Breaking News: Hillary Clinton Quits! Shermanesqely Refuses To Run In 2012 AND 2016!

We can barely breathe. We are staggered. It’s only by grace of administered smelling salts that we can function. Having risen, with assistance by Pink clad angels from our fainting couch, we can now tell the tale. The lace kerchiefs are stained with tears but we will persevere in this, our painful task.

Always reliable and trustworthy JanH broke our hearts this morning by posting several Big Media news reports which announced without equivocation that our Hillary is gone. JanH responsibly posted the articles along with the links to those articles which verify the horrible. She won’t run. She’s out. [Bear with us a few moments while we gather our strength. Just a few moments while we wipe our overflowing noses, and overwhelmed with tears, eyes.]

Dizzy with weakness we ordered worldwide searches be carried out. Could it really be true? Has the unendurable occurred? The confirmation arrived. It was true… everything JanH posted was true.

Eyes blurred with oceans of pain we read the confirmations. Politico declared that Hillary was “stomping out” the rumors of a presidential run. CBS headlined, “Hillary Clinton Rules Out 2012, 2016 Presidential Runs“. Such strong language. Hillary “stomping out” the rumors – we could not bear to visit DrudgeReport which undoubtedly has sirens blaring.

We took another break to fan ourselves. “Air… Air” we gasped. The room spun. Nausea made an appearance. We were as weak as a rail thin socialite who has over-dieted.

We bit briefly on a proffered cucumber sandwich. A drop of Port sustained us. Slowly, the room halted it’s spin. Pink feathers stirred the air and helped return us to full consciousness. We had to endure the unendurable. We had to swallow poison. We read on – deep into the painful reports.

What shocking words did Hillary employ? What new Shermanesque declaration has Hillary thundered? What fresh and unequivocal statement did Hillary employ to stomp out any and all possibility for HOPE in 2012 and 2016. Did Hillary actually state a strong variation of:

“I hereby state, and mean all that I say, that I never have been and never will be a candidate for President; that if nominated by either party, I should peremptorily decline; and even if unanimously elected I should decline to serve.”

Like Livingston, we began our review and search for the source of this denial

The first article JanH had posted was from Reuters:

“Clinton rules out a presidential run through 2016

CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ruled out running for president in 2012 or 2016 on Friday, saying the United States should be ready for a woman president but it would not be her.

In interviews in New Zealand, the failed 2008 presidential candidate made clear she had no plans to run again despite talk — fueled partly by her fellow Democrats’ losses in Tuesday’s U.S. mid-term elections — she might embark on a new race.

Asked by TV3 New Zealand whether she ruled out standing for the top U.S. office through 2016, Clinton, according to a U.S. reporter, replied: “Oh yes, yes. I’m very pleased to be doing what I’m doing as secretary of state.”

In a separate interview with TV New Zealand, Clinton said she hoped the United States was ready for a female president, adding “it should be.”

Asked if it might be her, she replied: “Well, not me. But it will be someone and it is nice coming to countries that have already proven that they can elect women to the highest governing positions that they have in their systems.”

Well that wasn’t a declaration of candidacy but it was not for the statement she surely must have made to “stomp” out the rumors. We continued our search for the booming statement of noncandidacy.

We reviewed the article from Politico:

Clinton again denies presidential run

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found herself on Friday again stomping out rumors that she might run for president.

Asked by TV3 New Zealand if it was true that she wouldn’t vie for the top office, Clinton replied: “Oh, yes, yes. I’m very pleased to be doing what I’m doing as secretary of state.”

Clinton also said in a separate interview that she hopes the United States is ready to elect a female president – but it won’t be her.

Not me, but it will be someone, and it is nice coming to countries that have already proven that they can elect women to the highest governing positions that they have in their systems,” she said.”

We were still searching for the elusive actual words with which Hillary “stomped” out the rumors. Thus far all we could uncover were polite denial non-denials. These were demure demurrals. We continued in our search for the rough and tough declaration we were sure to locate.

We checked CBS’s news report but it was essentially a repeat of the Reuters report.

We examined another of JanH’s finds which included a video and the actual transcript of Hillary Clinton’s remarks. Pay dirt. Surely the shocking quotes would be here. With trepidation and trembling cheeks, we proceeded to examine the article.

Skimming through most of the article, which deals with an examination of American-New Zealand diplomatic relations (an interesting read but not the object of our search) we hunted down the relevant section of the interview conducted by Guyon Espiner:

“Espiner: A final question, you’re in a country that has had two female prime ministers. You’re heading to a country that’s just had its first female Prime Minister. Is your country ready for a female president?

Clinton: Well, I hope so. It should be.

Espiner: Could that be you?

Not me, but it will be someone. And it is nice being in two countries that have already proven that they can elect women to the highest governing positions that they have in their systems.

Espiner: Good place to leave it, thanks Secretary Clinton very much for your time.”

That was it? That was the quote? That was the declaration? Impossible! We continued our search.

Aha! We found another interview. The Holy Grail of denials for sure. Another diplomatic relations question session in an interview conducted by Duncan Garner. Here we would find the declarative Sherman beyond a doubt.

QUESTION: Just looking long term, do you still rule out standing for top office, for president –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, I –

QUESTION: — even as going as far as 2016?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh yes, yes. I’m very pleased to be doing what I’m doing as Secretary of State.”

That’s it? That’s the stomping? An interrupted, off the hand response? What did they expect from a diplomat at an interview to discuss diplomacy? With the politically cold dead body of Barack Obama shipped about Asia like a crate of clattering plates what was Hillary Clinton supposed to say?

Memo on manners to Big Media: When you are at a funeral you don’t pull the ring off the finger of the corpse even if it does belong to you.

From such meager gruel are Big Media headlines manufactured. On occasion, such as today (and other naughty BREAKING NEWS days) we employ SHOCK headlines to deflate or demonstrate a point. On those occasions, our SHOCK headlines are meant to convey a point not to deceive.

Yesterday, we published Hillary Clinton At Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, Part I. That article is a preemptive rebuttal to nonsense such as today’s Big Media deceptions.

* * * * * *

Speaking of Big Media deceptions. Today Keith Olbermann, a deranged inmate in the asylum known as NBC/MSNBC, is suspended without pay. Olbermann made several maximum political donations to guests on his circus. Such donations are contrary to ethics rules at NBC (ethics at NBC?) and certainly make a mockery of Olbermann’s attacks on News Corp for making political contributions from their corporate account.

The deception here is not to acknowledge that NBC and MSNBC “news and public affairs programming” are a political contribution to the candidates they like – think Obama 2008.

* * * * * *

What today’s nonsense drama headlines prove is that what we have written about Obama also applies to Big Media. Remember:

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.

Share

186 thoughts on “Breaking News: Hillary Clinton Quits! Shermanesqely Refuses To Run In 2012 AND 2016!

  1. JanH you also posted this earlier, which bears reposting:

    Barack Obama is doomed – enter Mrs Clinton

    Despite the efforts of the US media to support St Barack, the Americans are having none of it, writes Simon Heffer.

    By Simon Heffer
    Published: 05 Nov 2010

    Four days after the elections, the rage continues. If giving the Democrats a hiding was supposed to soothe the electorate, something has gone wrong. It – or rather the Democrat reaction to it – appears simply to have made things worse.

    To the rest of the world, it might have seemed that President Obama’s press conference after the defeat was an admission of personal failure. But it wasn’t: what went wrong was the economy’s fault, he argued – and, by extension, it was the fault of the electorate for not seeing that. Despite the best efforts of the Leftist-dominated media here to support St Barack, the people are having none of it. The result is that his failure to go down on his knees and repent of his big-state, high-spending, pro-bureaucracy, unemployment-boosting policies has left the punters even more choleric than they were already. If he really does want to be a one-term president, he’s going exactly the right way about it.

    The anger was further stoked by the President’s decision to leave yesterday on a long trip to India and the Far East. Although it is being sold here as some sort of trade mission – though he is likely to find that whatever America might want to sell in that region, the locals can make it just as well and at a small fraction of the cost – his departure is viewed as an escape from the line of fire.

    He is also being heavily criticised for going to a country with a recent history of terrorist outrages, necessitating a security operation that is adding a further large chunk to his country’s national debt. As well as his taking 500 staff, 13 aircraft and four helicopters have already flown in a fleet of cars and communications equipment, and no fewer than 34 US warships are said to be hovering off the coast. Some of his critics here were already drawing comparisons with the court of Louis XVI just before the French Revolution, and this hasn’t helped.

    His Republican opponents are on the march against him. But so are elements within his own party. America’s latest unemployment figures were confirmed yesterday still to be 9.5 per cent, large parts of whole cities are derelict, and average incomes are tumbling. A president elected to give hope to precisely these people has not only failed, but seems to become ever more apart from them. The Democrats are worried.

    I have talked in New York this week to prominent supporters of Hillary Clinton, and their view is clear: St Barack cannot win in 2012, unless the Republicans (and this cannot be ruled out) put up a divisive candidate against him. They want Mrs Clinton to resign as Secretary of State and announce that she will seek the nomination. This would not be unprecedented: Jimmy Carter, with whom Mr Obama is increasingly compared, was challenged by Ted Kennedy in 1980, despite being the incumbent president. Mr Kennedy lost – but so too, subsequently, did Mr Carter. It is a precedent influential Democrats want Mrs Clinton to follow.

    She has time on her side. A Clinton machine is still in place, nursed by her husband, who seems to remain the most popular man in America, despite everything. She can brood for another year or so if she wants, for if she chooses to take on St Barack she will always be the front-runner.

    That such things are being so widely discussed is the greatest sign of the mess Mr Obama is in. However, since he doesn’t seem to “get” what is upsetting the rest of his country, there is no reason why he should “get” what is upsetting his own party. This may yet turn ugly.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8113741/Barack-Obama-is-doomed-enter-Mrs-Clinton.html

  2. LMAO!

    “Memo on manners to Big Media: When you are at a funeral you don’t pull the ring off the finger of the corpse even if it does belong to you.”

    ————–
    Very true. Should I promise not to post articles with headlines like these ever again? 🙂

  3. thank you, Admin, for the reminder of the media’s (again) making mountains out of a simple “yes” or “no” from the Clintons. Your article will put to rest the media meme, and calm the anxieties those of us who were flabbergasted by that non-news item.
    If Hillary, or Bill, were to read that trash, their response would be: you wish. For the rest of us waiting…waiting…the wait will soon be over.

  4. And Madame Secretary is in major news stories AGAIN regarding running for President in 2012 and/or 2016. The WH must be ready to scream. Madame Secretary is working and giving a news conference while Obama the loser is loading up to go sightseeing with the wife and kids for yet another vacay. The foreign press has decided to drive the Obama WH mad.

  5. Admin – You certainly have the ONLY antidote to Big Media Hopium Overdose! The Timing of “Clinton Won’t Run” ….as The Head Boob runs as fast as he can away from his “shellacking’ to his Homeland in Indonesia is par-for-the-course.

    Bravo!

  6. Oooh La La!!!!

    The foreign press is indeed having so much fun!!!!

    And BTW – that was no mistake on NZ’s leader calling her “president clinton”…..

  7. Of course, the so called Clinton “statement” is nothing more than a PR booster from Obama’s media friends meant to try and put her out of the picture….it won’t work.

    We knew this would be the game plan because Obama’s team know the challenge is coming and want to try to shut her down and put her away like the primaries by deception and lies.

    A 2nd term for Obama is non negotiable, we all know Obama is using HRC, if he was to win in 2012,god forbid, you can bet he will sack her as Secretary of State and ruin her for 2016, this is why he must be taken out now.

  8. excellent article Admin.

    BTW, just very recently NBC now has Comcast as its primary owner, I would bet that’s why that pervert on msnbc was suspended. Comcast is a very well run company and wants to maintain profitablity which is not possible when there are lunatics on msnbc. I would bet it was Comcast that told NBC to shape up and fast!

  9. sorry – the “and this” was left over….

    was looking for something else. But I thought “why bother?”

    We all know Obama cannot be trusted.

  10. Admin – you always bring me back to reality.

    Thank you for your IN YOUR FACE post on Hillary’s refusal to run again.

    —–

    Psssssst JanH, glad you liked it. 😉

  11. Well Bloomie!!!!

    I could have told you so in 2007-2008, but you were kissing that arrogant’s ass pretty much all the time in those NY fund raisers!!!

  12. Three Dems have already announced they won’t support the old lush’s bid for Minority Leader.
    —————–

    that is pathetic…only 3 so far? I wonder they are….

  13. Admin,

    You can’t write titles for your articles like that. The premise for my staying up to date with politics is that Hillary WILL run, let me rephrase, Hillary WILL win the WH in 2012. Your witing is so good, you could title your articles ‘ How to perform an enema ‘ and I’ll read it. But that she won’t run again?? Not a good title….

    Great article though……..

  14. Three Dems have already announced they won’t support the old lush’s bid for Minority Leader.

    That would be 3 of the 185 Democrat Congress-Critters who have stood up to Nancy Pelosi. MoveOn.Org will do a money bomb against all three by Monday.

  15. Yes, leave it to Admin to get to the root of the splashy headline. Which means a little exploded into a lot, and very misleading.

    So what is new.

  16. Admin: You had me laughing thru the whole article. All stunts are done by the bots…Hillary will laughing all the way down 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. as she moves her stuff back into the WH, while MO moves hers out!

  17. As you may be aware, the Committee on Rules is the only Committee — other than the Intelligence and Ethics committees — which does not have the ability to broadcast video of its proceedings in its main hearing room.

    ==============

    So how much of the other committees’ work does get broadcast — or watched?

  18. from the previous thread:

    “Bill knew how to keep it simple, stupid. He wasn’t wedded to party purity, he was wedded to WHAT WORKS-”
    ___________________

    Agreed- However, Bill was never in the pocket of special interests, such a Big Pharma. Essentially the reason the bought and paid for Congress (by Soros) votes the way it is told to; rather than voting for what is good for the people.
    _________________________

    Admin:

    So, the possiblity of Hillary accepting a DRAFT for the dem nomination is still in play. The never was and never will be is just alot of hooey!

  19. As for Bill’s 1993 budger that passed with no GOP votes — at least sfaik it passsed in a fair vote, not by Pelosi’s twisty procedures.

  20. The Blue Dogs voted against their constituencies with the assurance that Nancy had their back. How many (of those left) do you think are going to go out on a limb for that traitorous bully again?

    I would not be surprised, if she gets voted in as minority leader, to see some Blue Dogs switch to R. Me, I think it’s hilarious if the Dims are dumb enough to make Nancy the “face” of their party for another 2 years. Go ahead, implode some more.

  21. I gasped when I saw the headlines

    ——–

    Me too, I started hyperventilating.

    I thought, Admin is going to prove it is true.

    My blood started to boil.

  22. turndown, you are correct. And it was just a budget, not a complete restructuring of 1/6 of the nation’s economy. You don’t DO crap that big without bipartisan support. Sorry. And you certainly don’t do it without even an actual Senate vote – sneaking it in under procedural hijinks. On Christmas Freaking Eve. Without letting anyone see or debate the final bill.

    That’s a betrayal of the public trust on a MASSIVE scale. And I’d say that even if I had liked the bill. You just don’t stomp on the people and the legislative process like that. Not on stuff that affects us all.

  23. gonzotx
    November 5th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
    This may yet turn ugly.

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

    it already is

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

    I gasped when I saw the headlines
    _______________________________________

    Admin i almost had a stroke when i saw that headline

  24. Wed Nov 3 on CNN:

    Kinda surprised this didn’t get more/any attention. Granted, it’s Parker Spitzer but still….

    James Carville speculates that Pres. Obama may not run for reelection if the economy doesn’t recover:

    [skip to 1:20]
    http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/11/03/ps.arena.obama.substance.cnn

    Later in the conversation, Eliot inevitably turns to 2012. Sorry, no video.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1011/03/ps.01.html

    Eliot Spitzer: 2012. Hillary Clinton. What does she do? Does she want to be vice president?

    James Carville: I don’t think so … I think she’d like to be president one day. I don’t think she’ll run against the president.

    Spitzer: So she’s waiting for 16?

    Carville: I said once that running for president is like having sex. No one did it once and forgot about it. There is a high recidivism rate. Okay? Bob Dole would run for president if he could. (Laughter.)

    Ralph Reed: Let me translate that for you. Hillary Clinton is going to be the loyal soldier whether he goes down in 2012 or not. She will run for president in 2016, and I think she will be the Democratic nominee.

  25. What the fuck is this Jarrett woman talking about? BTW I recommend reading all of it.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=19EA345F-ED22-2522-4B3A3477D2192616

    In author David Remnick’s Obama biography, “The Bridge,” he quotes White House adviser and longtime friend Valerie Jarrett: “I think Barack knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is. … He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability — the extraordinary, uncanny ability — to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make sense out of them, and I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. … So, what I sensed in him was not just a restless spirit but somebody with such extraordinary talents that had to be really taxed in order for him to be happy. … He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do.”

    [snip]

    It may be, however, that Obama is feeling his rebuke more keenly than is apparent to outsiders. In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” he described his feelings of embarrassment and rejection after the 2000 loss.

    “No matter how convincingly you attribute the loss to bad timing or bad luck or lack of money — it’s impossible not to feel at some level as if you have been personally repudiated by the entire community, that you don’t quite have what it takes, and that everywhere you go, the word ‘loser’ is flashing through people’s minds,” Obama wrote. “They’re the sorts of feelings that most people haven’t experienced since high school, when the girl you’d been pining over dismissed you with a joke in front of her friends, or you missed a pair of free throws with the big game on the line — the kinds of feelings that most adults wisely organize their lives to avoid.”

    and you could have avoided running for the presidency and spared US all the embarrassment.

  26. I was having a chat with a straight DEM party kind of person who voted for Obama and she said ‘I am not surprised people are angry and they have every right to be.’ I asked her what was her biggest complaint and she cited healthcare reform and how it was done.

  27. No Valerie, lovey, he’s just a lazy SOB who bores very easily and runs off to do something else. God it makes me sick.

  28. Where/how does Taylor Marsh acting like she’s got inside info that Hillary will never run for Potus? I dislike this woman always saying this crap.
    What’s wrong with TC saying they want to save Pooplosi and for that matter so does Hillbuzz, for different reasons though.
    THe bluedog hate is just terrible out there. The yellow dogs are blaming the bluedogs for defeat….how in the hell are these people suppose to be smart?

  29. Well I’ll be off the blog until Sunday night….I have to work 32 hours straight…that’s not bad but when you have cellutis (staph) infection, its dicey. I hope I make it….well at least if it gets worse I’ll be in a place they can take care of me….I never realized how painful cellulitis is.

  30. Shadowfax
    November 5th, 2010 at 6:49 pm

    I gasped when I saw the headlines
    ——–
    Me too, I started hyperventilating.
    I thought, Admin is going to prove it is true.
    My blood started to boil.
    _________________________________

    My blood ran cold and my heart sank down into my shoes..

    ______________________________

    moononpluto
    November 5th, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    Bob Kerrey: Hey, let’s hire someone to run the government for Obama
    They are kidding…right?
    ______________________________

    Outsourcing the government to private contractors while Obama sits on his custom made throne admiring himself in the mirror and reciting: “I am the president.” Shades of R.M. Nixon!!

  31. confloyd:

    The bluedog hate is why Hillary Clinton was denied the nomination in 2008, why she will never be nominated for POTUS by the New Democrat Party, and why many of us have turned our backs on the New Democrat Party in disgust.

    IMO, the only path to a Clinton presidency is:

    a) Dems nominate Øbama (or a kook like Howard Dean)
    b) Repubs nominate Sarah Palin
    c) Hillary runs as an independent third party candidate and peels off the centrists recoiling in horror from the two major parties.

    This idea that the Dems are going to turn to Hillary is crazy, IMO. That’s not who the Democrat party is now. It’s a party that would actually keep Nancy Pelosi as House Leader after she headed up a near-annhilation on election day. These people are, as they say in San Francisco these days, two fries short of a happy meal.

  32. hwc,
    The are definitely two bricks short of a full load. America is a corporate nation, if you want people to have jobs…you have to deal with that and they are too stupid to understnd that. Without Corporations there is no America. What’s wrong with these people.
    I’m just surprised at the names of the folks that are glad the blue dogs are gone….they were the only ones with “common sense”.

  33. Well, I’m goint to bed early…got to get up at the crack of dawn for work….thankgod I have a job, but I’m not a morning person anymore been on nights too long…LOL!

  34. “Hillary runs as an independent third party candidate and peels off the centrists recoiling in horror from the two major parties.”
    ____________________________

    That will never happen. Bill has spent the last two years networking within the Dem Party seperating the wheat (those who supported Hillary) from the chafe (Obama democrats). The Dems WILL turned to Bill because he is positioned to take control as the new head of the Democratic Party.

  35. I see two scenarios here.

    First off, those of you who believe she is playing her cards close to her chest are right. It’s the only way to survive this cutthroat mess and come out as being a complete team player.

    In this way, look at how everything has unfolded here. Hillary hasn’t done one thing wrong and obama is imploding all over the place. She has shown her loyalty and worked like a trojan to make him look good.

    So if the twits are now coming to the conclusion that they backed the wrong horse or knew that all along and thought they could get what they wanted in spite of him, then maybe they start making noises to the Clintons about wanting Hillary to lead them out of purgatory.

    In the meantime, nobody can say that she committed an “Et Tu Brute” against obama.

    Or…she really has decided not to run again. And who could blame her after all the backstabbing she has had to endure.

  36. Mr Murdoch details criticisms of Obama by New York mayor Michael Bloomberg.

    ”The other day [Obama] invited mayor Bloomberg to a day of golf at Martha’s Vineyard,” Mr Murdoch told Suich.

    ”Bloomberg said it was a pleasant day. In conversation he put a few ideas … He said it was like verbal ping pong.

    ”He came back and said ‘I never met in my life such an arrogant man’.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/murdoch-reveals-arrogant-obama-20101105-17hj0.html

    Arrogance or Insecurity or both? It is both.

  37. So if the twits are now coming to the conclusion that they backed the wrong horse or knew that all along and thought they could get what they wanted in spite of him, then maybe they start making noises to the Clintons about wanting Hillary to lead them out of purgatory.

    In the meantime, nobody can say that she committed an “Et Tu Brute” against obama.
    _______________________

    precicely!
    _____________________

    Or…she really has decided not to run again. And who could blame her after all the backstabbing she has had to endure.
    _________________________

    The point is she will not run… she will accept a draft nomination. The topic of the day, Obama is the worst president since…, will fill the airwaves until he is humiliated enough and ready to bow out of contention for a second term.

    The only running Hillary will do IS waiting until the general population RUN Obama out of office.

  38. JanH
    November 5th, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    I stand corrected, Mrs. Smith, and gladly so.
    __________________

    Oh, no- Jan… I wasn’t trying to be presumptuous correcting you… I wanted to clarify the dynamics of what is taking place before our eyes. You hit the nail on the head in the first quote stating the phrase ‘E tu Brute’. Hillary is protecting herself from any accusation of double dealing Obama. She may be accused of it at a later date by the media or the Obama smear machine or both. Except upon further scruitney, her hands will be clean and unsoiled proving any attempts at fabricating her backstabbing Obama unfounded and a dead end.

  39. What an entertaining essay! Especially this part:

    That’s it? That’s the stomping? An interrupted, off the hand response? What did they expect from a diplomat at an interview to discuss diplomacy? With the politically cold dead body of Barack Obama shipped about Asia like a crate of clattering plates what was Hillary Clinton supposed to say?

    Memo on manners to Big Media: When you are at a funeral you don’t pull the ring off the finger of the corpse even if it does belong to you.

  40. I see no reason why poopsie should not run for minority leader. The moderate democrats are gone, and the only thing left are Bolshviks. Poosie herself is a Bolshevik so she is perfect for the job.

  41. I don’t understand how the yellow dogs can have so much power in terms of Hillary running again. A year ago I heard that about 20% are liberal, about 20% are conservative, and the rest of us are in the middle. Of course, the numbers have shifted now, but the liberal/yellow dog group must have only gotten smaller…

  42. I don’t understand how the yellow dogs can have so much power in terms of Hillary running again. A year ago I heard that about 20% are liberal, about 20% are conservative, and the rest of us are in the middle. Of course, the numbers have shifted now, but the liberal/yellow dog group must have only gotten smaller…

  43. I don’t understand how the yellow dogs can have so much power in terms of Hillary running again. A year ago I heard that about 20% are liberal, about 20% are conservative, and the rest of us are in the middle. Of course, the numbers have shifted now, but the liberal/yellow dog group must have only gotten smaller…

  44. ‘we all know Obama is using HRC, if he was to win in 2012,god forbid, you can bet he will sack her as Secretary of State and ruin her for 2016, this is why he must be taken out now.’

    oh yes, yes, yes.

  45. For once I disagree with Krathammer’s analysis.

    The massive Republican swing of 2010 was a reaction to another rather unprecedented development – a ruling party spectacularly misjudging its mandate and taking an unwilling country through a two-year experiment in hyper-liberalism.

    A massive government restructuring of the health-care system. An $800 billion-plus stimulus that did not halt the rise in unemployment. And a cap-and-trade regime reviled outside the bicoastal liberal enclaves that luxuriate in environmental righteousness – so reviled that the Democratic senatorial candidate in West Virginia literally put a bullet through the bill in his own TV ad. He won. Handily.

    Opposition to the policies was compounded by the breathtaking arrogance with which they were imposed. Ignored was the unmistakable message from the 2009-10 off-year elections culminating in Scott Brown’s anti-Obamacare victory in bluer-than-blue Massachusetts. Moreover, Obamacare and the stimulus were passed on near-total party-line votes – legal, of course, but deeply offensive to the people’s sense of democratic legitimacy. Never before had anything of this size and scope been passed on a purely partisan basis. (Social Security commanded 81 House Republicans; the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 136; Medicare, 70.)

    Tuesday was the electorate’s first opportunity to render a national verdict on this manner of governance. The rejection was stunning. As a result, President Obama’s agenda is dead. And not just now. No future Democratic president will try to revive it – and if he does, no Congress will follow him, in view of the carnage visited upon Democrats on Tuesday.

    This is not, however, a rejection of Democrats as a party. The center-left party as represented by Bill Clinton remains competitive in every cycle. (Which is why he was the most popular, sought-after Democrat in the current cycle.) The lesson of Tuesday is that the American game is played between the 40-yard lines. So long as Democrats don’t repeat Obama’s drive for the red zone, Democrats will cyclically prevail, just as Republicans do.

    Nor should Republicans overinterpret their Tuesday mandate. They received none. They were merely rewarded for acting as the people’s proxy in saying no to Obama’s overreaching liberalism. As one wag put it, this wasn’t an election so much as a restraining order.

    The Republicans won by default. And their prize is nothing more than a two-year lease on the House. The building was available because the previous occupant had been evicted for arrogant misbehavior and, by rule, alas, the House cannot be left vacant.

    The president, however, remains clueless. In his next-day news conference, he had the right demeanor – subdued, his closest approximation of humility – but was uncomprehending about what just happened. The “folks” are apparently just “frustrated” that “progress” is just too slow. Asked three times whether popular rejection of his policy agenda might have had something to do with the shellacking he took, he looked as if he’d been asked whether the sun had risen in the West. Why, no, he said.

    letters@charleskrauthammer.com

  46. http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/hillary_praises_excellent_bling.html

    There continue to be yuks-a-plenty during Hillary Clinton’s trip abroad.

    On Friday, day after the Secretary of State was called “President” by the New Zealand Prime Minister, Clinton met with Bob Parker, mayor of Christchurch in New Zealand — and, believe it or not, the topic of “bling” came up. Parker was wearing his mayoral chains and Clinton couldn’t help but pay them a compliment.

    “And during that time, officials like the mayor – and I’m delighted you’re here. I always love those wonderful – what are they called –,” she said.

    “Bling,” said Parker, to laughter (according to a State Department transcript).

    “Bling,” Clinton repeated. “That’s the official description. Excellent bling, Mayor. Excellent bling.”

    It wasn’t Clinton’s only laugh-line of the day. She also made a joke about the fact that her D.C. residence on Whitehaven Street is right near the New Zealand embassy; she can even see into the embassy’s backyard pool.

    “And I keep an eye on the ambassador from New Zealand because he lives next door to me in Washington. And my lips are sealed,” she said.

  47. Although we did not lose all of our key positions in this election to Rep, there will be a lot of people out of work. Those are the people who form the loyal center of the party here. They owe their jobs to the Gov, and so they lose their job when their party loses the Gov position.

    If you work for the Federal Gov, you are not allowed to be politically active. However, in this state (and I think the others), the state jobs go to the people who surround the leader of the Party. When the leader says jump, their response is how high. When he says, regardless of who you think should be President, you will support who I tell you to or you lose your job and don’t get your bonuses.

    I think there is something wrong with this system, but see no way that it can and will be changed.

    I understand surrounding yourself with a staff to work for you. I don’t understand the Army’s of people in a State at the Gov disposal to do what ever they want.

    Therefore, I think the two party system is beyond change. I think the only way to get out of this mess is for the Independent movement to use their power to get the best possible candidate to run, and to use their voting power to put them in office.

  48. Right now people tend to be afraid to vote for independent candidates, because it’s usually at best a throw away vote, at worst it splits the vote against the candidate whose platform is closest to the independent you’re voting for (ie, helps the other side).

    There are a few countries (can’t remember which ones!) that have a system I’d like to see us adopt. They get to vote for two people, a first choice and a second choice. If the person’s first choice isn’t viable, their second choice is the one that is counted officially. That way, people can vote for the person they *really* want, even if that person doesn’t seem to have as much chance to win. But if enough people do that, that candidate actually CAN win.

    But again, if not enough people do it, then your second choice is used. So there’s no throw away vote. You can vote your heart with an independent, and if it’s not going to work, the worst is that you’ll end up voting for your 2nd choice, favorite main party candidate.

  49. There are a few countries (can’t remember which ones!) that have a system I’d like to see us adopt. They get to vote for two people, a first choice and a second choice. If the person’s first choice isn’t viable, their second choice is the one that is counted officially. That way, people can vote for the person they *really* want, even if that person doesn’t seem to have as much chance to win.

    ===============

    God I wish we’d had that in 2000.

    Actually each state could probably do that with their own electors.

  50. via biggovernment.com

    Miller Camp Claims AK Division Of Elections Dropped The Ball Today
    by Dan Riehl
    The Senate campaign of Alaskan Republican, Joe Miller, claims the Alaska’s Division of Elections failed to meet its responsibilities today with regard to the transparent handling of what is sure to be a closely watched ballot counting process. They say they were surprised to find out that the Absentee Ballot validation process began today at 10 a.m.

    The Miller Campaign was told of the news from a Republican Party member who was informed of the decision this morning. In response to this news, Joe Miller said, “Our goal is to uphold the integrity of the voting process. Every vote that is cast correctly should be counted. All Alaskans deserve a free, open and fair election. Unfortunately, the State Division of Elections has decided to call that process into question with the constant maneuvering of dates and procedures.”
    The Miller Campaign also renewed its vow to oversee the process to its conclusion, to ensure that the voters of Alaska have their rights protected. Miller added, ”The State of Alaska has a statutorily defined election process, anything or anyone that deviates from that process is unsettling. It is fundamental that the public be informed of the ballot review schedule in advance. Our democratic voting process has at its foundation the Constitution and the statutes of this state, and any manipulation of this process for the purposes of expediency or convenience compromises those principles.”
    Spokesman Randy DeSoto added that “we don’t know how many ballots were reviewed without public scrutiny.” “The reason this is important,”added DeSoto, “is that the public needs to be assured that a voter did not vote twice, once by absentee ballot and once in person. This appears to be the only stage of the process where such double-voting can be eliminated.”
    The absentee validation is occurring across the state in various locations. It is unclear why the Miller Campaign was not notified about the decision to begin validation today.

  51. Obama leaves election wreckage for Asia

    By Stephen Collinson (AFP)

    WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama leaves the wreckage of his Democratic Party’s election hammering for the refuge of foreign policy on Friday, setting off on a nine-day odyssey to Asia.

    Obama will visit India, his boyhood home of Indonesia, South Korea for the G20 summit and then Japan for APEC meetings, seeking to broaden US geopolitical influence and win new markets for American products in the dynamic region.

    (what would these markets be? T-Shirts and baseball caps?)

    With an eye on US voters back home, who used mid-term elections to send a cry of distress over the sluggish recovery, Obama will stress the commercial opportunities offered by Asia, as he seeks to boost exports to create jobs.

    “The primary purpose (of the India trip) is to take a bunch of US companies and open up markets so that we can sell in Asia and some of the fastest-growing markets in the world, and we can create jobs here in the United States of America,” Obama told reporters on Thursday.

    “My hope is that we’ve got some specific announcements that show the connection between what we’re doing overseas and what happens here at home when it comes to job growth and economic growth.”

    (I must be missing something here. We are to compete on the job pay scale offered by the Indian markets?)

    Obama, who has dubbed himself America’s “First Pacific president” has made no secret that he sees Asia, with its fast-emerging economies and rising strategic clout, as the most vital global region to America’s future.

    He will also give a speech to the business community and participate in roundtable events with entrepreneurs, before heading on to New Delhi where he will meet Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and address parliament.

    The president will be in the unusual position of visiting a country where his predecessor George W. Bush, who pushed a landmark civilian nuclear deal, is more popular than he is.

    Obama, who hosted Singh at the White House in his debut state dinner, is expected to tell Indians that he views the relationship between the United States and the world’s largest democracy as vital, despite seeking to improve ties with its rivals China and Pakistan.

    Next up is Indonesia, Obama’s home for four years as a boy, where the highlight of his visit will be a tour of the largest mosque in Jakarta and a major speech, likely to build on his address to Muslims in Egypt last year.

    Obama, who spent four years in the country with his late mother, will stress that Indonesia is at the intersection of US efforts to reach out to the Muslim world and to connect with dynamic, fast-growing southeast Asian economies.

    The president will arrive in Indonesia on November 9 and will have talks and a press conference with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the White House said.

    Obama had planned to visit Indonesia, where he is highly popular, twice before this year, but was forced to cancel on both occasions due to political crises back home.

    After a night in Indonesia, Obama will head to the G20 summit in Seoul and his latest bilateral meeting with President Hu Jintao at a time of flaring tensions between Washington and Beijing over China’s currency and trade.

    Both leaders may seek to defuse recent rhetorical spats, as they prepare for Hu’s important visit to the United States in January, and will also likely seek to find new understanding on the North Korean nuclear crisis.

    After the G20, Obama will make a last stop in Japan, where he will argue that US-Japan ties are healthy after a rocky first year marked by domestic political upheaval in Tokyo, and attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.

    Obama’s tour is the latest in a flurry of diplomatic missions to Asia by administration heavy hitters, reinvigorating a regional policy aides say was neglected by Bush.

    The president also led the second US-ASEAN summit in New York in September, which indirectly thrust the United States into territorial disputes between China and its neighbors.

    His trip will force him to suspend temporarily the early political positioning made necessary by the Republican seizure of the House of Representatives in Tuesday’s mid-term congressional elections.

    The result shattered the Democratic stranglehold on power in Washington and cast doubts over Obama’s hopes for a successful reelection campaign in 2012.

    White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Thursday dismissed the idea that the timing of the Asia trip was unfortunate, given the turmoil in Washington.

    “The vast majority of those in the electorate on Tuesday were focused on the economy,” Gibbs said, expanding on Obama’s theme that India in particular and Asia more generally were vital to helping create jobs in America.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i-3RB4p-L0VNdoHAQKvPmCi-tSsg?docId=CNG.14a15ebfb0dc0cab49f38b324429877c.d1
    _____________________________

    How about amending NAFTA? I’m sorry, I do not understand how a trip to India will help create jobs in America. Why isn’t Obama implementing alternative energy sources as the basis for new jobs? Why isn’t Obama using government partnerships retrofitting old buildings with energy efficient replacements?

  52. Lol, Those pesky voting machines….

    Altschuler Takes Lead in NY 1 after “recanvassing”…

    two sources who are familiar with the recanvassing of the voting machines in NY-1 tell Politico that GOPer Randy Altschuler, who’d been down several thousand votes to Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop is now up between 300 and 400 with the recanvass completed.

    There’s over 9,000 absentee ballots to be counted starting next week, but the Republican had been down by 3,400.

    Reid Epstein reached former Bishop aide and Brookhaven Democratic committee member Jon Schneider, who’s still close to the congressman, who confirmed the incumbent is now down 392 votes.

    If this holds and Buerkle lead also holds, that will be 7 House seats gained in NY!

    That’s amazing considering in the Governor’s race and Senate races, the GOP lost by 20-30 points!

    According to the East Hampton star, the absentees break down as follows:

    Republican 3,834
    Democrat 3,484
    Independence Party 283 (they endorsed the Dem)
    Conservative 237

    I think many of the Independent party voters supported Atschuler. Their platform is very focused on smaller government.

    Unlikely that Bishop could gain 392 among these votes.

    ……………………………

    What i find amazing is that the machine just forgot about 4,000 votes for the GOP candidate. How funny in New York of all places. I wonder how many other machines need recanvassing.

    The explanation for the change was described as a “wild miscount of the ballots.”

    Wonder where else there has been a “wild miscount of the ballots” that has not been caught… in Nevada, for starters, perhaps? Colorado, Washington (again), California? Alaska?

    I think there has been widespread fraud and hte GOP probably would have won a lot more had there not been.

  53. Wow

    GOP Expected to Take Control of NY Senate

    New York Gov. David Paterson, a Democrat, is conceding that Republicans “probably” have won control of the New York state Senate, which GOP leaders say has important implications for the long-term balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    No official winner has been named in three senate races in the Empire State. Republicans lead in two of those outstanding contests.

    New York Republicans, including the current minority leader, Sen. Dean G. Skelos, have said they expect to take over the Legislative gavel in the next session.

    According to a Friday report in the New York Post, Paterson told WOR 710-AM: “It is probable that Senator Skelos is right, that he will be the majority leader in 2011.”

    Republicans must win two of the three outstanding races to take outright control of the state senate. If they win only one of the contests, they would still wield negotiating power because the New York senate would then be deadlocked 31 to 31.

  54. Mrs. Smith,
    You said, “How about amending NAFTA? I’m sorry, I do not understand how a trip to India will help create jobs in America. …”
    ———-
    Let’s recall Obama Sept. 29 at U. Wisconsin, responding to the charge that he was for ‘big government’: “We don’t believe that government’s main role is to create jobs or prosperity.”

    Obama lives in his dream-world, not our world. Pronouncements by him or his administration are the babbling of the insane. Reason does not apply.

    But you knew that.

  55. Talking about the voting machines. When I worked the polls here, it was paper ballots, but they were counted by a machine. First, in the early voting process, they were taken to the voting site, we checked to make sure they said 0 on the first day. They early vote for two weeks. They are locked in the building (not a real secure building with guards), every night, and then taken to a warehouse at the end of the early voting. They supposedly were sealed, but we did not verify the vote everyday when we opened up. The people hired to run the polls (one year it was like kids), were suppose to balance everynight. We heard rumors that it was not happening. I yelled loud and clear that the staff needed more experience. They were paid twice was the party people were, and did 1/2 the work.

    On the day of election, we went to the warehouse to unseal the early voting machines. They chose two people to validate the process. I was one. I know absolutely nothing about this. Yes, they unsealed the machine, but I felt uncomfortable about what the proved. There were no techno geeks knowing what they were doing in this process. Then some machines had to be refed for some reason.

    In the next room were a large group of people counting absentee ballots. We also counted ballots, but it was the rejected ones. A party member and a opposite part member (or and Independent) sat at each table. I was doing it with someone like in their 80s. If we disagreed, we could call in the attending lawyer, and they would settle it. However, no one validated which party you were for. You were taken at your word. So that two of the same party could have been at the same table.

    The whole process left me asking questions.

  56. “There are a few countries… they get to vote for two people, a first choice and a second choice.”

    There is also the runoff election system (I know its origin and which countries use it, but am afraid to mention them here) where there are many candidates running, so no one candidate ever gets a majority in the first election, but everyone gets a chance to vote for the person they like best. Then the 2 with the biggest pluralities in the first election face each other in a runoff election 2 weeks later.

    Then there is the proportional list system in which each party puts up a list of candidates for a given number of legislative seats, so you might have 100 candidates in all for 15 seats, for example. Depending on the percentage won by each party, the seats are portioned out to the people leading each list. (I know the origin and use of this system too, but am afraid to mention it here.)

    Both these systems recognize and encourage the existence of multiple parties covering the whole political gamut, so everybody has their 2 cents to input at some point. There is a practical limit on the number of parties and party “wings” or subdivisions, but no laws concerning it.

    Our 2-party system is broken, and the response of the elites, rather than to change the electoral process, has been to provide one-party rule: This was the case with the Republicans from 2000 to 2006, and with the Democrats from 2008 to 2010. Bush was a lame duck president from Nov 2006 to Jan 2009, and now Ø will be a lame duck from Nov 2010 to Jan 2013.

  57. U.N. Gives Obama a New ‘Shellacking’ — Over Human Rights!
    By Anne Bayefsky

    Published November 05, 2010
    | FoxNews.com
    Print Email Share Comments (267) Text Size The Obama administration got a new “shellacking” this morning, this one entirely voluntary. In the name of improving America’s image abroad, it sent three top officials from the State Department to Geneva’s U.N. Human Rights Council to be questioned about America’s human rights record by the likes of Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

    This was the first so-called “universal periodic review” of human rights in the U.S. by the Council, which the Obama administration decided to join in 2009.

    The move represents a striking departure from prior American foreign policy, which has been to ratify selected human rights treaties after due consideration and submit American policy-makers to recommendations based on well-conceived standards accepted by the United States.

    But in the three-hour inquisition which took place this morning, Michael Posner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor responded with “thanks to very many of the delegations for thoughtful comments and suggestions” shortly after Cuba said the U.S. blockade of Cuba was a “crime of genocide,” Iran “condemned and expressed its deep concern over the situation of human rights” in the United States, and North Korea said it was “concerned by systematic widespread violations committed by the United States at home and abroad.”

    According to the Council’s procedure, all U.N. members are given carte blanche to comment and make recommendations to the state in the docket. But since only three hours are allotted per state, the practice has emerged of allowing approximately only the first sixty to speak.

    YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
    INTERESTED IN
    Is Taking Social Security Morally Just? The $1,000 Omelette and Other Meals You Can’t Afford Mystery of Ancient Skulls Partly Solved Tuesday’s REAL Winner U.S. Defends Human Rights Record Before UN Body This morning fifty-six countries lined-up for the opportunity to have at the U.S. representatives, many standing in line overnight a day ago in order to be near the top of the list. Making it to the head of the line were Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and North Korea.

    Recommendations to improve the U.S. human rights record included Cuba’s advice to end “violations against migrants and mentally ill persons” and “ensure the right to food and health.”

    Iran – currently poised to stone an Iranian woman for adultery – told the U.S. “effectively to combat violence against women.”

    North Korea – which systematically starves a captive population – told the U.S. “to address inequalities in housing, employment and education” and “prohibit brutality…by law enforcement officials.”

    Libya complained about U.S. “racism, racial discrimination and intolerance.”

    In response to the many Guantanamo-related criticisms, the State Department’s top legal adviser, Harold Koh, blamed the failure to close the facility on others: “President Obama cannot close Guantanamo alone. That also involves our allies, the courts, and our Congress.”

    The U.S. delegation was at pains to impress the international crowd. Esther Brimmer, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Organizations, told the assembled: “it is an honor to be in this chamber.”

    She was referring to the meeting place of the U.N. Human Rights Council – the new and improved lead U.N. human rights body created by the General Assembly in 2006 over the negative vote cast by the United States. In this very chamber the Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN member states combined. Calling the chamber home, for instance, are Council members Libya, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China.

    The Obama administration has until Tuesday to decide if it accepts or rejects the recommendations. The whole list of criticisms and recommendations, as well as the U.S. response, will be put together in a document distributed globally by the U.N. for the future edification of America-bashers around the world.

    Administration officials are attempting to spin the exercise as one of justifiable and cathartic mea culpa on the world stage. But the impression they really left was one of moral and cultural relativism in which American leadership has been squandered to the detriment of victims suffering egregious human rights violations worldwide.

    Anne Bayefsky is a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

  58. ‘Now I understand why Tingles has suddenly gone all anti Obama because of who now pays his salary.’
    _______________________

    Good find, moon. For a moment there we all thought he saw the light- changing horses (benefactors) more like it!

  59. From Times of India

    Obama’s focus is a job factory for Americans

    Obama is announcing trade deals worth $10 billion with India that are expected to create 54,000 US jobs. Obama is expected to make the announcements in a speech to US and Indian business executives on Saturday on the first day of his 10-day, four-country Asia trip.

    The commercial deals include the purchase of 33 Boeing 737s by India’s SpiceJet Airlines and the Indian military’s plans to buy aircraft engines from General Electric.

    For the most part, the deals were already pending. But the White House claims Obama’s visit to India helped seal them.

    Obama is taking credit for Spicejet’s deal with Boeing, which has been in the works for a couple of years.

    I don’t understand how he can announce Indian defense deal with GE etc., in Mumbai (not Delhi) with no prime minister or defense officials being present. Spicejet is based in Mumbai and it is a commercial deal – that I understand, even though Obama has nothing to do with that deal. If he does make an announcement tomorrow in Mumbai on the defense deal, it may be a breach of protocol. We will see.

  60. Republicans jubilant over Pelosi decision
    By Michael O’Brien – 11/05/10 01:53 PM ET
    House Republicans expressed jubilation on Friday over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) decision to stay in Congress and seek the job of minority leader. GOP figures, who had spent the better part of the 2010 campaign looking to tie Democratic incumbents to the Speaker, welcomed Pelosi’s announcement this afternoon that she would run for Democratic leader rather than resign her position and possibly resign from Congress. “The Democrats’ gift to Speaker Boehner: Pelosi as Minority Leader,” said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a deputy whip, on Twitter. “I endorse Nancy Pelosi for Minority Leader.”
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/127917-republicans-jubilant-over-pelosi-decision

  61. My congrats, admin, on a mind-blowing title and a Hillaryous article. I’ve often wondered how many hits HillaryIs44 gets each day. This one should be a big day.

    Congrats also on Part I of Hillary at Colombey yester. I had never thought of comparing Hillary to De Gaulle, who was one of the heroes of my youth, in his place of retreat. Also, you have the temerity to use an image from a foreign land, France no less, for which I came under fire in the last thread, because I have apparently spent too much of my life abroad for the tastes of some of our contributors. This foreign experience seems to disqualify me for saying anything about the US of A.

    Speaking of which, I think I owe an answer to gonzotx for the voluminous data he/she sent my way in that last thread: All of what you sent, gonzotx, was an attack on my patriotism because of feelings you assumed I have, though I have never expressed any, about America and its unblemished greatness in the world.

    Actually, I made no statement, implication or even a hint of what I think of America’s action or image in the world, nor anything that should have derided the vicarious pride you take in American exceptionalism.

    The statement I made that set you off had nothing to do with these issues, but was a statement about how Americans communicate with each other on a person-to-person or group level, and how it compared with personal communications in foreign countries. I said to nomobama that we scream at each other. In fact, Jon Stewart said the same thing as I did, and even called a DC rally on the theme, “Hey, America, Take it down a notch!”

    Moreover, I went a step further than Stewart by offering nomobama an explanation for the screaming: that we don’t listen to each other. Nomobama wondered how I had the chutzpah to know what his thoughts were, and I told him that I knew what he was thinking because he told me, and I was listening to him. As simple as that.

    This witchcraft of reading someone else’s mind was no more than attentive listening, and then I offered the idea that perhaps nomobama was surprised by this because he is not accustomed to people listening to him: In America, people have their pre-conceived notions and don’t want to hear anything contrary, and are pretty quick to start screaming at each other.

    This was part of a larger discussion of our freedoms and the corresponding responsibilities they carry, and the indispensable rules that must be erected to safeguard and enhance our freedoms, and make sure they are universally applied. Nomobama feels that “big government” is encroaching on his liberties, and I was arguing that rules are needed to guarantee, expand and universalize our freedoms, otherwise it’s the Law of the Jungle.

    You, gonzotx, completely ignored this larger discussion and even the narrower discussion of freedom of speech; you latched onto the “scream”, mistook it for an attack on America’s exceptionally beneficial actions in the world, and launched a broad counterattack on me and Europeans in defense of America, saying my “problem” was that I had lived abroad too long.

    In so doing, you proved exactly the point I was making: that Americans don’t listen to each other, ergo don’t try to understand, and quickly get into fights and “screaming,” in this case with a slew of irrelevant rants about how ungentle the French are, etc etc and etc.

    If it is any comfort to you, I recognize that there are broad swaths of America where freedoms are not exercised irresponsibly. I am thinking in particular of Appalachia. You see, in addition to traveling and living abroad, I have also made long trips around America, where I was born and raised and now live from time to time. It is possible that I have seen more of America as a whole than you have. Sorry if it looks like I’m pulling rank, but I am.

    My remarks concerned especially the densely populated areas of the US, like the NY city area I know so well, and DC, Chicago, and so forth, and also, par excellence, the media that talks at the people and never listens to them. I haven’t watched TV, including in Europe, in almost 40 years.

    There was a video once posted here, showing that Black Panther guy in Philadelphia – the City of Brotherly Love, of all places – screaming epithets and foul language laced with racism and hate on the sidewalk and, if I remember correctly, using an amplifier to make sure his “audience” got his point more clearly. The camera showed some of that “audience” walking quickly past him and his buddy, with only one or two people facing him, trying to get a word in edgewise or telling him to shut up. But on he went, screaming his hate as loud as he could.

    Now, I’m not saying that everything is that extreme everywhere in America. But what struck me the most was the people walking briskly past this guy, ignoring him or trying not to listen. It’s a vicious circle: Don’t listen; the other guy talks louder; don’t listen; the other guy gets uglier.

    I’m not saying, either, that I have some magical path out of this vicious circle, but that the basic reason why we are in it is that we absolutely must have our freedoms unfettered by rules and responsibilities. In France, there are two legal barriers against this kind of conduct that went unpunished in the streets of Philadelphia: (1) disturbing the peace; (2) the use of racial slurs or any other insulting language. In violation of the latter rule, the Black Panther would have been put in the cooler for a couple of years.

    You may view this latter law as a direct clamp on “free speech” and thus a burden on your freedom; but actually, it is a recognition of the fact that abuse of “free speech” can be injurious to others. That is, you are free to say what you want, but you are responsible for the consequences. In this case, the Black Panther could be accused of injuring many people around him, and he could be sued and jailed for it.

    In fact, I have never read of this law ever being applied in France; but that is because it is sufficient to have it on the books. There are also laws in several European countries banning holocaust denial, because spreading falsehoods is viewed as detrimental to the social order. This is a clamp on “free speech” too. Would it be possible in the US?

  62. Soros resurfaces from the slimy depths with a new label for his old Climate Change hoax.
    ____________________________

    Bank Tax, CO2 Auctions Recommended by Soros Panel to Help Climate Efforts

    By Alex Morales and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – Nov 5, 2010

    At least $65 billion might be raised by taxing foreign-exchange transactions and auctioning pollution permits, a United Nations panel said today in a report recommending ways to finance aid for fighting global warming.

    ( The United Nations openly let it be known they are in Soros’ pocket!)

    The panel, which includes billionaire investor George Soros and Larry Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said selling carbon-emissions permits would generate $38 billion and a financial transactions tax an additional $27 billion, according to the report released today.

    (And in the end, all these businesses will pass this Tax along to the consumer, reflected in the goods purchased.)

    The findings are intended to guide envoys at UN climate talks that start this month in Mexico as they seek ways to pay for $100 billion in climate aid that was pledged by 2020 to poor nations at last year’s summit in Copenhagen. The report found that the goal is “challenging but feasible” to achieve.

    “Without agreement on finance, we will not be able to reach agreement on other issues for climate change,” Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s prime minister and co-chairman of the advisory group, said at a press conference in New York. “Now we need the political will to take the decisions.”

    (Coming from the same enclave that gifted Obama the Nobel Prize.)

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed the panel, called the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, in February. It’s led by Stoltenberg and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The 21-member group also includes Soros, Summers and Deutsche Bank AG Vice Chairman Caio Koch- Weser.

    The report didn’t specify what financial transactions would be covered by the tax beyond saying the focus would be on international currency sales.

    ‘Court Of Government’

    “The ball is really now in the court of governments to move forward on generating these resources,” David Waskow, senior adviser on climate finance for the development charity Oxfam International, said in a telephone interview from Washington. “One can raise substantial public finance from public sources and do it in a way that’s not going to place additional pressure on national budgets and taxpayers.”

    The findings would add to the weight behind calls for a tax on financial speculation, sometimes termed a Tobin tax after James Tobin, the Nobel Prize-winning U.S. economist who first suggested the idea in 1971.

    (Except the Tobin Tax relies strictly on taxing intra-currecy transactions by the banks. The Tax does not transcend Bank paramaters into the public or private sectors. Soros and Summers plan will be taxing everyday public transactions done at Banking windows.)

    Former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and labor groups including the U.K. Trades Union Congress have supported the idea. President Barack Obama’s administration opposes it. A tax of 0.05 percent on financial transactions may raise as much as $700 billion a year, according to WWF, a Washington-based global environmental activist group.

    A financial transactions tax would be “difficult to implement universally” and therefore “only feasible to implement among interested countries,” the panel said in its report.

    ‘Most Exposed’

    Developing nations are “the most exposed” to the impacts of warming, Nicholas Stern, former chief adviser on climate change to the U.K. government and a member of the advisory panel, said in a statement. The UN in 2007 found that while developing countries have contributed the least to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they’re the most at risk from the effects of climate change, especially small, island states and nations in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    “As Africans, we’ve contributed virtually nothing to the environmental mess our planet is in,” Meles said at the press conference by telephone from Ethiopia. “We will, however, suffer the most.”

    (Just as the Banking crisis was created by bank derivitaves not home owners. Where is the releif coming from to save homeowners?)

    The panel assumed a carbon price of as much as $25 a ton on emissions in the levy it suggested. An additional $5 billion might be gained from a tax on carbon offsets in the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, which polluters buy to make up for emissions elsewhere, according to the study. Private offsets may generate as much as $14 billion.

    ‘Necessary Transformation’

    “Concerted global action and a carbon price of at least $25 is required to achieve the necessary transformation in the global economy,” U.K. Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said in a statement. Huhne is a member of the advisory group.

    An additional $12 billion would come from a levy on shipping and aviation, the report showed. Waskow said the levies on transportation need to be structured so as not to harm developing nations.

    Sources of finance identified in the report included direct contributions from government budgets, a measure it said may generate the full $100 billion while being politically “challenging.”

    (Here it comes… an addition Carbon Tax showing up on your gas and electric bills.)

    The panel also looked at a “wires charge” on electricity generation, which it said might provide $5 billion; the removal of fossil fuel-subsidies, which may raise $8 billion; and a carbon tax, which would garner $10 billion. Private finance could provide a net $24 billion, it said.

    (In other words, tax everyone and everything.)

    Soros Proposal Shelved

    A proposal Soros made at last year’s climate summit in Copenhagen, that the richest nations use $100 billion of foreign-exchange reserves to help developing nations fight climate change, was deemed not “politically acceptable” by the panel. The money is denominated in what are called special drawing rights, the IMF unit of accounting based on the dollar, yen, pound and euro.

    Special drawing rights, created in 1969 to replace gold for large cross-border exchanges, are used by the IMF and other international organizations to account for financial transactions in different countries.

    “We are simply asking those who created the problem to stop before it becomes too late,” Meles said. “The prospects for sanity and justice do not appear good, but I refuse to give up.”

    (yeah, right! Talk to Al Gore. I’m sure he will be a heavy donor to the proposed Carbon Tax. He’s made millions off helping creating the scam.)

  63. ecoast

    November 6th, 2010
    From Times of India

    Obama’s focus is a job factory for Americans
    ________________________

    ecoast, could you post a link to your article?

    I found another article regarding Obama’s trip to India and his apparent success in the 5 min since he’s been out of the country.

  64. Soros: “…richest nations use $100 billion of foreign-exchange reserves…”

    That’s just diabolical – as if reserves are just idle money. They are, of course, idle in a sense. But without them, the nation’s currency is in jeaopardy. Using them as cash would lead to inflation and devaluation. The dollar out the window. Maybe this is his goal?

  65. Read the words in this article carefully. Words like “dual use” means what? Nuclear material for domestic and military use? Computer technology for domestic and military use? Airplanes for domestic and military use?
    ____________________________

    Obama announces $10 billion in trade deals with India; calls relationship ‘win-win’

    MUMBAI, India (AP) — President Barack Obama announced a host of new trade deals with India supporting tens of thousands of U.S. jobs Saturday as he began a 10-day trip through Asia on a determinedly domestic note.

    Intent on demonstrating his attention to the sluggish U.S. economy even while overseas, Obama also told a meeting of U.S. and Indian executives that the U.S. would relax some export regulations that have complicated trade between America and this fast-growing country of 1.2 billion people.

    “As we look to India today, the United States sees the opportunity to sell our exports in one of the fastest growing markets in the world. For America, this is a jobs strategy,” the president said in a speech to the U.S.-India Business Council. The remarks also were aimed at U.S. voters who punished Democrats in the midterm elections in part over continued high unemployment.

    Obama said it should be a “win-win” relationship with India, but in a nod to U.S. sensibilities he also acknowledged concerns in the U.S. about outsourcing.

    “There still exists a caricature of India as a land of call centers,” the president said.

    He said people in India also are concerned about the impact of U.S. goods coming into their country, but contended that growing trade could only benefit both sides in the long run. He said he sees huge untapped potential in the relationship, noting that India doesn’t even rank among America’s top 10 trading partners.

    “There is no reason this nation can’t be one of our top trading partners,” the president said.

    To that end he said the U.S. would seek to reform export controls that resulted from past administrations’ concerns about India’s nuclear industry. The changes, which have been much sought-after in the business community, include relaxing controls on India’s purchase of so-called “dual use” technologies that could be used for civilian or military purposes, and removing a few of the last remaining Indian companies on a so-called “entities list” of groups that face restrictions on doing business in the U.S.

    The commercial deals he announced include the purchase of 33 737s from Boeing by India’s SpiceJet Airlines; the Indian military’s plans to buy aircraft engines from General Electric; and preliminary agreement between Boeing and the Indian Air Force on the purchase of 10 C17s.

    For the most part, the deals were already pending, but the White House contends Obama’s visit to India helped finalize them. Officials said the deals would support 53,670 U.S. jobs, but it was not clear how many, if any, new jobs would be created as a result. (support existing jobs.)

    Obama addressed the business leaders shortly after arriving in Mumbai, where his first stop was at the Taj Mahal hotel to commemorate the 2008 terror attacks that killed 166 people across the city. The president said he intended to send a signal by making Mumbai the first stop of the trip and by staying at the Taj, which was a target during the terror siege.

    “The United States and India stand united,” he said.

    “We’ll never forget.

    But illustrating the difficulties of the U.S.-India relationship, Indian commentators quickly seized on the president’s failure to mention Pakistan. Pakistan was the home of the 10 assailants, the place where they trained and the base they used to launch the attack.

    Pakistan is also India’s archrival — but a linchpin for Washington and its allies in the war in Afghanistan.

    After his remarks on the terror attacks, Obama visited a museum in a home where Mohandas Gandhi once lived.

    The president is aware of sometimes being perceived as antibusiness in corporate America, and said after the elections that he wanted to change that perception. Much of Obama’s day Saturday appeared geared toward that goal.

    Before speaking to business leaders, he met separately with some of them, letting reporters look on as he tied his mission to U.S. job creation and proclaimed the importance of working with fast-growing economies.

    The White House also arranged for four American chief executives who are in India for the occasion to brief reporters traveling with the president. They talked up the importance of India as a trading partner and praised Obama’s decision to come to the country to underscore that point in person.

    Obama was spending three days in India, his longest stretch yet in one country, a point U.S. officials have been careful to emphasize as they play up the administration’s interest in nurturing the relationship. On Sunday he heads to New Delhi, the capital, where he will address the parliament.

    After India, Obama is scheduled to travel to Indonesia, where he lived for four years as a youth. From there he goes to South Korea for a meeting of the Group of 20 developed and developing nations and then to Japan for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, before returning to Washington on Nov. 14, a day before the start of Congress’ lame-duck session.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-ap-obama-asia,0,6675339.story?track=rss
    ___________________

    With Republicans in control of the House, can Obama accomplish relaxing the trade restrictions in place with India?

  66. “Obama announces $10 billion in trade deals with India; calls relationship ‘win-win’”

    ———————-

    More than anything, obama sees this trip as a great opportunity to change the news cycle. I just wish India would keep him.

  67. Would we be better off under a President Hillary Clinton?

    By Dana Milbank
    Sunday, November 7, 2010

    As I sat in the East Room last week watching a forlorn President Obama account for his shellacking, I listened with concern as he described the presidency as a “growth process” and suggested that the midterm setback was somehow inevitable. “You know, this is something that I think every president needs to go through,” he said.

    It brought to mind Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone-call ad from the 2008 campaign, and her withering criticism of Obama: “When there is a crisis . . . there’s no time for speeches or on-the-job training.” I wondered whether Democrats would be in the fix they’re in if they had chosen a different standard-bearer.

    Would unemployment have been lower under a President Hillary? Would the Democrats have lost fewer seats on Tuesday? It’s impossible to know. But what can be said with confidence is that Clinton’s toolkit is a better match for the current set of national woes than they were for 2008, when her support for the Iraq war dominated the campaign.

    Back then, Clinton’s populist appeal to low-income white voters, union members and workers of the Rust Belt was not enough to overcome Obama’s energized youth vote. But Clinton’s working-class whites were the very ones who switched to the Republicans on Tuesday.

    Back in ’08, Clinton’s scars from HillaryCare were seen as a liability, proof that she was a product of the old ways of Washington. But now that Obama has himself succumbed to the partisanship, his talk of a “growth process” in office makes Clinton’s experience in the trenches look like more of an asset.

    Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children’s coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.

    The Clinton campaign advisers acknowledge that she probably would have done the auto bailout and other things that got Obama labeled as a socialist. The difference is that she would have coupled that help for big business with more popular benefits for ordinary Americans.

    Clinton, for example, first called for a 90-day foreclosure moratorium in December 2007, as part of a package to fight the early stages of the mortgage crisis with a five-year freeze on subprime rates and $30 billion to avoid foreclosures. But an Obama campaign adviser dismissed Clinton’s moratorium, saying it would “reward people for bad behavior.”

    Calls for a moratorium returned a few weeks ago with news of lenders’ foreclosure abuses. Polls indicate public support for a moratorium, but Obama ruled it out. It’s a safe bet Clinton would have done otherwise.

    Some differences would have been stylistic. As a senator from New York, Clinton had good relations with Wall Street. As the heir to her husband’s donor base, she would have had more executives in government – envoys who would have been able to ease the uncertainty about tax and regulatory policy that has been crippling business.

    Most important, there can be little doubt that, whatever policies emerged, she would have maintained a laser focus on the economy; after all, she did that during the 2008 campaign, when it wasn’t as central an issue. She got little credit, for example, when she gave a speech in Iowa in November 2007 warning about the dangers of new financial instruments. Now, it seems prescient; then, it sounded boring.

    There was plenty not to like about Clinton’s campaign, particularly her persistence in the race long after she had a chance. Had she beaten Obama, she might have introduced her own problems (a new entanglement with Iran, perhaps?). But a failure to connect with the common man would not have been among them.

    Back in April 2008, a Clinton ad delivered a populist blow to Obama: “When the housing crisis broke, Hillary Clinton called for action: a freeze on foreclosures. Barack Obama said ‘no.’ . . . People are hurting. It’s time for a president who’s ready to take action now.”

    Obama survived the challenge then. But times changed, and the president, feeling “removed” from the people, asked in the East Room how he can give Americans “confidence that I’m listening to them?”

    The answer is simple: Do what Hillary would have done.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110505214.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

  68. Grab Popcorn….the infighting continues

    Centrist Dems rip ‘tone-deaf’ White House

    Alex Sink Goes nuts on the “tone deaf” WH.

    In the wake of the party’s worst election drubbing since 1994, the deep frustration felt by many centrist Democrats toward the White House and the national party is now out in the open. And it’s being aired in the battleground state that’s the biggest prize in presidential politics.

    Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominee Alex Sink pointed an accusatory finger Friday at what she called a “tone-deaf” Obama White House to explain why she narrowly lost her campaign.

    In an interview with POLITICO, Sink said the administration mishandled the response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, doesn’t appreciate the political damage done by healthcare reform and argued that her GOP opponent’s strategy of tying her to the president did grave damage to her candidacy in the state’s conservative Panhandle.

    “They got a huge wake-up call two days ago, but unfortunately they took a lot of Democrats down with them,” said Sink of the White House.

    She added: “They just need to be better listeners and be better at reaching out to people who are on the ground to hear about the realities of their policies as well as politics.”

    Sink’s complaint can, of course, be chalked up in part to sour grapes on the part of a candidate fresh off a tough loss looking for an explanation. She lost her race by a single percentage point.

    But Sink’s pointed critique expressed the sentiments of other Florida Democrats after an election in which the party lost four U.S. House seats and every statewide contest Tuesday, not to mention statehouse losses that left Democrats facing GOP legislative supermajorities in one of the largest states in the nation.

    Sink, the state’s elected Chief Financial Officer and a former banking executive, ran against Republican Rick Scott, a wealthy former health care CEO who spent tens of millions of his own fortune.

    “I faced headwinds from Washington that I liken to a tsunami and was going up against a guy who had unlimited resources,” Sink said. “I could have overcome either one but not both.”

    Sink even had the advantage of facing a GOP opponent who was a first-time candidate who had previously run a company slapped with the largest Medicare fraud fine ever issued. But Scott countered that liability with a massive ad campaign linking Sink to Obama, a very unpopular figure in the more conservative parts of the sprawling state.

    “[People] preferred to vote for somebody with questionable ethics than for somebody who was associated with the Washington Democratic agenda,” the Floridian said.

    Sink said there is a disconnect between the White House and the rest of the country.

    “I think they were tone-deaf,” she said. “They weren’t interested in hearing my opinion on what was happening on the ground with the oil spill. And they never acknowledged that they had problems with the acceptance of health care reform.”

    The new law, she said, is “unpopular particularly among seniors” — a key voting bloc in the Sunshine State.

    Read on…………………..

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44773.html#ixzz14WHrvpwC

  69. “She added: “They just need to be better listeners and be better at reaching out to people who are on the ground to hear about the realities of their policies as well as politics.””

    Ditto my comments on listening, above.

  70. Some of the detail behind the Friday “good” jobs report; ignored by the fluffing MSM.

    “The US Labor Department’s employment report for October, released Friday, showed a net increase of 151,000 non-farm jobs, ending four straight months of job losses. However, the official unemployment rate remained at 9.6 and would have risen higher had the labor pool not shrunk by more than a quarter million people.

    The net payroll gain, the result of the addition of 159,000 private-sector jobs and loss of 8,000 public-sector positions, is far below what is needed to bring down unemployment from levels unseen since the Great Depression. The official jobless rate has been 9.0 percent or higher for 17 consecutive months, the longest stretch of joblessness above 9 percent since the 1930s.”
    (snip)
    While the employment report showed an overall increase in payrolls, it reflected the continuing social and economic disaster in the US. The total number of unemployed workers, according to the government, is 14.8 million. When those who have stopped looking for work and those working part-time but desiring full-time employment are added, the figure rises to nearly 27 million, or 17 percent of the workforce.

    The number of long-term unemployed—those out of work for 27 weeks or more—increased in October by 83,000 to 6.2 million. These workers make up 41.8 percent of the total number of jobless people. This percentage is down from a high of 46 percent in May, but the decline is likely the result of people dropping out of the labor force after having exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.

    The EPI estimates that there are some 3.9 million “missing” workers who are not accounted for in any of the jobless statistics given out by the government. These are workers who have been driven into destitution by the crisis, and their ranks are rapidly expanding.

    As the Wall Street Journal noted on Friday: “The drop in the size of the labor force is likely an indication that many discouraged workers are just giving up. The labor force is only about 50,000 higher than it was in October 2009, but the population of working-age Americans who aren’t in the military or an institution, such as a prison or home for the aged, has increased by nearly two million people over that time.”

    etc. etc.

  71. hmm Hillary’s advisers speaking out, no coincidence….

    Hillary advisors: If she were president, she’d have abandoned health-care reform and focused on economy

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110505214.html

    As I sat in the East Room last week watching a forlorn President Obama account for his shellacking, I listened with concern as he described the presidency as a “growth process” and suggested that the midterm setback was somehow inevitable. “You know, this is something that I think every president needs to go through,” he said.

    It brought to mind Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone-call ad from the 2008 campaign, and her withering criticism of Obama: “When there is a crisis . . . there’s no time for speeches or on-the-job training.” I wondered whether Democrats would be in the fix they’re in if they had chosen a different standard-bearer.

    Would unemployment have been lower under a President Hillary? Would the Democrats have lost fewer seats on Tuesday? It’s impossible to know. But what can be said with confidence is that Clinton’s toolkit is a better match for the current set of national woes than they were for 2008, when her support for the Iraq war dominated the campaign.

    Back then, Clinton’s populist appeal to low-income white voters, union members and workers of the Rust Belt was not enough to overcome Obama’s energized youth vote. But Clinton’s working-class whites were the very ones who switched to the Republicans on Tuesday.

    Back in ’08, Clinton’s scars from HillaryCare were seen as a liability, proof that she was a product of the old ways of Washington. But now that Obama has himself succumbed to the partisanship, his talk of a “growth process” in office makes Clinton’s experience in the trenches look like more of an asset.

    Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children’s coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.

    Read on…………….

  72. moononpluto, Janh already beat you to that Millbank WaPo article. I wonder how many more millions are thinking ‘we could have had Hillary’?

  73. Lol and it continues

    Team Obama Blaming Rahm

    As chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rahm Emanuel built a Democratic majority in the House. As President Obama’s chief of staff, he devised White House strategy toward Capitol Hill. So when the Democrats were going down in flames Tuesday night, where was Obama’s chief political architect? Half a continent away, campaigning for himself.

    Half a continent away, campaigning for himself in the most pro-Obama place on the planet, largely sheltered from the Republican rubble crashing down on his party all across the country.

    And his old colleagues in Washington aren’t too happy about it. Some of them shake their heads in disbelief that Emanuel would bolt at precisely the juncture when the Democrats needed to shape their strategy and message during the homestretch of what everyone knew would be the toughest election cycle in years.

    “It was Rahm who always said, ‘We’ve just got to put points on the board,’ and that’s why we have a transactional presidency,” said one former colleague. “The only problem is that Obama is not a transactional politician. It was Rahm’s strategy and then he leaves a month before the election for his own personal political career. It’s extraordinary.”

    After a month of running for mayor of Chicago, Emanuel took the time on Tuesday to call some of the defeated candidates, whose political careers he helped launch as part of the Democratic takeover in 2006.

    But the fact remains: four years later, his class of ’06 is decimated and Emanuel has left Washington politics altogether.

    Several lower-level White House aides say they’re still surprised that Emanuel would so readily follow his personal ambition instead of staying beside the many Democrats he helped elect in the foxhole in the final weeks of the campaign.

    A senior Obama aide concedes that Emanuel’s congressional strategy was a mistake—that the White House ceded far too much authority to deeply unpopular Democrats on Capitol Hill. But this source says the president had no right to stop Emanuel’s personal ambition to become mayor of Chicago, not least because of the dedication he had shown to the White House as chief of staff. The economic headwinds were a far greater factor in the Dems’ defeat, in any event, this source says.

    Some of Obama’s aides say that Emanuel’s departure did damage beyond the results on Election Day. They argue his exit deprived the president of the chance to orchestrate a dramatic staff shakeup in the wake of the poor election results. Instead, a new chief of staff—the low-key Pete Rouse—is already in place, while other aides have long held plans to leave at the two-year mark.

    Emanuel’s aides dismiss the criticism as unfounded media hype.

    “The timing of Rahm’s departure from the White House was based on two factors: Mayor Daley’s announcement that he would not seek reelection and Rahm’s desire to go to every corner of Chicago to have a conversation with voters about the challenges the city faces and the plan for its future,” said a spokesman for Emanuel. “The suggestion that he should have timed his departure to enhance a process story that the media was likely to produce after the election is absurd.”

    Emanuel was not entirely absent from the 2010 campaign in Chicago: he deployed his email list for Democrats in Illinois in the final hours. First he sent a message asking for support for Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias. Then he emailed his list asking for support for all Democrats on voting day.

    Emanuel’s own race for mayor looks far more encouraging than the prospects for Democrats in Washington over the next year. Emanuel’s biggest potential rival, Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, declined to enter the contest last week, leaving the former White House chief of staff at the front of the current pack. And Obama is far more popular in Chicago than he is in much of the rest of the country, so Emanuel’s ties to the president are likely to help more than hurt.

    Back in the West Wing, there are likely to be several departures in the aftermath of Tuesday’s elections—some of them also heading to Chicago—but will still be working for Obama. Jim Messina, Emanuel’s deputy, is expected to head up the presidential re-election effort, while David Axelrod is likely to return to his Chicago home early next year to be a strategist for the 2012 campaign.

    The economic team inside the West Wing will be almost entirely overhauled, with new appointments likely to come in the next few weeks. The staff changes are expected throughout the West Wing, including the political office, domestic policy and the press office.

    But the most significant staff change is likely to have less to do with a departure than an arrival: David Plouffe, who managed Obama’s campaign, is expected to join the White House early in the new year with an expansive brief. Plouffe’s knowledge of the House—and House campaigns—is extensive; he worked as a senior staffer to Dick Gephardt in the late 1990s and was executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2000 cycle. Plouffe is legendary for his single-minded strategic focus and iron discipline—which contrasts sharply with Emanuel’s restless, scattershot style.

    As they assess the midterm damage and plot course for the coming, more Republican Congress, one prominent pol who is not drawing disapproval from weary White House aides is the departing House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. “You can’t blame Pelosi for what happened,” the former White House aide said.

    “She did everything we asked of her.”

    ……………………………………….

    Somehow you got to wonder if there is a rift between Obama and Rahm. Why tell the voters of Illinois its Rahm’s fault when he’s running for Mayor unless you wanted payback.

  74. moon,

    I agree with pm317. It is a very good chess play on the part of Hillary’s backers to come out with this information now…and especially have it exposed in the Washington Post.

    And all this without Hillary lifting a finger too.

  75. That is the picture of the Obamas’ writing in the visitor’s guestbook at the Gandhi Museum in Mumbai.

    He misspelled ‘privileged’ and she started to spell Gandhi, Ghandi it looks like and quickly recovered.

    ===================

    I hope Sarah tweets them about it!

  76. JanH, her studious and incisive mind anticipated a lot of the problems that we experienced later and continue to experience exacerbated by the idiot and she talked about it in her campaign while she knew this idiot was not up to it which is why she stayed long in the race hoping things didn’t go the way they did and that people and the party would come around.. (now, how much longer can I make this sentence? 😉 )

    That NH tearing up was a cry of helplessness at the opportunity slipping..

    It is amazing that Dana Milbank would write about it to the extent he did comparing and refreshing people’s memory on her campaign stumps to the point of reminding many that they thought it was boring to what is going on now. But it is inevitable that people will start talking about this.

  77. Some of Obama’s aides say that Emanuel’s departure did damage beyond the results on Election Day. They argue his exit deprived the president of the chance to orchestrate a dramatic staff shakeup in the wake of the poor election results.

    =====================

    BAd, disloyal Rahm. He should have stuck around long enough to be fired?

  78. Seriously in that picture……who the hell dresses her, do they pick out something and think “lets laugh at her today again”. Her wardrobe assistants must hate her or be blind.

  79. I have been turning over in my mind what Hillary said to that Obama loving talking head in New Zealand who says with a self congratulatory tone, I guess that is where to leave it. Leave what you pompous young ignoramus? Maybe if you had a mature frontal lobe you would understand the game that is played by all politicians including your inamorata Obama when he said he would not run for president in 2008 because he needed to be in the senate for more than two years. And then of course he did, and you scarcely noticed because you had become so conditioned to his lies, and entranced by your own magic thinking.

    What you need to understand, sonny boy, is there are tactical denials, and there are substantive denials–and ner’ the twain shall meet. If I am going too fast for you, tell me and I will slow down. A substantive denial occurred when Ed Muskey broke down in tears and said I will pursue the presidency no more, or when Sherman said what he said.

    Now get ready because here is the rub: the hype that Hillary would run in 2012 did not emanate from Hillary. It was fabricated by Republicans and the right wing press so they could use her the way they did in the general election as a foil to Obama. By the same token, the hype that she would run in 2016 never emanated from her either. It was fabricated by the Obama lovers, and the left wing press to place the Hillary supporters in the party into a state of indentured servitude for the duration of his presidency and to dampened talk about her challenging him in 2012.

    The tactical question, then, is this: why would she announce her intentions in either case prematurely? She is not bound by a tactical answer she gives now. If she says she is implies that she might run in 2012, then she will have to leave her current position on someone else’s timetable, while there is still more to be accomplished, and it will do nothing for her except touch off a firestorm. If she hints that she may run in 2016, it may convince those who might leave the party on account of Obama to hold on in the hope that it will lead to her presidency. But saying what she did, she liberates herself from the right wingers on the one hand and the left wing extremists, Bolsheviks as I call them, who dominate the party, but thank God, no longer the country. She leaves them and Obama with them free to twist in the wind.

  80. dramatic staff shakeup….what, sack some useless sicophant and replace them with another Obot, yeah that’ll shake it up.

  81. Continuing along Milbank’s article, I would envision Hillary sending her best brains to talk and listen to the people on all TV Sunday shows. Not like this insecure WH occupant, who sends his minions to those shows, what does Axelrod know about healthcare or best policies or better yet, what the hell does Jarrett know about national security or better yet that ‘Bagdad Bob’ Gibbsy? Have you ever seen senior cabinet members on these shows (barring Hillary and Gates occasionally)?

  82. the hype that Hillary would run in 2012 did not emanate from Hillary. It was fabricated by Republicans and the right wing press so they could use her the way they did in the general election as a foil to Obama. By the same token, the hype that she would run in 2016 never emanated from her either. It was fabricated by the Obama lovers, and the left wing press to place the Hillary supporters in the party into a state of indentured servitude for the duration of his presidency and to dampened talk about her challenging him in 2012.

    =============

    And more excellent points!

  83. In the balance, it would be a good thing for us if Pelosi is elelcted minority leader. Evidently she has the votes, or else she would never have announced. Here is the reason why that is good for us:

    The party has just experienced a crushing defeat. She was the poster child of that disaster. That face of hers which looks like a death mask is a constant reminder of that ignominious defeat. If she is re elected as their leader, then that is what the public will see. The beauty of that–and I hesitate to use the word beauty and Pelosi in the same sentence, is that it will prevent the party from reinventing itself and presenting a fresh face for the same degenerate policies it has pursued over these past two years, which have buried the country.

  84. moononpluto
    November 6th, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Seriously in that picture……who the hell dresses her,
    ——————–

    Yeah that silk dress is so matronly, and hangs so badly on her frame, very poor design and looks like a project runway reject. I say all this only because of the hype they make her of as a ‘fashion icon’. Live up to it.

  85. the hype that Hillary would run in 2012 did not emanate from Hillary. It was fabricated by Republicans and the right wing press so they could use her the way they did in the general election as a foil to Obama.

    =================

    Excellent post overall, but I didn’t get this part. I thought the GOP fabricated 2012 to motivate PUMAs to vote GOP Nov 2, as Limbaugh said openly. Sufficient for Occam.

    Of course they may have had more than one reason. What’s this about ‘foil’?

  86. Hillary advisors: If she were president, she’d have abandoned health-care reform and focused on economy
    ————————–
    And if you go back on the blog you will find that is precisely what I have been saying she would have done, on half a dozen different occasions. Hillary and Bill are center left–like FDR. Whereas, Obama and his minions are pure Bolshevik–like Lenin with a more benign exterior. They are not really democrats at all. They are Chicago thugs. The Democratic Party is dead. Only the Bolsheviks remain. The American People see that these are not real democrats, and decide whether they want leaders who pose as vangards of the proletariat, who seek to disenfranchise them, loot them, and tear to pieces their constitution. Because if you take away all the trappings and all the hype, that is all you are left with.

  87. Plouffe is legendary for his single-minded strategic focus and iron discipline
    ———————————–
    So was Custer.

  88. Only the Bolsheviks remain.
    *********
    The continued push to fuse the interest of Corporations and the Central government brings a different “ism” to my mind. The most egregious and potentially have the most damaging precedent is Obamacare. Using the IRS to enforce payment of private funds to corporations is pure Fascism.

  89. the hype that Hillary would run in 2012 did not emanate from Hillary. It was fabricated by Republicans and the right wing press so they could use her the way they did in the general election as a foil to Obama.

    =================

    (Snip) I didn’t get this part. I thought the GOP fabricated 2012 to motivate PUMAs to vote GOP Nov 2, as Limbaugh said openly. Sufficient for Occam.
    ——————-
    In 2008 they used Hillary’s statements in the primary to corroborate what McCain was saying about Obama. If Hillary openly challenged Obama for 2012 they would do the same thing, i.e. use her statements in the 2012 primary to corroborate what they would say about him in the general election. We have been to that well before.

  90. The continued push to fuse the interest of Corporations and the Central government brings a different “ism” to my mind. The most egregious and potentially have the most damaging precedent is Obamacare. Using the IRS to enforce payment of private funds to corporations is pure Fascism.
    ——————————–
    You and I agree on that. Technically, it is inverted totalitarianism where corporations are the real string pullers. We have talked about it before. The problem is it raises no eyebrows. People’s eyes glaze over when I tell them about it. And it does not invoke the same fears of a loss of liberty and consignment to the gulag. The other term is easier for most people to understand, it does involve a takeover of the means of production and it has a historical antecedent called nightmare in red.

  91. Using the IRS to enforce payment of private funds to corporations is pure Fascism.
    ——————————–
    You and I agree on that. Technically, it is inverted totalitarianism where corporations are the real string pullers. We have talked about it before. The problem is it raises no eyebrows. People’s eyes glaze over when I tell them about it. And it does not invoke the same fears of a loss of liberty and consignment to the gulag. The other term is easier for most people to understand, it does involve a takeover of the means of production and it has a historical antecedent called nightmare in red.

    =====================

    I agree with you both but i’m getting lost on the terms. What is “the other term” here?

  92. Bomb-proof tunnel with air conditioning: Obama’s security go to extraordinary measures for his tour of the Gandhi museum
    By Daily Mail Reporter
    Last updated at 3:08 PM on 6th November 2010
    Comments (82)
    Add to My Stories
    American warships to patrol off Mumbai during visit
    Coconuts removed from trees as a precaution
    250 U.S. business executives with Obama on ‘biggest ever trade mission’
    $200million Asia trip cost denied but the President will have huge entourage

    President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle arrived in India’s commercial hub of Mumbai on Saturday, days after voters punished his Democrats in mid-term elections. Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors has a head of state travelled in such pomp and expensive grandeur as the President of the United States of America. While lesser mortals – the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and so on – are usually happy to let their hosts handle most of the security and transport arrangements when they venture beyond their home shores, the United States creates a mini-America on the move to ensure that nothing is left to chance….
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html

  93. …Obama will make history for more than one reason during the Nov 6-9 visit. This will be the first time a teleprompter will be used in the nearly 100-feet high dome-shaped hall that has portraits of eminent national leaders adorning its walls. Indian politicians are known for making impromptu long speeches and perhaps that is why some parliament officials, who did not wish to be named, sounded rather surprised with the idea of a teleprompter for Obama. “We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact,” an official, who did not wish to be identified because of security restrictions, said.
    Obama is known to captivate audiences with his one-liners that sound like extempore and his deep gaze. But few in India know that the US president always carries the teleprompter with him wherever he speaks….
    http://www.hindustantimes.com/Obama-to-use-teleprompter-for-Hindi-speech/H1-Article1-622605.aspx

  94. “We thought Obama is a trained orator and skilled in the art of mass address with his continuous eye contact,” an official, who did not wish to be identified because of security restrictions, said.

    ROFL, they will get a taste of the pseudo-Orator’s tennis head..His eyes will be locked on the teleprompter and not on his audience, no deep gaze there.

  95. holdthemaccountable
    November 6th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Bomb-proof tunnel with air conditioning: Obama’s security go to extraordinary measures for his tour of the Gandhi museum
    By Daily Mail Reporter
    —————————–

    Hopefully Indians have learned a thing or two about securing places from this Obama visit to thwart future attempts from terrorists.

  96. it does involve a takeover of the means of production..
    ********
    Just like the takeover of GM…billions of tax dollars infused to bail out incompetence, small stock holders and workers screwed, Wall street and the insiders now poised to make billions on stock re-issue. The Chinese economic model is looking more interesting…a lot of laissez faire but if you screw up and get caught, there are penalties, ie 9mm to back of head. The US system is privatize the profits and Socialize the losses and call any accountability Socialism.

    The genius of 2008 and Barack Obama was “Big Money” funding his campaign to record amounts, then labeling his pro corporate legislation “Socialism” and then two years later funding the Rethugs to defeat the Socialists and….”win…win…win very big.”

  97. The genius of 2008 and Barack Obama was “Big Money” funding his campaign to record amounts, then labeling his pro corporate legislation “Socialism” and then two years later funding the Rethugs to defeat the Socialists

    ================

    Exactly!

  98. “Socialism” and then two years later funding the Rethugs to defeat the Socialists and….”win…win…win very big.”
    ___________________

    Yup, a round robin of politcal thievery bleeding the tax payer dry.

  99. “Meanwhile, a team of ex-CIA officers are traveling the globe assembling a dossier of documents on Obama’s past, including his education, passport, travel, and residency records. The team has scoured Kenya, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other countries collecting documents that are not already mantained in the CIA’s own files on Obama’s past.

    There is a possibility, according to WMR’s sources, that any “smoking gun” documents may be released while Obama is in Asia in order to elicit a public and, perhaps, irrational enough response from the president to prompt the public to begin raising questions about Obama’s suitability for office. Such an incident would make it easier for Biden to begin the succession process that was previously considered when President Richard Nixon was drinking heavily and taking prescription medication during the final days of his administration, twice during the Ronald Reagan administration —”

    http://pumasunleashed.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/white-house-obama-conducting-reign-of-terror/

  100. moononpluto
    November 6th, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    dramatic staff shakeup….what, sack some useless sicophant and replace them with another Obot, yeah that’ll shake it up.

    ———————-

    um more like it would prompt his umpteenth speech to the nation saying that he was listening to “his people” and cleaning house of the idiots who are responsible for all his mistakes.

  101. wbboei,

    I was thinking about you today and agree that you have noted many times in the past what Hillary would have done.

    If people catch on to the differences, and not through an obama-loving media, maybe the sky will be the limit.

    Bye Bye bambi and Helllllllllllo Hillary!

  102. The genius of 2008 and Barack Obama was “Big Money” funding his campaign to record amounts, then labeling his pro corporate legislation “Socialism” and then two years later funding the Rethugs to defeat the Socialists

    ==================

    And cf in 2000, the FL GOP and Gov Crist moving the Dem primary date to get the Dems in trouble with the DNC … then later Crist offering to ‘help’ by threatening to leave the Dems off the Nov ballot altogether.

    Attributed to Churchill: “It is difficult to get a conviction for sodomy in a nation where half the population thinks it is impossible while the other half is actively engaged in it.”

    So actually do a conspiracy so ridiculous that when exposed, no one will believe it.

  103. Manila on red alert as Clinton visit nears

    11/07/2010

    MANILA, Philippines – The military and police authorities have remained on red alert as former US President Bill Clinton is scheduled to arrive on Wednesday, November 10, amid alleged terror threats.

    As a former head of state of the US, Clinton, who has a speaking engagement at the Manila Hotel, is considered a “high value target” of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Abu Sayaff, a source of ABS-CBN News said.

    But the military is playing down the terror threats cited in the travel advisories of different foreign governments, citing lack of intelligence reports to back up the warnings.

    “I guess it (Clinton visit) is an entirely different matter outside of the developments that have been filtering in,” Brig. Gen. Jose Mabanta, spokesperson of the military, told ABS-CBN News.

    “There is no substantive report that there are [international] terrorist groups that have entered the country,” he added, essentially brushing off claims that 10 foreign terrorists are in the country to help the Abu Sayyaf group sow terror in the country’s capital.

    He also echoed President Aquino’s previous statement that the terror threats are raw and unverified. “These are just raw information [that] need to be validated before they become usable intelligence,” he said.

    Police authorities and other security personnel have been more visible in places mentioned by the travel advisories, such as airports, trains, and malls.

    “These are just precautionary measures… It is important that we are prepared,” explained Mabanta.

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/06/10/manila-red-alert-clinton-visit-nears

  104. Yup, a round robin of politcal thievery bleeding the tax payer dry.
    *********
    With the drastic changes in the World economy, politicians and business, even with the best intentions, would have a difficult time solving the economic and workplace displacements. With real unemployment of 18-22% and no hope that will change, the politicians and “Big Money” are like vultures circling the dying American middle class, waiting to pick the bones.

  105. SHV:

    With real unemployment of 18-22% and no hope that will change, the politicians and “Big Money” are like vultures circling the dying American middle class, waiting to pick the bones.”
    _____________________

    Oh yes, you will never see those numbers which are the “real” unemployment numbers up at any news site. It’s probably the best kept secret in the country besides Obama smoking cigarettes in an undisclosed location.

  106. jeswezey
    November 6th, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Speaking of which, I think I owe an answer to gonzotx for the voluminous data he/she sent my way in that last thread: All of what you sent, gonzotx, was an attack on my patriotism because of feelings you assumed I have, though I have never expressed any, about America and its unblemished greatness in the world.
    ***************

    You are a revisionist and arrogant to boot. I am very tired after working 13 hours over here, across the “pond”, in the good old USA, and really don’t have time for the tit for tat tonight, however,with that being said… I think I proved my point a few days ago. I will leave you with a few of your own words to ponder, as you seemed to have forgotten. Maybe you ought to consider citizenship over there. We don’t need any more pseudo – American’s.
    **********

    jeswezey
    November 4th, 2010 at 2:54 am
    About my “loud ugly American” image: your points about how America fixed a loud ugly world are well understood on my part. However, that proud history is part of a receding past, and the point I made about how Europeans – and others, including the Japanese – NOW conduct themselves on the world scene and in their personal communications still stands, in comparison to the way Americans NOW conduct themselves on the world scene and personally amongst themselves which also still stands
    ************

    I just love your receding past comment…so French..just like the fries.

    IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU?

  107. Bomb-proof tunnel with air conditioning: Obama’s security go to extraordinary measures for his tour of the Gandhi museum

    By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

    American warships to patrol off Mumbai during visit

    Coconuts removed from trees as a precaution

    250 U.S. business executives with Obama on ‘biggest ever trade mission’

    $200million Asia trip cost denied but the President will have huge entourage

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html#ixzz14YrPVgaS

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326962/Obamas-India-visit-security-erect-bomb-proof-tunnel-Gandhi-museum.html

    Admin, there is the funniest picture of the fool tattooed on this guy, he looks like a snake….

  108. From a Republican site, i.e. Ace of Spades:

    Jim DeMint: Sure, We’ll Vote To Raise the Debt Ceiling. As Long As It Is Accompanied By Massive Cuts In Spending.
    From John King’s State of the Nation on CNN:

    JOHN KING, HOST, “JOHN KING USA”: ….. Many have said now that the Republicans have a majority in the House, more conservatives in the Senate, where will we know, when will we know if you’re serious about keeping your promises about spending and the debt. If there’s a vote in the Congress on raising the debt ceiling so that the government can continue to print money and spend money, should Republicans say no?

    SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: I think Republicans will say no, unless that raising of the debt ceiling is accompanied by some — some dramatic spending cuts, something that would direct us toward a balanced budget in the future, Republicans will not support an increase in the debt limit.

    What I hope you’ll see from Republicans right out of the box, as soon as we get back, is a moratorium on earmarks. Americans and connected the dots. They realize if we’re all up there trying to bring home the bacon, we’re going to bankrupt our country. And if Republicans in the House and the Senate both take a pledge to not ask for earmarks and to have a moratorium on — on them in the Congress, I think it will show Americans, at least at the beginning, that we are serious.

    So there are a number of other things we need to do to demonstrate that we’re — we’re serious. And one of those is to de-fund Obama Care, and, as soon as we can, hopefully, have a vote on balancing the budget.
    The Democrats’ big strategy is to impel the Republicans to own a piece of their failure. They want us to own their failure by voting to lock it in place.

    We should decline. And yes, that means shutting down the government if necessary (and it probably will be necessary), and yes, we have to do that anyway, even knowing the risks.

    The public elected us to cut spending. We have to cut spending. We start with a 5% across the board cut (except for the military) and and freeze in federal pay raises (except for the military) and then on top of that begin zeroing out as many programs as we can, and cutting others as much as we can.

    We need to cut $100 billion every year. That is going to be tough — both politically, and practically (I don’t think a lot of people are aware of how hard this will be), but we need to do this.

    There are going to be some extremely tough votes: Like voting to cut aid to college students.

    Parents are not going to like that. Republican parents are not going to like that. Conservative Republican parents reading this site right now are not going to like that.

    But these are the things that have to be chopped to really have a chance of cutting $100 billion. We’re not going to cut that much simply by reducing foreign aid. We’re going to have to cut a lot of things that people actually… well, kind of like.

    We have to do this. Whether or not we’ll be punished epically in 2012 like the Dems were in 2010, I don’t know. But we’re locked in to this now.

    I hope everyone understands what we’ve voted for, here.

    It’s not just going to be “fat” and money that goes to other people. To be serious about cutting federal spending, we have to cut popular subsidies for the middle class.

    But again, we have to do it.

  109. “Actually I thought the worst thing you can say about a president: He won’t even make a good former president.
    His detachment is so great, it is even from himself. As he spoke, he seemed to be narrating from a remove. It was like hearing the audiobook of Volume I of his presidential memoirs. “Obama was frustrated. He honestly didn’t understand what the country was doing. It was as if they had compulsive hand-washing disorder. In ’08 they washed off Bush. Now they’re washing off Obama. There he is, swirling down the drain!”
    —————————————————-
    Americans Vote for Maturity
    Obama gets a rebuke, but so do Republicans who seem unqualified.
    By PEGGY NOONAN

    ‘The people have spoken, the bastards.” That would be how Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill are feeling. The last two years of their leadership have been rebuffed. The question for the Democratic Party: Was it worth it? Was it worth following the president and the speaker in their mad pursuit of liberal legislation that the country would not, could not, like? And what will you do now? Which path will you take?

    The Republicans saw their own establishment firmly, sharply put down. The question for them: What will you do to show yourselves worthy of the bounty?

    The Republicans won big, but both parties return to Washington chastened. Good.

    View Full Image

    Chad Crowe
    Two small points on the election’s atmospherics that carry implications for the future. The first is that negative ads became boring, unpersuasive. Forty years ago they were new, exciting in a sort of prurient way. Now voters take for granted that politicians are no good, and such ads are just more polluted water going over the waterfall. The biggest long-term loser: liberalism. If all pols are sleazoid crooks, then why would people want to give them more governmental power to order our lives? The implicit message of two generations of negative ads: Vote conservative, limit the reach of the thieves.

    The second, not much noticed, is that all candidates must assume now that they are being taped, wherever they are, including private conversations. Sharron Angle was taped in a private meeting with a potential supporter, who leaked it to the press, to her embarrassment. The taper/leaker was a sleaze and a weasel—a sleazel—but candidates can no longer ever assume they are speaking in confidence; they have to assume even aides and supporters are wired. (Go reread “Game Change” and wonder if some of the conversations reported there were taped.) The zone of privacy just got smaller, and the possibility of blackmail, a perennial unseen force in politics, wider. Prediction: This fact will, at some point in 2012, cause an uproar.

    On to the aftermath of the election. On Wednesday, President Obama gave a news conference to share his thoughts. Viewers would have found it disappointing if there had been any viewers. The president is speaking, in effect, to an empty room. From my notes five minutes in: “This wet blanket, this occupier of the least interesting corner of the faculty lounge, this joy-free zone, this inert gas.” By the end I was certain he will never produce a successful stimulus because he is a human depression.

    Actually I thought the worst thing you can say about a president: He won’t even make a good former president.

    His detachment is so great, it is even from himself. As he spoke, he seemed to be narrating from a remove. It was like hearing the audiobook of Volume I of his presidential memoirs. “Obama was frustrated. He honestly didn’t understand what the country was doing. It was as if they had compulsive hand-washing disorder. In ’08 they washed off Bush. Now they’re washing off Obama. There he is, swirling down the drain! It’s all too dramatic, too polar. The morning after the election it occurred to him: maybe he should take strong action. Maybe he should fire America! They did well in 2008, but since then they’ve been slipping. They weren’t giving him the followership he needed. But that wouldn’t work, they’d only complain. He had to keep his cool. His aides kept telling him, ‘Show humility.’ But they never told him what humility looked like. What was he supposed to do, burst into tears and say hit me? Not knowing how to feel humility or therefore show humility he decided to announce humility: He found the election ‘humbling,’ he said.”

    What Democrats have to learn from this election: Cut loose from that. Join with Republicans where you can, create legislation together, send the bill to the White House, see what happens. Even as the Republicans have succeeded in getting out from under George W. Bush, this is your chance to get out from under Mr. Obama, and possibly prosper in 2012 whatever happens

  110. MICHAEL GOODWIN: Power to the People!
    By Michael Goodwin

    Published November 03, 2010
    | New York Post
    Print Email Share Comments (57) Text Size Nothing short of a revolution. That’s the only way to describe the public upheaval that took place yesterday.

    Nancy Pelosi has been fired, the Senate is far more balanced and President Obama was resoundingly rebuked. Republican governors could control upwards of 30 statehouses when the smoke clears. That’s what you call a consequential election.

    As predicted, the explosion of government cost and the economic slump were the driving factors for voters. The results immediately reinvigorate the checks and balances inherent in the two-party system and bring a needed dose of fiscal sanity to Washington and the states.

    Yet those are only the most obvious outcomes. The real meaning of yesterday is much more profound.

    Let me put it this way: With apologies to Michelle Obama, I’ve never been more proud of my country. Millions of ordinary Americans rebuffed the harangues and lectures of their supposed betters and dared to take the future into their own hands.

    YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
    INTERESTED IN
    Want to cut electric bills? Beware the ‘phantom loads’ Voters Stand Up, Tell States to Stand Down Muslim Sues Oklahoma Over Anti-Shariah Ballot Measure Pelosi: ‘I Am Running for Democratic Leader’ U.N. Human Rights Council Takes Aim at New Target: United States They shouted truth to power. They dared resist the fear mongering of the corruptocrats in government and their media handmaidens.

    Told to shut up and sit down, the “great unwashed middle,” as Katie Couric recently called it, thundered “Hell, no!” Voters everywhere stood up for independence and spoke up for their own values.

    This is American Exceptionalism in action.

    Call it a Tea Party for convenience, but that loaded term is an injustice to the movement that is rebelling against its political masters.

    Emerging at a time of national distress, a semblance of the spirit that created this unique nation and sustained it through two centuries of war and peace, prosperity and pestilence is reshaping the third century.

    That spirit is springing forth in small towns and suburbs and big cities. It is the seed of democracy, as practiced by patriots.

    It is a shining moment in America’s grand history precisely because the odds and the oddsmakers were against it. With few exceptions, the major news organizations, the civilian liberal establishment and the White House used every power lever to ridicule and delegitimize the citizen movement.

    Obama tried to stir fear among Latinos by portraying opponents as “enemies” and even yesterday warned against big money, special interests and “the politics of cynicism.”

    In short, faced with a great and sweeping uprising against his agenda, he could think only of clichés to instill fear in his supporters.

    If ever there was a moment that captured the president’s divide from the heartland, that was it.

    The president knew for months, a year even, that the nation was dead set against his policies.
    Instead of conciliation, he heaped ridicule and abuse on critics. He moaned about the tone in Washington as though he is an innocent bystander.

    The result was a wave against him that grew day by day. His harsh attacks reminded voters how wrong they were to see him as a reasonable man who would govern from the center.

    As Newsweek blogger Mickey Kaus wrote of Obama’s desperate broadsides, “He’s firming up the wrong base.”

    The focus now turns to Obama’s reaction. Will he continue to beat his head against the wall of the American people? Or will he accept that his way has been rejected?

    He’s still president, but he’s no longer free to act without restraint. He has awakened a mighty force and, unless he can accommodate himself to it, he, too, will be swept aside.

    Michael Goodwin is a New York Post columnist and Fox News contributor. To continue reading his column, click here.

  111. Continuing my post above, I think in NZ the question we wanted to know was “is America ready for a woman president?”, but the overseas media honed in on Hillary’s “it will not be me” remark.

  112. Harry Reid should not be above the law
    …It is clear that the pro-Reid effort by Harrah’s executive met with some level of resistance within the company, as one of the e-mails obtained by Crum referred to problems encountered by the Reid backers with midlevel supervisors in the company’s culinary department. “They simply are not cooperating and listening with upper management” in the companywide get-out-the-Reid vote campaign, a Harrah’s executive complained in one of the e-mails. Because intimidation and coercion were apparently involved, this matter requires the attention of the Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Section. Attorney General Eric Holder can be sure that the House Judiciary Committee will be closely watching his actions on this matter.
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Harry-Reid-should-not-be-above-the-law-1471102-106799933.html

  113. Oh, the irony! Look who’s calling you terrorist!
    Former Weather Underground leader worries about ‘armed’ tea parties
    Posted: November 06, 2010
    10:25 pm Eastern
    By Drew Zahn
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily
    A former leader of a ’70s protest group responsible for bombing the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, police stations and other targets is worried that “racist, armed, hostile, crazy-making” tea parties pose an “unspeakable” threat to America. Bernardine Dohrn, who with her husband William Ayers were leaders of the communist revolutionary Weather Underground, had been tied to so many acts of protest violence in the ’70s that she was placed on the FBI’s Top 10 Most Wanted List and was described by J. Edgar Hoover as the “most dangerous woman in America.”
    Her association with Barack Obama notably led to Sarah Palin’s famous comment during the 2008 presidential campaign that Obama had been “palling around with terrorists.” Dohrn, however, told an Indian news and views website that she’s concerned about a new breed of protesters, the tea partiers, whom she describes as “a hard right emerging, an armed, new hard right with massive control of media.” “It’s racist, it’s armed, it’s hostile, it’s unspeakable,” she said. “White people armed, demanding an end to this president – it’s very crazy-producing.” Speaking of the polarization of the nation as evidenced by the tea parties, Dohrn told NewsClick India, “It generates thousands of death threats every day in its wake and hate mail and craziness.”
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=224817

  114. “Her association with Barack Obama notably led to Sarah Palin’s famous comment during the 2008 presidential campaign that Obama had been “palling around with terrorists.” Dohrn, however, told an Indian news and views website that she’s concerned about a new breed of protesters, the tea partiers, whom she describes as “a hard right emerging, an armed, new hard right with massive control of media.” “It’s racist, it’s armed, it’s hostile, it’s unspeakable,” she said. “White people armed, demanding an end to this president – it’s very crazy-producing.” Speaking of the polarization of the nation as evidenced by the tea parties, Dohrn told NewsClick India, “It generates thousands of death threats every day in its wake and hate mail and craziness.””
    ____________________________

    Hey, Bernadine- [It]sic The Tea Parties generated the Will of the People. Remember them? They’re not paid radicals who work for you. They are the People spoken of in the Constitution to be FREE from fascists like you!

  115. textual analysis Ayers “Fugitive Days” Obama “Dreams from My Father”
    A search like that brings up a lot indicating Ayers wrote Dreams from my Father.

  116. I watched a bit of the youtube on Obamas at St. Xavier’s in Mumbai.. They were spitting out their campaign shtick aka inspirational stuff, the same gobbledygook to those young people. Hope the students are not fooled.

  117. Linda192
    November 7th, 2010 at 7:27 am
    ——————————–
    Thank you Linda. You know him better than I do. I read the article you posted and it conforms to what you say. His profile and his trap question (unnecessary, repetitive and either way she answered it would not be good for her, but at the same time I suppose inevitable) led me to believe he was one of the lost generation of young media leftists we have in this country who make no pretense of objectivity, wear their political agenda on their sleeve, despise the American People and seek to destroy anyone who opposes Obama. That is a mutant life form which causes deadly epidemics of ignorance in our electorate and I made the mistake of assuming that the virus has spread to the rest of the world. I was also thinking about something I read somewhere which indicated that Prime Minister of your country is an Obama lover, and assumed this writer was carrying his water. Thank you for setting me straight on this.

  118. I just looked to see how some of the armed people reacted to this Dohrn story. I has two videos of an interview with her I don’t have the time to watch, and a wanted poster of Dohrn, Ayers and associates.

    I think this is called ‘projection.’ Convicted terrorist pot calls the Tea Party/Restore the Constitution china black.

    It has two videos of an interview with her I don’t have the time to watch, and a wanted poster of Dohrn, Ayers and associates.

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/11/i-think-this-is-called-projection.html

  119. gonzotx: “I just love your receding past comment…so French..just like the fries.
    IS THAT LOUD ENOUGH FOR YOU?”

    No, it’s not loud enough. Please put it in bold, and enlarged letters if you can. And above all, repeat it again and again. You aren’t getting your point across.

    I don’t know what is “so French” about referring to the receding past. Actually, the expression is my own, I wouldn’t know how to say it in French, and it is based on my experience as a history major in an American college. I have profound respect for the study of history, and recognize that all history, in the collective conscious, is receding. The historian’s job is to bring it to light again.

    “You are a revisionist and arrogant to boot.”

    As I just implied, the historian’s job is to bring new light to history, so I take the “revisionist” swipe as a compliment. I have no loyalty to the common wisdom or groupthink. If you take that as arrogance, so be it.

    “I am very tired after working 13 hours over here, across the “pond”, in the good old USA,…”

    Some more proof that you’re not listening… I’ve said and will repeat that I am living in NJ a few miles from the NY state border, about 40 miles from NY city. There are no ponds here.

    “I think I proved my point a few days ago.”

    I must not have understood what your point was, because all you threw at me was irrelevant to what I was talking about. Maybe you could just repeat it real real loud, one more time?

    I’ll simply repeat, in lower-case letters, that I was never talking about American exceptionalism or standing in the world, but about the fact that we are poor listeners. And you are once again proving my point.

  120. Linda192.. American people were ready to embrace Hillary but the Dimocratic party and the media usurped the charlatan on them by feeding lies and obscuring truth and crying ‘racist’.

  121. Mount Merapi is angry. At whom, you wonder.

    Fear of volcanic ash cancels flights to Jakarta
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_indonesia_disasters

    MOUNT MERAPI, Indonesia – Just days before President Barack Obama’s long-awaited visit to Indonesia, international carriers canceled flights to the capital over concerns about a volcano spewing ash hundreds of miles away.

    The notoriously volatile Mount Merapi unleashed nearly 2 billion cubic feet (50 million cubic meters) of gas, rocks and ash Friday — its most powerful eruption in a century.

    Some 138 people have died on its slopes in the past two weeks, and authorities were still struggling Sunday to deal with those injured in the latest blast. The closure of smaller airports near the volcano has delayed the arrival of burn cream and ventilators for those whose skin and lungs were singed by searing gases.

    Obama is scheduled to touch down in Jakarta on Tuesday as part of a 10-day Asian tour. Since taking office, Obama has already twice postponed visits to Indonesia — the world’s most populous Muslim nation, where he spent four years as a child.

    Paul Belmont, a U.S. Embassy spokesman, said there has been no talk yet of canceling.

  122. Bob Kerry’s suggestion that Obama be given a chief operating officer to help him run the county is duly noted. My reaction? First, he has one already–his vice president. Second, this is a tacit admission that Obama is incapable of running the country and needs a surrogate. Third, when the crowned heads of Europe were deemed incompetent either because they had not attained their majority (21 years old), or were adjudged mentally incompetent, it was customary to appoint a regent to take care of the affair of state for the duration of the disability. That is the subtext of what Kerry is saying. Obama does not need a chief operating officer. He needs a regent. And isn’t it high time that people like him stop making excuses and stop building bureaucracy just to prop up and bail out this arrogant incompetent sociopath? Give it a fucking rest Bob. Just sit back and let nature take its course–that is what your buddy Barack does. Governing means work, and he is adverse to that.

  123. “The Republicans won big, but both parties return to Washington chastened. Good.”

    ——————
    Yep. But my cynical view is that the play-acting is just about to enter act II. Neither party is chastened. Both are arrogant enough to believe they only have to “pretend” to heed the people until one or the other wins bit again in 2012.

    I am reading a book right now, a fluff mystery for a break from my usual reading material, called “Term Limits” by Vince Flynn. The president and his chief of staff are even more arrogant that obama if you can believe it, and are trying to bluff the American people into believing they are actually cutting budget waste, sympathetic to the issues that matter, etc.

    It’s not that hard to do.

  124. Burqa ban has merit, says Clinton Dan Oakes

    November 8, 2010

    THE belief that burqas should be banned in order to stop suicide bombers disguising themselves is a legitimate one, according to United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Mrs Clinton also described the status of women as ”one of the biggest pieces of unfinished business in this century”, and said their persecution was a common factor in repressed and impoverished nations.

    At an ABC-organised forum at the University of Melbourne, Mrs Clinton answered around a dozen pre-selected questions from an audience of 480, mostly aged 35 and under.

    ”I know that in Pakistan, many of the men who are conducting suicide bombing missions arrive covered in a burqa,” Mrs Clinton said in response to a question from a young Muslim woman.

    ”If you’re a Pakistani police officer, respectful of the women of your culture and that’s being abused and misused by the suicide terrorists, that causes a real dilemma. So if you are looking at other countries that are understandably nervous about extremist activity, like France and other European countries, I think it’s a close question.”

    Mrs Clinton returned to the theme of the status of women a number of times during the hour-long session, her longest public appearance during her 48-hour visit for talks with Defence Minister Stephen Smith, Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd and US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates.

    Asked what was the greatest international challenge facing people aged 21 and under, Mrs Clinton, the third woman to serve as US Secretary of State, said in large swathes of the world the lot of women had not improved as it had in Australia and the US.

    ”I think that there’s very clear evidence … that societies that do not expand opportunities for women are societies that are more prone to authoritarianism, more prone to extremism, less likely to develop, more likely to be left out of the 21st century’s opportunities,” she said.

    Although Mrs Clinton expressed concern over the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender people around the world, she said she was not in favour of gay marriage.

    Mrs Clinton also attacked the ”flawed” election held by Burma’s military junta on the weekend, vowing to press ahead with an international commission of inquiry to hold the regime accountable for human rights violations.

    She was similarly critical of Fiji’s military dictatorship, calling for the government of Frank Bainimarama to demilitarise the island nation’s bureaucracy and turn it back over to ”professional civilians”.

    On a more personal note, Mrs Clinton talked of helping US President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle cope with living in the White House with two young daughters. Mrs Clinton’s daughter Chelsea grew up in the public eye when her father, Bill, was President during the 1990s.

    ”We talked about what it’s like living in the White House, where you have 138 rooms and hundreds of people who are doing everything. How you maintain some semblance of a normal life …

    ”And they’ve done a great great job in being fully involved parents, going to soccer games and basketball games and parent teacher conferences and drawing the line so that their children are not exploited for the press or for politics.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/burqa-ban-has-merit-says-clinton-20101107-17iyl.html

  125. Clinton honours Aussie war heroes

    Monday November 8, 2010

    Clinton honours Aussie war heroes
    Updated: 00:02, Monday November 8, 2010

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has had a jam packed day in Melbourne ahead of high powered AUS-MIN talks on Monday.

    The former First Lady has paid tribute to Australia’s war heroes by laying a wreath at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne.

    Ms Clinton was accompanied by US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd.

    Earlier in the day, the US Secretary of State impressed the audience at a Melbourne University forum, where she praised our troops and spoke about the ties between the two countries.

    http://www.skynews.com.au/national/article.aspx?id=536317&vId=1913272

  126. Tea Party Is Evidence ‘Democracy Works,’ President Bush Tells Fox News
    h t t p://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/05/tea-party-democracy-working-president-bush-fox-news/?test=latestnews
    ———————————————

    unless you can get the Supreme Court involved in counting the vote

  127. I don’t understand the obsession of the Obamas with children and young people. It is on full display in this Indian trip. When Hillary conducts those townhall meetings it is serious and thought provoking but with these two, it looks more like a mindgame. I don’t like it. MO kicked off her shoes and danced with the children at several venues and then told a sob story about how her parents instilled strong values in her and then proceeded to needlessly flatter all the young students that were there (St. Xavier’s school). Yeah, inspiring bullshit from their speechwriters. Notice the TOTUS!

    http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/news/my-parents-gave-me-strong-values-michelle-obama/174206

    My friend in India says he has charmed the corporate sector and the generation next. She called it a ‘tamasha’ (a circus) and says that he has managed to create a schism in thinking on several issues that are being discussed and debated here. Will get more feedback from her tomorrow after his Parliament TOTUS speech.

  128. Are they doing anything substantial, other than dancing with kids and doing photo-op after photo-op?

    In other words is this another zillion dollar vacation?

  129. Looking at MO’s video in my previous comment, something occurred to me as she is exhorting those young students to dream big.. it seems she is saying she and Barack dreamed big (what could be bigger than becoming the president of the USA?) and now that that has been accomplished they don’t have to do anything else. Other than to go on lavish world tours like this one. It is up to others to run the country. Their goal was to get the black folks into the WH and they accomplished it (didn’t Obama go around the first year congratulating Americans for electing HIM?). Their dream is realized. Nothing more to do. {bear with me as I am in an irritable mood.}

  130. JanH, he is touting some business/military deals but they were in the works for couple of years and he did not have to convince anyone in India to go along with it.

  131. GOT THIS IN AN EMAIL. THESE ARE NOT MY THOUGHTS, BUT WHAT DEMS ARE CIRCULATING TO KEEP THEMSELVES DOING.

    This is the Message:

    —–Frank Schaeffer is a New York Times best selling author.

    Obama Will Triumph — So Will America
    By Frank Schaeffer

    Before he’d served even one year President Obama lost the support of the easily distracted left and engendered the white hot rage of the hate-filled right. But some of us, from all walks of life and ideological backgrounds — including this white, straight, 57-year-old, former religious right wing agitator, now progressive writer and (given my background as the son of a famous evangelical leader) this unlikely Obama supporter — are sticking with our President.
    Why?– because he is succeeding.

    We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

    Obama’s steady supporters will be proved right. Obama’s critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst.

    The Context of the Obama Presidency

    Not since the days of the rise of fascism in Europe, the Second World War and the Depression has any president faced more adversity. Not since the Civil War has any president led a more bitterly divided country. Not since the introduction of racial integration has any president faced a more consistently short-sighted and willfully ignorant opposition – from both the right and left.

    As the President’s poll numbers have fallen so has his support from some on the left that were hailing him as a Messiah not long ago; all those lefty websites and commentators that were falling all over themselves on behalf of our first black president during the 2008 election.

    The left’s lack of faith has become a self-fulfilling “prophecy”– snipe at the President and then watch the poll numbers fall and then pretend you didn’t have anything to do with it!

    Here is what Obama faced when he took office– none of which was his fault:

    # An ideologically divided country to the point that America was really two countries

    # Two wars; one that was mishandled from the start, the other that was unnecessary and immoral

    # The worst economic crisis since the depression

    # America’s standing in the world at the lowest point in history

    # A country that had been misled into accepting the use of torture of prisoners of war

    # A health care system in free fall

    # An educational system in free fall

    # A global environmental crisis of history-altering proportions (about which the Bush administration and the Republicans had done nothing)

    # An impasse between culture warriors from the right and left

    # A huge financial deficit inherited from the terminally
    irresponsible Bush administration.

    And those were only some of the problems sitting on the
    President’s desk!

    “Help” from the Right?

    What did the Republicans and the religious right, libertarians and half-baked conspiracy theorists — that is what the Republicans were reduced to by the time Obama took office — do to “help” our new president (and our country) succeed? They claimed that he wasn’t a real American, didn’t have an American birth certificate, wasn’t born here, was secretly a Muslim, was white-hating “racist”, was secretly a communist, was actually the Anti-Christ, (!) and was a reincarnation of Hitler and wanted “death panels” to kill the elderly!

    They not-so-subtly called for his assassination through the not-so-subtle use of vile signs held at their rallies and even a bumper sticker quoting Psalm 109:8. They organized “tea parties” to sound off against imagined insults and all government in general and gathered to howl at the moon. They were led by insurance industry lobbyists and deranged (but well financed) “commentators” from Glenn Beck to Rush Limbaugh.

    The utterly discredited Roman Catholic bishops teamed up with the utterly discredited evangelical leaders to denounce a president who was trying to actually do something about the poor, the environment, to diminish the number of abortions through compassionate programs to help women and to care for the sick! And in Congress the Republican leadership only knew one word: “No!”

    In other words the reactionary white, rube, uneducated, crazy American far right, combined with the educated but obtuse neoconservative war mongers, religious right shills for big business, libertarian Fed Reserve-hating gold bug, gun-loving crazies, child-molesting acquiescent “bishops”, frontier loons and evangelical gay-hating flakes found one thing to briefly unite them: their desire to stop an uppity black man from succeeding at all costs!

    “Help” from the Left?

    What did the left do to help their newly elected president? Some of them excoriated the President because they disagreed with the bad choices he was being forced to make regarding a war in Afghanistan that he’d inherited from the worst president in modern history!

    Others stood up and bravely proclaimed that the President’s economic policies had “failed” before the President even instituted them! Others said that since all gay rights battles had not been fully won within virtually minutes of the President taking office, they’d been “betrayed”! (Never mind that Obama’s vocal support to the gay community is stronger than any other president’s has been. Never mind that he signed a new hate crimes law!)

    Those that had stood in transfixed legions weeping with beatific emotion on election night turned into an angry mob saying how “disappointed” they were that they’d not all immediately been translated to heaven the moment Obama stepped into the White House! Where was the “change”? Contrary to their expectations they were still mere mortals!

    And the legion of young new supporters was too busy texting to pay attention for longer than a nanosecond. “Governing”?! What the hell does that word, uh, like mean?”

    The President’s critics left and right all had one thing in common: impatience laced with little-to-no sense of history (let alone reality) thrown in for good measure. Then of course there were the white, snide know-it-all commentators/talking heads who just couldn’t imagine that maybe, just maybe, they weren’t as smart as they thought they were and certainly not as smart as their president. He hadn’t consulted them, had he? So he must be wrong!

    The Obama critics’ ideological ideas defined their idea of reality rather than reality defining their ideas-say, about what is possible in one year in office after the hand that the President had been dealt by fate, or to be exact by the American idiot nation that voted Bush into office. Twice!

    Meanwhile back in the reality-based community – in just 12 short months — President Obama:

    #Continued to draw down the misbegotten war in Iraq (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Thoughtfully and decisively picked the best of several bad choices regarding the war in Afghanistan
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Gave a major precedent-setting speech supporting gay rights (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Restored America ‘s image around the globe
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Banned torture of American prisoners
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Stopped the free fall of the American economy
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Put the USA squarely back in the bilateral international community
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Put the USA squarely into the middle of the international effort to halt global warming
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Stood up for educational reform
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Won a Nobel peace prize
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Moved the trial of terrorists back into the American judicial
    system of checks and balances
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Did what had to be done to start the slow, torturous and almost impossible process of health care reform that 7 presidents had failed to even begin (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Responded to hatred from the right and left with measured good humor and patience (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Stopped the free fall of job losses (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Showed immense personal courage in the face of an armed and dangerous far right opposition that included the sort of disgusting people that show up at public meetings carrying loaded weapons and carrying Timothy McVeigh-inspired signs about the “blood of tyrants” needing to “water the tree of liberty”.
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    #Showed that he could not only make the tough military choices but explain and defend them brilliantly
    (But that wasn’t good enough for his critics)

    Other than those “disappointing” accomplishments — IN ONE YEAR — President Obama “failed”! Other than that he didn’t “live up to expectations”!

    Who actually has failed…

    …are the Americans that can’t see the beginning of a miracle of national rebirth right under their jaded noses. Who failed are the smart-ass ideologues of the left and right who began rooting for this President to fail so that they could be proved right in their dire and morbid predictions. Who failed are the movers and shakers behind our obscenely dumb news cycles that have turned “news” into just more stupid entertainment for an entertainment-besotted infantile country.

    Here’s the good news: President Obama is succeeding without the help of his lefty “supporters” or hate-filled Republican detractors!

    The Future Looks Good

    After Obama has served two full terms, (and he will), after his wisdom in moving deliberately and cautiously with great subtlety on all fronts — with a canny and calculating eye to the possible succeeds, (it will), after the economy is booming and new industries are burgeoning, (they will be), after the doomsayers are all proved not just wrong but silly: let the record show that not all Americans were panicked into thinking the sky was falling.

    Just because we didn’t get everything we wanted in the first short and fraught year Obama was in office not all of us gave up. Some of us stayed the course. And we will be proved right.

    —————This is the message————-

    All I can say is when a person is a true leader, people recognize it, and you don’t have to be convinced. The people expected miracles, because you (O and the Dems) said they could perform miracles. Again, it is the peoples fault, not the Dems. However, it is he people who vote, and they think it is your fault. If you keep dwelling on this right vs wrong strategy, you will lose the 2012 election handily.

  132. Per ZDrudge they are dancing up a storm. On a positive note, ‘Life” by Keith Richards is #1 on NYT best seller list!!!

  133. I think this is called ‘projection.’ Convicted terrorist pot calls the Tea Party/Restore the Constitution china black.

    ===================

    ‘Projection’ is too good a word, babe. It’s a type of Big Lie. Say the opposite of the truth, numb everyone with the dissonance.

  134. this white, straight, 57-year-old, former religious right wing agitator, now progressive writer and (given my background as the son of a famous evangelical leader) this unlikely Obama supporter — [is] sticking with our President.
    Why?– because he is succeeding.

    [[ IE, Obama is giving the right wing what they wanted: Mitt’s healthcare, undermining abortion — and most of all, blocking real progressives like Hillary. ]]

    Some of us stayed the course.

    [[ Doesn’t he even know who he’s quoting? We need a video of Bots saying “Stay the course” cut with Bush saying “Stay the course”. ]]

  135. If obama isn’t a laughing stock now, he will definitely be one at the end of his first term.

    November 05, 2010

    Mr. Obama Is No Bill Clinton
    By Peter Heck

    After Barack Obama’s self-described shellacking at the polls last Tuesday, astute political observers began postulating and pontificating whether or not he would seek to moderate his agenda from the far-left lollapalooza he has been pursuing since inauguration day.

    Without question, such a move would be a humbling experience for a man who chose to characterize his first two years in office by hubris and unparalleled condescension toward his conquered political adversaries.

    After all, how does a man who — as recently as two weeks ago — told Republicans that “they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back,” and that they shouldn’t “do a lot of talking” reach out a hand of bipartisanship when the tables turn as dramatically as they have?

    How does he expect to maintain any shred of credibility when he proclaims that a Republican victory means the people want the two parties to “work together,” given that two years ago he declared that a Democrat victory gave him license to lock Republicans out of policy-making and call all the shots?

    How does he face a gavel-wielding John Boehner and expect cooperation when after winning the presidency, he boasted in Boehner’s face that “elections have consequences and at the end of the day, I won”?

    Attempting any of this would require eating so much crow that it would frighten even Alfred Hitchcock. Yet that was the move many political analysts felt was incumbent upon the president. They argued that he must emulate Bill Clinton and move to the center if he wants to accomplish anything and salvage his presidency.

    But the president gave them less than 24 hours to discuss and debate his intentions before confirming what many of us already knew…Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

    Holding a press conference at the White House, Obama was asked whether he dismissed the notion that the election results were a rejection of his policies. His answer: yes.

    More specifically, when pressed on the fate of his signature government health care takeover, Obama intoned, “We’d be misreading the election if we thought the American people want to see us for the next two years re-litigate arguments we had over the last two years.”

    It is tough to imagine a more incoherent conclusion. In the months preceding the midterm elections, polls consistently showed that support for the Republican Party was far from overwhelming. The electorate had warmed very little towards the party who had so recently betrayed their trust. So how did moderately popular Republicans deliver one of the most extraordinary congressional takeovers in history? Simply put, they ran a national campaign as the party that will reverse Obama’s agenda, specifically repealing ObamaCare.

    What is more, the number of Democrats who campaigned for reelection not just by distancing themselves from that policy, but by actually running against it was embarrassing. And those who didn’t — those who stood by their ObamaCare votes — went down in flames.

    Figuring out what the electorate was saying then is not rocket science. In fact, it’s the same message the voters in Massachusetts had sent back in January when they elected a man to the Senate, Scott Brown, who campaigned as #41 (his election represented the 41st vote needed for Republicans to filibuster and stop ObamaCare in the first place). And it’s the same message the public was sending when the largest grassroots political movement the country has seen for generations stormed congressional town hall meetings and marched on Washington, D.C. in an effort to prevent the health care takeover.

    Yet then, as now, Barack Obama arrogantly ignored the electorate.

    Call it stubbornness or foolishness, but this much is clear: the president is not changing course. He is, above all else, a radical ideologue committed to pursuing his left-wing agenda. He is convinced that if he lectures us long enough, we will begin to understand his brilliance and appreciate his greatness.

    Not that any of this should surprise us. After all, it was Obama and the Democrats’ fundamental misreading of the 2008 presidential election that actually brought us to this point to begin with. Rather than recognize his election for what it was — a vote for symbolism (youth, energy, change, charisma, biracial diversity) over substance (not even his most ardent supporters could name a single Obama legislative accomplishment) — they regarded it as a mandate for an unapologetic crusade of radical liberal progressivism.

    The results of that misinterpretation are self-evident: an enraged electorate, disillusioned supporters, and devastation at the polls. Yet despite all this, Mr. Obama has signaled that he has no desire to take correction from the unwashed masses he has spent two years pretending he is above.

    Unlike Bill Clinton, it appears that Barack Obama’s pride will prevent him from changing course as the people have demanded. This most likely means that unlike Bill Clinton, he won’t need to worry about writing a second inaugural address.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/mr_obama_is_no_bill_clinton.html

Comments are closed.