Zac Efron For The Supreme Court

Experience, quality, judgment, and credentials are, after the selection of Barack Obama, such anachronisms we can dispense with them as considerations for any job. So let’s get Zac Efron in the Supreme Court. As to that pesky diversity concern (which is usually restricted to concerns about race and almost never about religion, sexual orientation, gender, and class status) let’s realize that currently Americans are deprived of a Hollywood celebrity in the Supreme Court.

Of course we will hear some clamor to appoint a Miley Cyrus or one of the Jonas Brothers, if only to remove them from “entertaining” us any further (if that’s the top consideration we’ll nominate Selena Gomez or Demi Lovato). But those are foolish choices. Miley and the Jonas Brothers have country music (read White Working Class) and Christiany connections which won’t play well with the Obama loving “creative class”. Zac has all the right bi-coastal connections.

And Zac is so easy on the eyes… sigh….

Not even the meanest Republican will oppose Zac. And Zac (sigh!) would be a Supreme Court powerhouse. One of the concerns Obama Hopium guzzlers are whining about is the lost influence of Justice Stevens on his fellow Justices:

“As if Justice Kennedy did not wield enough influence on the Supreme Court’s decisions already, SCOTUSBlog’s Lyle Denniston explains why Justice Stevens’ retirement is likely to increase the swing justice’s effect on the Court. This is so for two reasons. First, Justice Stevens’ retirment means there are only two justices on the Court with seniority over Justice Kennedy — Scalia and the Chief Justice. As a consequence, Justice Kennedy will be the assigning justice more often than in the past, particularly where he joins the Court’s liberal justices and the conservatives dissent. Second, Justice Stevens was particularly effective at wooing Justice Kennedy — and could use his power to assign majority opinions to himself or Justice Kennedy — to keep Justice Kennedy on board in close cases. In Justice Stevens’ absence, it’s not clear what other justice can play this role. As Denniston explains, “There is, at present, no other member of the Court’s liberal bloc likely to match Stevens’ ability to persuade a sometimes-reluctant Kennedy to join with that bloc in a closely divided case. If Kennedy is to vote for liberal outcomes, it may well have to be more of a personal choice than it has seemed to be up to now.” This is significant because in cases like Boumediene and Massachusetts v. EPA, it appears that Justice Stevens was able to sway Justice Kennedy to forge a liberal majority.”

Zac could easily “woo” Justice Kennedy into whatever position Zac wants him to take. Who could tell Zac “no”?

Of course the Obama Hopium guzzlers will squirm a bit because they want to live in their fantasy land of shipping Hillary Clinton off to the Supreme Court and try to bury her there. This concern is increased of late as Obama’s polls go flaccid (Gallup today has Obama sinking again. Bill Clinton must be chortling about his expectations setting ‘Obama’s numbers will go up 10’ after the scam is passed.)

No one will oppose Zac! Not even Maureen Dowd who today admitted:

“I, too, belonged to an inbred and wealthy men’s club cloistered behind walls and disdaining modernity.

I, too, remained part of an autocratic society that repressed women and ignored their progress in the secular world.”

Garbage scow Dowd is talking about her religion, not the New York Times, but even this inbred wealthy men’s club cloistered clown will be full of glee! with Zac on the High Court. Dowd might even heighten her interest in briefs with Zac on the Court.

Foreign policy experts who have never left their back yards and who believe that Hillary Clinton “has no base to keep, her political years [are] now behind her” will surely join garbage scow Dowd and jump on the Zac pack. These publicity craving armchair “experts” are upset with Hillary Clinton because she is making clear that Obama does not know what he is talking about – but they’ll forget all about that with Zac on the Court.

Hillary Clinton’s statement today, making a mockery of Obama’s ludicrous weak-knee bowing positions have upset the garbage scow experts. Hillary Clinton made it clear: “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.” Treaty parchment becomes toilet paper.

You betcha! Hillary Clinton has always upset the Hopium guzzlers with blunt talk and clear warnings of lines that must not be crossed. Hillary Clinton warned Iran once and told Iran’s nuts they faced “obliteration”. Today Hillary Clinton told the world, “ignore the clod behind the curtain… if you attack us, all bets are off” – ignore whatever the boob says for self aggrandizement and to make more crowd pleasing noises.

Zac will make the garbage scows and armchair foreign policy “experts” (those with nothing better to do than attend lectures and panels populated with panels of others who attend lectures and panels) forget war, peace, hunger, and health.

Zac Efron can unite us all. And he’s young and wealthy, the most important qualities for Obama Hopium guzzlers.

Just imagine a 22 yaar old Zac Efron on the court! Zac would be on the court for another sixty years at least! What a legacy for Obama! A 22 year old celebrity with zero experience in law – with zero judgment or credentials on legal matters – on the nation’s highest court – that would be Obama’s perfect, most revealing legacy.


88 thoughts on “Zac Efron For The Supreme Court

  1. Admin: great article, but I can’t get the video to work. I did see a couple of words and I could see Hillary squirming in her seat…she must of wanted to say something!

    Everyone seems to gripe about Hillary on this treaty but look Gates is saying the very same thing and he’s a republican so how do you explain that one??

    Gates does seem to promote Obama’s ideas also, so I think we must remember he and Hillary are employees of this administration and can only go so far in what they say. I do like it that they always seem to appear together.

  2. says, I hope that Wednesday morning is all warm and sunshiny. I will meet Marco Rubio at a nearby City Hall to have coffe and donuts; and we get to talk to him evidently. If I get a chance I will ask him to clarify the report that he will not allow The Tea Parties to vette him.

    Zac woud be some kind of eye candy I must admit. And us females could ‘mother’ him into beinng an excellent represenative for our country.

    Run, Hillary, Run! Meanwhile, we will soldier on. And Hillary thank you for your contributions and sacrifice for our country. I love you, Hillary.

  3. “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.”

    Love this! But won’t the White House have a fit that she said something contradicting Obama? Or this the White House backing down from what was said earlier?

  4. Great pick admin. Zac’s a little hottie. I’m sure he’ll be able to persuade Kennedy to see things our way. Maybe he can turn him into a liberal. My vote is for Zac.

  5. Question: is this what foreign policy is supposed to be about? Sending counterintuitive messages to friends and enemies which subordinates then retract under the guise of clarification. Does anybody have a problem with this? Hell, maybe he is right. If you cannot be strong, at least be unpredictable in the virtual world you live in.

    1. Iraq Withdrawal:

    a. Obama says we will withdraw in 18 months!!!

    b. then the public outcry about tipping our hand to al Qaeda

    c. then Gibsie says the date the withdrawal date is firm!!!

    c. then Gates and Hillary appear on Sunday talk show and say it depends on conditions on the ground.

    2. Nuclear self restraint

    a. Obama says we will never use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear nation regardless of provocation.

    b. then the public outcry–what if they use biological weapons?

    c. then Gibsie gives a presser and says I know him, he means it.

    d. then Gates and Hillary appear on Sunday talk show and say if they use bio weapons against us all bets are off.

    We are getting the same story now with this we will never use nuclear weapons against a nation that does not have them regardless of provocation,

  6. Ron Paul speaks truth to Republicans (and Democrats) at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference: “The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist. . [H]e’s not a socialist. He’s a corporatist. And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country. We see it in the financial institutions, we see it in the military-industrial complex. And now we see it in the medical-industrial complex.”

    Haven’t verified this quote.

  7. It’s just like a kid whose folks have to pick up after him. He should listen to Gates and Hillary. Whoever is giving him advice doesn’t have a clue.

  8. It does seem like Hillary and Gates have to come on TV and splain things everytime he opens his mouth and inserts foot. Where the idiot Gibbs comes in is beyond my grade level to figure out. I think Gibbs is like Bagdad Bob…he tries to repeat what Obama says…its crazy…but I am glad we have Gates and Hillary and they seem to get along!

  9. As you say Hennie, there is reason to distrust whatever TPM says because they ceded their bona fides to Obama long ago. It is not a case of trust but verify. It is a case of distrust but check it out. It is a true statement and I hope Ron did say it. The reason I doubt it is because to say this at a Republican convention would mark him as the skeleton at the feast. But I could be convinced otherwise if I heard it from a credible source.

  10. I’ve not seen it anywhere else. And I don’t trust them either. The primaries gave me a whole different outlook on life.

  11. the IRS wouldn’t be hiring thousands of new employees as the enforcement arm for HC premium payments if the HCTax was to be struck down.


    Last I heard people were complaining that the IRS was NOT going to hire all those new enforcers after all; it had been taken out of the final? bill. Then someone very sensibly posted (probably admin) that there was no point in hiring enforcers/collectors till some arrears accrue.

    Also perhaps imo by not hiring them now, their wages will not be counted in the bill’s costs.

  12. Who’s 0bamas real pick going to be? I’m thinking someone to the right of Zac. 0bama doesn’t want a fight so whoever it is, they won’t be pro choice.

  13. #
    April 11th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
    Last I heard people were complaining that the IRS was NOT going to hire all those new enforcers after all; it had been taken out of the final? bill. Then someone very sensibly posted (probably admin) that there was no point in hiring enforcers/collectors till some arrears accrue.

    Also perhaps imo by not hiring them now, their wages will not be counted in the bill’s costs.

    Turndown- it’s good form to post a link to your claim
    when you opine a contrary scenario…otherwise, your word alone carries very little weight.

  14. Turndown: this report reads pretty solid to me… unless your hanging your hat on the last two paragraphs?

    IRS looking to hire thousands of tax agents to enforce health care laws

    By Jonathan Strong – The Daily Caller

    Published: 03/22/10 | Updated: 03/24/10

    Top IRS officials have been working with Democrats on Capitol Hill to determine how the agency will enforce President Obama’s new health care law. Republican lawmakers estimate the legislation will require the hiring of many thousands of new tax enforcement agents.

    While it’s still not known exactly how many will be hired,

    I believe, this is the salient piece in this article-

    here’s what’s clear: Under the new law, the IRS is required to fine taxpayers thousands of dollars if they do not purchase health insurance. In order for the government to enforce compliance, tax authorities will need information, for the first time, about people’s health care. Collecting that data will require more IRS personnel.

    Consider what has happened in Massachusetts, which passed a similar health care bill in 2006. To enforce the individual mandate, the state’s Department of Revenue asks filers what kind of insurance they have, as well as details like whether their “sincerely held religious beliefs” are moving them to petition for an exemption from the requirement.

    The form also asks workers whether their employer gives them “affordable” coverage, forcing some employees to decide between tattling on their workplace and submitting false information to tax agents.

    Critics have slammed the new federal mandate for its harsh consequences (failing to buy health insurance could land you in jail) and have raised constitutional questions about its legality. And they point to the Obama administration’s recent efforts to ramp up IRS audits, especially of small businesses, as evidence that the mandate is likely to prove more onerous than previously thought.

    The Obama administration’s plan to increase audits is in line with a long-term agency goal of ending the “tax gap,” bureaucratizes for the amount of uncollected taxes each year. In 2001, the IRS estimated the gap at around $300 billion.

    Critics call the agency’s estimates dubious and fear the tax agency will overreach in its efforts under Obama, who launched a tax task force last year in part with the goal of collecting more revenue.

    A July 2009 report from the agency says the IRS is going to “increase audit coverage and better target returns for examination” including focusing on Schedule C audits that often target small businesses and the self-employed.

    The document also says tax agents will share details with state enforcement agencies to increase enforcement efficiency.

    To examine more Americans’ tax filings, Obama is proposing more money for the agency. His latest budget proposes “over $8 billion in the Internal Revenue Service’s enforcement and modernization programs” to support “significant new revenue-generating initiatives that will target critical areas of non-compliance.”

    The administration’s plans are exacerbating concerns of some critics with the health care bill’s mandate, in part because it will require a veritable new army of enforcement agents.

    A March 18 report from House Ways & Means Committee Republicans estimates the IRS will need to hire between 11,800 and 16,500 new agents to enforce the bill.

    The report slams the bill’s “plans to grant massive new powers to the IRS, backed up by billions of dollars in additional taxpayer fund for the hiring of thousands of new IRS agents, examiners, and other personnel.”

    It would take them four years to hire the requisite personel need for collections. The whole idea of IRS enforcement is Tax Liens on your property which will eventually eat up any equity you may have in your property forcing a Tax Sale.

  15. admin
    April 11th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
    Thanks admin. That video is pretty explicit. The proposition no longer rests on the credibility of Josh Marshall. We hear it right from the horse’s mouth. It confirms the theory I have believed in pretty much from the beginning. Obama is a corportist–or what I call a globalist. These are the people whom he serves him. This is what Walter Cronkite meant when he said there is an elite in this country who are the heads of finance and commerce and they so manipulate democracy that they control democracy. And that is the hard point of the matter for all those adoring progressives. They got snookered. Still they worship him devoutly. They must be masochists.

  16. Can Obama do anything right? Obviously, he was dithering like he always does. He is scared of Putin. Everything is screwed up. At least Hillary got something out through an undersecretary of state. There must be some heavy duty disagreements going on with the Chicago crew + Power vs. Hillary, Mullin and Gates. As for Obama he is in his usual vegetative state when it comes to governing and is looking out to the horizon for someplace he can get away from the problems, and let Telebama do the thinking for him.

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
    Sunday, April 11th at 9:43PM EDT

    Remember back during the 2008 campaign Hillary Clinton ran that ad asking who you’d want to be in the White House when the “3 a.m. phone call” came?

    3 hours after midnight Eastern time this past Saturday, that 3 a.m. phone call came. The President of Poland, his wife, major government and military leaders, and others all died in a horrible plane crash in Russia.

    In Europe, the rumor is rampant, without any evidence, that Vladimir Putin was behind it. The confirmed story is that the Russian military repeatedly tried to persuade the Polish pilot to divert his craft due to zero visibility. The pilot, given the ceremony the Polish delegation was headed to, which commemorated the slaughter of thousands of Poles by the Soviets in World War II, refused. The plane hit trees on landing and all died.

    CNN has updated their story repeated. When I looked at it at 9:46 a.m. ET on Saturday morning, something very odd stood out.

    British Prime Minister Gordon Brown had released a statement.

    French President NIcholas Sarkozy had released a statement.

    An American Undersecretary of State for Public Affairs had released a statement.

    Sometime after that the White House released its statement (note: I’m told in an email the statement was actually released earlier, but still after sunrise). The White House blog had nothing at all until 12:48 p.m. ET.

    This shouldn’t be a partisan point. I am genuinely curious. Why the delay? Did the President sleep through the 3 a.m. phone call? If you think it is unfair to ask, just imagine if it were George W. Bush.

    Category: Barack Obama

  17. I can pretty much guarantee you that the biggest thing on Obama’s mind is not the welfare of the country, or the success of our foreign policy but what Sarah said about him. She really gets under his skin and I think her voice is a perfect weapon against him for that purpose.

  18. Kitty Kelly’s book on Oprah will make news no matter what Oprah tries to do to shut it down. The New York Times has the first protect Oprah article on the book:

    “Kitty Kelley’s name will not be showing up on any of Oprah Winfrey’s lists of her favorite things. Here’s one reason: If Ms. Kelley’s cage-match Winfrey biography is to be believed, Ms. Winfrey has begged to learn the identity and background of her biological father. Her relatives won’t tell her. But on July 30, 2007, Ms. Kelley pried it out of one of them. This coup, the only real “Gotcha!” in Ms. Kelley’s “Oprah,” is the kind of reportorial discovery on which Ms. Kelley has built her giant-killer reputation.

    In a rare show of discretion, Ms. Kelley claims to be keeping this secret from the world until Ms. Winfrey can extract it firsthand from her mother, Vernita Lee. It’s far more typical of Ms. Kelley to dish about how Ms. Lee can’t get her famous daughter on the phone. She also quotes Vernon Winfrey, who raised the future mogul and media queen as his daughter, as having said, “I need her show like a hog needs a holiday.”

    Since Ms. Kelley is well aware that there is such a thing as Oprah omertà — and that it is why unauthorized Winfrey books (like one proposed by Mr. Winfrey) don’t ordinarily get written, let alone published — she is eager to appear authoritative about her research and reporting. How else to explain the photograph of Vernon Winfrey whispering into Ms. Kelley’s ear as proof that he talked to her?

    She may be admired by the world, but I know the truth,” Mr. Winfrey told Ms. Kelley. “So does God and so does Oprah. Two of us remain ashamed.” [snip]

    The larger problem with Ms. Kelley’s reportorial Cuisinart is that its mash-up of Winfrey voices is so disjointed. The circumstances of a conversation shape what is said, especially with someone who can affect as many different personae — high, low, black, not so black, tearful, bullying, tawdry, lofty — as Ms. Winfrey can. But it’s never clear here to whom Ms. Winfrey was talking unless she was conducting an interview with, say, Michael Jackson. Her ability to ask questions like “Why do you always grab your crotch?” has helped make her whatever she is today, even if Ms. Kelley cannot explain why Ms. Winfrey is so enduringly popular. After some hollow authorial claims of respect and admiration, “Oprah” just aims for the jugular. It doesn’t draw blood.

    Perhaps it’s too late for a Winfrey tell-all. She has already said way too much about herself, to the point that this book abounds in gruesome displays of vanity. (“I really like me, I really do.” “When you mention great actresses, you’ll have to say my name.” “I know people really really love me, love me, love me.”) Her devotees are probably too loyal to enjoy Ms. Kelley’s mean streak. (A landscape gardener tells Ms. Kelley that Oprah, “the poor thing,” got too fat to use the pool at her Indiana farm for fear of being photographed by paparazzi.)

    Some of the best-known parts of her story, like the dieting, have literally been discussed ad nauseam. And why would lengthy rehashes of well-known embarrassments (e.g. the James Frey/“A Million Little Pieces” flap) be interesting? Ms. Kelley simply replays the televised version. She has nothing new to add to these stories.

    Nor does she know, for those who care, about the real nature of Ms. Winfrey’s close friendship with Gayle King and tenuous engagement to Stedman Graham. Without new information, she resorts to reprinting blind gossip-column items that suggest any and all of the above may be gay, unless of course they aren’t. The book’s use of innuendo and indirection is apparent in its index, which has only four entries under women: “African American,” “film studios owned by,” “subordination of” and “lipstick lesbians.”

    In terms of sexual insight Ms. Kelley is left trying to extrapolate about the adult woman’s proclivities from the 40-year-old story of Ms. Winfrey’s having given birth to a baby at the age of 15. (The child lived for only a few weeks and might have been raised by Vernon and his wife had he survived.) And when it comes to gleaning wisdom from the tabloid topics that have appeared on Ms. Winfrey’s sleazier shows, Ms. Kelley doesn’t do more than list them. As a glimpse of talk show history, “Oprah” does illustrate how the braver and classier Phil Donahue was eventually rendered obsolete by bottom-feeding competitors like Ms. Winfrey and Jerry Springer.

    How did Ms. Winfrey leap from asking porn stars whether they got sore (during her early talk show career) to the grande dame status she enjoys today? Here Ms. Kelley does have something useful to impart: She knows a thing or two about diva behavior. So she describes Ms. Winfrey’s allusion to Kennedy family members as her “relatives.” She catalogs the loot at lavish Winfrey parties. She ticks off financial research even when it’s meaningless (records show that a researcher and a freelancer in Ms. Winfrey’s employ each contributed $250 to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, perhaps at their boss’s behest) and tsk-tsks about the vast sums thrown by Ms. Winfrey at her girls’ school in South Africa, where the staff was poorly vetted but the thread count on the dormitory sheets was a matter of record.

    When did Ms. Winfrey swan into the V.I.P. room in the Twilight Zone? Perhaps when she began talking about herself in the third person. (“Oprah does not walk.” “Oprah does not do stairs.”) Perhaps when a television show staff member began kneeling to put the star’s shoes on her. Perhaps when she first had a bathtub molded to fit her body. “I think I’m just becoming more of myself,” Ms. Kelley quotes her as having said — to someone, sometime, somewhere — “which is better than anybody can imagine.”

  19. Obama’s Viet Nam–
    Poison swirls around Hamid Karzai and Barack Obama
    The Afghan president fears an apparent media campaign to discredit him is a prelude to America abandoning his country

    Afghan President Hamid Karzai arrives at 10 Downing Street
    IMAGE :1 of 2
    Christina Lamb in Washington
    RECOMMEND? (19)

    When Hamid Karzai started presenting the victims of British bombings in Helmand with medals commemorating Wazir Akbar Khan, one of the victors of the first Anglo-Afghan war, someone should, perhaps, have wondered which side Afghanistan’s president was really on.

    That was in 2006 when he was furious that the British had demanded the removal of Sher Mohammad Akhundzada as governor of Helmand after finding opium in his office. Karzai still insists this move prompted a resurgence of the Taliban.

    At the time British officials consoled themselves that he was angry over the bombing of civilians by US forces but could not risk alienating his main backer. Whether or not they were right, there is little love lost now between the presidential palace in Kabul and the White House.

    If you commit 100,000 troops to a war, as President Barack Obama will soon have done, you do not want as your partner someone who says that you may be trying to poison him, who flirts with your enemy and threatens to join the very people you are fighting.

    Afghan president to block Nato offensive
    White House looks to freeze out Hamid Karzai
    America has now lost more than 1,000 lives in Afghanistan and is spending $73 billion there this year. After showing footage last week of Karzai lambasting the West, American talk-show host Jon Stewart spluttered in indignation. “I think the words he was looking for [were] thank you,” he said.

    From the start Karzai has not known what to make of Obama but he believes the US president did not want him to win re-election last August. He reacted to a recent White House snub by inviting to Kabul President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, who gave a fiery anti-American speech.

    Karzai has seen himself described as “mad” and “paranoid” in the US media, which have also carried reports that America wants to put his brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, an alleged drug dealer, on a death list.

    Peter Galbraith, a former United Nations official, even intimated Karzai was using drugs. “He’s prone to tirades,” Galbraith said. “In fact, some palace insiders say that he has a certain fondness for some of Afghanistan’s most profitable exports.”

    How on earth has this happened? I have known Karzai for 23 years and while he is erratic, with mood swings, he is not mad. He is an extremely proud Afghan, answering to a nation that has defeated all its occupiers and which does not trust the Americans, having been abandoned by them before.

    Appeasing both the international community and his own Pashtun tribe, which bears the brunt of fighting in southern and eastern Afghanistan, is a balancing act for which he may not be sufficiently skilled.

    Since he is isolated behind high walls and seven layers of security in a palace where many of his predecessors were murdered, it is hardly surprising if he is paranoid.

    Sycophantic courtiers feed him rumour and a daily digest of the foreign press with anything negative highlighted in yellow.

    Unlike President George W Bush, who called Karzai his buddy and held monthly video conferences with him, Obama has distanced himself. He made his first visit to Kabul as president last week, flying for 26 hours to give Karzai a 25-minute lecture on corruption.

    The Karzai family has now hit back, accusing US officials of launching a smear campaign as a prelude to abandoning the country again. “There’s a very bad policy developing towards Afghanistan,” said the president’s brother Mahmoud Karzai, a businessman who lives in Kabul. “They want to discredit the Afghan government in the eyes of the US public. I hope it’s not the beginning of an exit strategy. If it is, God help us, it will be very bad — don’t they remember what happened when they did this before in the Eighties?”

    Mahmoud believes the tension goes back to before last summer’s elections. “There was a clear push by a group of US politicians to really hurt him.”

    He particularly blames Galbraith, who was then the deputy UN representative, and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. “They made statements which were really outrageous,” he said. “On the second day of counting, before the results were even known, they said it would go to a second round.

    “Ever since there has been a push to undermine the Afghan government. I don’t understand. I see right now the Taliban at the fence. If we continue the good work, the Taliban will be defeated, but if we continue in this way they will not.”

    He was incensed by Galbraith’s suggestion that the president was on drugs. “My brother has never smoked a cigarette in his life,” he said. “He doesn’t drink or gamble. For people to make such a ridiculous attack is outrageous.

    “We worry that taking sides with certain countries might be the agenda,” Mahmoud added. “Mr Holbrooke is very close to Pakistan.”

    The biggest sticking point is Ahmed Wali, who runs the family interests in Kandahar and is believed to be a drug dealer. US officials have reportedly said he must be removed before a battle for control of the province.

    “They say he is a drug dealer but we’ve never been shown any evidence,” Mahmoud said. “The idea that Ahmed Wali should be removed is generated by those who want to hand over Kandahar to the Taliban.”

    As for the Afghan president’s reported threat to join the Taliban if the West kept attacking him, Mahmoud said: “It’s impossible. The Taliban would not allow him.” It is often forgotten that Karzai was once the Taliban’s chief fundraiser.

    The argument may come down to differences over how to deal with the Taliban. Like the British, Karzai thinks negotiations should start now. The Americans want a military victory first. This will be the main topic of discussion when Karzai visits Washington next month.

    Germans bemoan poor kit

    German troops are complaining that they are unable to fight in Afghanistan because of poor training and a lack of proper equipment, writes Bojan Pancevski.

    After the deaths of three German soldiers and five Afghan police officers killed by friendly fire last weekend, officers have blamed a shortage of weapons, ammunition, vehicles and helicopters for low morale.

    Their spotter drones, needed for surveillance, could not take off in the heat. The new NH90 multi-role helicopters have proved “inappropriate”, as they lack space for machineguns.

    Unlike most other Nato troops, the Germans are flying large quantities of alcohol to their Afghan bases. Annual shipments have reached 1.8m pints of beer and 70,000 litres of wine, according to defence ministry figures.

  20. It looks like Karzai only trusts Hillary and it looked liked Hillary somewhat trusted Karzai. Obama just needs to stay out of it, he screws everything up. I don’t think Hillary or Gates will let this be another Vietnam. Those two actually lived thru that war…they won’t let it happen.

  21. They just couldn’t wake the poor man up for a gruesome plane crash…afterall he’s had trouble sleeping…he needed his beautyrest and he foresure had jetlag since he just got back from Russia that morning….poor baby was too exhausted to wake up for the 3am phone call.

  22. Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post is sure Obama will move the court to the right (wonder how the PINOs will react to that truth):

    Here is an unsettling thought for those who waited eight years for a Democratic president to make judicial appointments: Barack Obama could well end his first term with a more conservative Supreme Court than the one he inherited.

    First, the president’s only nominee so far, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, has not even finished her first term. Where she will turn out to be on the ideological spectrum in comparison to the justice she replaced, David Souter, is unknown. My best judgment: It’s a wash.

    Second, the accuracy of this conjecture will depend hugely on whom the president selects to fill the vacancy.

    Finally, as the examples of Souter (named by President George H.W. Bush) and Stevens (selected by President Gerald Ford) demonstrate, predictions about a new justice’s performance can make weather forecasting look like an exact science.

    Nonetheless, it’s entirely possible that a more conservative court could turn out to be Obama’s paradoxical legacy — particularly if he only serves a single term. The likelihood of the court shifting to the right is greater than that of its moving leftward.[snip]

    But there’s little in Obama’s record as president to suggest that he would expend enormous capital to secure the most liberal possible justice. From the point of view of liberal groups, Obama’s nominees for the lower federal courts have been, overall, disappointingly moderate.

    In selecting Sotomayor, Obama acted less with an eye to ideology than to ethnicity; the selection does not offer much of a clue of what the president is looking for, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, in future justices. The conservative howling about Sotomayor’s alleged radicalism has as little basis in reality as its parallel assertions about Obama.

    As Tom Goldstein of ScotusBlog put it after analyzing Sotomayor’s appellate record, “Our surveys of her opinions put her in essentially the same ideological position as Justice Souter.” From her conduct on the bench so far, there’s no reason to change that assessment.

    By contrast, it’s likely, although not certain, that a Stevens replacement will be more conservative than the justice himself. If so, this would be largely in line with history. In an interview with Jeffrey Rosen for the New York Times Magazine in 2007, Stevens noted, “Including myself, every judge who’s been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell [chosen by Richard Nixon in 1971] has been more conservative than his or her predecessor.” Stevens excepted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who replaced the more conservative Byron White.

    In any event, Stevens’s replacement is almost certain not to be as influential a player on the left as the departing justice. As the court’s senior associate justice, Stevens spoke immediately after the chief justice during the court’s discussion of cases; he had the power to assign opinions and some influence with swing justices such as Kennedy, and, before her departure, Sandra Day O’Connor.[snip]

    But my prediction stands: The court that convenes on the first Monday in October is apt to be more conservative than the one we have now.

    The Big Blog boys have no one to blame but themselves.

  23. America’s daytime talk-show queen is going nocturnal

    Oprah Link

    Oprah Winfrey plans to announce Thursday that she will host an evening show on her new cable network. The aptly named “Oprah’s Next Chapter,” an hour long show, will probably debut late next year.

    Ms. Winfrey’s new show, which could air as many as two or three times a week, will take Ms. Winfrey out of the studio setting that has been her home for nearly 25 years and follow her around the globe for conversations in places such as Egypt and China. “I’m going to take viewers with me, going to take celebrities I want to interview with me” around the world, Ms. Winfrey said in an interview.

    more at Oprah Link.

    Unless, this switch to night-time is a vehicle for Oprah’s grandly touted New Age Church. Her lips are zipped on that score. I hope Kitty Kelley has a handle on Oprah’s Church..

    Today, I read a caveat (which I posted) in the IRS enforcement chronicles regarding Religion as a reason to be excused from paying a hefty fine imposed by Obama’s HCR Bill.

    Bet Oprah will be the rotund savior extending her chubby fingers out to those choosing to join her New Age Church, rather than pay the price for refusing Obamacare.

    If this is the eventual outcome. Citizens treated like cattle directed into a chute, first in a group traveling clockwise, then squeezed into single file for their final journey to their death. I do not have good vibes about Oprah… She is up to no good.

  24. I agree…she is as fraudulent as the fraud…gee I wonder if their kin??? SHe don’t know who her daddy is either…THey can all move to Copenhaugen and cry in the maryjane the rest of their lives and leave us alone!

  25. The elites are not proud of Soros. They see him as crude, vulgar and craving the limelight. Their version of Crazy Joey Gallo in the old Profaci (Columbo) crime family.

    The elites shun the spotlight, and recoil from the monicker of The Man Who Broke the Bank of England in 1992, and precipitated the Asian Crash in 1997. But that is what Soros is known for and he wears it like a badge of honor.

    The elites will precipitate crashes themselves. They need volatility to make money. But they want to do it quietly and with no finger prints. That is not Soros’ thing. He is loud and boisterous.

    But with or without Soros, the elites still have a problem. It is one thing to trigger a market high–they do that through coodinated action. But they cannot predict a market low–nobody can.

    If you go back to 1929 you find that the elites were out of the market before the crash just as they were in the 2008 crash. Where they lost their money was they could not predict a low, so they got back in too early.

  26. I disagree with Marcus. The candidate he appoints will have a statist orientation (like Stevens had) and will have an expansive view of the Constitution rather than one based on the original intent. To me that is not conservative. What Marcus means to say is the nominee will be pro big business, and pro big government. Ruth should stick to astrology.

  27. Citizen Wells has got a video of the Land Minister in Kenya saying Obama was born in country..its really quiet interesting…I doubt it will be enough to make the naisayers believe it…this guys name is Orengo and Obama’s cousin ran against him and Barack campaigned for him…this guy should know.

  28. Curiosity got me, I went to see all the hoopla Tayor Marsh wrote about Hillary…she has gone off the deep end…now she and Obama need some Prozac!

  29. This shouldn’t be a partisan point. I am genuinely curious. Why the delay? Did the President sleep through the 3 a.m. phone call? If you think it is unfair to ask, just imagine if it were George W. Bush.
    NO. Just imagine if it were Hillary R. Clinton!!!

  30. Mrs. Smith
    April 11th, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    1. Getting a REAL health care bill through would be a major accomplishment, whenever such a bill might be passed. This was a health INSURANCE reform bill, and a terrible one at that.

    2. Tweaking??? If you call burning the whole bill, and starting over, but leaving two or three original words in place, then fine, call that “tweaking”. The bill was horribly crafted.

    3. Framework in place??? Again, if you want consider that a piece of legistlation with the word “health” in it was recently signed, and want to consider it a framework, go for it. Otherwise, the bad bill is a terrible foundation to build upon.
    Mrs Smith, I couldn’t disagree more… “tweek” a 2000 paged disaster by replacing a few “and’s” and “the’s”?

  31. Re IRS not authorized in the HC bill to fully enforce the mandate (ie not hiring all the new IRS personnell immediately), cites were posted here at the time (late March iirc).

  32. All of a sudden Senator (Americans don’t mind a little porkulus) Schumer is worried about extra fees
    MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer
    ALBANY, N.Y. – U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer said Sunday he’s trying to get the federal government to prohibit airlines from charging a fee for carry-on baggage, calling it a slap in the face to travelers. The New York Democrat is making a personal plea to the Treasury Department to rule that carry-on bags are a necessity for travel, which would make them exempt from a separate fee outside the ticket price. “Airline passengers have always had the right to bring a carry-on bag without having to worry about getting nickeled and dimed by an airline company,” Schumer said. “This latest fee is a slap in the face to travelers.”
    Schumer said carry-on bags often contain medications and other necessities, particularly for families. Carry-on fees artificially avoid higher ticket prices and the taxes applied to tickets, Schumer said.

    The fee, however, is legal. The first airline to try it, Spirit Airlines, announced last week it would charge up to $45 for a carry-on, but that it was also reducing the cost of most tickets by $40. Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza has said having fewer carry-on bags will help empty the plane faster, and the fee is intended to get customers to pay for individual things they want, while keeping the base fare low. Charging for checked bags but not carry-ons also means many passengers lug as much as they can onto planes.
    There was no immediate comment Friday from the Treasury Department, which would handle the case because it’s considered a tax issue.
    Schumer wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner seek to end what Schumer calls a loophole in law that allows the fees. Without action by Treasury, Schumer said he will introduce legislation.

  33. Good morning all: Well the Fox’s Den let loose it.s threepack of Hyenas just now and started their day with evil attacks on Hillary and what she said on her three interviews Sunday.They campared her comments with what she said while campaigning and comments now as SoS.What a sad bunch of douche bags they employ.I think the threat that faces this country is the over zealous greedy scumbag congress peoplthat run all over the world spend millions of our money just to keep their names in the news and raise campaign funds while avoidin questions from the
    people that pay their bills.Folks “Remember in November.

  34. Now I am going to slip in a log one but it is all about Hillary and her amazing knowledge of world politics.I believe that Kentucky was the opening salvo for her closely held plans for her next WH run.


    Dipnote – Offical Blog of the U.S. State Dept.

    Support To Stabilize Kyrgyzstan
    Secretary Clinton Remarks on Nuclear Nonproliferation at University of Louisville
    New START Treaty and Protocol
    U.S. Nuclear Posture Review
    Haiti International Donors’ Conference Press Availability
    International Donors’ Conference Toward New Future for Haiti
    International Women of Courage Awards
    Support To Stabilize Kyrgyzstan

    Posted: 10 Apr 2010 10:55 AM PDT

    Secretary Clinton spoke by telephone with the Head of the Provisional Government of People’s Trust (Kyrgyz Republic) Ms. Roza Otunbayeva. Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley provided a readout of the phone call:

    “Secretary Clinton spoke to Ms. Roza Otunbayeva to support the efforts of the Kyrgyz administration to resolve peacefully Kyrgyzstan’s current political problems and renew Kyrgyzstan’s path to democracy, economic prosperity and respect for human rights. The Secretary offered continued humanitarian assistance and United States support for Kyrgyz efforts to stabilize their political and economic situation. The Secretary spoke about regional security and the important role Kyrgyzstan plays in hosting the Transit Center at the Manas Airport. Ms. Otunbayeva confirmed the Kyrgyz administration will abide by previous agreements regarding the Center. The Secretary is dispatching Assistant Secretary Robert Blake out to Kyrgyzstan to follow up on her discussion.”

    Secretary Clinton Remarks on Nuclear Nonproliferation at University of Louisville

    Posted: 08 Apr 2010 07:39 PM PDT

    Update: Read the transcript of the Secretary’s remarks here.

    Secretary Clinton delivers remarks entitled “No Greater Danger: Protecting our Nation and Allies from Nuclear Terrorism and Nuclear Proliferation” at the University of Louisville as part of the McConnell Center’s Spring Lecture Series on Friday, April 9 at 3:30 p.m. The remarks will be carried live on and here on DipNote.

    New START Treaty and Protocol

    Posted: 08 Apr 2010 08:47 AM PDT

    More on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)

    Earlier today, President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia signed the New START Treaty and its protocol. Following the signing, President Obama said:

    “[T]his day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia — the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — to pursue responsible global leadership. Together, we are keeping our commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which must be the foundation for global non-proliferation.

    “While the New START treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer journey. As I said last year in Prague, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. And going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with Russia on reducing both our strategic and tactical weapons, including non-deployed weapons.

    “President Medvedev and I have also agreed to expand our discussions on missile defense. This will include regular exchanges of information about our threat assessments, as well as the completion of a joint assessment of emerging ballistic missiles. And as these assessments are completed, I look forward to launching a serious dialogue about Russian-American cooperation on missile defense.

    “But nuclear weapons are not simply an issue for the United States and Russia — they threaten the common security of all nations. A nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is a danger to people everywhere — from Moscow to New York; from the cities of Europe to South Asia. So next week, 47 nations will come together in Washington to discuss concrete steps that can be taken to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years.

    “And the spread of nuclear weapons to more states is also an unacceptable risk to global security — raising the specter of arms races from the Middle East to East Asia. Earlier this week, the United States formally changed our policy to make it clear that those [non]-nuclear weapons states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and their non-proliferation obligations will not be threatened by America’s nuclear arsenal. This demonstrates, once more, America’s commitment to the NPT as a cornerstone of our security strategy. Those nations that follow the rules will find greater security and opportunity. Those nations that refuse to meet their obligations will be isolated, and denied the opportunity that comes with international recognition.

    “That includes accountability for those that break the rules — otherwise the NPT is just words on a page. That’s why the United States and Russia are part of a coalition of nations insisting that the Islamic Republic of Iran face consequences, because they have continually failed to meet their obligations. We are working together at the United Nations Security Council to pass strong sanctions on Iran. And we will not tolerate actions that flout the NPT, risk an arms race in a vital region, and threaten the credibility of the international community and our collective security.”

    Read more on the The White House Blog.

    Related Entry: Secretary Clinton Outlines Nuclear Security Strategy in International Op-Ed

    U.S. Nuclear Posture Review

    Posted: 06 Apr 2010 06:53 AM PDT

    Update: Read the transcript of the event here. Learn more from DOD.

    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Admiral Mike Mullen will conduct a press briefing on the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Tuesday, April 6, 2010. Watch live here on DipNote and

    Haiti International Donors’ Conference Press Availability

    Posted: 31 Mar 2010 01:51 PM PDT

    Update: Read a transcript of remarks after the Haiti Donors’ Conference here.

    The United States, in cooperation with the Government of Haiti, joined the United Nations in co-hosting a ministerial-level International Donors’ Conference Towards a New Future for Haiti on March 31, 2010, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. Watch a live broadcast of a press availability with Secretary Clinton and other leaders participating in the conference today at 5:30 p.m. (EDT).

    International Donors’ Conference Toward New Future for Haiti

    Posted: 30 Mar 2010 09:20 PM PDT

    Update: Watch video of the event here.

    Watch the opening of the International Donors’ Conference live at 9:00 a.m. (EDT) here on DipNote and

    The United States, in cooperation with the Government of Haiti, will join the United Nations in co-hosting a ministerial-level International Donors’ Conference Towards a New Future for Haiti on March 31, 2010, at UN Headquarters in New York. After the outpouring of global support for the immediate needs of the people and Government of Haiti following the devastating earthquake on January 12, attention is now turning to the longer-term recovery and reconstruction needs of the country, even while the relief effort continues.

    The International Donors’ Conference will be an opportunity for the international community to pledge new financial assistance to help Haiti rebuild, and to mobilize a truly global and sustained international effort to partner with Haiti. The Conference will focus on pledges of assistance for recovery and development, as distinct from the humanitarian assistance so generously provided by over 140 donors so far.

    Priorities for assistance will be set by the Government of Haiti, which will present its strategy for recovery based on input from a Post-Disaster Needs Assessment led by the Government with the joint support of the United Nations, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Commission, and major donors.

    The United States is pleased to be partnering with the United Nations in this effort in the interests of mobilizing a truly global response on behalf of Haiti.

    Read more about the conference here.

    International Women of Courage Awards

    Posted: 09 Mar 2010 06:59 PM PST

    Update: Watch video of the awards ceremony here.

    About the Author: Ruth Bennett serves as the Public Affairs Advisor for the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI).

    First Lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton host the annual International Women of Courage Awards on March 10, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. EST at the Department of State. You may watch the ceremony broadcast here on DipNote or

    To mark International Women’s Day, the annual International Women of Courage Award recognizes women around the globe who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for human rights and women’s advancement. This is the only Department of State award that pays tribute to emerging women leaders worldwide, and offers a unique opportunity to recognize those who work in the field of human rights and international women’s issues.

    Secretary Clinton announced the 10 winners of this year’s International Women of Courage (IWOC) award. The awardees are: Shukria Asil (Afghanistan), Col. Shafiqa Quraishi (Afghanistan), Androula Henriques (Cyprus), Sonia Pierre (Dominican Republic), Shadi Sadr (Iran), Ann Njogu (Kenya), Dr. Lee Ae-ran (Republic of Korea), Jansila Majeed (Sri Lanka), Sister Marie Claude Naddaf (Syria), and Jestina Mukoko (Zimbabwe).

    Read more about the honorees here.

    You are subscribed to email updates from Dipnote – U.S. Department of State Official Blog
    To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google
    Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

  35. Every morning I hit the keyboard and hillryis44 fearful of what damage the clueless Otrauma has
    created around the world and watch his downward slide in the polls at home and abroad.He never stops giving

  36. WTF happened to Taylor Marsh? What a total a**hole! “There is, however, no longer any excuse for Sect. Clinton, as she has no base to keep, her political years now behind her.” What on earth is she talking about? She is absolutely the only Democrat with standing who HAS a natural base or two, or three. Honestly, where does that woman get off? And, she’s the fool who supported Reagan for crissakes. Maybe the Obama people are paying her off to bash Hillary to her supporters because many people who visit her dreadful little site were Hillary supporters.

  37. This is off topic, but I needed a little levity and so might you. A colleague of mine made biscuits for her family and her husband suggested that she ask HIS mother how to make biscuits; the colleague said, he will NEVER get anything but thwack biscuits from me every again; if he wants biscuits he can go to his mother. Oh, what a dread mistake that husband made. The following is a little poem about just that kind of behavior:
    He didn’t like the casserole
    And he didn’t like my cake,
    He said my biscuits were too hard
    Not like his mother used to make.
    I didn’t perk the coffee right … See More
    He didn’t like the stew,
    I didn’t mend his socks
    The way his mother used to do.
    I pondered for an answer
    I was looking for a clue..
    Then I turned around and
    smacked the shit out of him…
    Like his mother used to do.
    The END

  38. Taylor Marsh was the pits long long long ago; not to be trusted so why pump up her numbers online? She was for Hillary before she was against her.

  39. Taylor Marsh just had a bad day. I’ve been reading her over the past couple of months (she blocked me from the blog in September 08) and she’s really down on o and thinks Hillary’s career is over. You must forgive her for that last bit, because I, too, think Hillary will not get into elective politics again, just out of realism. I think we’re all trying desperately to read presidential hopes into Hillary’s every word. Personally, I don’t think it will happen – no “window of opportunity” for her.

  40. I hate to tell you how many times I have made a case on paper which seemed brilliant to me at least and turned out to be 100% wrong. I could list you many reasons why Hillary will not run again beginning with the fact that the party rejected her for Obama, the Obama people called her a racist and African Americans believed those lies (don’t tell me they didn’t), the Chicago group now controls the party down to the grass roots, democrats have shown themselves to be cowards when it comes to challenging him when he harms the country, she will be worn out by the end of this tenure, she is playing a losing hand in foreign policy because her boss is perceived as weak and American Power is in decline with our armed forces overstretched and out credit status perilous. She has tied herself to Obama both in the general election and now as he misgoverns the country and has left no daylight. And all of that leads to one inexorable conclusion: no political future.

    But change the assumptions. Suppose the party is routed in 2010. Suppose his single alleged accomplishment bites the dust for one reason or another. Suppose economic conditions deteriorate. Suppose there is a nuclear incident. Suppose this recession becomes a full fledged depression. Suppose the electorate learns from its mistakes. Suppose the Obama people over reach. Suppose she steps aside after Chelsie’s wedding. Suppose Obama loses the confidence of the elites who put him in there. In that case, there she is. And then those fuck sticks in the media could pivot–a word they have fallen in love with of late, and could say aren’t we great–we had the first AA president who had no experience and now we have the first woman president and she has experience, and just like we in big media have always said experience matters. Far be it from us to sell the sizzle not the steak.

    So it still gets down to the issue of timing. When he fucks up royally, when the powers that be come to their senses that 4 more years with this nincoop will destroy the country, and they do not want the rethugs to win. To me, the real question is==has always been does she want it now. And I have no idea on that one. As for Taylor, what you are hearing is a form of buyers remorse. This is the trouble with being a brand buyer and now doing a rigorous analysis. Sooner of later the party will slip you a lulu–in this case a descendant of the glorious lulu tribe who practice sharia law.

    What I intend to do is stay the course on the assumption that an opening will occur and along the way I will do what friends should do. Praise when they do is right, and caution when what they do is wrong–in my opinion, which is always fallible. But the highest goal–higher than any politician is the welfare of this country. I support Hillary because I believe she is uniquely qualified in terms of experience, judgment and intellect to lead this nation in a time of crisis, and no one else on the horizon really is, least of all that incompetent boob who is bivouacked at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue–for now.

  41. All I can say is that if Hillary is really out of politics…I am not going to continue my interest in politics as there are no interesting folks out there…how could she be out of politics??? She is the same age a Mittens…and he is an eternal candidate even though he’s been beaten over and over…I don’t know how old Newt is but she’s no older than him…so why is everyone talking about her f(*C king age….she is NOT to damn old!

  42. Freaking boring, but smart Newt is already 65, so why the hell is Hillary too damn old??? Why cause she’s a woman and we don’t want to watch her age on TV….total BS!!!

    WTH happened that you all apparently know about her career that I don’t!

  43. ditto
    but can we not talk about her age as a detriment???That really makes me mad when they say she’ll be too old and put forth names like Mittens and Newt….Mittens born 3/47 and Newt born in 1943…then they are too old…I remember that Fu^%wad Mathews saying he did not want to watch her age on TV…._____him!

  44. Am I just hearing that Hillary’s name on Fox is in the running for the freaking supreme court…oh hell no…she is going to be Potus

  45. I only heard this partially…Fox is trying to get a comment from Hillary now…I just can’t believe this…

    Admin did you hear this???

  46. Well, wbboei, I’m always willing to change the assumptions, and I might add one piece of optimism to yours: There were almost 80 million Americans (I get the figure from 2008 exit polls) who were still willing to vote for Hillary 5 months after she was no longer a candidate, and 25-30 million PUMAs who were hard core, felt as strongly pro-Hillary as they were anti-o, and later tilted into the Tea Party. There are also many people in politics and the media who pay very close attention to everything she says and does, much closer attention than they pay to o’s teleprompter. So, if the window does open as you say, the support is there and unwavering.

    But I think she would have to be drafted. She’s looking tired and has already said that the SoS job is very time-consuming, and the president’s job is even more time-consuming. I think she’s looking forward to a retirement job in teaching. I don’t think she’s priming up for a window of opportunity.

    As for Taylor, I’m just asking that we not be so hard on her. She didn’t desert Hillary, she followed her: She supported o as Hillary did, and willingly voted for o by listening to his platform. After all, anyone who listened to o and took his words seriously would have thought he wasn’t much different from Hillary. But since o’s inauguration, TM has found many things to criticize about o, and considers him to be pretty lame. “He’s the problem” is a direct quote from her. She’s really down on him, which brings her back into our ranks.

  47. April 12, 2010 9:37 AM
    Orrin Hatch Names Hillary Clinton as Possible Supreme Court Nominee
    Posted by Stephanie Condon 19 comments .


    “I even heard the name Hillary Clinton today, and that would be an interesting person in the mix,” Hatch said on NBC’s “Today Show.”

    The senator said he would not pre-judge whether any potential nominee would be an appropriate candidate to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, but he had general praise for the secretary of state.

    “I happen to like Hillary Clinton, I think she’s done agood job for the Democrats — Secretary of State’s position,” Hatch said, “and I have high respect for her, and think a great deal of her.”

    Hatch said the confirmation process for President Obama’s nominee could go smoothly.

    “If the president picks somebody who is clearly qualified, there is no question we can get that person through in a relatively short period of time,” he said. “On the other hand, if he picks an activist judge… we ought to do everything in our power to defeat that person.”

    The short list of potential nominees is said to include Federal Appellate Judge Diane Wood, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Federal Judge Merrick Garland

  48. gonzotx
    April 12th, 2010 at 4:44 am

    Mrs. Smith
    April 11th, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Hello gonzotx… sorry for my failure to respond in the last thread.. Anyway…

    Well, tweaking might be too weak a word for what I meant. Words like delete pages 202 through 1,099 are a possibility and is commonplace before the final bill is signed and put into the archives. Nevertheless, the foundation and framework would remain just as it did when Social Security and the original version of Medicare were voted on and amended thereafter as far as I know-

    April 12th, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Re IRS not authorized in the HC bill to fully enforce the mandate (ie not hiring all the new IRS personnell immediately), cites were posted here at the time (late March iirc).

    Turndown, it’s your claim you need to find. I have no idea what you’re about. I have enough to do in my own Baileywick.


    Funny- Good one and applicable in many ways.


    Food for thought. Obama is left handed and the oldest of two children. The odds of a first born being Left handed are almost nil. Did Stanley Dunham bear another child or does Obama have a twin brother or sister?

  49. So this is what the demoness meant when she said Hillary would be right there when the first women Potus would be inaugurated…I just had this feeling…that Hillary was going to be nominated! I am sick about this!

  50. Here’s a question for some of you folks that lean to the right a little…why is Orin Hatch saying he likes Hillary and she would make an interesting nominee…why?

  51. “The odds of a first born being Left handed are almost nil”

    Where did you get this little bit of trivia? My elder brother is left-handed and I’m right-handed. Is there something odd to that?

  52. Gonzotx, Was commenting on my statement about Oprah…I think its a joke as my statement was! It’s like “who’s the daddy”!

  53. As if on cue:

    Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, one of the top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Monday morning that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court.

    “I even heard the name Hillary Clinton today, and that would be an interesting person in the mix,” Hatch said on NBC’s “Today Show.”

    The senator said he would not pre-judge whether any potential nominee would be an appropriate candidate to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, but he had general praise for the secretary of state.

    “I happen to like Hillary Clinton, I think she’s done agood job for the Democrats — Secretary of State’s position,” Hatch said, “and I have high respect for her, and think a great deal of her.”

  54. Admin: I don’t understand that “as if on cue”. Do you this might be for real or are the republicans trying to feel her out to see if she’s running again??

    While I know Hillary would be a great Scotus, especially if Obama can run of the head and make Hillary the head of it. I think they have been hinting all weekend about it…they want someone persuasive with the republicans on the court.

  55. Confloyd, by “as if on cue” we referenced the desire of the Hopium guzzlers to ship Hillary off to the Court for burial.

  56. wbboei
    April 12th, 2010 at 11:06 am

    wbb – I agree with you. For Hillary to get the ticket in 2012, there will have to be devasting losses for Dems in 2010 and the economy still weak in 2011. The other possibility is for Hillary to be VP in 12 and get the ticket in 2016. But then she would have to run on O’s record.

    If Hillary thinks both are long shots, she will take the SCOTUS. She will game this just as we all are and she has better info and better counsel.

    It will break my heart, but if she decides there is no way she is going to be POTUS, I would rather see her on the court rather than be a professor or a university president. Let history be the judge of her character, record, and potential.

    She is the only person capable of moving the court to the left that can be confirmed by the senate.

  57. mj, is there a typo in your recent post? Taylor Marsh talked about always being a Democrat. Did she really ever support Reagan? She did switch from Hillary to Obama at a critical time in spring 2008 and then was very abusive to Pumas though they were originally strong members of her site.

  58. The FOX den And its mercenary motley human telepromters spouting the fair and balanced garbage does not want to report the news they want to shape the news.They fear Hillary and need Otrauma to do their dirty work for them.This country needs Hillary ASAP.

  59. I was a little worried when I started reading this post with the Zac video. Thought maybe I had landed on Hillbuzz site by accident, but then continued to read and got the point.
    Hillary Clinton’s statement today, making a mockery of Obama’s ludicrous weak-knee bowing positions have upset the garbage scow experts. Hillary Clinton made it clear: “If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off.” Treaty parchment becomes toilet paper.

    You betcha! Hillary Clinton has always upset the Hopium guzzlers with blunt talk and clear warnings of lines that must not be crossed. Hillary Clinton warned Iran once and told Iran’s nuts they faced “obliteration”. Today Hillary Clinton told the world, “ignore the clod behind the curtain… if you attack us, all bets are off” – ignore whatever the boob says for self aggrandizement and to make more crowd pleasing noises.

    This is my favorite part of the post and it tempted me to put my rose colored glasses back on and wonder if this whole Hell Care Bill fiasco could turn into another Karma moment for Hillary?

    We all know that the Universal Health Care plan Hillary would have developed would have been better than this dirty, stinking diaper the Fraud has laid on all of us, but we also have to realize the Repugs would be screaming at Hillary for any health care bill she passed, in much the same way…screaming she is a ‘socialist’ taking us down the road to Armageddon.

    Well, since the Fraud created this version of a payoff to big Pharma, insurance industries and his corp. donors, who would be better to put in as the next President to straighten it all out and make a good health care plan.

    For all of those that think that Hillary will resign from politics after her SOS job is finished…why would Hillary be speaking out so clearly against the Fraud’s policies as the Admin pointed out in this piece?

    Hillary isn’t finished in politics, not by a long shot!!
    Like us, she isn’t willing to shut up and sit down.

    Go Hillary, go!!!!

  60. #
    April 12th, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    “The odds of a first born being Left handed are almost nil”

    Where did you get this little bit of trivia? My elder brother is left-handed and I’m right-handed. Is there something odd to that?

    In my childhood memory, my Nana used to carry on about this when she noticed someone was left handed. The inquisition would begin thusly. Do you have an older sibling? No? Has your mother miscarried before you were born or was there an older child that died at an early age? As kids, we were mortified Nana was asking such personal probing questions eliciting the weirdest looks on woman’s faces. I honestly don’t know when this old wives tale came about but Nana beamed with mystery and authority when she coaxed the information of a previous birth, a child given up for adoption, or the death of a premature infant out of the woman as she turned to us saying: “See, I told you so”…

    Current information strongly refutes this analysis as any way relevant in the interests of accuracy. 🙂

  61. As for Taylor, I’m just asking that we not be so hard on her. She did’t desert Hillary, she followed her: She supported o as Hillary did, and willingly voted for o by listening to his platform. After all, anyone who listened to o and took his words seriously would have thought he wasn’t much different from Hillary. But since o’s inauguration, TM has found many things to criticize about o, and considers him to be pretty lame. “He’s the problem” is a direct quote from her. She’s really down on him, which brings her back into our ranks.

    Jesus! Why would ANYONE read ANYTHING TM writes? She has no standing and just goes with the prevailing wind. You all know she was in the sex trade business in the past, right…and a traitor to Hillary. I woulds say she has no ovarian fortitude, but that would be giving her too much credit I think. I left her looong ago. Loser comes to mind… She has no insights worth my time…

  62. I am not going to worry about this Scotus thing today as this could be just a ploy the republicans are trying to pull off. I also think that the insurance industry doesn’t want Hillary to run and they really, really helped Obama get elected so he could get this sham of a healthcare giveaway thru, so the republicans who got what they really wanted, want to make sure its not changed. They know Hillary would change it.

  63. Turndownobama said:
    Re IRS not authorized in the HC bill to fully enforce the mandate (ie not hiring all the new IRS personnell immediately), cites were posted here at the time (late March iirc).

    Mrs. Smith said:
    Turndown, it’s your claim you need to find. I have no idea what you’re about.


    Turndown says:
    When cites have been posted once and the subject thoroughly discussed, and Admin weighed in … perhaps someone else remembers key words to find the discussion/cites again, if you missed it.

    Here are some of the main points: someone at another blog complained that the final HC bill gave the IRS insufficient authorization to fully enforce the mandate, and that turned out correct. Others said fuller enforcement could come later. (The outside blogger thought the insurance companies would be ruined. Admin said the insurance companies didn’t need 100% compliance and future IRS administrators will be friendly to the insurance companies; and she praised a poster at the other blog.)

    The only searchable terms I can remember are ‘ham’ and ‘yanked.’ 😉

    At any rate, the point is that the IRS is not hiring all these enforcers immediately — for reasons that may have nothing to do with any expectation of the HC bill being overturned.

  64. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, one of the top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Monday morning that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been mentioned as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court.

    The freakin’ Repugs would like nothing better than the blogging basement O’boyz to put Hillary in a burqua and toss her in the Supreme Court.

    The Repugs and the lame Kool-aid drinkers are all scared $hitless of Hillary because she makes them all look incompetent.

    She will not take the job on the Supreme Court, I bet my first born on that.

  65. “After all, anyone who listened to o and took his words seriously would have thought he wasn’t much different from Hillary.”

    I all for forgiving Taylor Marsh.

    However, let’s not start making up stuff to do so. Obama and Hillary Clinton are nothing alike. Obama is an inexperienced, corporatist hack and sellout, demonstrably underqualified, a fraud, and in over his head.

    That does not describe Hillary Clinton in the least. Not even close.

    As for Taylor Marsh, well, it’s easy to criticize after the fact. When we needed her on the microphone criticizing Obama, she was defending him and slamming HIS critics.

    Now that’s she’s come around, good for her. But please let’s not pretend like she wasn’t the one who was wrong in the first place.

  66. In RE: jeswezey and ‘can we not be so hard on Taylor Marsh.’

    Not just no, but HELL no. Taylor is a traitor to Hillary and to Hillary’s supporters.
    What Taylor Marsh did to Hillary and Hillary supporters is UN-frigging-forgivable!!!

    I honestly believe that people like Orrin Hatch do respect and admire Hillary,though they might be in opposing parties. Leaders throughout the world admire, respect and love our girl. She made friends out of enemies [right wing conspriacy guy, can’t recall his name] and worked across the asile innumerable times. After Obummer’s inauguration, the contrast of good and evil is stark between him and Hillary.
    It crosses my mind often about her statement that she decided she could do more good working ‘inside’ than ‘outside’ the system, and I believe that is what she is doing now. She would make a great Supreme Court Judge, but it is beneath her skill level.

    Run, Hillary, Run!!!!!!! Your country needs you! Meanwhile, I soldier on.

  67. DefiantOne
    April 12th, 2010 at 1:50 pm


    Taylor Marsh was well aware of the differences between Obama and Hillary. She fought FOR Hillary till late in the primary, with much good detailed material about Obama’s faults. (Much of it supplied by people like me, and others who formed Bitterpolitics when Taylor threw us out.)

    If Taylor wants to apologize to PUMAs then I might consider reading her again. But she’s erratic, irascible. She jumps in anger, does not even read comments properly.

Comments are closed.