans won’t have a bipartisen, c-span televised meeting about healthcare unless they come in to the meeting unless the old bill is scrapped.
    DOES THIS SOUND ANYTHING LIKE THE PALESTINIANS SAYING THEY WILL NOT MEET WITH THE ISRAELI’S UNLESS THEIR ARE NO PRE-CONDITIONS.

    This is total bullshit, just go to work and politicizing every damn thing.

  71. Yes birdgal. I believe that the article is true but doesn’t go far enough. As you say the fraudulent cheating and downright theft of votes that should have gone to Hillary should also be calculated into this issue.

  72. The way I see it the republicans are stalling to keep this HC bill controversary going in order to capitalize on it for November and to HELL WITH THE PEOPLE. Both parties is full of crap.

  73. Hillary never leaves anyone behind or not given credit when credit is due.Just read this following tribute to John Murtha.

    ————————————————-

    Press Releases: Statement on Congressman Jack Murtha
    Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:20:46 -0600

    Statement on Congressman Jack Murtha

    Hillary Rodham Clinton
    Secretary of State
    Washington, DC

    February 8, 2010

    ——————————————————————————–

    I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of Congressman Jack Murtha. From the battlefields of Vietnam to the hills of Western Pennsylvania to the halls of Congress, Jack Murtha lived by the Marine Corps credo “Semper Fidelis,” never wavering in his faithful commitment to the country he loved and the men and women who bravely defend her. In war and in peace, he fought for what he knew was right, even when it was unpopular. He was a fierce advocate for working families struggling with a changing economy and for better health care and equipment for service members. And over the course of more than three decades in Congress, he became one of our nation’s most respected voices on national security and foreign policy. Presidents of both parties sought his advice and generations of colleagues looked to him for leadership and wisdom. As Senator from New York serving on the Armed Services Committee, I was fortunate to call Jack a friend and mentor. And as Secretary of State, I continued to rely on his expertise and judgment. I knew that Jack would always shoot straight, like the Marine he was, and never shy away from a difficult question or a tough fight. Today our country has lost a decorated war hero and a distinguished public servant. The men and women of our armed forces have lost a tireless champion. And the people of Pennsylvania’s 12th district have lost a neighbor, an advocate, and a true friend. My thoughts and prayers are with them and with Jack’s beloved wife Joyce and their family. He will be sorely missed.

  74. Here’s my take on the whole “will Sarah run, and can she win?” kerfluffle, my own ideology aside, and just from a political analysis standpoint:

    I like Sarah as a person, and admire her spunk and down-to-earthness, her proven opposition to backdoor deals, and willingness to buck the machine. But she is by no means the best the GOP could do, in theory. She has a good heart, I think, but not a truly broad grasp of policy. Even her conservatism is a bit vague. That works in her favor as far as being “one of the common-sense little people”, but is also a deficit.

    The problem is that the GOP has nothing much to put up as an alternative to Sarah – no one who isn’t seen as part of the creaky old men who’ve been in charge of the GOP forever, that Dems hate and none of the rank and file R’s are enthused about.

    There’s a fine balance between “everyman appeal” and policy chops and specific proposals, a blend that all the greatest politicians have. Please note that this holds true whether you think the policies proposed are patently horrendous or not. Reagan, hate him though we do, had a lot of both – everyman appeal and specific targeted vision. Sarah has tons of the former and little of the latter. But the rest of the GOP field has a miniscule of the latter and ZERO of the former.

    The GOP is in great shape as far as Congressional races go. Presidential-wise, they are in flux. Could go any number of ways.

  75. If it is true what Obama said to Couric interview that health insurance policy rates are going up 39% next year, do we really have time to fight over coming in to the meeting without the old bill being scrapped??

    I am so tired of the theatrics, its now going full steam ahead. The republicans have been unleashed from the pit and are going at it full steam ahead. Its so ridiculous. I hope they keep it up cause people like me will turn away from them and vote for a decent democratic candidate.

  76. March 18, 2008

    U.S. Rep. John Murtha on Tuesday announced his endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, saying she is “best qualified to lead our nation.”

    The Johnstown Democrat’s announcement comes as both Clinton and Democratic front-runner Barack Obama set up shop in Pennsylvania in preparation for the state’s important April 22 primary.

    “I’ve known Sen. Clinton for 15 years,” Murtha said in a statement released by his campaign committee.

    “I know that she continually reaches out for opinions and ideas, not just from our nation’s leaders, but from all Americans.”

    Murtha is one of the most powerful Democrats in the House, and his endorsement could carry weight in the 12th Congressional District, where he has served for 34 years.

    His backing carries added importance this year because he is a “superdelegate” – a party official who is free to support any candidate at the Democratic National Convention in August.

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

    RIP…he was there for Hillary when she needed him…

  77. BOB HERBERT BLAMES THE STAFF;

    How else to put it? He talks about the disparity of the effects of the jobs shortage affecting the middle and lower classes. But he does not assign an iota of blame to Obama. The word “Obama” is not in the article at all. It’s almost as if Hillary Clinton was the president. And his muted criticism of the administration is shared with Congress:

    “…and none of the policy prescriptions being offered by the administration or the leaders of either party in Congress would in any way substantially alleviate the plight of those groups.”

    Still, the article is a damnation of the inefficiency of the stimulus bill to create jobs.

    And if you substitute “Obama” for “politician”, he’s saying, “Obama [displays an] almost a willful refusal to focus on just who is suffering the most from joblessness and underemployment.”

    Finally, at the end, winds up admitting that Obama is “reading from the Ronald Reagan (trickle down) hymnal”.

    nytimes.com/2010/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html

    The Worst of the Pain
    =====================

    By BOB HERBERT
    Published: February 8, 2010
    There is a great tendency in this country to refuse to see what is right in front of everybody’s eyes.

    While there is now, finally, a great deal of talk among the politicians and in the news media about unemployment, there is still almost a willful refusal to focus on just who is suffering the most from joblessness and underemployment.

    When it comes to employment, there are roughly three broad categories in the United States. The folks in the upper-income group are not suffering much, if at all, from the profound reversals in employment brought about by the Great Recession. Those in the middle have been hit hard. The job losses there have been severe and long-lasting. But for those in the lower-income groups, the scale of the employment crisis has been mind-boggling.

    What you’re not hearing from the politicians and the talking heads is that the joblessness and underemployment in America’s low-income households rival their heights in the Great Depression of the 1930s — and in some instances are worse. The same holds true for some categories of blue-collar workers. Anyone who thinks this devastating problem is going away soon, or that the economy can be put back on track without addressing it, is deluded.

    There has been talk about income inequality over the past several years, but what is happening now is catastrophic. The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston divided American households into 10 groups based on annual household income. Then it analyzed labor conditions in each of the groups during the fourth quarter of 2009.

    The highest group, with household incomes of $150,000 or more, had an unemployment rate during that quarter of 3.2 percent. The next highest, with incomes of $100,000 to 149,999, had an unemployment rate of 4 percent.

    Contrast those figures with the unemployment rate of the lowest group, which had annual household incomes of $12,499 or less. The unemployment rate of that group during the fourth quarter of last year was a staggering 30.8 percent. That’s more than five points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the Depression.

    The next lowest group, with incomes of $12,500 to $20,000, had an unemployment rate of 19.1 percent.

    These are the kinds of jobless rates that push families already struggling on meager incomes into destitution. And such gruesome gaps in the condition of groups at the top and bottom of the economic ladder are unmistakable signs of impending societal instability. This is dangerous stuff. Nothing good can come of vast armies of the unemployed just sitting out there, simmering.

    When the data about underemployment is factored in — meaning individuals who are working part time but would like to work full time, and those who have stopped looking but would take a job if one were available — the picture only worsens. In the lowest group, the underemployment rate was 20.6 percent, compared with just 1.6 percent in the highest group.

    The people suffering the most drastic employment reversals in this recession have been those who were in the lower-income groups to begin with — the young, less well-educated workers, especially black and Hispanic high school dropouts, and certain categories of service workers, such as food preparers and building cleaners. Blue-collar workers were also hammered, especially those in the construction industry.

    This is not to say that the middle class has not been hurt badly by the recession. It has been. In last year’s fourth quarter, the group with household incomes of $40,000 to $49,000 had a jobless rate of 9 percent, close to the disastrous national average. The $50,000 to $59,000 group had a 7.8 percent jobless rate, and households earning $60,000 to $75,000 had a jobless rate of 6.4 percent.

    The point here is that those in the lower-income groups are in a much, much deeper hole than the general commentary on the recession would lead people to believe. And none of the policy prescriptions being offered by the administration or the leaders of either party in Congress would in any way substantially alleviate the plight of those groups.

    We talk about the recession as if all of its victims were suffering equally, and all will be helped by some bland, class-and-category-neutral solution.

    That is so wrong. As the Center for Labor Market Studies explained in its report: “A true labor market depression faced those in the bottom two deciles of the income distribution; a deep labor market recession prevailed among those in the middle of the distribution, and close to a full employment environment prevailed at the top.”

    Those who believe this grievous economic situation will right itself of its own accord or can be corrected without bold, targeted (and, yes, expensive) government action are still reading from the Ronald Reagan (someday it will trickle down) hymnal.

  78. Just on Fox, they say the owners of the billboards featuring GWB saying “Miss me yet” are a group of small business owners who want to remain anonymus. Yeah right, it Glenn Beck, he has had the pic up since I been going to Glennbeckclips. Who does Fox think they are kidding.

  79. admin: this is a great video and it shows Obama’s beginning and how he hid his true self from his leftie base. The leftie’s were screwed from the beginning. Please post!
    h t t p : / / w w w .youtube.com/watch?v=yfLJIfRUBkU

  80. The above video clearly leads us to believe we the middle class need a third party, my thoughts it should be a Hillary and Sarah party since they were both thrown out with the bath water by the people who put in Barry and George.

    Watch the video and let me know what you think.

  81. confloyd @ 1:21 – I cannot speak for others, and I am no fan of AARP. However, my AARP supplemental has increased by just 2.5%.
    Until Congress removes anti-trust protection for these companies, any other ‘reforms’ the cowards in and Thief in Chief purport to effect will be minimal. The House removed the protection from their bill. Senate left it in. Last Friday it was announced that Freshmen representatives Tom Perriello and Betsy Markey have sponsored a bill solely for the purpose of removing the antitrust protection. Pelosi is for it. It’s acknowledged that it would have trouble passing in the Senate.It is anticipated that Ben Nelson and Senate Republicans would not support it.

    I am beyond being annoyed at the antitrust situation. This information is available at:
    www washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/House-aims-to-repeal-health-insurance-antitrust-exemption-83483517.html
    The article also states that the protection has been in existence for 65 years.
    It seems few knew, and if Chuck Schumer hadn’t been heard threatening to take away their exemption as a lever for something he wanted for the elite, we might still have been unaware. I tend to believe that the whole insurance debacle could have been avoided if antitrust was removed 2 decades ago when the insurance companies became really high and mighty.

  82. nomobama
    February 9th, 2010 at 7:36 am

    I view universal healthcare the same way I view education. social security and medicare…..as rights not priviledges in a civilized society. In fact, we have de facto universal healthcare now as no one is denied care. Those of us who pay also pay for the uninsured. I believe healthcare must become NOT FOR PROFIT and there must be an ability to negotiate the best possible prices with pharma. Combine that with everyone being in the system and healthcare costs should come down.

    I have a friend who is now undergoing very expensive treatment for a metasticized colin cancer with poor prognosis. All this for a preventable desease because despite having a parent who died of colin cancer, she never had a colonoscopy. She is 60 yrs old.

    A colonoscopy should have been mandated in her care. An inexpesive procedure could have saved her life and saved the insurance co a vast sum of money. We have chaotic, inefficient care in this country.

    Also, many Americans who are “happy” with their insurance probably do not understand that if they get the wrong desease they are screwed. They can maximize their benefits and face bankruptcy.

    Factor in the psychological benefits of not having to worry about medical and dental bills. no wonder people who live in countries with universal care live longer. They have a lesser chance of dying from stress.

  83. S
    February 9th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    March 18, 2008

    U.S. Rep. John Murtha on Tuesday announced his endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, saying she is “best qualified to lead our nation.”

    The Johnstown Democrat’s announcement comes as both Clinton and Democratic front-runner Barack Obama set up shop in Pennsylvania in preparation for the state’s important April 22 primary.

    “I’ve known Sen. Clinton for 15 years,” Murtha said in a statement released by his campaign committee.

    “I know that she continually reaches out for opinions and ideas, not just from our nation’s leaders, but from all Americans.”

    Murtha is one of the most powerful Democrats in the House, and his endorsement could carry weight in the 12th Congressional District, where he has served for 34 years.

    His backing carries added importance this year because he is a “superdelegate” – a party official who is free to support any candidate at the Democratic National Convention in August.

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

    RIP…he was there for Hillary when she needed him…

    ———————————
    My sentiments as well.

Comments are closed.