Worse Than A Dog – Backstabber Obama Takes The Money And Runs

Update: Corruption takes a hit Richard Daley announces he won’t run for reelection. Rahm Emanuel sees a way out of the sinking White House. Even in Chicago the people are gathering the pitchforks. Rahm better watch out.

——————————————————————————————————

Post Labor Day – We’re now in full blown campaign season. No more excuses of “it’s too early”. For Barack Obama and his Dimocrats “it’s too late”. Today we will mostly discuss all that money Barack Obama has left over from his 2008 campaign along with the backstabbing by Obama we learned about this weekend.

If you want dog commentary you’ll have to read this past weekends comments section to get the “full Monty” (and never-before-on-this-site videos of dogs and puppies) on Obama’s self-pitying attempt to get his former supporters back on board. Obama whined that nameless persons “talk about me like a dog” in order to hook his rabid but slowly detoxing fan club of Hopium Guzzlers to flash back to that old cult feeling and vote in November and “win one for the simper“.

Of course one can’t rule out Obama doing a Nixon (again). The psychologically damaged Nixon signed a letter to his mother as “your faithful dog”. Perhaps Obama is turning openly and dramatically into Richard Nixon’s sweaty upper lip.



What Obama said however, was an insult to dogs because dogs are “loyal, honorable, reliable“. Obama is much worse than a dog. Case in point – money.

* * * * * *

As Jeswezey pointed out in the comments. Obama has tons of money left over from his 2008 campaign. “That could go a long way, but he’ll keep that for himself in 2012.”

Perhaps Obama won’t run in 2012. Obama might keep all that cash for himself and pay Michelle a bag full. Federal law is so porous and has many fig leaves which Obama could use to keep himself on duty free vacations for years.

Obama has tons of money he can donate to Dimocrats this November (an estimated $30 million). Obama Dimocrats face death, doom, and destruction this November. Obama Dimocrats better start to yell “SHOW ME THE MONEY BARACK!”

In January 2009 Obama donated a paltry 3.5 million of his stash in order to pay off some campaign debt from the DCCC. But what about now? Obama Dimocrats are in trouble. They need money. Barack “SHOW ME THE MONEY!”

But the money story is only part of the back stabbing which is Barack Obama’s treachery. Recall all the stories about Obama assuring Dimocrats in congress to give him what he wanted and he would save them when the time came? Remember how he promised to campaign for them? He said he would not sleep in order to help them win. Money was promised. All the help in the world was promised.

Remember the Obama Death Threat? It was “You Got Me”: In our continuing series “Mistake In ’08” we quoted from an article called “The Clinton Voters Jump Ship“:

“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.”

If you remember all those promises from Barack Obama you will also remember how “Barack Obama threatens to withdraw support from wavering Democrats – Barack Obama has said he will not campaign for any Democratic congressmen who fails to support health care reform” That’s right, in March 2010 Barack Obama made threats against those who opposed his demands:

“The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill.

A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.

Mr Obama’s threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.”

Obama promised to help those who voted for his scams and to punish those who did not vote for his scams. But watch your backs Dimocrats, Obama’s in town and never has our mantra been so true:

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

The proof of the Obama treachery came this past weekend in the New York Times:

DEMOCRATS PLAN POLITICAL TRIAGE TO RETAIN HOUSE

As Democrats brace for a November wave that threatens their control of the House, party leaders are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority.

In the next two weeks, Democratic leaders will review new polls and other data that show whether vulnerable incumbents have a path to victory. If not, the party is poised to redirect money to concentrate on trying to protect up to two dozen lawmakers who appear to be in the strongest position to fend off their challengers.

“We are going to have to win these races one by one,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, conceding that the party would ultimately cut loose members who had not gained ground.”

What happened to those promises of support from Obama? Apparently the only criterion to get money now is whether or not you can win. If you are a, hated by the DailyKooks, Bluedog and it looks like you might win you will get money. If you are a liberal/progressive and in trouble – no soup for you. If you opposed Obama but it looks like you might win, you’ll get money. If you voted down the line with Barack Obama but you are in trouble, you are also out of luck because treacherous Obama cannot be trusted to keep his word.

No one is disputing the obvious need for “triage” by Obama’s sad band of Dimocrats. They are about to lose big so they will cannibalize each other. But what about those Obama promises and threats? “Obama cannot be trusted by friend nor foe.”

Obama simply cannot be trusted:

“With the midterm campaign entering its final two months, Democrats acknowledged that several races could quickly move out of their reach, including re-election bids by Reps. Betsy Markey of Colorado, Tom Perriello of Virginia, Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio and Frank Kratovil Jr. of Maryland, whose districts were among the 55 Democrats won from Republicans in the last two election cycles.

Reps. John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, chairman of the Budget Committee, and Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota, who is seeking a 10th term, are among senior Democrats who have appeared to gain little ground in the summer months in the toxic political environment. A sputtering economy and discontent with Washington have created a high sense of voter unease that has also put control of the Senate in question.”

To hell with the Mary Jo Kilroy’s who voted for Barack Obama’s interests and not the interests of their constituents. They are about to be stabbed in the back by a long Chicago knife. And it gets worse. Barack Obama has tens of millions in campaign loot, but instead of Obama giving money, it will be the suckers made to cough it up:

“To hold the line against Republicans, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, issued an urgent plea for members in safe districts to help their endangered colleagues by contributing money. She called out to Democrats who were delinquent on paying their party dues and instructed members with no re-election worries to tap into a combined $218 million from their campaign accounts to help save their majority.

“We need to know your commitment,” Pelosi wrote to lawmakers last week in a private letter, demanding that they call her within 72 hours to explain how they plan to help.

She added, “The day after the election, we do not want to have any regrets.“[snip]

The sharp messages underscore the decreasing array of options facing Democrats as they try to overcome the party’s declining standing. It is an open question whether voters will find the back-and-forth exchanges persuasive or whether some have reached the point where they are no longer listening to Democratic messages[snip].

While several Democratic candidates have more money in the bank than their rivals, Democrats fear that outside Republican advocacy groups will step in and fill the gap. They are watching to see if interest groups and other constituencies increase their donations to Republicans in the hopes of winning access and influence should the House change hands.”

What about Barack Obama’s tens of millions of dollars? “SHOW ME THE MONEY BARACK!”

Republicans are raising money for Republicans/ Barack Obama has cash but won’t cough it up. “SHOW ME THE MONEY BARACK!” The Republicans are doing right by their candidates:

“While Democrats have all but given up hope that the political or economic climate will improve substantially before the election, they are not conceding control of the House. Several party leaders and strategists privately acknowledge that about 20 seats are already probably lost, but they believe they can build a fire wall around seats in the Northeast and in other pockets across the country where Republicans have nominated untested candidates.

The battle is boiling down to a question of mathematics and difficult decisions for Democrats. By the best-case Democratic calculation, party strategists believe that Republicans must beat about 35 sitting Democrats if the parties split 16 highly-competitive open seats and Democrats win four of five Republican seats they see as within their reach in Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois and Louisiana.[snip]

In 2008, there was this sense of hope and this sense of being able to change the world,” said Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio. “A lot of that enthusiasm doesn’t exist now, and I think a lot of that is a result of having been in a recession for two years.”

Good-bye Zack, you’re about to be launched into outer Space. You believed Barack Obama and now you will suffer the consequences. Ohio is about to turn deep red and Zack and Mary Joe along with Paula Brooks and the rest of the wannabees are about to drown in the wave.

As Wbboei explains:

As you study the polls you realize that he lacks both the will and the capacity to help you survive, you regret your support for him and you do not want to be seen in his presence on the campaign trail because he is a lightening rod, and you are the one who will be electrocuted.[snip]

And they [sic] you get the call from some staff worm who works for Van Hollen who tells you sorry Charlie, the party is over, you aint gonna win, so for the good of Obama, Pelosi and your beloved party fork over all your money so you can save the democrats we have decided to save. You on the other and are expendable.”

There was no “Recovery Summer” even though Barack Obama promised one. Now Obama Dimocrats will experience a “Republican Recovery”.



Obama Dimocrats you killed the party of FDR. Now, you will die.

“Republicans are heading into the final weeks of the midterm campaign with the political climate highly in their favor, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Americans are increasingly frustrated by a lack of economic progress, deeply dissatisfied with the federal government and critical of President Obama’s leadership.

For the first time in more than four years, Republicans run about evenly with Democrats on the basic question of which party they trust to handle the nation’s biggest problems. Among registered voters, 40 percent say they have more confidence in Democrats and 38 percent say they have more trust in Republicans. Three months ago, Democrats had a 12-point advantage.

On the economy, 43 percent of voters side with Republicans when it comes to dealing with financial problems, while 39 percent favor Democrats. (Fifteen percent say they trust neither party more.) Although not a significant lead for Republicans, this marks the first time they have had any numerical edge on the economy dating to 2002. In recent years, Democrats have typically held double-digit advantages on the issue.”

There’s lots of good news for Republicans in the Washington Post/ABC News poll. But most of the data pales in significance to this finding:

“Among all voters, 47 percent say they would back the Republican in their congressional district if the election were held now, while 45 percent would vote for the Democrat. Any GOP advantage on this question has been rare in past years – and among those most likely to vote this fall, the Republican advantage swells to 53 percent to the Democrats’ 40 percent.”



It is the likely voters that matter now, not registered voters. And 53% to 40% spells death, doom, and destruction to Obama Dimocrats about to be drowned in the coming wave. Today, post Labor Day, the coming wave is as official as it gets. It is most definitely a wave we crave.

Barack Obama spent Labor Day pushing schemes that have no chance of enactment and blaming the opposition. (And today Obama’s former guy, Peter Orzag, has come out for keeping the Bush tax cuts which demonstrates Obama and his crew don’t know what they have done or what they are doing or what they will do.) Obama whined about being called a dog but that is so unfair to dogs:

“If by “like a dog” Obama means that every one year of his presidency feels like seven, I’m forced to agree with him. Otherwise it’s a little insulting, if for no other reason than that there are many breeds of dogs that could run the country at a lower unemployment rate.


Obama is clueless. Krauthammer does a funny:

“This is another example of this administration acting for the appearance of activity. It doesn’t have a clue what to do. It just threw a half a trillion dollars at the first stimulus. As we saw earlier in the show, almost 60% of Americans believe it did absolutely nothing. And they have no ideas. The economy is still in a ditch so they come up with a mini-stimulus… I like the way the president announces we hear this is going to be a six-year plan. Even Lenin had the modesty to stop at five.



Obama has tons of money to donate to those he promised to help and protect if only they would vote for him. But Obama won’t produce on his promises. Obama is treacherous.

Obama is worse than a dog. We’ve known that for quite some while now. Obama Dimocrats are about to find out how much worse than a dog Obama is.

Share

154 thoughts on “Worse Than A Dog – Backstabber Obama Takes The Money And Runs

  1. The rats are leaving the Titanic. Richard Daley of Chicago won’t run for reelection. Even in Chicago the people are fed up.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11576748

    Chicago Mayor Richard Daley says he will not run for re-election, saying it is time to move on.

    Rahm Emanuel is sure to see that as his abandon Obama cue. Will corrupt Chicago accept Rahm?

  2. Then why should we recognize the Palestinians?

    Both Jordan and Egypt as well are struggling with this. Jordan because they are afraid that the Palestinians will take land from them (as should have been done from the start) and Egypt because the government is weak and doesn’t want to offend its Arab neighbors.

    This peace process is doomed already.

  3. Speaking of treachery here is something (from National Enquirer which is more reliable than most Big Media outlets) which was bought to our attention this weekend:

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/caroline_kennedy_obama_clinton_war/celebrity/69282

    CAROLINE KENNEDY is so ticked off at the OBAMAs she coldly snubbed them during the family’s recent vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, sources tell The ENQUIRER.

    After working hard to elect President Obama, Caroline was widely expected to host the first family at her sprawling Red Gate Farm on the island, as the Kennedys did the Clintons when they were in the White House.

    Instead, when the Obamas recently relaxed on Martha’s Vineyard, they ended up renting the same place as last year, Blue Heron Farm in the town of Chilmark.

    Caroline’s blatant cold-shoulder treatment is evidence of the bad blood that has developed between the former close friends, say Kennedy family insiders.

    Caroline, 52, is still bitter over the fact that President Obama has refused to make her part of his inner circle of advisers or to give her a plum appointment in his administration, maintained the friend.

    “She feels that he just hasn’t been appreciative enough, especially after she and her family’s endorsement was key in helping him win the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton.

    “It was a real personal sacrifice. In so doing, she wrecked her relationship with the Clintons, who up till then had been close with the Kennedys.”

    For the full story you won’t find anywhere else – pick up the new ENQUIRER – still on sale.

    We were reminded of the story by a funny post by the Hillbuzz boys on the same topic.
    http://hillbuzz.org/2010/09/07/hrh-princess-caroline-of-kennedy-apparently-threw-a-tantrum-the-obamas-didnt-vacation-at-her-make-believe-farm/#comments

  4. Hia Guys,

    Hope all’s well. Had to post up when I spotted this one. I thought Mr. Populism actually got off a halfway decent line the other day, until I found out that – of course – it was plaguerized, this time from Jimi Hendrix (sorry if this was discussed elsewhere).

    STONE FREE

    EVERYDAY IN THE WEEK I’M IN A DIFFERENT CITY
    IF I STAY TOO LONG PEOPLE TRY TO PULL ME DOWN

    THEY TALK ABOUT ME LIKE A DOG

    TALKIN’ ABOUT THE CLOTHES I WEAR
    BUT THEY DON’T REALIZE THEY’RE THE ONES WHO’S SQUARE
    HEY! AND THAT’S WHY
    YOU CAN’T HOLD ME DOWN
    I DON’T WANT TO BE DOWN I GOTTA MOVE

    STONE FREE DO WHAT I PLEASE
    STONE FREE TO RIDE THE BREEZE
    STONE FREE I CAN’T STAY
    I GOT TO GOT TO GOT TO GET AWAY

  5. We’re certainly not fans of Jeffrey Goldberg, but today he reports that Fidel Castro is slapping Ahmadinejad:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/09/fidel-to-ahmadinejad-stop-slandering-the-jews/62566/

    Castro opened our initial meeting by telling me that he read the recent Atlantic article carefully, and that it confirmed his view that Israel and America were moving precipitously and gratuitously toward confrontation with Iran. This interpretation was not surprising, of course: Castro is the grandfather of global anti-Americanism, and he has been a severe critic of Israel. His message to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, he said, was simple: Israel will only have security if it gives up its nuclear arsenal, and the rest of the world’s nuclear powers will only have security if they, too, give up their weapons. Global and simultaneous nuclear disarmament is, of course, a worthy goal, but it is not, in the short term, realistic.

    Castro’s message to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, was not so abstract, however. Over the course of this first, five-hour discussion, Castro repeatedly returned to his excoriation of anti-Semitism. He criticized Ahmadinejad for denying the Holocaust and explained why the Iranian government would better serve the cause of peace by acknowledging the “unique” history of anti-Semitism and trying to understand why Israelis fear for their existence.

    He began this discussion by describing his own, first encounters with anti-Semitism, as a small boy. “I remember when I was a boy – a long time ago – when I was five or six years old and I lived in the countryside,” he said, “and I remember Good Friday. What was the atmosphere a child breathed? `Be quiet, God is dead.’ God died every year between Thursday and Saturday of Holy Week, and it made a profound impression on everyone. What happened? They would say, `The Jews killed God.’ They blamed the Jews for killing God! Do you realize this?”

    He went on, “Well, I didn’t know what a Jew was. I knew of a bird that was a called a ‘Jew,’ and so for me the Jews were those birds. These birds had big noses. I don’t even know why they were called that. That’s what I remember. This is how ignorant the entire population was.”

    He said the Iranian government should understand the consequences of theological anti-Semitism. “This went on for maybe two thousand years,” he said. “I don’t think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything.” The Iranian government should understand that the Jews “were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God. In my judgment here’s what happened to them: Reverse selection. What’s reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation.” He continued: “The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust.” I asked him if he would tell Ahmadinejad what he was telling me. “I am saying this so you can communicate it,” he answered.

    Castro went on to analyze the conflict between Israel and Iran. He said he understood Iranian fears of Israeli-American aggression and he added that, in his view, American sanctions and Israeli threats will not dissuade the Iranian leadership from pursuing nuclear weapons. “This problem is not going to get resolved, because the Iranians are not going to back down in the face of threats. That’s my opinion,” he said. He then noted that, unlike Cuba, Iran is a “profoundly religious country,” and he said that religious leaders are less apt to compromise. He noted that even secular Cuba has resisted various American demands over the past 50 years.

    We returned repeatedly in this first conversation to Castro’s fear that a confrontation between the West and Iran could escalate into a nuclear conflict. “The Iranian capacity to inflict damage is not appreciated,” he said. “Men think they can control themselves but Obama could overreact and a gradual escalation could become a nuclear war.” I asked him if this fear was informed by his own experiences during the 1962 missile crisis, when the Soviet Union and the U.S. nearly went to war other over the presence of nuclear-tipped missiles in Cuba (missiles installed at the invitation, of course, of Fidel Castro). I mentioned to Castro the letter he wrote to Khruschev, the Soviet premier, at the height of the crisis, in which he recommended that the Soviets consider launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. if the Americans attack Cuba. “That would be the time to think about liquidating such a danger forever through a legal right of self-defense,” Castro wrote at the time.

    I asked him, “At a certain point it seemed logical for you to recommend that the Soviets bomb the U.S. Does what you recommended still seem logical now?” He answered: “After I’ve seen what I’ve seen, and knowing what I know now, it wasn’t worth it all.”

  6. Fabulous as always, admin! Yep, he is not to be trusted. We tried to tell them so. As for Princess Caroline: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Put that in your Camelot pipe and smoke it, you preening privileged little Miss Veruca Salt. Daddy isn’t getting you an Oompa Loompah, no matter how much you stamp your feet.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9obgyYB1IU

  7. Caroline identified with Obama. Ghost written tomes, a screwed family, social advancement based upon nothing they ever did themselves, being told how smart they were when just sitting there like rocks are all things Caroline saw in herself and immediately felt common cause with. Too bad O double crossed her like he has everyone else in his creepy little climber life. Now the Clinton’s wouldn’t spit on her if she was on fire. He played you Caroline. You dumb bunny.

  8. How about one of these double crossed fools fidgeting under the bus spilling the beans? They must know a thing or two, no?

  9. I received the following email today. If they think that this is some kind of encouragement to give, they are seriously deranged. Besides, I wouldn’t do “that” to my friends.

    What could possibly be better than winning a trip to New York City? How about an unforgettable tourist trip to New York City? Start by taking a boat tour to see the Statue of Liberty and the breathtaking Manhattan skyline, then it’s off to a reception to meet and get your photo taken with President Obama!

    This trip will be a once-in-a-lifetime event for one lucky person and a friend. This isn’t just a quick getaway to the Big Apple. This is a getaway capped off with an event you’ll never forget – a reception with the president. You’ll even get your photo taken together.

    Click here to enter for a chance to meet and have your photo taken with President Obama. We’ll pay for airfare and a hotel. All you’ll have to do is choose a friend to tag along!

    This event comes at a crucial time. GOP-aligned third-party groups are planning on spending up to a whopping $400 million on the midterm elections – we’ve seen what Karl Rove is doing to Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold. Their singular goal is to win control of Congress and make President Obama fail. We’re fighting back, but we need your help.

    Somebody is going to meet President Obama. It could be you, but not if you don’t enter.

    Click here to enter for a chance to meet and have your photo taken with President Obama. We’ll pay for airfare and a hotel. All you’ll have to do is choose a friend to tag along!

    A trip to New York, where you’ll meet President Obama? What could possibly top that? Enter today, and good luck!

    Sincerely,

    J.B. Poersch

  10. I also received this from that nasty hag in California. I responded with a quick “Kiss my arse, you f’ing, lying, manipulating windbag”. Now I know that she doesn’t get this message directly, but I sure hope someone reads the responses, and that they are mostly similar to mine.

    XXXXX —

    In politics, Labor Day is traditionally marked as the start of election season. That means today is the first working day of the fall campaign.

    This is when your grassroots contributions have the greatest possible impact. The Republicans are pooling their resources for another wave of attack ads — and we must have the resources to counter this onslaught.

    My strategists at the DCCC are preparing to launch their first major round of television advertising. We know the Republicans will be running in 9 more districts by Sunday.

    The truth is we know when we have the resources to get our message out and turn out the vote — Democrats win. That’s why I need your urgent help to raise $500,000 for our Emergency Rapid Response fund before Friday’s media buy deadline.

    Every dollar can mean the difference between victory and defeat on Election Day.

    Contribute $5, $10 or more before Midnight Friday to fund critical make-or-break advertising for Democrats.

    We simply cannot afford to fall behind just as the fall campaign begins in earnest.

    I am more confident than ever that we will retain our Democratic House Majority, so long as we stand together in these final weeks. Our next wave of advertising could help secure Democrats who are being faced with an onslaught of attack ads — but I need your support before Midnight Friday to make it happen. Your gift of $5 could make all the difference.

    On this first day of a campaign that will determine whether we choose to move forward or turn back, let us rededicate ourselves to the struggle for progress.

    Nancy Pelosi
    Speaker of the House

    P.S. My strategists at the DCCC are preparing to launch their next round of television advertising. Unless we can raise $500,000 by Friday’s media buy deadline, we may not have all the resources we need for every race until November. Contribute today.

  11. CNN had Mary Jo Kilroy on earlier today. Mary Jo repeated the “I support the President blah blah” talking points, but when the interviewer tried to get her to state explicitly “Will you vote for the President’s new mini-stimulus”, she obfuscated. Hmm, sounds to me like no one wants to be caught standing next to Obama.

    Gloria Borger was also on just a few minutes ago, and they were discussing some interviews she had done with voters in Ohio — voters who were shown to express disappointment with Obama and the Dim Congress — and the first line out of Borger’s mouth was “These are DEMOCRATS (emphasis hers), just think, these are DEMOCRATS.” Funny how the media acts so surprised now. 🙄

  12. At the height of the healthcare debate last year, when Scott Brown had been elected and it was looking really bad for Health Care Reform, one of the Kennedy’s blurted to me in a conversation “I think Hillary might have been better.” Once the Health Care Reform bill was passed, this same person returned to being an Obama fan, ego once again reared its head…but for that one moment, this person had some clarity.

  13. nomobama,

    Selling a trip to NYC and photo with o is simply a copy of what Bill has been doing for Hillary since the primaries (remember “contribute and join Bill watching the next debate”?) and even recently to help draw down her campaign debt. Getting to meet Bill has always been an attraction.

    I’d be interested to see if this copy by o draws any money at all. A photo with o? I can’t think of anyone who would want that. But then again, I don’t know any BOTs.

  14. This just gets worse and worse for her

    Letters bearing Eddie Bernice Johnson’s signature ask that scholarship money be sent directly to her grandsons

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/090810dntexebj.ce52ce69.html

    Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson apparently asked the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation to send scholarship funds directly to her grandsons and great-nephews, rather than to their colleges, according to letters released today by her GOP challenger. It is unclear whether such a request is, by itself, improper under the foundation’s rules.

  15. Why Time Magazine Doesn’t Care About Israel
    Outrageous cover story a new low in anti-Israel bias

    On the eve of Rosh Hashanah, Time magazine gives us this cover story: “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.”

    The story argues that Israelis are too busy living the good life to care much about peacemaking. With Israel’s economy booming and Palestinian terrorism down, peace is no longer a top priority.

    True as far as it goes, argues Daniel Gordis at Contentions, but the story completely fails to fill in the context.

    Here we are in the middle of peace negotiations that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, insisted upon, and to which the president of the Palestinian Authority, Abu Mazen, had to be dragged, and Time writes about “why Israel doesn’t care about peace.” Is there no limit to the Israel-bashing that now passes for serious conversion in polite society?

    And as for the quality of life in Israel rising and the general ambivalence over the “peace process,” Gordis writes:

    The Israeli economy is, indeed, doing well. And we Israelis have, indeed, built a good life for ourselves now that we’ve figured out how to squelch Palestinian terrorism, for the most part. And most us of would gladly sign a deal, if we could only be convinced that the West Bank won’t turn into Gaza and that a treaty would genuinely end the conflict. But by and large, we’re not convinced. The implication that Israelis are not overwhelmingly concerned about the peace process because we’re more interested in money is well … so stereotypical that it’s hard to believe that Time actually went that far. But that’s the world we live in. The line between Israel-bashing and Jew-baiting is so thin as to be nonexistent. And crossing the line is Salonfähig [acceptable in polite society].

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/time.php

  16. So Israel is supposed to give up everything and get nothing? Will obama and the anti-semitic media decry this outrage? I won’t hold my breath.

    ——————-

    Peace? Abbas Won’t Recognize Israel as a Jewish State, Rejects Compromise on Jerusalem, Borders

    September 7, 2010

    In an interview with Al Quds newspaper, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he would not recognize Israel as a Jewish state or come to a compromise solution over Jerusalem and borders.

    “We’re not talking about a Jewish state and we won’t talk about one,” Abbas said. “For us, there is the state of Israel and we won’t recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”

    Abbas said he made his stance plain to Jewish leaders in the United States earlier this year, The Jerusalem Post reports.

    “I told them that this is their business and that they are free to call themselves whatever they want,” Abbas said. “But [I told them] you can’t expect us to accept this.”

    http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/peace-abbas.php

  17. Great post. Obumbles cannot be trusted. But then, I’m happy that these many congresscriters that blindly followed him instead of listening to their constituents or, wait for it, DID THEIR JOB AND READ THE NONSENSE THEY VOTED ON BEFORE VOTING will lose their jobs. Their unemployment is punishment for believing in stupidity and bad leadership over common sense and evidence.

    The evironment is ripe for a democratic challenge starting in 2011. This will be a one-term president and. for the first time in American history, a challenger from the same party will win the presidency PROVIDED that challenger is Hillary
    and the party in question is the DNC. We can’t live through another term of this okeefenoke.

    Asshat…

    Hillary 2012

  18. At the State Department, spokesman P.J. Crowley [said] the administration hoped Americans would stand up and reject the church’s plan to burn copies of the Qur’an to mark the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He called the plan “un-American” and “inconsistent” with American values.
    [….]
    In an email to The Associated Press, Petraeus said “images of the burning of a Qur’an would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence.

    “I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible [Qur’an] burning. Even the rumour that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday. Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.”

    The U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan has also condemned the church’s plans.

    Canada’s Foreign Ministry also put out a statement strongly condemning the plan.

    “It is an insult to the Muslim world. It also puts the lives of Canadians in Afghanistan at risk. The burning of the Qu’ran will also give our enemies material for propaganda against allied forces in Afghanistan,” the statement said. “To put this in context, Canada is not fighting against Islamic beliefs, we are fighting against the Taliban.”

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/07/afghanistan-general-petraeus-quaran-burning.html#ixzz0ytQeBjwH

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/07/afghanistan-general-petraeus-quaran-burning.html#ixzz0ytQ9nDBG

  19. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti-global-warming-scientist-reverses-course

    With scientific data piling up showing that the world has reached its hottest-ever point in recorded history, global-warming skeptics are facing a high-profile defection from their ranks. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the influential tract “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” has reversed course on the urgency of global warming, and is now calling for action on “a challenge humanity must confront.”
    Lomborg, a Danish academic, had previously downplayed the risk of acute climate change. A former member of Greenpeace, he was a vocal critic of the Kyoto Protocol — a global U.N. treaty to cut carbon emissions that the United States refused to ratify — as well as numerous other environmental causes.
    “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” published in 2001, argued that many key preoccupations of the environmental movement, including pollution control and biodiversity, were either overblown as threats or amenable to relatively simple technological fixes. Lomborg argued that the governments spending billions to curb carbon emissions would be better off diverting those resources to initiatives such as AIDS research, anti-malaria programs and other kinds of humanitarian aid.
    [Photos: The world’s most polluted places]
    Lomborg’s essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about.
    Oh, how times have changed.
    In a book to be published this year, Lomborg calls global warming “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today” and calls for the world’s governments to invest tens of billions of dollars annually to fight climate change.

  20. JnaH, I find all major media (sans Fox/NYPost and a sparse few others) are anti-Israeli, and many of the harshest articles are by Jewish journalists. They believe, living in their million dollar Manhattan apartments, that they know what is best for Israel. Their chutpah is outrageous and appalling.

  21. ““undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today”
    *********
    Warming, Peak Oil, Peak Energy, Peak “Food” are just the secondary results of the Major problem:

    World Population
    (in billions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

    Year 1804 1927 1960 1974 1987 1999 2011 2025 2045–2050

    Years elapsed 123 33 14 13 12 12 14 20-25

    Physical and biological systems often have “feed back” loops that correct imbalances. In the case of the projected 50% increase in world population in 40 years, the correction won’t be pretty. IMO, the point of “no return” for climate change occurred when the ice began to melt and the permafrost began to thaw.

  22. “In The Headlights”

    By James Howard Kunstler
    on September 6, 2010 9:47 AM

    (snip)
    ” My own view — I might be wrong– is that we are going through an epochal compressive contraction, which is the opposite of growth. Money is disappearing because debts are being welshed on in such a volume that all the digital dollars conjured out of chief wizard Ben Bernanke’s magic booty box are but empty spells cast into a hurricane of broken promises….
    (snip)
    In the meantime, the managers of US polity, Mr. Barack Obama and Company, look to continue scattering goat innards on the new carpet in the Oval Office in their desperate seeking for a miraculous return to the non-stop celebration that was ringing through the nation a decade ago. Any moment now, the President will announce some new “program” aimed at propping up house prices — in order, you understand, to allow banks to pretend that they are still solvent. It won’t do a thing for the poor schlemiels who already paid way too much for a house, and it won’t do a thing for anyone looking to buy a house with a shrinking income, but it’s probably what he’ll do, along perhaps with some other cockamamie flim-flams, like temporarily suspending the payroll tax so the American people can stock up on Cheez Doodles and beer for the football festival known as Thanksgiving. I have a better idea: put a seven-trillion-dollar tax on Lloyd Blankfein’s cappuccino machine.
    (snip)
    I voted for Barack Obama. I don’t know about you, but I’m a tad disappointed in how things turned out with him. These days he makes Millard Fillmore look like Frederick the Great. His speech last week on Iraq and, incidentally, economic matters, was such a puffery of hollow platitudes that I was a little surprised he didn’t go up in a vapor at the end of it like a genie and retreat inside his desk lamp in a little trail of steam. Nobody can figure out why he keeps the same krewe of viziers at his elbow after all these months of failure to engage with reality. The voters were expecting a champion and got a Labradoodle instead….

    http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/09/in-the-headlights.html

  23. jbstonesfan
    “I find all major media (sans Fox/NYPost and a sparse few others) are anti-Israeli, and many of the harshest articles are by Jewish journalists. They believe, living in their million dollar Manhattan apartments, that they know what is best for Israel. Their chutpah is outrageous and appalling.”

    Now you’re making negative generalizations about Jewish journalists. Can’t anybody criticize Israel? How about Israelis? Do they have a right to criticize Israel?

    JanH was outraged (or another verb, suit yourself) that Abbas is not willing to consider Israel a “Jewish state”.

    This is pursuant to a discussion we had a few weeks ago on this blog, ie that 1/3 of the population in Israel proper (not including the West Bank and Gaza) is Arab and that they are treated kindly but as second-class citizens. They are not taxed, for example, but get no educational or medical services either. They are not allowed to serve in the military. They have a small representation in the Knesset because they have the right to vote, but they are excluded from all levers of power. This is why Abbas does not want to recognize the “Jewish state.”

    A sizable portion of the Israeli population being “secular”, they are open to the idea of a secular government and civil and military life, which would include the Arabs. A growing portion of Arabs are also open to this idea. I translated excerpts of a Ha’aretz article for JanH in which a rightist Likud member of the Knesset put forward this idea. It may be discussed in the current peace talks; it could even pave the way for a single state, cut up into cantons like Switzerland, and it would not be a Jewish state but could be called Israel, or Palestine or the Holy Lands or something like that.

  24. Petraeus is disappointing on many levels. He is anti-Israel, pro-Muslim, and has not done a very good job in Iraq or Iran…the wars have lasted too long, there have been far too many casualties, and the troops have been streched way too thin. He also seems to be an Obama puppet.

  25. turndownobama:
    “Lomborg’s essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about.”

    If this was his essential argument, I don’t agree with him and so do not agree with his change of mind either.

    Global warming may or may not be real; but acquaintances of mine who are astrophysicists and geologists are very skeptical about the anthropogenic origins of it, and thus what mankind to do to reverse it, because they have good reason to believe that climatic conditions are controlled by natural forces beyond human control, ranging from

    – galactic tide
    – its effect on solar activity (flares/sunspots)
    – effect of solar activity directly on the earth’s temperature but also on the earth’s magnetic activity (internal dynamo)
    – the earth’s internal dynamo and the magnetic poles, which are currently migrating fast and have also done so over geologic time
    – the earth’s orbital parameters, which have changed considerably over geologic time
    – the moon’s orbital parameters (which are quite steady, damping the dynamo effects).

    All of these forces are astrophysical functions that directly or indirectly influence the temperature at the earth’s surface and are far beyond any human ability to abet or counteract them much.

    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will may nonetheless have a minor effect on the earth’s surface temperature and will certainly do no harm to the environment.

    However, as I’ve said before, the important thing about this climate change business is not how much we can influence it but the simple fact that the solutions offered to fight climate change offer a broad field of economic opportunity, and thus a smart investment because it calls for research, manufacturing and installation, and will lead to savings and more efficient use of energy (thus savings).

    This is what o should have spent his stimulus money on, instead of patching up old infrastructure. Now he wants another mini-stimulus of $50 billion to do the same thing with some new infrastructure. It’s like someone who quoted Einstein upthread: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

  26. I’m convinced that this poor use of the stimulus, and the vapid “financial reform”, is because o has no understanding of economics or finance except, perhaps, how much money he can get from swinging a deal with Rezko or that Chicago hospital where me-shell got her sinecure. He has never had the experience of earning money from actual work, even (especially) managerial, or from making an investment on his own.

  27. These days he makes Millard Fillmore look like Frederick the Great. His speech last week on Iraq and, incidentally, economic matters, was such a puffery of hollow platitudes that I was a little surprised he didn’t go up in a vapor at the end of it like a genie and retreat inside his desk lamp in a little trail of steam. Nobody can figure out why he keeps the same krewe of viziers at his elbow after all these months of failure to engage with reality. The voters were expecting a champion and got a Labradoodle instead…
    ———————
    William James is one of the seminal figures in philosophy and psychiatry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James. He famously conjured up a hypothetical which featured: a blind man–in a dark room–looking for a black cat–that is not there. That was over 100 years ago, but he could just as easily been describing job killer Barack.

  28. I remember reading that Obama was not good with his own money, was turned down for credit and such…so now he responsible for all ours…great!

    He has never had a real job, and now he’s responsible for getting jobs for us….great?

    I wonder why we’re in this mess….

  29. Obama’s Stimulus Creates High Unemployment
    Tuesday, 07 Sep 2010 07:49 AM Article Font Size
    By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

    In our book “2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan,” we write: “The prospect we now face is not the intermittent up-and-down fluctuations of unemployment we have had since the Great Depression.

    “Thanks to Obama’s policies, we’re confronting the possibility of an unemployment rate that never comes down, just as they have in Europe. If we stay on Obama’s course, lower joblessness in the United States will be a thing of the past.”

    The recent rise in unemployment back up to 9.6 percent and the loss of 54,000 jobs in August, suggests that our prediction is, dismally, coming true.

    The Obama stimulus plan has finally kicked in: The higher spending he brought to our nation and the debt levels that are accompanying it are the result.

    Why is unemployment remaining so high? Because the totality of Obama’s policies are dragging us into a depression:

    The prospect of dramatically higher taxes next year is freezing consumer spending, particularly for those in the upper income ranges, who spend a third of America’s consumption.
    The huge changes that are looming in medical care brought about by Obama’s healthcare legislation are freezing new employment and expansion in the medical sector which accounts for 16 percent of GDP.
    The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend, freezing new job creation.
    The looming possibility of cap-and-tax legislation in the name of halting climate change is freezing any expansion in the manufacturing and energy sectors since these policies will force jobs to move overseas to locations that do not impose such a tax (such as India and China).
    The massive expansion in the deficit and in the resulting debt has so eroded confidence in our nation’s future that Americans are now saving 6 percent of their income, up from 1 percent in the past, sapping consumer spending.
    The threat of new rules for union elections that will spread private sector unionization is freezing business expansion plans.

    Obama’s rush to spend, regulate, re-engineer, redistribute, and tax have stopped any recovery and are sending us back into recession.

    In her wonderful book “The Forgotten Man,” Amity Shlaes notes how FDR’s policies in the late 1930s did the same thing. She notes how the imposition of the Social Security tax in 1937 (benefits did not start until 1941) and the rapid wage hikes that accompanied the passage of the Wagner Act (steel worker wages rose 40 percent in 1937) sent a recovering nation back into a new depression that lasted until the war started in 1939.

    In his haste to remake America and to bring us the “fundamental change” he promised as he campaigned for president in 2008, Obama has torpedoed the recovery and sent us back into a double dip recession.

    The answer is to cut spending back to pre-Obama levels, reduce taxes and eliminate the threat of tax increases, zero fund the changes Obama has legislated in health care (and repeal them in 2013), eliminate the threat of cap-and-tax, and lay the basis for solid economic growth.

    We have left the recession that started in 2007 and entered a new recession caused by Obama’s policies.
    © Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  30. Disregard the last three paragraphs above. I refuted them in a prior post. The rest of the article is accurate in my opinion.

  31. http://news.oneindia.in/2010/09/08/quran-burning-disrespectful-disgraceful-hillary.html

    Quran burning disrespectful, disgraceful: Hillary

    Washington, Sep 8: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be defending the Florida pastor’s right to burn Qurans, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has, however, slammed the controversial 9/11 memorial event as “disrespectful and disgraceful”.

    Appreciating the voices of protest against the ‘International Burn a Quran Day’, the American diplomatic chief said, “I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful act that has come from American religious leaders from all faiths… as well as secular US leaders and opinion makers.”

    Clinton made the statement during the iftar meal she hosted at the State Department to observe the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

    The holy book burning will be held between 6 pm and 9 pm on Saturday, Sep 11, 2010 in the premises of the church, to observe the ninth anniversary of the terror strike.

    Pastor Terry Jones at the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, has invited all to join the burning of Qurans, the holy book of Muslims, to pay tribute to the 9/11 victims.

  32. argh, let’s try that again…

    http://news.oneindia.in/2010/09/08/quran-burning-disrespectful-disgraceful-hillary.html

    Quran burning disrespectful, disgraceful: Hillary

    Washington, Sep 8: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be defending the Florida pastor’s right to burn Qurans, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has, however, slammed the controversial 9/11 memorial event as “disrespectful and disgraceful”.

    Appreciating the voices of protest against the ‘International Burn a Quran Day’, the American diplomatic chief said, “I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful act that has come from American religious leaders from all faiths… as well as secular US leaders and opinion makers.”

    Clinton made the statement during the iftar meal she hosted at the State Department to observe the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

    Pastor Terry Jones at the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, has invited all to join the burning of Qurans, the holy book of Muslims, to pay tribute to the 9/11 victims.

    The holy book burning will be held between 6 pm and 9 pm on Saturday, Sep 11, 2010 in the premises of the church, to observe the ninth anniversary of the terror strike.

    Earlier, Mrs Clinton’s spokesman Philip Crowley attacked the Florida pastor Jones’s plans to mark as ‘provocative’ and ‘un-American.’

    “We would like to see more Americans stand up and say that this is inconsistent with our American values,” he said.

    Arguing for the pastor, New York Mayor Bloomberg had said that Terry Jones had the right to do what he planned even though he thought it was distasteful.

    “But the First Amendment protects everybody and you can’t say that we’re going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement,” the Mayor said during a press conference on the progress of rebuilding at the World Trade Center site.

  33. I confess to taking another trip to Hardball-land (for the team, of course – I watch so you won’t have to) and Matthews is now calling (practically demanding) for Hillary to replace Gates as Secretary of Defense and for Bill to campaign for Joe Sestak. Matthews says that Bill would appeal to the Pennsylvania working-class voters more than Obama would (ya think?). It wasn’t very long ago that Matthews was calling both Bill and Hillary racists and stating that Hillary won her Senate seat only because of Bill’s affair (among a million other sneering insults). Now they are needed to save the Fraud and the rest of the Dims from doom and defeat – work those Clinton racists until they drop from exhaustion while the Fraud shoots hoops (badly), plays golf (very badly), and vacations at the Vineyard (very well). My final report – Tingles is still the same despicable pig he has been for the last 13 years.

  34. wbboei: “The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend…”

    I was unaware of any effect at all from the financial reform legislation; but if this assertion is true, it is actually a good sign. Banks should be forced to think about the prudence of their loans.

  35. Fifth Dimension: “Arguing for the pastor, New York Mayor Bloomberg had said that Terry Jones had the right to do what he planned even though he thought it was distasteful.”

    This is the equivalent of o’s lame endorsement of the ground zero mosque.

    I prefer to hypothesize that dumb Terry Jones’ effort will backfire because, as most non-muslims who want to participate in this stupid act don’t own Korans to burn in the first place, so this will drive up sales of the Koran. A boon for muslims.

  36. An endearing story with some news of Bill’s campaigning…

    Clinton baby burping made McWherter a fan

    Democratic candidate for governor Mike McWherter.

    Mike Morrow, Nashville [Tennessee loves Hillary]

    Many politicians have many stories about their relationship with former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, but few of those stories involve burping babies.

    Mike McWherter’s does.

    McWherter is scheduled to welcome Bill Clinton to a rally Thursday in downtown Nashville, a boost in the McWherter campaign that the Democratic nominee for governor is clearly thrilled about.

    But while McWherter has had much more contact with Bill Clinton than Hillary Clinton over the years, he tells the story of why he has always been such a fan of Hillary, currently the United States Secretary of State. Hillary is not expected to be with Bill on Thursday.

    Mike’s wife, Mary Jane, had just given birth to their first child, Walker, when Mike’s father, Ned McWherter, was governor of Tennessee. Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas at the time and was a frequent visitor to the governor’s mansion in Nashville. Ned McWherter was an ally and adviser to the rising Democratic star from Arkansas.

    Mike McWherter, new to fatherhood, happened to be in the governor’s mansion with the infant Walker, who was pitching quite a fit at the time. The new father had Walker in his arms and had a problem on his hands with the baby. Mike walked down the hall and came upon Bill Clinton, who was standing there shaving.

    Clinton, a politician who knows where to send someone who needs immediate help, told him, “Mike, you better let Hillary take care of that.”

    So he went to Hillary.

    “I can honestly tell you that Hillary is the person who taught me how to burp my son Walker,” McWherter said. “She gave me some serious instruction about how to tend to an infant.

    “I have been a Hillary Clinton fan ever since. She took charge of the situation where she knew I was totally out of my league. I told her, ‘I’m sorry to impose on you,’ and she said, ‘Mike, I’ve had a lot of experience at doing this.'”

    McWherter met Bill Clinton when McWherter was a freshman at the Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham. Clinton was the attorney general of Arkansas at the time, and McWherter, a freshman, was on the host committee that welcomed Clinton to speak to his class.

    Clinton became friendly with Tennessee lawmaker Ned McWherter through legislative conferences and they remained good friends when Ned McWherter became governor.

    McWherter said he’s not sure exactly where Bill Clinton and Ned McWherter first met. But the elder McWherter was a big supporter of Clinton’s when he launched his run for president. Mike McWherter also noted that Ned McWherter was influential in getting Bill Clinton to pick Al Gore Jr. as a running mate. Mike also recalls how a magazine story at the time had Clinton listing Ned McWherter as one of his best advisers.

    Bill Clinton has been a busy campaigner recently. His visit to Nashville is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Thursday, but Clinton is also scheduled for an appearance Thursday in Atlanta beginning at 5 p.m., eastern time (4 p.m. Nashville time), for Senate candidate Mike Thurmond. A request for information from the McWherter campaign on the logistics of the schedule had not been answered Tuesday night.

    Clinton is also expected to make an appearance in Birmingham on Thursday at 1 p.m. for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ron Sparks.

    Clinton was scheduled to be at an event in New York on Tuesday with Florida Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, and Clinton is scheduled to appear in Little Rock on Wednesday with Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

  37. From The Jerusalem Post:

    Obama, Clinton call on US Jews, Muslims to back talks
    By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
    09/08/2010

    Rabbis: US president indicated that understood recent Palestinian statements threatening to quit the peace process as political posturing.

    WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama indicated he understood recent Palestinian statements threatening to quit the peace process and rejecting compromise as political posturing, according to rabbis on a White House conference call Tuesday.

    Obama, who spoke with rabbis of various denominations in a call marking Rosh Hashanah, was asked by a participant about comments from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas perceived in Israel as hostile to the negotiating process he launched with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu just last Thursday.

    In response, Obama said that he expected both Israelis and Palestinians throughout the process to make statements meant for domestic political consumption, call participants told The Jerusalem Post.

    Obama urged those on the line to instead focus on the positive atmosphere during last week’s talks, admitting to being pleasantly surprised by how candid and constructive they were.

    “I don’t know if he was expecting them to come in and beat each other with baseball bats, but he made a point of saying that twice,” said one participant.

    Obama also reportedly praised Netanyahu during the call for his approach to the talks.

    Still, Obama was said to sound a cautious note about the negotiations and the difficulties ahead.

    “Overall there was a very realistic, not at all naïve assessment of the situation,” said one person on the call.

    Another rabbi described Obama as clear-eyed in acknowledging the challenges ahead, and that “he didn’t sugar-coat anything.”

    That rabbi, who like all participants contacted by the Post asked for anonymity in discussing the details of the call, said that Obama also asked for the support of Jewish leaders going forward with the peace process.

    “He was saying it in the sense of trying to create an atmosphere where people could be hopeful and can be optimistic about the talks’ success,” explained another participant.

    Similar sentiments were also expressed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at an Iftar dinner at the US State Department Tuesday night.

    “Peace needs champions on every street corner and around every kitchen table, and not just there, but everywhere,” she said. “So I hope that we at these tables and at similar tables everywhere where people are meeting in the spirit of Ramadan to breakfast, we will reflect on how we each can demonstrate that a different future is possible, a future built on the universal human values of mutual respect and inclusion.”

    At the same time, US Vice President Joe Biden hosted a Rosh Hashanah reception for Jewish leaders in Washington as well as many members of the Jewish community from his home state, Delaware, at his residence.

    The White House has not released any official information on Obama’s call or confirmed the statements Obama reportedly made.

  38. Another piece on the Israel-Palestinian talks with some mention of how Israelis are viewing the process and Bibi domestically:

    (Christian Science Monitor)

    West Bank settlements loom as Mideast peace talks head for Jerusalem

    Adding a day of talks in Jerusalem is thought to demonstrate the seriousness of the Mideast peace talks between Hillary Clinton, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mahmoud Abbas. A moratorium on West Bank settlement construction expires Sept. 26.

    Jim Young/Reuters

    By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / September 7, 2010

    Washington
    Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will shift renewed Mideast peace talks back to the region next week when the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority meet in Egypt as announced at last week’s re-launch of direct negotiations.

    But in a symbolic move aimed at demonstrating the seriousness of the renewed peace process, the three key players in the talks – Secretary Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas – are now set to meet for additional talks in Jerusalem. Israel claims an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, but the Palestinians also claim Arab East Jerusalem as the rightful capital of a future Palestinian state.

    At the formal restart of direct peace talks in Washington last week, the Israeli and Palestinian leaders agreed their first order of business in the renewed negotiations would be to come up with a “framework agreement” setting down the key points of a peace accord on which both sides will have to make tough compromises. Jerusalem is expected to be one of those difficult core issues.

    Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas are to resume their talks Sept. 14 in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. On the following day, the talks will shift to Jerusalem. The plan sketched out in Washington last week is for the two sides to meet approximately every two weeks after that, with the goal of reaching a peace accord within a year.

    The plan to hold a day of talks in Jerusalem with Clinton present is seen by some Mideast analysts as a concession to Netanyahu, who has a tough political decision to make before the end of September if the talks are to continue into October. The Israeli government’s partial moratorium on settlement construction in the occupied West Bank is about to expire, but Abbas continues to warn that he will walk out of the talks if the moratorium is not extended.

    “The Israelis always want the Palestinians to negotiate in Jerusalem, they want the recognition that comes with having this level of talks there,” says Sam Lewis, a former US ambassador to Israel and an adviser to the Israel Policy Forum, a group of experts promoting avenues to regional peace. “It could be that this is one way of paying [Netanyahu] for a very difficult decision he has to make and giving him something to show his cabinet.”

    Israel’s 10-month settlement moratorium ends Sept. 26, with most of the Israeli government opposing an extension of the freeze.

    “The important point here is that if they don’t finesse this Sept. 26 deadline, it’s not going to matter where they talk,” Mr. Lewis says. Noting that many regional analysts, including some on the Israeli left, now consider Netanyahu a sincere peacemaker, Lewis says any failure of the talks over the moratorium issue could sink the prime minister’s newly minted image.

    “Some people out there are saying [Netanyahu] is following the advice to ‘sound like you want to make peace, and let the Palestinians screw it up,’” he says. “This moratorium issue poses a real problem for him.”

  39. wbboei: “The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend…”

    I was unaware of any effect at all from the financial reform legislation; but if this assertion is true, it is actually a good sign. Banks should be forced to think about the prudence of their loans.
    ——————————
    There are less restrictive alternatives–shareholder derivative suits, regulatory tests, etc. I am not expert either, but the thing to remember here is this. The financial bill was written IN TOTO by lobbyists and lawyers for large international banks. The banks that are most likely to fall prey to this legislation are small and intermediate sized banks, who the larger banks would like to purchase. If these banks make loans to help their local communities, and those loans are deemed imprudent by some federal regulator bureaucrat, which causes them to be taken over by the federal government, then the federal government will peddle them to one of the larger banks. That is the life cycle we are talking about here. The too big to fail banks who financed the Obama campaign are the ultimate beneficiaries of this legislation, not the taxpayer. When the big banks fail the taxpayers are on the hook. And they have more than enough grease with the Administration to ensure that there no one looks under their skirts.

    Want proof? Fine. Just remember all the overpriced real estate sitting on their books which has not been marked to market. If it were marked to market they would be deemed insolvent. If the term imprudent were applied retroactively they would all be taken over, or allowed to fail. I believe that is the game here, but it is dressed up to look like it is protecting the public, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. If you measure corruption by the misappropriation of dollars, then Chris Dodd is public enemy number one in my book. Barney is a close second.

  40. Maybe Obama should schedule a rock concert across from the book burning. No, those people wouldn’t come to a rock concert. What would they come to?

  41. What I am saying is this clause which looks like it is pro taxpayer is in fact pro big bank because it gives them a vehicle to purchase smaller banks at bargain basement prices when certain things happen. At the same time this “reform” legislation does not prevent another taxpayer bailout of the big banks (Feingold’s point), nor does it reinstate the glass steegle protection which separates commercial and financial banking activities (Cantwell’s point). This is hardly surprising. If you turn the draftsmanship of the legislation over to people who work for Jamie Dimon, Goldman Sachs and their ilk as Obama, Pelosi and Reid did, and then force congress to pass the legislation without reading it and understanding its effects, then the taxpayer is sure to get screwed unless the interests of the big banks happen to coincide with those of the American People. Here they most certainly do not. It is Orwellian as hell to call this piece of legislation financial reform.

    Years ago I met a guy who said he ran whore houses in Memphis. He looked like it and he talked like it so I chose to believe it. For him it was simply the family business. He maintained that whereas it was not a respectable business to be it, it was not as disreputable as it might seem. Sure he said we con our clients, but compared to the banks we are choir boys. Both of us are in the business of separating suckers from their money. The difference between us and the banks is we are in the short con business–we do it in a few minutes or hours. The banks on the other hand are in the long con business. They do it over a period of years and under the veneer of respectability. I never understood exactly what he meant until I saw Barack and witnessed what occurred in the campaign and since he and his thieves took office.

  42. wbboei
    September 8th, 2010 at 7:53 am
    wbboei: “The financial reform legislation has so raised the prospect of a federal takeover of any bank that makes “imprudent” loans that financial institutions are afraid to lend…”

    Yep. No loans are being made. A beautiful house two doors down has been “sold” three times this summer. The loans have fallen through each time. The realtor told me only cash deals or 30-50% equity are going through. He said he is telling first time buyers they need a minimum of 25% down. My area did not see the boom and bust but the banks are playing defense.

  43. Maybe Palin should schedule a prayer meeting in Florida … to pray for rain?

    Of course the media would say she supported the book-burning.

    But at least we’d get the rain.

  44. Let me say it as plainly as I can. Obama is not in the business of governing. He is in the business of campaigning. Governing is a matter of problems solving. Campaigning is a matter of bamaboozling. Whether the issue is health care reform or financial reform he does not solve anything. What he does is reward his cronies in exchange for a cheap headline which he can use to produce a sound bite. And invariably the cure he produces in the process is worse than the disease.

  45. wbboei,

    Yes. When Obama’s fat cats further screw us, it’s always called ‘reform.’

    2005 bankruptcy bill – ‘reform and consumer protection’

    Obamacare – ‘health reform’

    Now this.

  46. No shortage of backstabbers amongst the Dims. Here’s mention of the backstabber Pelosi. While the man speaking is paying her tribute, this video should be used by the opposition. From an April speech by Richard Trumka to the Labor Caucus at the California Democratic Convention in Los Angeles:
    Trumka: “Without Nancy Pelosi health care wouldn’t have happened…We stuck together and we got a historic victory and drove it down the Republican’s throat and out their backsides”
    h t t p://www.thefoxnation.com/business/2010/09/07/union-boss-obamacare-we-drove-it-down-republicans-throats

  47. Mormaer
    September 8th, 2010 at 8:18 am
    ——————————-
    Excellent point Mormaer. We are trying to sell my mothers house right now and are experiencing the same problem.

  48. Since combat operations in Iran have officially ceased according to the Obama Administration what more can be said about the subsequent deaths of army soldiers from bullet wounds but that they died of mysterious causes. To say more would be to contradict Barack and if you are a corrupt organization like CNN or NBC you simply fall in line like the good Germans of another era. But other media accolades may want out of the faustian pact they signed with Obama.
    ————————–
    Death By Mysterious Causes
    According to CNN, two American soldiers apparently fell on some bullets today in Iraq. I say “fell on some bullets” because it’s not possible that the bullets which killed them were shot out of a gun at them on purpose, because that would indicate they died in combat. And as we all know, combat in Iraq is over because Obama said so. As CNN clearly indicates in their story, “More than 4,400 troops died in Iraq during the war[,]” which is clearly now a thing of the past.

    I don’t want to really upset anybody, but the Iraq war has never been especially high on my list of issues, pro or con. I know that seems strange, but there it is. Also, I am smart enough to know that I know absolutely nothing about military strategy whatsoever. Accordingly, I have no firm opinions about whether the war should be over, whether the drawdown is a good idea, whether current troop levels are adequate, or even whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place.

    However, I do know bovine fecal matter when I step in it, which apparently places me two steps ahead of CNN when it comes to covering Barack Obama. I respectfully submit that if you believe combat operations are over in Iraq despite the continued presence of 50,000 American combat troops who are still, you know, involved in combat, you lack the discernment necessary to disinfect bowling shoes for a living, much less cover world news. I have to give them credit; only the Obama administration would be so bold as to peddle such transparent propaganda. And only the American media would be so pliant as to mindlessly parrot it. And if you think CNN looks like a sucker in this article, wait until you see how embarrassed MSNBC should be below the fold.

    Ultra right-winger Glenn Greenwald teed this particular story up with this masterful piece last Friday on MSNBC’s embarrassing and sycophantic coverage of the “end of combat” farce perpetrated by Obama and his administration. With thanks to the greatest sock puppeteer in history, I excerpt a lengthy portion of it here because Greenwalds make an important point:

    It’s not difficult to understand why NBC and MSNBC hyped the event the way they did. The reason they had what Olbermann touted as a “worldwide exclusive” is because — in response to NBC embed requests — the Pentagon contacted them and offered exclusivity, knowing that the arrangement would incentivize NBC to treat the event as something of monumental historic importance. By selecting NBC as the only broadcast network to be told in advance, swearing them to secrecy, but arranging for them to cover it exclusively with video, it became their story, and they thus, predictably, were eager to tout its importance. That’s the natural inclination when someone is given exclusive access by the Government.

    ** snip **

    By offering it exclusively to both NBC and MSNBC, the Pentagon ensured that this narrative would be given the Seriousness imprimatur from NBC, and would produce base-pleasing, Obama-favorable praise from MSNBC personalities. Having Engel embedded in a Stryker vehicles as it “rolled out” of Iraq, and Maddow stationed in the Green Zone, added to the historic tone of the evening. As The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter reported: ”David Verdi, an NBC News vice president, added, ‘The military had said, ‘You are the ones who are going to broadcast it first’.” About that, Mediaite’s Steve Kraukauer wrote: ”That’s a stunning admission, and shows a degree of coziness between both sides here.” With this cooperative venture, the White House got exactly the coverage it wanted: the repeatedly hyped claim that under Barack Obama, “American combat forces are leaving Iraq,” as Olbermann intoned at the start.

    One of the few sour notes in this coverage came when Olbermann briefly interviewed McClatchy’s Jonathan Landay, and asked him what the 50,000 remaining soldiers would be doing. Landay explained:

    This is the great irony for me, Keith. The fact is that under the delusional plans that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had approved for the invasion of Iraq, they had intended to come down to 50,000 troops within three or four months of that invasion. . . . .That, for me, is the ultimate irony, is the fact that more than seven years later, we‘ve now gotten down to the 50,000 troops that they thought they could get down to within three months of the invasion. . . . . [T]hose 50,000 men and women include special forces who will be going out on counter-terrorism missions with Iraqi forces. That, to me, is combat. They’re armed. They’re going into combat. There will be American, quote/unquote, advisers going out with Iraqi forces on regular patrols. That to me opens the door to combat.

    So I don‘t think we‘re going to see the end of — we are not going to see the end of combat for American forces I don‘t think in Iraq.

    The 50,000 troops staying in Iraq were noted several times by the various MSNBC commentators, especially Maddow, but, other than the Landay interview, it did not detract from the repetitious claim that — to use Brian Williams’ formulation — “U.S. combat troops have pulled out of Iraq.” This, of course, was the same message touted in Barack Obama’s Oval Office address to the nation on Wednesday night:

    So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

    Yea, verily. Obama promised the most sycophantic “news” network in history exclusive access to a facially farcical news event and, as expected, the dupes delivered exactly the story he wanted. Exactly how did it not occur to someone – anyone – at the brain trust over there to ask, “Wait a minute. How is this the end of combat if 50,000 combat troops are still there engaged in combat?”

    The question seems to have at least occurred to someone at CNN today when they were forced to cover the fact that American soldiers are still mysteriously dying in Iraq. They voluntarily offered President Obama a fig leaf, pointing out that “SEE? He told us this was coming. No reason to be alarmed.”

    President Barack Obama said last week that “violence will not end with our combat mission.”

    “Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals,” he said in a speech from the Oval Office on August 31.

    Well, there you go. No reason to think Obama was overpromising, right?

    Hey, you remember that “Mission Accomplished” speech that Bush gave on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln? The one that was repeatedly and immediately pillioried by the American media as being a staged event built on a false promise? Just for kicks and giggles, let’s see if Bush said anything similar to what Obama said in his speech:

    We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. . . We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. . . Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we.

    Huh. Seems Bush was plenty clear that the violence wasn’t over after all. Of course, you’d never know that from listening to the American media, who immediately rushed out to claim that Bush had falsely promised sunshine and roses from this day forward in Iraq. Obama makes a much larger (and more manifestly false) claim hedged by less clear statements, and the media’s incredulity meter barely registers a tick.

    However, in a sign that even the friendliest of audiences have a limit to the amount of offal they are willing to swallow, Greenwald notes that the AP (the AP!!) has flat-out refused to recapitulate the “end of combat” propaganda being sold by the Administration:

    Whatever the subject, we should be correct and consistent in our description of what the situation in Iraq is. This guidance summarizes the situation and suggests wording to use and avoid.

    To begin with, combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials. The situation on the ground in Iraq is no different today than it has been for some months. Iraqi security forces are still fighting Sunni and al-Qaida insurgents. . . . .

    As for U.S. involvement, it also goes too far to say that the U.S. part in the conflict in Iraq is over. President Obama said Monday night that “the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.”

    However, 50,000 American troops remain in country. Our own reporting on the ground confirms that some of these troops, especially some 4,500 special operations forces, continue to be directly engaged in military operations. These troops are accompanying Iraqi soldiers into battle with militant groups and may well fire and be fired on.

    In addition, although administration spokesmen say we are now at the tail end of American involvement and all troops will be gone by the end of 2011, there is no guarantee that this will be the case.

    Our stories about Iraq should make clear that U.S. troops remain involved in combat operations alongside Iraqi forces, although U.S. officials say the American combat mission has formally ended. We can also say the United States has ended its major combat role in Iraq, or that it has transferred military authority to Iraqi forces. We can add that beyond U.S. boots on the ground, Iraq is expected to need U.S. air power and other military support for years to control its own air space and to deter possible attack from abroad.

    Fellow travelers, we should not underestimate the significance of this event. A major legacy news organization has issued an internal memorandum that Obama’s lies are not to be treated with more dignity than they deserve. Clearly, MSNBC will be content to play Mouth of Sauron until the day Obama leaves office, but this point – the point at which, less than two years into his presidency, the American media began to turn on a Democrat President – may spell the beginning of the end for Obama, even more than his sagging poll numbers have heretofore indicated.

  49. What I get out of the above is Barack wants a cheap headline to rehabilitate his standing on the eve of the mid term election. So he makes a historic announcement that combat operations in Iraq have ending knowing full well that it is a lie. NBC is given the exclusive so they publish what they too know is a lie because it gives them access and influence. As idiot Ben Smith would say “mystery solved”. The problem with granting these exclusives however is all the networks who were not chosen get jealous, and in this case can bring out a little thing called the truth, as we saw here. This should be enough to finish off NBC and CNN in the eyes of serious viewers.

  50. nstead of condeming our first ammendment rights, our gov should be condeming this:

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=187532
    ————————————————-
    And big media should be reporting it as well. Every day these peace talks continue there should be some acknowledgment of the reality on the ground. But when you have media outlets like CNN the gate swings only one way.

  51. I was unaware of any effect at all from the financial reform legislation; but if this assertion is true, it is actually a good sign. Banks should be forced to think about the prudence of their loans.

    The problem is that it gives the govt sweeping “discretion” in that regard. So which banks get hit and which don’t? Hint: the ones in the pocket of the govt, supporting them with donations, will have no sword over their heads, you can count on that. And the banks that are in bed with the administration now have a VERY powerful tool to eliminate their smaller competition. How convenient if the govt uses that “imprudent loan” stipulation to crush any competition for Goldman and Citi. That’s exactly what this “regulation” was designed to do, make no mistake. Goldman et al WROTE the freaking thing!

    If we don’t put some force into the laws we ALREADY HAD, reinstate the firewall between banking and speculating, start breaking up banking monopolies under anti-trust statutes, and denying them taxpayer money to bail them out, their death-grip on this nation will only get worse. This “regulation” is a fake, and a Trojan horse.

  52. I’m not saying this is absolute fact but I am hearing of a growing whisper campaign within the Democratic ranks moving for Obama to step down from running in 2012 and to be replaced with Hillary. Its all about the midterms and the growing illusion that Obama has left them all to fend for themselves and frankly doesnt care. There is apparently a vast wing of the Dem party that utterly regrets being led up the creek by someone who turned out to be in their terms “lacklustre and false”.

    Watch this space!

  53. jbstonesfan
    September 8th, 2010 at 11:11 am

    Happy Rosh Hashana/New year

    ———–

    Happy Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year) to you and your family as well, my friend. 🙂

  54. sorry. That link does not appear to work. I assume it was disabled by Obama people. That would be par for the course.

  55. There is a civil war brewing in the Dem party

    http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2010/09/dnc-chairman-withholds-support-from-democrats-who-dont-talk-up-obama-policies/

    DNC Chairman Says Support Will Be Withheld From Democrats Who Break Away From Obama Policies

    Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s ‘The Situation Room’ and talked of the 2010 midterm elections and where support will be thrown in regards to those within the Democratic party. Not surprisingly, those whose rhetoric breaks away from what the party has done will not receive as much support from the DNC.

    “You won’t be surprised, Wolf, to know that I tend to be a little more helpful to those who are enthusiastically telling about the good things the party has done”, he said.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Mr. Kaine is essentially saying those who break with Obama and Pelosi won’t be given as much help as those who line up in support behind the Democratic agenda. It doesn’t matter that Obama’s numbers are tanking, liberal policies that passed are highly unpopular, corruption is rampant in how those policies were passed, and people are fed up– support will be withheld from those who dare step away from Obama.

    The problem with this is even if they do talk a big game about how they don’t support Obama and Pelosi’s agenda, the votes were very much along partisan lines on a majority of the major legislation that people aren’t too fond of.

    A ‘catch-22′ if you will.


    ………………………………….

    and there you have it, now we know how Hillary supporters got scuttled in 2008, help was witheld. Either tow the party line or we’ll trash you.

  56. moononpluto, how about a bunch of delegates/superdelegates who know of the fraud of 2008 primary firsthand leak things mysteriously and shame Obama and his cronies to not run in 2012?

  57. pm317 I do not think there are going to be a whole lot of those super Ds left. A bunch of them will be gone and the rest are going to be terrified that they are up next to get canned in 2012 as soon a challenger can get their stuff together. Obama stiffed the Dems in the House and probably more than a few in the Senate. Welshers are usually dealt with severely.

  58. Joners is no friend of Israel JanH…and how many friggin dinners are the Muslims going to get at this White House???? Disgusting already…our country is being turned into a 5th column for their eventual take over.

  59. Question: How can our Hillary condemn one atrocity and not the other, i.e. condemn the burning of the Quarn but not the building of the mosque near Ground Zero? I guess I am not understanding this.

  60. My first post today is in moderation due to the links included. William Dejean DDS accepted my friend request on Facebook; and lo and behold I found a mutal friend there that you all would know as well. Dr Dejean is construsting a website to draft our Hillary in 2012 to be fully operational on 1 Oct 2010.

  61. moononpluto:

    “I’m not saying this is absolute fact but I am hearing of a growing whisper campaign within the Democratic ranks moving for Obama to step down from running in 2012 and to be replaced with Hillary.”

    Where are you hearing this?? It’s too good to be true. Sounds like wishful thinking, no?

    “Its all about the midterms and the growing illusion that Obama has left them all to fend for themselves and frankly doesnt care. There is apparently a vast wing of the Dem party that utterly regrets being led up the creek by someone who turned out to be in their terms “lacklustre and false”.”

  62. Agreed Short Termer….I just don’t get it. The zeal in which politicians are defending this disgraceful idea of bulding a Mosque near sacred ground zero is appalling. We are losing our culture and form of life to Muslims every day!!!!

  63. jbstonesfan,

    This is just plain disgusting. Why was there even one suggestion of islamic influence in the original design to begin with?

  64. admin: What do you think about Hillary’s remarks about the economy in the Q&A after her speech? Also, she left out a few words in her prepared remarks…very interesting. I haven’t been able to get the video yet but it’s getting lots of play this morning.

  65. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton: ‘This Model Of American Leadership Works’

    This morning, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will deliver a major policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), in Washington, D.C. Afterward, she will field questions from audience members and Richard Haass, the think tank’s president.

    POLITICO’s Laura Rozen has obtained some excerpts from the address, which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. ET. As expected, Clinton will reflect on the Obama administration’s foreign policy record thus far:

    After more than a year and a half, we have begun to see the dividends of our strategy. We are advancing America’s interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges. Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world.

    Clinton will talk about “this new American Moment,” which is characterized by opportunity:

    We are a nation that has always believed we have the power to shape our own destiny, to cut a new and better path. This administration will do everything we can to exercise the best traditions of American leadership at home and abroad to build a more peaceful and prosperous future for our children and children everywhere.

    As NPR’s Paul Brown notes, “Clinton’s comments come as the U.S. moves away from combat operations in Iraq, recommits to an increasingly controversial mission in Afghanistan, and works to get Mideast peace talks back on track.”

    She says it’s crucial for U.S. policy-makers to help bring people together — and see connections linking nations, regions and interests.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/09/08/129722320/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-cfr-speech-foreign-policy-richard-haass-state

  66. Clinton says Mexico drug crime like an insurgency
    Mrs Clinton said the government’s foreign policy was working Drug-related violence in Mexico increasingly has the hallmarks of an insurgency, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.

    “It’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, when the narco-traffickers controlled certain parts of the country,” she said.

    The comments were made following a speech in which she declared “a new American moment” in global politics.

    “It’s looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago, when the narco-traffickers controlled certain parts of the country,” she said.

    The comments were made following a speech in which she declared “a new American moment” in global politics.

    Her remarks come amid renewed US efforts to broker Middle East peace.

    Speaking at a think tank in Washington, Mrs Clinton said Mexico needed to bolster its institutional capacity and maintain its political will to fight drug cartels.

    She noted that while Mexico was working to use its law enforcement capacity to fight drug cartels, its smaller neighbours did not have the same capability.

    “We need a much more vigorous US presence,” she said.

    ‘Best hope’

    During her speech, Mrs Clinton said the model of American leadership “offers our best hope in a dangerous world”.

    The Obama administration has been criticised over a perceived lack of progress on its international goals.

    Critics argue that Iran and North Korea maintain nuclear ambitions, the security situation in Afghanistan continues to be perilous and Israeli-Palestinian relations have yet to improve.

    But Mrs Clinton said that US had “begun to see the dividends of our strategy”.

    “We are advancing America’s interests and making progress on some of our most pressing challenges,” she said.

    Mrs Clinton also said the world continued to look to the US for leadership in times of crisis, calling that both a responsibility and an unparalleled opportunity to seize upon.

    “The world is counting on us. When old adversaries need an honest broker or fundamental freedoms need a champion, people turn to us,” she said.

    But she stressed the importance of international partnerships.

    “This is no argument for America to go it alone,” Mrs Clinton said.

    “The world looks to us because America has the reach and resolve to mobilise the shared effort needed to solve problems on a global scale – in defence of our own interests, but also as a force for progress. In this we have no rival.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11234058

  67. Obama still thinks it works, well he’s in for a shock

    Obama to use Personal Story in Bid to Sell Economic Plan and save party

    Obama, once again hard on the campaign stump trying to sell his economic agenda, plans to return to the kind of intimate and inspiring vibe that carried first his autobiography, then his breakout 2004 DNC speech and ultimately his juggernaut presidential campaign.

    White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that when Obama takes the stage in Cleveland Wednesday to discuss his latest economic proposals, his personal story will start to make its way back into the rhetoric.

    Obama’s personal story has a proven track record of resonating, at the polls and in book sales.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/08/obama-going-personal-bid-sell-economic-plan-lift-political-spirits-party/

    …………………………

    Dont bother love, we aint buying you lying crock of shit, we never did and they aint either now.

  68. lol…obama has a personal story??? I thought he plagiarized it from beginning to end.
    ********
    As the disclaimers say for made for TV docu=dramas: “(loosely) based on real events”…A more accurate description of Obama’s “life story” would be fictionalized and ghost written.

  69. Kaine is destroying the democratic party. First he threatens to cut them off if they campaign against Obama. That threat is ridiculous. Why? Because the democratic officials who are doing it are already facing the prospect of a public hanging by their constituents, hence this is a survival strategy. The threat is like saying if you try to survive we will kill you. But Kaine does not stop there. No siree. He has his first lieutenant Van Hollen threaten them a second time by telling them that if they are behind in the polls he will cut them off– whether or not they supported Obama and his policies. The second threat is inconsistent with the first. Furthermore, it is a measure of their desperation that such threats would be communicated in public, rather than behind closed doors as is normally done.

    Kaine is guilty of political malpractice. If I were a democratic congressman in trouble with my constituents for supporting Obama, I would think it treasonous for my party leadership to deprive me of the tools needed to defend myself. I would do what I needed to do to win my election and let the rest of the chips fall where they may. And if I did survive, I would never again make the mistake of supporting Obama over the interests of my constituents. I might even be talking to people about the need for a new leader. And I would send Kaine back to the Peace Corps.

  70. OBAMA SINGS: “OH WHERE, OH WHERE HAS MY MOJO GONE? OH WHERE, OH WHERE CAN IT BE?”

    Kind of off-beat analysis of Obama’s fading popularity.

    thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-06/obama-loses-his-sex-appeal/

    Obama’s Vanishing Sex Appeal
    =========================

    by Tunku Varadarajan

    After he turned on America as a candidate, reality has finally caught up with the president—20 months into office, Obama stands exposed as a floundering Man, not a panacea-laden Superman.

    Of the many things Barack Obama seems to have lost so spectacularly in recent months—his political aura, his rhetorical fluency, the support of independents, the worship of progressives—the most striking loss has been that of his sex appeal.

    Not so long ago, Obama’s sex appeal lay at, or near, the top of a list of his attributes that turned America on. In some quarters, his effect was almost orgasmic, as seen in this mash-note in The Nation from August 2008, which describes a man “so cool he’s hot, a centrifugal force commanding attention so ruthlessly that it appeared effortless, reducing everyone around him to a sidekick, and the girls in the front rows to jelly.”

    Obama’s Vanishing Sex Appeal
    by Tunku Varadarajan Info
    Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter Fellow in Journalism at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor at The Wall Street Journal. (Follow him on Twitter here.)

    X Close
    – + Single Page print Twitter Emails Enter your email address:

    Enter the recipients’ email addresses, separated by commas:

    Message:

    Your email has been sent.
    Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!

    X Close Share
    Enter your email address:

    Enter the recipients’ email addresses, separated by commas:

    Message:

    Your email has been sent.
    Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!

    X Close Mark Wilson / Getty Images After he turned on America as a candidate, reality has finally caught up with the president—20 months into office, Obama stands exposed as a floundering Man, not a panacea-laden Superman.

    Of the many things Barack Obama seems to have lost so spectacularly in recent months—his political aura, his rhetorical fluency, the support of independents, the worship of progressives—the most striking loss has been that of his sex appeal.

    Not so long ago, Obama’s sex appeal lay at, or near, the top of a list of his attributes that turned America on. In some quarters, his effect was almost orgasmic, as seen in this mash-note in The Nation from August 2008, which describes a man “so cool he’s hot, a centrifugal force commanding attention so ruthlessly that it appeared effortless, reducing everyone around him to a sidekick, and the girls in the front rows to jelly.”

    With presidential impotence so plain to behold, no amount of political Viagra could have done the trick.

    My own editor wrote of Obama’s “heat quotient”; Newsweek (at odds with the fact that Captain Kirk is the one that women have really fancied) remarked that he was a “Spock with global sex appeal”; and Judith Warner gushed, in The New York Times, about how many American women “were dreaming about sex with the president.” Her column is a classic of emetic oversharing, and begins with the lines, “The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs…” (Obama isn’t the first man in the White House to have sparked an erotic-dream epidemic: Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, famously, kept Freudian analysts busy for months.)

    The lexical frottage from the pundit class was matched by some openly sexual support on YouTube and other places, expressed by the likes of “Obama Girl,” who appeared to incarnate, only more raunchily, the soft-core longings of many American women, delighted at this unexpected (and delicious) confluence of politics and sex. I heard women refer to Obama, after his election, as the “Hunk in Chief.”

    Americans have long demanded manliness of their presidents, but it has tended to be a manliness of a non-sexual sort. Ronald Reagan, in many ways, epitomized this. If there was an exaggerated quality to his ruggedness, it was perhaps a fitting overcompensation, given the unusually unmanly president who’d preceded him—and an overcompensation, also, for his advanced age. (He dyed his hair black to appear more vital.)

    Ford, Nixon, LBJ, Ike, Truman—even the two Bushes—to name other postwar presidents, all count as Real Men in one way or another. Clinton and John F. Kennedy, however, have been the only two postwar presidents apart from Obama whose persona has had an indisputably sexual component—Kennedy’s sleekly glamorous, Clinton’s cheerily priapic. Obama’s sex appeal, while it lasted, was more cerebral, languid, unconventional—and complex, too, in that it was hard to demarcate his sex appeal from his political aura. In other words, he was erotic, not merely sexy. There was something about him that was both clean-cut and revolutionary; and it was no doubt electrifying that many millions of American women were so openly adoring of a black man.

    All that steaminess has come to an ignominious end. In office, as his political aura diminished, so did his sexual magnetism. In fact, it was at about the time when the Gulf of Mexico first came to be awash in BP oil that the rig of Obama’s sex appeal collapsed, too. With presidential impotence so plain to behold, no amount of political Viagra could have done the trick.

    None of this would be worth a moment’s conversation had Obama not carried so much political support by dint of his sex appeal, which was an amalgam of his youth, his seeming dynamism, his idealism (always carefully curated, but always palpable), and his cinematic visual imagery—etching his chin up at a camera, eyes far away; long, lean, loping strides; basketball; bare chest on beach. The great downside of all that came when he had to fill the seductive, pulse-quickening profile with presidential substance. The real world has quarried away at him in the form of Iran, BP, North Korea, Israel, Afghanistan, the economy, the Tea Party, and the like. The result has not been “hot.” It’s been room temperature.

    Twenty months into office, Obama stands exposed as a floundering Man, not a panacea-laden Superman. Even his relationship with his wife has hurt his sex appeal: Uxorious men are never sexy for long.

    The promise of “otherness” and change that had made Obama so sexy to so many stands shorn of its magic. He has tried to do too much, and as a result has done too little well: And failure is not sexy. He has given speech after speech to a restless, increasingly irritated nation, like a man trying to “talk” about the relationship when a girl wants to be ravaged; he has been a preachy, professorial windbag—in a word, charmless. This hasn’t merely diminished his sex appeal; it has killed it stone dead. Obama now looks more like tank-commander Dukakis than the George Clooney of our national narrative…

    …Which leaves America without a single politician of stature with any sex appeal at all. It’s enough to make one weep.

  71. I think the Republicans have over played their hand by campaigning for the extension of those ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy. Obama is now claiming much higher ground on this issue.

  72. http://jbjd.org/

    For those of you who have read the “Coup 1-3, this lawyer was in on it and she gives a blow by blow account of how Obama stole the election and how up until the very last second at the convention with Pelosi help, the theivary took place….its a good read and very good links to back up the story.

  73. Obama’s MOJO is gone…money can only buy it for so long…he lost it himself and thats why the special interests treat him like a dog….the dog that he is fumbled the ball and now they wish they would of went with Hillary!

  74. Confloyd, I don’t think the special interests(wichever ones he is referring to) treat him like a dog. I just think Obama’s base always responds when he cast himself as the victim of powerful people. But, I wouldn’t count him out yet. Many a President has come back from low approval ratings, and as jb said, his are starting to even out again. Frankly, it’s not a surprise. The Republicans are still campaigning on the the same failed policies.

  75. Obama is now claiming much higher ground on this issue.
    ************
    Claiming the “higher ground” until you read the fine print…Just Like FISA, Public Option…ad nauseum…He is lying…it will pass and he will sign it.

    “Obama did not threaten to veto any compromise which extends the upper-bracket cuts, a position that has gained ground in recent weeks among moderates in both the House and Senate. But congressional sources said in advance of the speech that the president would try to stiffen Democratic spines in expectation of a showdown over income tax rates before the November midterm elections.”

    In other words more bullsh*t from this bought and paid for corporate SOS.

  76. SHV
    September 8th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Yeah, I agree. He left himself far too much wiggle room for anyone who reads the fine print. But most people don’t look that closely. And, I think th eoverzealous Republicans gave themselves an opening.

  77. Mj, something is wrong with Gallup. For what it’s worth Chuck Todd has warned that the Gallup numbers are suspicious and should not be utilized in analysis. HotAir had these comments on Gallup this morning:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/08/gallup-shows-tie-in-generic-congressional-ballot/

    Actually, it’s not clear anything has changed. The WaPo/ABC and WSJ/NBC polls surveyed registered and likely voters in the same time period and came up with much different numbers. This isn’t the first time this summer that Gallup’s results showed startling and sudden swings, either. They made eyebrows pop in July when two successive polls showed Democrats taking a sudden and substantial lead in the Congressional ballot — the only pollster to find such a swing — and just as suddenly put the Republicans ahead outside of the margin of error.

    Even more strangely, the enthusiasm numbers for voters have barely budged. The GOP holds its largest advantage in that for the year:

    There has been no change in the advantage Republicans hold over Democrats on motivation to vote in the fall elections. Republicans remain twice as likely as Democrats to be “very enthusiastic” about voting, tied with the previous week’s measure as the largest such advantage of the year.

    If the enthusiasm numbers for voters haven’t changed, then how did Democrats erase a six-point deficit in just one week? Something is seriously wrong at Gallup this summer, and I’m not the only one to notice it. NBC’s Chuck Todd tweeted yesterday after this release about the lack of reliability in the Gallup figures:

    We specifically advise our colleagues to be leery of Gallup. Most, if not all, NBC news shows avoid.

    There is also this additional information from AP:

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jrFPllkin8kzcFBD_CoiK1ztd7IgD9I3JDLO0

    Looking for yet another sign Democrats are in trouble? Take note of who is showing up to vote in the primaries.

    For the first time since 1930, Republican votes for statewide offices are outnumbering Democratic votes, according to an analysis from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate. And Republicans, eager to campaign against Democrats who control the House, Senate and White House, are casting primary ballots at the highest rate since 1970.

  78. admin
    September 8th, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Wow, thanks. I thought this was strange. Gallop is usually the gold standard. Thanks, very good to know.

  79. I have been watchinghis numbers rise slowly but steadily and because they(republicans) are so impotent, they very well could blow the gift Obama has opened for them at the midterms. While 2012 is a bit away, I also have repeatedly said no one on their ticket could currently beat Obama. After Obama stole the primary, my motto is “expect the worst, hope for the best”.

  80. As jbjd said in her “Coup1-3” Hillary would of been the best President, but Obama was the best Crook. He is a crook and his theivary isn’t done yet. If he and his cronies stole it in 08′,he will be able to do it again…that is unless the American electorate wakes up and realizes the whole story from 04′ to date of what he has done. They also will have to put aside their partisonship and come to the aid of his victims, ie…Hillary Clinton and those who the DNC will not support with their money and their time….

    My advice to the Californians on this blog…get rid of Nasty and every single democrat in office on Nov. 4th. That will be the beginning, for without the help of Nasty, Obama would not of been able to manipulate the delegates at the convention that he did. Gloria Alred just figured it all out too late. I just hope Hillary watches her back….because the darts are still there. I am sure thats why Bill and Hillary did not invite the President to the wedding or the birthday party…something is cooking!

  81. That speech was godamn awful. Preaching like a minister, nothing new again except i’m great blah blah blah, republicans bad blah blah blah, lies lies lies blah blah blah, another piss poor show brought to you by Obamaland.

  82. Notice Hillary got her economic thoughts speech out earlier today well before Obama, that was not a coincidence i tell you, that was a shot of see you in 2012.

  83. moononpluto
    September 8th, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    Not really the point. Most Americans do not want to see Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% extended. It was smart of him to make the speech. And, even though Americans do not support Obama’s policies, they still blame the Republican policies of always putting the wealthy first for getting us into this mess. I think it was the first display of smart politics he’s exhibited ahead of the midterms.

  84. mj, coming from a liar like him, it means nothing……..and do they blame the republicans, in a recession like this, if those tax breaks go, don’t be surprised if they take the money and put it elsewhere thats not going into Uncle Sam’s pocket instead.

  85. (snip)
    “Whereas her president has frequently wrung his elegant hands, doing the rounds of the world to reassure foreign leaders that America is a cuddly bunny at heart, the secretary of State declared Wednesday that we are all living “a new American moment—a moment when our global leadership is essential.” There was no bowing from her to potentates in robes; there was, instead, a promise that “we will do everything we can to exercise the traditions of American leadership at home and abroad.”
    (snip)
    “Clinton used phrases like “American might,” words that we are more accustomed to hearing from Republicans—words that we’ve come to believe that many Democrats can’t bear to voice. How refreshing, therefore, that she should reach into a vocabulary of pride that most American citizens would applaud.”
    (snip)
    It was Acheson who said: “The most important aspect of the relationship between the president and the secretary of state is that they both understand who is president.” What is so piquant here, in this administration, is not the fact, plain to behold, that Hillary understands that Obama is president. It is the growing sense that Hillary would have made a much, much better president than Obama.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-08/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-speech-better-than-obama/

  86. moononpluto
    September 8th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    The wealthy are already out of the recession. I can not believe you actually support extending those tax cuts, that even republicans crafted to expire. LOL. My brother-in-law is one of the recipients of these taxt cuts, and he’s doing just fine.

  87. MJ, i’ve seen it before, its exactly what they do in Europe, i dont support it but what i am telling you is, they will just move out, manoeuvre the cash around and take the cash elsewhere and the country will not get any of the tax and the country can ill afford to lose that money right now. Its not the right time to do it. Its a business killer.

    By the way don’t prejudge what i do and don’t believe, thats none of your business, same way i dont like some of the stuff you profess, i don’t judge you on it.

  88. moononpluto
    September 8th, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    Gee, and yet they all stuck around when Clinton raised taxes in the first place. Sorry, there is no fear in letting those tax cuts expire, and it’s good politics.

  89. I can not believe you actually support extending those tax cuts, that even republicans crafted to expire
    ********
    I don’t understand it either. I remember during the 2000 election season, a person that I worked with went on and on about how Bush would cut taxes and other mindless right wing blather. She and her husband were doing OK but with 3 kids were living pay-check to pay-check. At the time, I had the income to qualify but told her that it wasn’t a good idea and I didn’t need or want a tax cut. After Bush was elected and the tax cuts went through, I asked her how her family did with the Bush tax cuts. “Not too well”. I am basically mean so I said that with my cuts that I didn’t want or need, I bought a Porsche. She never talked to me again.

  90. SHV
    September 8th, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    Thanks for sharing. Yeah, my brother-in-law wants to keep his tax cuts, but there is no risk of capital flight. He just wants to keep more money.

  91. Hillary Clinton says deficit sends message of weakness

    By Andrew Quinn
    WASHINGTON | Wed Sep 8, 2010

    (Reuters) – The huge U.S. budget deficit poses a national security threat and projects a “message of weakness” internationally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday as she urged Democrats and Republicans to tackle the problem.

    Clinton, in a speech heralding a new “American moment” in U.S. foreign policy, said the Obama administration’s policy of greater engagement with the world has brought dividends such as a united front against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    But she again stressed the corrosive effect of the mounting U.S. debt, which she said threatened the United States’ ability to chart its own course in the world and sends “a message of weakness internationally.”

    “It poses a national security threat in two ways: it undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable,” Clinton said in response to a question after her address to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.

    The U.S. budget deficit is projected to hit $1.5 trillion this year and has become a campaign issue ahead of November’s congressional elections in which President Barack Obama’s Democrats are trying to prevent big losses to Republicans.

    Clinton in the past has said it was “personally painful” to see the yawning U.S. spending gap after her husband, former President Bill Clinton, ended his second term in 2001 with budget surpluses.

    She said on Wednesday she had no wish to “relitigate” the reasons for the current budget crunch, but nevertheless pointed to policies enacted by Obama’s Republican predecessor George W. Bush.

    “It is fair to say that we fought two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) without paying for them and we had tax cuts that were not paid for either, and that has been a very deadly combination to fiscal sanity and responsibility,” Clinton said.

    “So the challenge is how we get out of (it) by making the right decisions, not the wrong decisions,” she said.

    ‘NO FREE LUNCH’

    Clinton, beaten by Obama for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, noted that in her current job she is “by law out of politics” and said the challenges ahead would need a bipartisan “detente” on key issues including a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia.

    “Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, a conservative, a progressive — whatever you call yourself — there is no free lunch and we cannot pretend that there is without doing grave harm to our country and to our future generations,” she said.

    She again urged bipartisan support for the START treaty with Russia, which has not yet garnered the Republican backing it needs to secure Senate ratification.

    The treaty, signed by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April, would cut the number of deployed warheads allowed to each of the former Cold War foes by about 30 percent.

    U.S. officials have warned that any stalling on the treaty would set back the U.S. ability to monitor Russia’s nuclear weapons. Some Republicans have expressed concern that the treaty would limit U.S. missile defense options while others say Obama must also commit to modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons that remain.

    “It’s a political issue. I wish it weren’t,” Clinton said. “But I hope that at the end of the day the Senate will say something should just be beyond any kind of election or partisan calculation, and that everybody will pull together and we’ll get that START treaty done,” she said.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68748720100908

  92. Clinton: There may never be another chance for peace

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks before Council on Foreign Relations, says Washington optimistic as to peace talks chances, if parties overcome ‘initial obstacles’
    Yitzhak Benhorin

    WASHINGTON – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the American administration’s optimism as to Israeli-Palestinian peace process’ chances of success Wednesday.

    Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, Clinton said that she believed the “pessimists” were wrong to think the talks were doomed to fail. Peace can be achieved, she said, if the parties will overcome “initial obstacles” – a clear hint the settlement freeze set to end on September 26.
    The Palestinians have already threatened to walk away from the negotiating table should Israel resume its settlement activity.

    “Both sides and both leaders recognize there may never be another chance” to achieve peace, Clinton said.

    “I think for most Israeli leaders that I have known and worked with, and especially those coming from sort of the right of Israeli politics, which the prime minister does – you know, it’s like Mario Cuomo’s famous line: you know, they campaign in poetry and they govern in prose. And the prose is really challenging.

    “You look at where Israel is and the threats it faces demographically, technologically, ideologically, and the idea of striking a peace deal with a secular Palestinian Authority that is committed to its own people’s economic future makes a lot of sense if it can be worked out,” she said.

    As for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Clinton said that “he was probably the earliest and at times the only Palestinian leader who called for a two-state solution, going back probably 20, 30 years. And for him, this is the culmination of a life commitment.

    “And I think that the Arab League initiative, the peace initiative, put the Arab – most Arab and Muslim countries on record as saying that they could live with and welcome a two-state solution – 57 countries, including some we know didn’t mean it, but most have followed through in commitments to it has changed the atmosphere,” she continued.

    Foreign policy paying off

    “I know how difficult it is and I know the internal domestic political considerations that each leader has to contend with, but I think there’s a certain momentum. You know, we have some challenges in the early going that we have to get over, but I think that we have a real shot here.”

    Clinton also asserted the Obama administration’s approach to foreign policy, saying it was beginning to pay important dividends.

    “We are… making progress on some of our most pressing challenges. Today we can say with confidence that this model of American leadership works, and that it offers our best hope in a dangerous world.

    “We will seize this new moment of opportunity this new American Moment. We are a nation that has always believed we have the power to shape our own destiny, to cut a new and better path,” she said.

    “The world is counting on us. When old adversaries need an honest broker or fundamental freedoms need a champion, people turn to us,” she said. “When the earth shakes or rivers overflow their banks, when pandemics rage or simmering tensions burst into violence, the world looks to us.”

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3951705,00.html

  93. REMEMBER WHY IT WAS SOOO IMPORTANT TO PASS THE HEALTH (WHATEVER) BILL; TO DRIVE RATES DOWN… GUESS WHAT?

    Gee, didn’t see THAT one coming.

    online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

    Health Insurers Plan Hikes
    Rate Increases Are Blamed on Health-Care Overhaul; White House Questions Logic

    By JANET ADAMY

    Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.

    Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.

    These and other insurers say Congress’s landmark refashioning of U.S. health coverage, which passed in March after a brutal fight, is causing them to pass on more costs to consumers than Democrats predicted.

    The rate increases largely apply to policies for individuals and small businesses and don’t include people covered by a big employer or Medicare.

    About 9% of Americans buy coverage through the individual market, according to the Census Bureau, and roughly one-fifth of people who get coverage through their employer work at companies with 50 or fewer employees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. People in both groups are likely to feel the effects of the proposed increases, even as they see new benefits under the law, such as the elimination of lifetime and certain annual coverage caps.

    Many carriers also are seeking additional rate increases that they say they need to cover rising medical costs. As a result, some consumers could face total premium increases of more than 20%.

    While the increases apply mostly to the new policies insurers write after Oct. 1, consumers could be subject to the higher rates if they modify their existing plans and cause them to lose grandfathered status.

    The rate increases are a dose of troubling news for Democrats just weeks before an election in which they are at risk of losing their majority in the House and possibly the Senate.

    In addition to pledging that the law would restrain increases in Americans’ insurance premiums, Democrats front-loaded the legislation with early provisions they hoped would boost public support. Those include letting children stay on their parents’ insurance policies until age 26, eliminating co-payments for preventive care and barring insurers from denying policies to children with pre-existing conditions, plus the elimination of the coverage caps.

    Weeks before the election, insurance companies began telling state regulators it is those very provisions that are forcing them to increase their rates.

    Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada after Sept. 23. Similar steps are planned across the country, according to Aetna.

    Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan. It asked regulators last month to approve the increase.

    In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates.

    The White House says insurers are using the law as an excuse to raise rates and predicts that state regulators will block some of the large increases.

    “I would have real deep concerns that the kinds of rate increases that you’re quoting… are justified,” said Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House’s top health official. She said that for insurers, raising rates was “already their modus operandi before the bill” passed. “We believe consumers will see through this,” she said.

    Previously the administration had calculated that the batch of changes taking effect this fall would raise premiums no more than 1% to 2%, on average.

  94. Look at that last line:

    “Previously the administration had calculated that the batch of changes taking effect this fall would raise premiums no more than 1% to 2%, on average.”

    Hmmm, I wonder when “previously” was? Did they know rates would rise prior to passing the bill, when they were promising that it would LOWER rates?

    If they only knew AFTER the bill passed, they can plead ignorance… but that is an admission of incompetence. After a year and a half of pushing and crafting this piece of shit bill, they couldn’t get it right???

    It’s like with Bush, a screw up either reveals that you are evil (“We don’t care about people affected by Katrina”) or incompetent (“We can’t help people affected by Katrina”). Pick your poison.

  95. On another blog, there is a discussion of If he were a dog, what kind of dog would he be? Here are some of the suggestions that I like:
    Which kind of dog would Obama be?
    1. TeleprompTerrier
    2. CHE-huahua
    3. Open Border Collie
    4. Labrador Deceiver
    5. DupeDoggyDog
    6. Son of a Mongrel B!tch
    7.

    But, not a Heinz 57 Variety, that one is already taken by another Dimocrat. lol

  96. The fear factor which Obama once wielded with Republicans is gone, kaput. As todays Wall Street Journal reports, they are in no hurry to act on his proposals. While Obama brags about how he has corner Republicans and is forcing them to say yae or nae to his proposals they say this in response:

    The White House economic “message has been reduced to political satire in many ways. The president lacks credibility,” said NRCC spokesman Ken Spain.

    Business lobbyists who might have carried the ball for the White House were tepid. Bruce Josten, the chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that businesses were not going to invest in new plants and equipment if managers saw no consumer demand for their products, no matter how generous the tax incentive was.

    Mr. Josten added that because Democrats insisted on offsetting the cost to the Treasury of any tax cuts, the Chamber could not back any White House proposal before seeing how it would be paid for.

    Congress is unlikely to quickly pass President Barack Obama’s latest proposals to jump-start the economy, reflecting the president’s weakened political position and a bruising election just two months away.

    Earth to Obama: go pound sand.
    ——————————–

    Obama Tax Plan Holds Less for Small Businesses
    Businesses say the tax proposals are helpful but no substitute for what they really want: broad-based changes to the corporate tax code and an extension of President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which expire in January. Republicans have criticized the proposals as a Stimulus II, while urging Democrats running for office to reject it.

    Democrats, for their part, have quietly voiced disappointment that the White House didn’t propose other, more populist proposals, such as a payroll tax holiday. Republicans noted that top Democratic leaders and embattled candidates were virtually silent on the proposals.

    “Where are the candidates?” asked Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “If this is a re-election effort, shouldn’t the candidates be out there?”

    White House officials say the initiatives put Republicans in the position of embracing or rejecting proposals that should have bipartisan appeal: roads, railways and runways, and business-investment incentives.

    Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell said the proposals were lifted “right out of the Republican playbook,” and if the GOP rejects them, they will underscore the Democratic case that they are obstructing the recovery for political gain.

    Mr. Rendell warned that if the proposals couldn’t change the political climate, there was little Mr. Obama could do to avert sweeping defeats in the November. “You’re not going to convince the people who aren’t listening, and if they’re not listening, you might as well have the election tomorrow,” he said.

    Mr. Rendell added he believed Americans really listen to campaigns only after Labor Day.

    The White House has worked hard to gain political traction ahead of the Cleveland speech. Mr. Obama called Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio) over the weekend to discuss the infrastructure plan. The White House’s business liaison office reached out to the Business Roundtable to discuss the business-investment and research-and-development proposals.

    Some legislative discussions have begun. The Democrats could tack a version of an R&D extension or business-investment incentive onto legislation that extends the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but not to households earning more than $250,000.

    But White House officials, business advocates and Republicans were skeptical the measures would pass in the three or four weeks Congress has left before members leave Washington for the fall campaigns. House Democratic leadership aides said they did not want to move forward without assurance that the Senate could pass the measures. And Senate aides gave no such promises.

    “The only way we can get anything done is with cooperation of Republicans, and that’s been in short supply in recent months,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.).

    Republicans showed no fear that Mr. Obama had gained the upper hand politically. Rob Portman, a former Bush White House budget director running for the Senate, challenged his Democratic opponent, Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, to say whether he supports “a second big government ‘stimulus.’ ”

    The National Republican Congressional Committee, which is responsible for electing Republicans to the House, dashed off a release to 101 targeted House Democrats, blaring, “First stimulus was a failure. Now House Dems want to hit the accelerator on more wasteful spending.”

    The White House economic “message has been reduced to political satire in many ways. The president lacks credibility,” said NRCC spokesman Ken Spain.

    Business lobbyists who might have carried the ball for the White House were tepid. Bruce Josten, the chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that businesses were not going to invest in new plants and equipment if managers saw no consumer demand for their products, no matter how generous the tax incentive was.

    Mr. Josten added that because Democrats insisted on offsetting the cost to the Treasury of any tax cuts, the Chamber could not back any White House proposal before seeing how it would be paid for.

  97. Tony Blankley made this prediction a couple years ago. Obama = The Destroyer of Worlds.
    ————————–
    The Destroyer of Worlds
    Tony Blankley
    2009

    In the Birla Temple, a Hindu temple in Delhi, India, there is a plaque that reads: “He who is known as Vishnu the Preserver is verily Rudra the Destroyer, and He who is Rudra is Brahma the Creator.” This fact (from Arthur Herman’s book “Gandhi and Churchill”) came to me over the weekend as I was rereading Sen. Obama’s Berlin speech. Now, let me assure my easily offended friends in the Obama camp that I am not suggesting Obama is or ever was a Hindu. I take him at his word that he is whatever he says he is. (Pass out more eggshells.) But it is precisely his words regarding his philosophy of government that I find ambiguous — and potentially disturbing.

    Secular would-be leaders of men who promise transcendence and transformational change have something in common with the promises and warnings of many religions. They claim to want to preserve what is good in their people and change what needs to be changed to make their lives and souls even better. But unlike some religions, secular leaders with transforming visions of their missions often skip over the bits about what must be destroyed in order to bring those better things to man. And that is where religions are often more honest.

    For instance, in Hindu, the god Rudra, who is also known as Lord Shiva, is the third god in the Hindu trinity. He destroys worlds. Specifically, he destroys the evil passions and animal instincts that usually characterize human consciousness in order to make room for divinity to enter man’s world. He is believed by many Hindus to inspire people to perform acts of courage, spiritual wisdom and devotion.

    Now, I am, God knows, no expert on comparative religion. But among the more popular human attributes that many religions condemn is the human desire to possess material things. (Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s oxen or wives, etc.) And most religions remind us that we are all brothers and sisters of one humanity.

    But man persists in liking to have things and organizing around groups smaller than humanity. Specifically, modern Western civilization — and the United States, in particular — has done rather well organizing into nations and permitting its people to be free to produce and keep most of the fruits of our labor.

    Reading Obama’s Berlin speech, I see dangerous suggestions that he doesn’t share that happy view of American prosperity. As he said, while he came to Berlin as “a proud citizen of the United States,” he also came to Berlin as “a fellow citizen of the world.” Putting aside the thought that a rally in Berlin in front of a quarter-million glistening-eyed, bosom-clenching, swooning Germans is a historically awkward spot for a leader to proclaim his worldwide goals for tomorrow, his actual words are disconcerting enough — even if they had been delivered in peaceful Switzerland.

    He said: “The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between natives and immigrants cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. We know that these walls have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a union of promise and prosperity.”

    That last sentence would suggest that Obama is not terribly keen about nation-states. It suggests that he believes that nation-states have outgrown their practical and moral utility. That is why, presumably, he says that we must tear down the walls between the countries “with the most” — that would be the United States — and those with the least. That is why he calls for tearing down walls between “natives and (illegal?) immigrants.” That is why he is for strict reductions in carbon emissions for the United States, even if it reduces our prosperity more than it does poorer countries.

    That is why he is a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 2433, the Global Poverty Act, a bill Obama’s own Web site proudly claims would “cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015.” Now, that bill would only authorize the end of gross wealth disparities between nations; it doesn’t appropriate money for it or order taxes to pay for it. So technically, that promise doesn’t cost a cent. But if Obama is sincere about those goals he proudly champions — and if he has the political power next year to raise taxes and appropriate taxpayer dollars — we could see the beginning of vast transfers of our wealth to his “fellow citizens of the world.”

    Sen. Obama owes it to the public to let us know how much of our hard-earned money he, in his wisdom, believes we have a moral obligation to give away to poor people around the world — and how much of our money that he has a moral obligation to extract from our wages forcefully, through federal taxation. He has a moral obligation to do as the Hindu god Rudra did and tell his intended subjects what of ours he will destroy to make us better people.

    I hope Obama is just saying stuff that he thinks sounds good to the kids. But if Obama means what he says, we should brace for the wrath of Rudra.

  98. I am very suspicious of Castro saying that the Cuban model doesn’t work. Why after all this time is he willing to normalize relations with America??? Could it be he wants to be part of the North American Union?? Does he just love Obama or what??? This is just weird!

  99. Hillary’s Home run of a speech by Tunku varadarajan

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-08/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-speech-better-than-obama/

    The secretary of State delivered the best speech of the Obama administration this morning. Tunku Varadarajan on her “new American moment”—and why she’s better than her boss.

    Behold the Hillary Doctrine. And heap abundant gratitude—and rose petals if you have them on hand—on the firm, unfussy, deeply reassuring woman who has just offered it up to the world.

    In the 20 months since this administration began administering (a verb I use only in the loosest sense), the speech Wednesday morning by Hillary Clinton, delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations, was the first time we have been given an unreserved lift of the heart by any of its members. It was, by far, the best speech of this administration. Whereas her president has frequently wrung his elegant hands, doing the rounds of the world to reassure foreign leaders that America is a cuddly bunny at heart, the secretary of State declared Wednesday that we are all living “a new American moment—a moment when our global leadership is essential.” There was no bowing from her to potentates in robes; there was, instead, a promise that “we will do everything we can to exercise the traditions of American leadership at home and abroad.”

    Try this for size: “The United States can, must and will lead in the new century.” In order to do that, Clinton promised “a new global architecture,” “built to last and withstand stress.” And in a muscular departure from the way in which this administration—for fear of seeming Bush-like—has been shrinking from the unembarrassed propagation of American values, she uttered these plainspoken, unadorned words: “Democracy needs defending.”

    Hillary’s Home Run of a Speech

    by Tunku Varadarajan Info
    Tunku Varadarajan

    Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter Fellow in Journalism at Stanford’s Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU’s Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor at The Wall Street Journal. (Follow him on Twitter here.)
    X Close
    Tunku Varadarajan

    * – +
    *
    * print

    * Twitter
    * Emails

    Enter your email address:

    Enter the recipients’ email addresses, separated by commas:

    Message:
    Your email has been sent.
    Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!

    X Close
    * Share
    *

    Enter your email address:

    Enter the recipients’ email addresses, separated by commas:

    Message:
    Your email has been sent.
    Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!

    X Close

    BS Top – Varadarajan Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations September 8, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images) The secretary of State delivered the best speech of the Obama administration this morning. Tunku Varadarajan on her “new American moment”—and why she’s better than her boss.

    Behold the Hillary Doctrine. And heap abundant gratitude—and rose petals if you have them on hand—on the firm, unfussy, deeply reassuring woman who has just offered it up to the world.

    In the 20 months since this administration began administering (a verb I use only in the loosest sense), the speech Wednesday morning by Hillary Clinton, delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations, was the first time we have been given an unreserved lift of the heart by any of its members. It was, by far, the best speech of this administration. Whereas her president has frequently wrung his elegant hands, doing the rounds of the world to reassure foreign leaders that America is a cuddly bunny at heart, the secretary of State declared Wednesday that we are all living “a new American moment—a moment when our global leadership is essential.” There was no bowing from her to potentates in robes; there was, instead, a promise that “we will do everything we can to exercise the traditions of American leadership at home and abroad.”

    What is so piquant here is not the fact that Hillary understands that Obama is president. It is the growing sense that Hillary would have made a much, much better president than Obama.

    Try this for size: “The United States can, must and will lead in the new century.” In order to do that, Clinton promised “a new global architecture,” “built to last and withstand stress.” And in a muscular departure from the way in which this administration—for fear of seeming Bush-like—has been shrinking from the unembarrassed propagation of American values, she uttered these plainspoken, unadorned words: “Democracy needs defending.”

    Human rights, too, came in for a robust airing: China was scolded, and exhorted to follow “the rules of the road” in its aspiration to be a great power; as was Russia, for its invasion of Georgia. The message: We may live in a multipolar world, but we have higher standards by far than those who would style themselves as our equals.

    Clinton used phrases like “American might,” words that we are more accustomed to hearing from Republicans—words that we’ve come to believe that many Democrats can’t bear to voice. How refreshing, therefore, that she should reach into a vocabulary of pride that most American citizens would applaud.

    Hillary Clinton invoked the name of Dean Acheson in her reference to the need for “good, old-fashioned diplomacy,” and there certainly was an air of the Achesonian, of the statesman, about her speech. Good, old-fashioned diplomacy, it should be noted, is in contrast to Obama’s apparent preference for seeing America as a nation like any other, only a bit bigger, richer, and better-armed. Clinton’s “old-fashioned” diplomacy is based, by contrast, on the unquestionable premise that America is the world’s leader. Not primus inter pares; just primus.

    In her speech, Clinton referred to the sources of “American might.” The first, of course, is “economic power.” But it is her hailing of the second—America’s “moral authority”—that was so invigorating.

    It was Acheson who said: “The most important aspect of the relationship between the president and the secretary of state is that they both understand who is president.”

    What is so piquant here is not the fact that Hillary understands that Obama is president. It is the growing sense that Hillary would have made a much, much better president than Obama.

  100. Gov Haley Barbour said in an interview that, “…maybe America is ready for an Andy Obama…” when asked if the country is ready for a southern, former lobbyist and Governor to be President. You gotta love him.

    Gov Ted Strickland goes unhinged over Labor Day, Howard Dean style:

  101. In a just and sane world Hillary would be President right now
    Posted on September 8, 2010 by John w Smart

    http://johnwsmart.wordpress.com/

    In a just and sane world Hillary would be President right now. This morning Clinton gave ‘the best speech of the Obama administration.‘ It is increasingly clear that the DNC. the media, and sexist goons on the Left did nearly irreparable harm to the United States by stealing the 2008 Democratic nomination from Clinton and giving it to the undeserving, entitled, brat Barack Obama

  102. Excellent article on why Obama gets so pissy. According to this guy, it’s understandable. Excerpts here, but the whole thing is good:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-origins-of-barack-obamas-petulance/

    I would be miffed too if I were Obama

    Obama in just twenty months has developed a reputation for being petulant, unusually sensitive to the normal run-of-the-mill criticism. His latest push back was his strangest so far: “And they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, it’s just — but it’s true.”

    Given that Obama has previously called out talk radio critics by name — Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh — attacked everything from limb-lopping surgeons to vacationing at Las Vegas, and in condescending fashion tsk-tsked those who attend Glen Beck rallies, rural Pennsylvanians, and his own “typical white person” grandmother who raised him, his thin-skin touchiness seem inexplicable.

    —–

    Yet Obama’s petulance, I think, more likely derives from a certain surprise — leading to anger — that originates from novel and sudden demands for accountability. Quite simply, no one has dared question Obama before — much less press him for deeds to match his mellifluous words.

    Did he really think he could talk his way through four years of the American presidency?

    Apparently, he did, and apparently he was almost right — given that rhetoric and sophistry earned him the presidency in the first place. In what follows, I hold some empathy for Obama’s pique; you see in some sense those around him suddenly changed the rules, and what in the past had been habit and custom no longer quite applied.
    —-

    The exotic name, the mixed racial heritage, and the street cred cool, juxtaposed to the nerdy professorial sermonizing, trumped the need to author or repeal significant laws, or create lasting community institutions — or to leave any footprint of achievement at either the University of Chicago, the Illinois legislature, or the U.S. Senate. Running for office or courting appointments or angling for promotions seemed divorced from worry about doing anything when such wishes were granted. Obama’s tragedy is that there is nothing left he can run for, no further adulatory confirmation for just being Obama. Performance for the first time in his life is now all that counts.

    —-

    For some reason, Obama believed that those who expected after his campaign promises a real upturn in the economy, or fiscal responsibility, or inspired foreign policy would be satisfied, as they had in the past, merely with soaring rhetoric and superficial reassurance. When they were not, and voiced such displeasure, as ingrates they had supposedly reduced Obama to canine-like status.

    —-

    Given all that, it is understandable both why America is very worried what it has wrought — and why Barack Obama is miffed and lashes out.

    You would too if both accountability and criticism were novel experiences at 49.

  103. The very wealthy will not be hurt be these tax cuts expiring. It will be small investors like myself. I cannot afford to pay double capital gains. It’s not worth it so I will not be investing much in the future. Also estate taxes will double, causing an elderly gentleman I know wanting to die before Jan. He has already paid income taxes on his money, so now his children will have to give half of his hard earned money to the government?? That means he is being taxed twice. Obama just wants more of our money so he can flush it down the toilet.

  104. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/09/american-university-expert-democratic-turnout-lowest-in-80-years/1

    Study: Democratic turnout for primaries lowest in 80 years

    For the first time since 1930, more Republican voters showed up to vote in statewide primaries this year than Democrats — another sign of the huge challenges facing President Obama’s party in this year’s elections.

    The new figures come from a just-released report by voter turnout expert Curtis Gans of American University.

    Gans looked at 35 primaries held before Sept. 1 and found that 4 million more Republicans voted than Democrats — statistical proof of the “enthusiasm gap” that pollsters and pundits have been talking about.

  105. John Smart is absolutely right. We want reparation, reparation in the form of Hillary in the WH in 2012, nothing less than that is acceptable.

  106. I just wish they would sort out business taxes and make them more friendly and more help for small businesses.

  107. She ended the speech in a fabulous way, around 39:00 and Q/A starts right after. Her first answer is about the debt.

  108. I don’t know if any of you have read jbjd’s last chapter of “A Coup” at no quarter. I did and I am so mad I could scream. What this Richey did in Texas should require a prison sentence. I just wish that I had know all of this while I was off for so many months…I would of driven to the office of Richie and filed a citizen’s complaint against the election fraud. The Texas Democrat party put in the very same articles they used to get Obama in and they called it a victory for Obama. If we don’t get to the bottom of this we will have to put up with this fraud for another 4 years.

  109. Sky News Europe breaks that a Radical Muslim leader calls for mass US flag burning on September 11 in retaliation for Koran burning by US church.

    Stupid is as stupid does, i dont know why they people indulge in dumb acts like this. Both of them need to sit their asses down and stop picking fights.

  110. Until now, no one has found the right line of attack against Mr. Obama.

    They said Obama lacked experience whereupon Brian Williams laughed and told them who needs experience when you brilliant like he is and surround yourself with other brilliant people like me. Like whom? Well like me for starters. I thought you would never ask. You know many people mistake me for Walter Cronkite, but the truth is I am better looking.

    They said Obama was a fraud because he had someone ghost write his two fictional biographies, refused to produce his records documenting such things as his birth in Hawaii, his college records, his professional records, spent over $2 million to hide them, whereupon hard-up left wing pundits declared that this was irrelevant compared to his spindly arms and pudgy abs.

    They called him corrupt because of his shady connections to Rezko and Chicago crime lords, a racist minister and a circle of radical friends who advocated violence and murder in their youth, whereupon apologists all said he was just sewing his wild oats and only a racist republican loving scumbag would dwell on such minor indiscretions by a man of color.

    The bottom line is we need a new angle of attack, one that will penetrate the thick skull of the idiots who voted for him. And by happy coincidence we now have one–he is bankrupting the country domestically, and internationally our inability to manage our debt means we can no longer lead the world. That criticism is objective, quantifiable and deadly.

    But even better it takes away the moral high ground. Why? Because this is a disaster of his own making–a self inflicted wound. This is not the machinations of some right wing nut poised to spill his spoonful of brains before the snow flies, as MO fantasized about to attract sympathy. Rather, it is the work of Pelosi, Reid and Obama themselves. How ironic.

    It is more than the economy stupid. It is a stupid man adding so much debt to the economy at such an inopportune moment that it threatens our livelihood and our future in tangible quantifiable and measurable ways. At the same time it impairs our ability to lead the world, as Hillary correctly told the Council of Foreign Relations as well as the Brookings Institute. This is the theme that people are tapping into now– from both sides of the aisle. It has no effective defense.

    I stand by my prediction that in the fulsomeness of time, Barack Hussein Obama will be the most hated man in America. LBJ achieved that statue during the height of the Viet Nam. If an economic catastrophe of his making hits this country, he will make LBJ look like a piker. At that point you will be able to knock over his political career with a feather. My abiding sense it is coming and at this point I doubt it can be avoided. Would that it were otherwise.

Comments are closed.