Harlequins And Proglodytes: Not Benghazi Security, Not The Laughs And Smirks – The Real Deep Harm Joe Biden Did To Barack Obama

Update: As we note in the main article, the DailyKooks cheered Biden but there is a lot of damage to Obama. Additional hurt via Biden comes from Romney knowing exactly how Obama will defend himself on the Libya Fibya and other assorted diasters.

One of Biden’s tactics: lie. A history of Chuckles the Clown’s own private Idaho, er, history of Xtreme wrestling with the truth for Obama to emulate at the Hofstra Halloween Horror Penultimate October Debate tomorrow night will help Romney prepare for his responses. Serial lies are the Chicago Way which gives Joe Biden ward heeler status in the windy city.

For those worried about Obama suffering as he tries to save his ill deserved Nobel Prize job, fear not. The American taxpayer is making sure Obama Preps for Debate in Splendor. The pillows of the imperial wastrel are fluffed and you are paying for the pillows and the fluffers.

More good news? Obama raised an amazing $181 million last month but Romney drops his own number on Hofstra Halloween Horror eve. Romney, RNC raise $170 million in September. The important number: Romney/RNC have $191 million cash on hand.

Thanks to Powerline for the “pick” of Big Pink today.


Joe Biden injured Barack Obama in a likely lethal way last week. That’s because Joe Biden decisively forced Barack Obama to do something that will prove fatal.

In 2004, as we campaigned during the Democratic Party nomination battle, we recall the first Democratic Party debate in New Hampshire. At that event the candidates in contention for the nomination organized supporters with signs, unions, chants, and all the usual paraphernalia and techniques to attract voters to the candidate championed.

At that event in 2004 everyone had fun. But one candidate’s supporters had a great deal of fun. Think Kooch. Dennis Kucinich.

In 2004 Kucinich did not have a chance to win the nomination but his supporters believed lightning could strike and “The Kooch” win it all. Towards that end, outside that 2004 debate, the Kucinich partisans appeared. We kid you not. They wore huge, colorful harlequin hats – literally with bells on. They had clown makeup on, drum circles, flutes, recorders, feathers, whooping and hollering. The question we asked, with a wink in one eye and tongue in the cheek to one particularly giddy and happy Kooch supporter was, “You know the aim is to get votes, right?” With a goofy grin the Kooch supporter smiled.

That’s what the Chuckles the Clown performance at the Danville Debate Debacle reminded us of – supporters of the Kooch in harlequin hats not thinking for one instant of the voters but only of how much fun they were having.

In 2012 the harlequins, joined by the Proglodytes are back. This time though their candidate has the nomination and is running for reelection. It’s not the Kooch. It’s the Clown from Chicago.

Chicago Clown

Prior to last week’s Danville Debate Debacle there was a question as to what Barack Obama would do Tuesday at the Town Hall debate – featuring a star turn by Candy Crowley. There were two choices, two courses, for Obama to choose from.

Option 1: In order to stem the hemorrhaging of confidence, caused by the Denver Debate Disaster, Barack Obama had to placate the Obama Hopium Guzzlers, emotionally devastated as they watched Mitt Romney lay waste to their tin plate rusted calf.

Option 2: Ignore the temper tantrums and emotional fragility of the DailyKook base in favor of winning the necessary-for-a-win political independents/swing voters.

Joe Biden’s clown performance last week settled the question as to what Barack Obama now must do, what Obama is forced to do. It’s the corner Chuckles the Clown Joe Biden has painted Barack Obama into.

Because of Joe Biden option 2 is no longer an option. Barack Obama now has been boxed in by Biden into an Option 1 coffin.

* * * * * *

Jonathan Cohn at the New Republic declared the Danville Debate Debacle the tonic the proglodyte left desperately needed although about those pesky/necessary swing voters? – Cohn was not sure about the debate’s effect on them:

“Tonight Democrats got the show they wanted—and President Obama may have gotten the boost he needed. [snip]

I don’t know how it played with the public as a whole and I don’t imagine it influenced swing voters one way or the other.”

Joan Walsh, at Salon put on her harlequin hat, the one with bells, and joined the drum circle: “The pearl-clutchers might have the vapors, but Democrats are revived by Biden’s aggressive performance, in contrast with his boss’s listless one.”

Those are the two more rational examples of the reaction to Chuckles the Clown’s Danville Debate Debacle from the proglodyte left.

The proglodyte left will demand that Obama this Tuesday act as aggressively as Chuckles the Clown. It being a town hall style debate supposedly populated by undecided voters (although Gallup is choosing the participants and the audience so don’t hold your breath if after the legal assault from the Obama campaign/government every participant is an Obama supporter) this strategy will not be the wisest. Independent voters, swing voters supposedly don’t like “attacks”. They say they want a focus on the issues.

Whether or not the independent voters and swing voters genuinely prefer “issues” over “attacks” we don’t know (we are dubious). But the audience in the town hall will likely react negatively if there are too many attacks from Obama. The DailyKooks won’t care. The DailyKooks want attacks and Chuckles the Clown performances from the Clown from Chicago.

Barack Obama is a boob in general and a boob in debates particularly no matter how much or how little he studies up. Hillary beat him repeatedly and even the hapless John McCain did well against Obama even as McCain tied his own hands by keeping away from Obama’s personal life and history.

After the Denver Debate Disaster we are sure Mitt Romney will do well on Tuesday. Romney’s performance has already helped him with independents/swing voters. Romney will have answers for the Obama attacks which will come because Obama does not want to talk about what he would do in a second term. If Obama brings up the “47%” Romney can bring up the “bitter” and the “clinging”. On issue after issue Romney has the upper hand because most Americans hate what Obama has done whether it is ObamaCare or the wasted “stimulus” scam money. And that’s just domestic policy.

On foreign policy Mitt Romney cam ask Obama “where were you and what did you do?”:

“After David Axelrod’s repeated assurances this morning on Fox News Sunday that “there isn’t anybody on this planet” who feels a greater sense of responsibility for our diplomats than this President, Chris Wallace asked how soon after the Benghazi attacks the President actually met with his national security team.

Wallace followed up on Axelrod’s non-answer by asking whether the President managed to squeeze in a meeting with the National Security Council before jetting off to Las Vegas for a campaign rally. Given Axelrod’s inability to produce a straightforward answer to the questions, it’s pretty clear the answer is “no.”

Mitt Romney has a lot of questions to ask Barack Obama all of which concern the lives of Americans. Barack Obama has a lot of attacks against Mitt Romney which the harlequins and proglodytes will demand and cheer.

On Tuesday Mitt Romney will speak about jobs and the economy. Barack Obama will launch personal attacks – Americans be damned.


250 thoughts on “Harlequins And Proglodytes: Not Benghazi Security, Not The Laughs And Smirks – The Real Deep Harm Joe Biden Did To Barack Obama

  1. Obama is in a bind, A Townhall could be fierce, all it will take is someone to ask him a question he aint happy with and he’ll go into one.

    Obama is Obama, you can’t change him, he talks down to people, he does not like to be asked.

    Make no mistake the pressure is on for Obama to deliver, one major slip up, one major caught in a bind and he’ll go to pieces.

    If he gets agressive and nasty, it’ll go over like a bucket of sick, if he is lazy and convoluted and uhmming and ahhing, the audience will obliterate him.

    Mitt only needs a pass or better on this debate, Obama most certainly has to knock it out of the park, merely passing aint going to cut it, fail again and he really will be done for. If Mitt knocks it out of the park again, Obama is most certainly in campaign implosion territory.

  2. An analysis by the nonpartisan and non-profit Virginia Public Access Project (VPAP) shows Republicans may have a significant enthusiasm gap in Virginia over Democrats when it comes to early voting.

    According to an analysis of data released on Friday by the State Board of Elections, VPAP found that “seven of the 10 localities reporting the fastest rate of absentee voting this year compared to four years ago were won by Republican John McCain” while “seven of the 10 localities reporting the slowest pace of absentee balloting this year were carried by Democrat Barack Obama.”
    According to the Virginia State Board of Elections, 60,612 voters have mailed in an absentee ballot or delivered a ballot in person to date. In 2008, Obama won nearly two-thirds of the 511,933 absentee ballots cast in Virginia, according to the Board of Elections.

    Fairfax City, Norfolk, Newport News are some of the localities that staunchly supported Obama in 2008, but they are among the 10 localities reporting the slowest pace of absentee balloting in 2012.

    Absentee balloting runs through the Saturday before the election in Virginia.


    I was looking at this, and it is completely correct, McCain precincts are vastly up in early voting compared to 2008, it is a distinct advantage to Romney, if it keeps up we may see Romney pick the vast majority of absenttes in Virginia, a complete 180 from 2008.

  3. MoonOnPluto, re absentee ballots:


    Pollsters: 1/5 of Ohio Vote Already In! Me: Bull

    Knowing PPP would have something wacky, I decided to cut right down to the most absurd point highlighted by the firm: 19% of respondents have already voted and they are breaking 3-1 Obama. That seems to spell certain doom for Romney.

    Is it actually true? Have just under a fifth of Ohio voters actually voted?
    Facts tend to get in the way of such fantasies.
    CUYAHOGA COUNTY (Largest County in the State, overwhelmingly Democrat).
    TOTAL REGISTERED VOTERS: 928,798 (which, FTR, is down over 180,000 from 2008, and with the registration deadline past in the state, it won’t climb from here).

    Of this total, 229,794 have requested absentee ballots.
    Of this total, 31,233 have returned them, 13.59% of the total requested. Red flag #1.

    That total requested accounts for a third of the total number of votes counted in 2008. So fractions of fractions now. Red flag #2.
    Assuming lower turnout of 670,000 (closer to 2008 which ironically had fewer votes than 2004), that 31,233 drops to less than 5% of the total vote from the largest county in Ohio. A base county for President Obama and the Democrats. A core part of his Early Vote strategy.
    Sure, its just one county, but it is also one of the most Democratic (and as the press meme is going, they have the advantage here), one of the more enthusiastic on voting, and will account for 1 in every 9 ballots cast in Ohio. If we were seeing the levels claimed, we would see it here, and we aren’t. Flag #3.

    But what about In-Person voting?
    Statewide, about 60,000 Ohioans (out of around 8million registered) have voted in-person.

    If we are to believe the hype that 18 to 19% of Ohians have already voted as per the surveys from Marist and PPP are claiming, where are the voters? If the Democrats are turning their ballots back in droves, where the hell are they?

    Per the SOS’ own press release, 1.1 million voters have requested (not submitted, as we see above, that is not the case at all) absentee ballots, and 59,000 have voted in-person. That totals to just around 20% of the 2004/2008 total vote, so on it’s face the 18/19% statistic being bounced around and “found” by polling firms like Public Policy Polling could be true, except for two things: counties are still mailing out these requested ballots so it is impossible for those voters to have sent them back; and on the county level the return rate yields a number in the mid-single digits, if that. A third of what PPP and Marist’s respondents are claiming.

    The smaller the # of respondents for a given question/sub-question, the higher the margin of error. It is how you can wind up with polls giving a Republican 45% of the black vote: if that sample size out of the larger polled group is small, wackiness can ensue. It is why ultimately these subsamples need to be taken with a grain of salt, and not paraded about as significant when the actual numbers on the ground don’t match up.

    Anyone saying the race is over based on “19% said they already did and PPP said they are breaking 76-24 Obama ELEVENTY OMGZ!” is trolling, and on a very pedestrian level. Want to know how many people have voted? Check the counties themselves, or better yet, for a more concentrated spot of information, check out ningrim’s spreadsheet here (requests only).

    Beyond the usual smattering of poll junkies and politicos who will gobble and ooze with delight over garbage, any pollster hyping the statistic is either ignorant of the actual statistical numbers reported or they are deliberately pushing a very, very steamy pile.

    But nobody would push something that obviously isn’t true. That would be the work of a hack, not a reputable pollster.

  4. Ohio, check out Danielle Low’s comments:


    “I see Romney momentum in Ohio in several ways,” said Mark Weaver, a longtime Republican strategist in Ohio. “People clamoring to get tickets to see him speak, people standing in line to get yard signs and then being upset if they run out, and polling that I see in my other races show him outperforming most other Republican candidates here.” And more: in an email interview, Weaver also said he sees “more and higher quality grassroots contacts, a better absentee ballot ‘chase’ program, staffers and volunteers who are mostly from the state (as opposed to a much higher rate of imports for Obama).” [snip]

    Danielle Low, a 22 year-old preschool teacher in Lebanon, is the quintessential Romney target voter. In 2008, she was newly eligible to vote, and she chose Barack Obama. “But then I gave birth to my first son, and I knew we needed a change,” Low said. “We bought a house in ’09 and we’re struggling every day, my husband and I are. I just want to see things turn around. I want to be able to afford to have another child. I want to be able to afford to buy a house where we want to live, and right now, with the economy the way it is, we can’t do that.”

    I think President Obama tricked me into voting for him,” Low continued in an impromptu discussion that could have doubled as a Romney ad. “I feel like he lied to me. He made promises he couldn’t keep. He played on my young emotions. He played on me because I was young and naïve. I didn’t know anything about the world. I believed that he was going to give us a change. I just feel like he made a lot of promises — there’s no way he followed through with them. I haven’t seen any change. I’ve seen change for the worse, not change for the better. So I hope Mitt Romney can carry us through the next four years.”

    A woman standing nearby, Helga Clark, of Fairborn, whispered, “I hope she’s one of millions who’ve changed their minds.” Whether those voters are out there in truly big numbers will determine who wins Ohio, and possibly the presidency. [snip]

    “I feel like the media seemed to be giving Obama the edge to the point where people were starting to feel a little bit deflated,” said Gary Allen, of Lebanon. “That has a psychological effect on the voting public when you think you’re going to lose. After the debate, that wasn’t true any more. I think a lot of people changed their minds after that first debate.”

  5. The attack went on for 6 hours. There was a State dept employee who monitored it real time for pretty much all that time. Where was Obama at that time and what did he do? We know he went to bed but what else did he do? Did Hillary ask for a rescue operation — I would bet she did and what did Obama say? We are getting sidetracked somewhat with asking about the general lack of security. But 6 hours is a long time and what did Obama do during those 6 hours?

  6. As one NQ commenter noted, it is right here in the WAPO article about what might be going on in Benghazi before the attack. What was Obama up to and what is he trying to cover up now?


    More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the wreckage of the U.S. mission on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate information about American operations in Libya.

    Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and an interpreter visited Wednesday.

  7. Great post.

    Will Ms. Candy Crowley be fair? Nope. I have no expectations she will. None. After all she’s the same lady who is clearly an Obot. Remember this?

  8. oh my goodness!


    Got this link from one of Ace of Spades’s recent posts, who the hell do these people think they are?!? They live in DearBorne MI, you hate this country and its allies, get the hell out and go live in some ME hellhole!

    On 9-14-2012, Dearborn Fordson High School principal called the police on me for driving with 2 Israeli flags on my truck.
    “The Dearborn police were one car behind me when this student threw a bottle on my windshield. The police did not stop the student, but instead stopped me for 30 minutes asking me why I would display Israeli flags on my truck.”

    “The Fordson High principal filed an incident report and so did I. However, Dearborn police refuse to release either report. Incident #: 12-49143, Incident #: 12-49503.””

  9. And this….mack was way behind….

    Florida Senate: Nelson (D) 46%, Mack (R) 45%

    After several months in which Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson appeared to have a comfortable lead over Republican Connie Mack in Florida’s U.S. Senate race, the race is now virtually even.

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Sunshine State finds Nelson earning 46% of the vote, while Mack picks up support from 45%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and another five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

    A week ago, Nelson held a double-digit lead. It is highly unlikely that public opinion shifted 10 points within a week. That suggests either last week’s results or this week’s may be an outlier. Polling theory suggests that one out of every 20 polls will produce results outside the margin of error.

  10. DOOM: WaPo juices poll with D+9 sample and @barackobama still can’t crack 50%.

    Wapo produced a dodgy poll last night even they dont believe that gave Obama a +3 lead with a D+9 sample……..seriously if they can’t give him a huge lead with that sample, i suggest the race is over.

  11. Florida Senate: Nelson (D) 46%, Mack (R) 45%

    I hope all FL residents vote for Mack, even if they don’t like him, just in case OTurd cons his way in again, need as thick as a firewall against OTurd in the Senate. If Mack does an awful job, then fine, kick him out in 6 years. But for now, need every firewall possible against another possible OTurd 4 years.

  12. Rasmussen Monday Romney 49% Obama 48%

    This is good for Romney considering Obama polls better at weekends and this poll is Fri/Sat/Sun.

  13. There is an eerie feeling in the air – a deja vu recalling the time, forty years ago, when Nixon was campaigning for reelection against George McGovern. The Watergate break in had occurred,
    Woodward and Bernstein had begun whooping in the WaPo, and the NIxon crowd was busily smothering all revelations about their corruption as “just a cheap third class burglary”. Now we have the Benghazi disaster, the mystery surrounding the colossal bail out billions, the gross exploitation of presidential perks, the oceans of campaign dollars from foreign (read ME) sources, the sell out of the health care proposal to the insurance and pharmaceutical poobahs, the collapsing economy, the housing/foreclosure tsunami, the unemployed millions… It goes on. The reaction of the media and the press is today a lot like it was then – oblivious of the rot and the abuse of power that was as clear as the nose on your face. We just can’t stand any more of this.

    It took Peter Rodino (aided by young Hillary Clinton) and Sam Ervin to get the wheels in motion to
    eventually pop the gigantic gas bag of pomposity and braggadocio that was Tricky Dick. As we well know, the media and the press are now openly slanting their coverage of Obama’s dreadful record.
    We must convince these charlatans that we have only three weeks to lay out the facts so that people can make an informed judgement. We recall that Nixon won in a landslide because his mau-mauing worked – the corporate managers in the press were very slow out of the starting gate and NIxon bullied his way through the election in exactly the same way that Obama is attempting now. NIxon too had a crappy record for four years of a hideous war which he had promised to end because he
    had a “secret plan”.

    The Rock had a very interesting idea in suggesting that the Clintons might just consider switching parties. If they did that before the election it would certainly be the end of Barky and that hollow house of cards. They would have every reason to switch if the coverup for the debacle in Benghazi is to result in Hillary being sacrificed under the bus. I don’t think BC could stand for that, but he has already done far more to boost that corrupt regime than he should, given what they have done in the past to Hillary.

    Personally I feel confident that Romney is going to win this thing. We could rest easier if we could somehow build a fire under the fourth estate to reawaken their pride and restore a sense of fair play in reporting fully the facts that define Obama’s terrible record. There is a bleak future in store for us if he can steal the White House for another four years. It is hard to contemplate just how bad it could be if he were in there again without any concerns about his reelection.

  14. Hey gang! Hi Admin. It’s been a while since I logged on, but I read here all the time.

    I have been following Benghazi CLOSELY and just saw this this morning.

    The plot deepens.

    One would have to look to see if there is/was a connection with The Administration and this firm. Donors perhaps?


    By Damien McElroy, Richard Spencer and Raf Sanchez

    8:24PM BST 14 Oct 2012

    Sources have told the Daily Telegraph that just five unarmed locally hired Libyans were placed on duty at the compound on eight-hour shifts under a deal that fell outside the State Department’s global security contracting system.

    Blue Mountain, the Camarthen firm that won a $387,000 (£241,000) one year contract from the US State Department to protect the compound in May, sent just one British employee, recruited from the celebrity bodyguard circuit, to oversee the work.

    The compound was overrun by a mob of Islamic extremists on the morning of September 12 in an apparent planned attack that resulted in the death by asphyxiation of the ambassador, Chris Stevens.

    Blue Mountain, which is run by a former member of the SAS, received paper work to operate in Libya last year following the collapse of Col Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. It worked on short term contacts to guard an expatriate housing compound and a five-star hotel in Tripoli before landing the prestigious US deal.

    Other firms in the security industry expressed surprise that Blue Mountain had won a large, high profile contract from the US government. One industry executive said the level of service Blue Mountain provided did not appear adequate to the risks presented by a lawless city.

    “We have visited the consulate in Benghazi a number of times and have an excellent relationship with the Americans. Our assessment was the unarmed Libyan guards were extremely poor calibre,” said one security source. “The Libyan Ministry of Interior are generally not happy with Blue Mountain and had them on their close observation/target list.”

    The New York Times last week reported that major security firms with a track record of guarding US premises elsewhere had made approaches to undertake work in Libya but were rebuffed.

    “We went in to make a pitch, and nothing happened,” a security firm official told the newspaper.

    A five man security team from the US diplomatic protection service and three members of a local revolutionary brigade were also on duty on the night of the attacks.

    But Blue Mountain’s local woes appears to have hampered a coordinated response by the compound’s defenders when the late assault kicked off.

    Darryl Davies, the manager of the Benghazi contract for Blue Mountain, flew out of the city hours before the attack was launched. The Daily Telegraph has learned that relations between the firm and its Libyan partner had broken down, leading to the withdrawal of Mr Davies.

    Abdulaziz Majbiri, a Blue Mountain guard at the compound, told the Daily Telegraph that they were effectively abandoned and incapable of defending themselves on the night of the attack.

    “We were in uniform, unarmed except for taser guns and handcuffs, and had been told in the case of attack to muster by the swimming pool,” he said. “I was separated from the others and couldn’t get anywhere near the swimming pool before I was shot.”

    US congressional investigators have told the Daily Telegraph that consular staff had reported Blue Mountain guards to the Libyan police on one occasion last year. The diplomats believed that two disgruntled Blue Mountain employees were behind a minor pipe bomb attack on the facility.

    However after questioning no action was taken by the police or company over the incident.

    Nigel Thomas, the Blue Mountain director, refused to answer any questions about the companies activities in Libya, citing official US inquiries into the incident. He said: “The US State Department investigation is still ongoing at this time. Blue Mountain have no comment to make and all questions should be directed to the US mission.”

  15. “On 9-14-2012, Dearborn Fordson High School principal called the police on me for driving with 2 Israeli flags on my truck.
    “The Dearborn police were one car behind me when this student threw a bottle on my windshield. The police did not stop the student, but instead stopped me for 30 minutes asking me why I would display Israeli flags on my truck.
    Not surprising. Henry Ford was anti-semitic. He brought a lot of Muslim to Dearborne. So this has become part of that culture.

  16. Citizens United Political Victory Fund (CUPVF), the affiliated PAC of Citizens United, released a poll today conducted by Wenzel Strategies, showing Congressman Todd Akin in the lead against incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill in the Missouri United States Senate race. The poll was conducted via telephone survey of likely General Election voters from October 12-13, included 1,000 respondents, and has a 3.07% margin of error

    Todd Akin In The Lead (48.4% to 44.7%) For Missouri U.S. Senate Race According To CUPVF Poll

  17. wbboei
    October 15th, 2012 at 11:14 am

    really??! I had no idea, that is so surprising! Wbboei, you really are a wealth of knowledge.

  18. Todd Akin In The Lead (48.4% to 44.7%)

    hope this stays. Akin is a complete idiot, fortunately Claire “my kids tell me who to vote for” McCaskill is an even bigger idiot.

    I hope Akin wins just so Mccaskill can be ousted, and then in 6 years, I hope Akin is ousted with a more reasonable person.

  19. dogs really are so awesome and heroic and selfless in so many instances. Here is another example. A dog recuses 2 other dogs stuck on a runaway canoe.

  20. Blue: It took Peter Rodino (aided by young Hillary Clinton) and Sam Ervin to get the wheels in motion to
    Moreover, it took an insider to turn states evidence: John Dean. Without him Nixon may have survived the ordeal. Where is his counterpart today? The Mantra in Watergate was –its not the crime, it is the cover-up. Here it could just as easily be–its not the negligence which cost the life of the Ambassador–it is the cover-up to promote the very policies which led to that debacle. In that sense this is of even greater concern. Which brings us to the question of big media role. Until recently, they tried to cover this up–particularly NBC. Why?

    I am heavily invested in the explanation that the reason big media will protect Obama to the bitter end is because he is a Democrat, and the economic policies favored by the Democrats and disfavored by Republicans (who with the exception of Bush favor small goverment)–grand bargains and big government, support and expand the infrastructure of Washington, where these people live. Every time you turn around you find journalists who are married to people in government, lawfirms, lobbying firms, trade associations, pressure groups, staffers, etc. who are invested in the policies of the Democratic Party, because it allows both spouces to feed at the public trough and become super rich. The wealth of the nation is sucked into Washington, and the new dynamic we see is Washington vs the American People, and as our economic picture declines, the stark nature of that dis equilibrium becomes more obvious. Last night I was trying to get some information to that idiot Chris Wallace to get him to stop blaming Hillary and start blaming Obama for lying to the American People about the video, in light of her statment yesterday that the false story came from the White House. In the process, I happened to discover that he is a Democrat, and he claims he has to be because that is the only way to get anywhere in the power structure of Washington DC. The practical effect is that the partisanship of the press is rooted in the protection of the Washington DC establishment and that will not change until they have sucked the life out of the country.

    A friend of mine with a strong media background disputes my premise in its entirety. She argues that their support of Obama is based on the bottom line of their companies. Specificially, for the past four years Obama has been so popular in the country and the world that he has become their cash cow. And she argues, there was a time when the same was true fo Bush. She points out that prior to 9/11 the media was down on Bush, and they were laying off peoople. But their economic decline reversed after 9/11, and as they saw the country rally around Bush he became their cash cow until Katrina. But while he was the apple of their eye, those companies would brook no dissent, and Maher was fired for attacking Bush. Therefore, as long as Obama remains popular, they will continue to promote him and will shade the truth to favor him, as a way of protecting a cash cow and enhancing their bottom line. But if he falls into disfavor, they will look for another cash cow to promote, and she believes that will be Romney. Therefore, the Obama’s collapse in the first debate, Biden’s meltdown in the second (based on his deranged behavior and daming admissions) are the harbinger of a sea change in public opinion and media coverage–or so she argues.

    Hi Nora Desmond. Welcome back.

  21. OH Goody they give us 20,00 and medicare goes up 30.00 🙄

    WASHINGTON—Social Security recipients won’t be getting big benefit increases next year, but the small raises they will receive are playing an important role in helping seniors grow their incomes even as younger workers lose ground.

    Preliminary figures show the annual benefit boost will be between 1 and 2 percent, which would be among the lowest since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975. Monthly benefits for retired workers average $1,237, meaning the typical retiree can expect a raise of between $12 and $24 a month.

    The size of the cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, will be made official Tuesday, when the government releases inflation figures for September.

    “The COLA continues to be very critical to people in keeping them from falling behind,” said David Certner, AARP’s legislative policy director.

    How important is the COLA? From 2001 to 2011, household incomes in the U.S. dropped for every age group except one: those 65 and older.

  22. foxyladi14
    October 15th, 2012 at 10:15 am
    Agreed. Issa is a brilliant man, a meticulous investigator, a very talented examiner of witnesses, and a fair, decent individual. And you can see how well he has picked his lieutenants and how loyal they are to him. He is the best congressional leader I have seen in the past thirty years. If I were in government and had done something wrong, I would not want him on my trail.

    Blue: on the Watergate matter, there was one additional detail I left out inadvertently. Apart from Hillary, Rodino (who was mobbed up by the way–New Jersey–the Del Clavacante family–an offshoot of the Luccheses–my old adversaries) there were Republicans like Howard Baker of Tennessee and Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania who were willing to put crass partisanship aside, and protect the interests of the country. In the ranks of the Dimocrat Party today, there are no such people. I had hoped that Jim Webb would rise to the defense of the country as he did when he was a young marine officer in Viet Nam and earned the Navy Cross, but it has not happened. That is a big problem for the party. If they come along later and do a Kruscheve style repudiation of Stalin, it is too little too late. It is the information people are given at the moment of decision that counts in the real world–like now on the cusp of an election. That which comes later, when it is safe, is the useless kind of stuff that faus historians like Michael Bechloss and Doris Kearns Goodwin can pour over and draw partisan conclusions from.

  23. A superb summmation by Lindsay Graham in the above video.

    What would Elija Cummings say about this? Duhhhhhhhhhhhh.

  24. That is a big problem for the party. If they come along later and do a Kruscheve style repudiation of Stalin, it is too little too late.
    At a more fundamental level, the Prog Purge has been so effective that there are no “real” Dems left to pick up the pieces. The concept of electoral wipe out and rebuild is very attractive, until one sees only a vacuum at “rebuild”. At baselne, however, it probably doesn’t make any difference as both “parties” are in a symbiotic relationship with the same “paymasters”.

  25. wbboei- Your recall is usually exemplary but you missed a little detail. Howard Baker was a mole on Sam Ervin’s committee. He gave a heads up to Haldeman/Colson et al about what had gone on in the Ervin committee during closed door sessions. He did this repeatedly and allowed the Nixon gang to stave off any number of embarrassing inquiries. Obviously, the Butterfield/Dean revelations and the tapes were just too much and things went badly in spite of Howard Baker and not because of him. He is a patron saint of duplicitous Janus headed politicians.

  26. Hi Wbboei!

    Wow. Now there is this.


    It seems to me that this Administration IS Purposefully arming our enemies and lying about it. Couple this article with the State Departments timeline where Amb. Stevens had met with the Turkish Ambassador just before he was murdered (alleged to be securing errant weapons)and we have a problem. Could it be (as the cynic in me asks) no real security was allowed in Benghazi because Administration Officials (Obama, Jarret & others)did not WANT the weapons collected at all…..

    Think F&F too.

    Arming our enemies is not in the Oath of Office, yet, along with F&F – this guy has done now demonstrably twice.

  27. just caught the local news here in Fl (and I have seen this posted elsewhere)

    many Cuban Americans in Florida are turning to vote for Romney

    Just over half of Florida Latino voters said they will vote for Obama, while 44 percent said they prefer Romney and 4.7 percent are undecided, the poll found, putting Romney at a much closer margin than he holds among Latinos in other states.


    also, it is my understanding that the questions for the debate are “supposed” to come from undecided voters provided by Gallup…

    the questions are submitted to the moderator and she gets to choose the questions that will be asked, so the questions are pre-chosen

    each candidate is supposed to have two minutes to reply

    …and as you have all probably read this AM, Candy Crowley is now in the spotlight because both camps do want to allow her any follow up questions


    my two cents…concerned about the fairness in questions chosen and if Candy will keep O to his two minutes…

    if the questions are not all slanted to favor O and Mitt is not denied his time…then I think Mitt will do well…if he has the opportunity to have his say and put O’s record out there for all to comprehend then Mitt will do what is needed…

    …if anyone else has more input on the debate structure please provide…

  28. Wbboei – you in particular might be very interested in this article as it includes the Late-Comer James Clapper. I know you are such a big fan (/snark)

    There is a LOT more here than the statement we have read where HRC distances herself.

    LOTS of info here, and the comments section just expands the theories. Obama is up to his neck in the arming of the Syrian Rebels (who needs congress anywhoo?) and it seems it really did go awry (if you are a sane thinker and do not believe his goal was in fact to get arms into the hands of AQ)

    More wow. Now, where is the media? The Golden Calf may be going down –


  29. Just saw that slimy snake AxelHole say “we should wait for an investigation”

    If that was the case, why did the White House send out Susan Rice to emphatically say it was about a movie, before any investigation was even begun?

  30. Probably because HRC told him to take a hike. She was not going to cover for his crap any more. IMO 😉

  31. Norma Desmond
    October 15th, 2012 at 1:41 pm

    Not just Hillary, but anyone who has any sense to know you don’t go on tv when all the facts are not known and emphatically say some movie was the cause of all this.

    My bet, OTurd will use this same line of excuse that AxelHole used, Romney needs to say, well if you now want an investigation to be finished before saying the cause etc of these murders, well then why didn’t you wait before sending out Susan Rice to lie to the American public?!

  32. I wonder how much of a bully OTurd will be? Its so much harder to be a bully without blowback in 1) in front of a live audience 2) when someone is asking a genuine question about a specific topic, and then its turned into an attack against Romney, when that person wants real answers not attacks.

    My guess, independents will have a revulsion to this kind of aggressive bullying. But who know, might be Biden version 2.0

  33. The video interview cited in today’s article in which Axelrod won’t say if Obama met with National Security Council before flying off to the Las Vegas fundraiser:

  34. I don’t think O will “bully” but I do think he will do a few smirks and “incredulous looks” and “nose gazes” at Romney. If they continue with the split screen, this will be bad.

  35. blue
    October 15th, 2012 at 10:02 am

    Great insight but unfortunately today’s LSM is all in to protect the POS.

    Even the NYT Public Editor has written an editorial pointing out the paper’s failure to report on the Benghazzi Hearings last week.

    Why Wasn’t Libya Hearing on Page A1 of The Times?

    Stories about Wednesday’s Congressional hearing on Libya were prominently displayed on the front pages of major newspapers throughout the United States on Thursday morning.
    The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, for example, both led with the story, meaning that editors placed it in the primary news position on their front pages.

    But The New York Times was not among them. The six stories on The Times’s front page included one on affirmative action at universities, one on Lance Armstrong’s drug allegations, two related to the presidential election, one on taped phone calls at JPMorgan Chase, and one on a Tennessee woman who died of meningitis. The major artwork on Page A1 was from Syria, and the only mention of the hearing on Libya came in a one-paragraph summary at the bottom, leading readers to a well-displayed story on Page A3.

    I talked with Jill Abramson, the executive editor, about the decision, which she said she may have set in motion while running the morning news meeting on Wednesday.
    “I said that I wanted us to weigh the news value against the reality that Congressional hearings are not all about fact-finding,” she said. In other words, they are often deeply politicized.

    She described The Times’s Libya coverage in recent weeks as “excellent and very muscular,” and she said that for her and the managing editor Dean Baquet, “it’s been one of the absolute key stories – getting to the bottom of what happened and why.”

    She suggested that she puts more emphasis on The Times’s original reporting. “We have done a lot on the security issues in Libya and will continue, with our own reporters, to pursue this,” she said.

    Mr. Baquet, who ran the afternoon news meeting at which the decision was made, said the reasoning was simple enough: “I didn’t think there was anything significantly new in it,” he said.
    Like Ms. A
    bramson, he was wary of the political nature of the hearing, noting that “It’s three weeks before the election and it’s a politicized thing, but if they had made significant news, we would have put it on the front.”

    And, he added, “There were six better stories.”

    But many readers wrote to me Thursday morning in dismay. They were disturbed not only by the lack of Page 1 coverage, but also by what they see as not enough attention paid to Libya and the events surrounding the fatal attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi.
    This e-mail, from Brendan DuBois of Exeter, N.H., was typical:

    After a day of Congressional testimony where two public officials outlined the numerous times that their request for extra security for our diplomatic offices in Libya were ignored, time and time again, no doubt contributing to the slaughter of four Americans on 9/11/12, and when it was clear that the days of stories coming from the White House that the attack began after a nonexistent spontaneous demonstration outside of the U.S. Consulate …

    The lead story in today’s paper is about Lance Armstrong. Lance Armstrong!

    The Libya story isn’t even on Page 1. It’s on Page 3.

    What does this say about The Times’s news judgment?

    Another reader, Sharon Hastings of St. Petersburg, Fla., wrote as follows (her e-mail is abridged here):

    I am writing to say how shocked I am at The NYT’s coverage of the Benghazi events and, more so, the coverage of the hearings. This is a major scandal and The Times has more often than not buried the story. The hearings, which made major revelations, are presented as simply partisan wrangling. The major elements on the story this morning are not brought up until the end of the story.

    This is deeply shameful, and it reinforces the widely held perception of The Times as deeply partisan — especially before the election. Does The Times truly believe — can it possibly believe — that it is neutral in its news coverage? Either The Times is deeply deluded or extremely cynical in its claims in this regard. Sadly I suspect cynicism.
    I believe that the Libya hearing story belonged on The Times’s front page. It had significant news value, regardless of the political maneuvering that is inevitable with less than four weeks to go until the election. And more broadly, there is a great deal of substance on this subject that warrants further scrutiny.

    I can’t think of many journalistic subjects that are more important right now, or more deserving of aggressive reporting.

    About the Public Editor

    Margaret Sullivan is the readers’ representative. She responds to complaints and comments from the public and monitors the paper’s journalistic practices. Her opinions and conclusions are her own. Her column appears twice monthly in the Sunday Review. She started her term in Septembern a rare example of political unity, both the Romney and Obama campaigns have expressed concern to the Commission on Presidential Debates about how the moderator of the Tuesday town hall has publicly described her role, TIME has learned.

  36. blue
    October 15th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
    wbboei- Your recall is usually exemplary but you missed a little detail. Howard Baker was a mole on Sam Ervin’s committee. He gave a heads up to Haldeman/Colson et al about what had gone on in the Ervin committee during closed door sessions. He did this repeatedly and allowed the Nixon gang to stave off any number of embarrassing inquiries. Obviously, the Butterfield/Dean revelations and the tapes were just too much and things went badly in spite of Howard Baker and not because of him. He is a patron saint of duplicitous Janus headed politicians.
    Thanks Blue. I never knew that. But I am not surprised. I guess my point would be that by stepping forward as he did, whatever his motivation, he presented the appearance that the pursuit of Nixon was substative and bi-partisan. And that was important too. At that time, the motivations of people like Bernstein (his father was pursued by Nixon in the red scare era) were well known and documented. Likewise, the motivations of the democrats were seen by many as partisan. And initially the media itself was not buying it, and Ben Bradlee was worried about whether the Post would survive and did not trust his two star reporters. So Baker became an important figure. I am not invested in him personally. But the overt role he played was significant. No one in the Democratic Party today is willing to step forward in this manner, and when they do–as Feinstein did with the leaks, they quickly retreat when the White House applies the pressure. It is never pleasant to be at odds with your party, they have many ways to retaliate, ergo I may be asking too much. But if no one steps forward who will defend the interests of the American Public. Certainly not big media.

  37. “The man oturd really hates any level of independence and quality of life for the American people.”
    Most likely another political scam by the oil “bidness”, just like the Keystone XL bullshit.

  38. More on Crowley

    “All parties acknowledge that Crowley’s behind-the-scenes role will be quite influential. She will cull the questions submitted by the voters invited to attend the debate, and then decide which ones will be asked and in what order.”

    This is the woman who said Romney’s choice of Ryan represented a “death ticket.”

    “While an early October memorandum of understanding between the Obama and Romney campaigns suggests CNN’s Candy Crowley would play a limited role in the Tuesday-night session, Crowley, who is not a party to that agreement, has done a series of interviews on her network in which she has suggested she will assume a broader set of responsibilities. As Crowley put it last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?’”

    In the view of both campaigns and the commission, those and other recent comments by Crowley conflict with the language the two campaigns agreed to, which delineates a more limited role for the moderator of the town-hall debate. The questioning of the two candidates is supposed to be driven by the audience members themselves — likely voters selected by the Gallup Organization.
    According to the town-hall format language in the agreement, after each audience question and both two-minute responses from the candidates, Obama and Romney are expected to have an additional discussion facilitated by Crowley. Yet her participation is meant to be otherwise limited. As stated in the document: “In managing the two-minute comment periods, the moderator will not rephrase the question or open a new topic … The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the two-minute response period.”

    But if the Obama and Romney campaigns agreed to such terms, there is no evidence that Crowley did — or was ever asked to do so.

    Instead, the agreement between the campaigns states merely that “The Commission shall provide each moderator with a copy of this agreement and shall use its best efforts to ensure that the moderators implement the terms of this agreement.”

    Which helps explain why the two campaigns are suddenly in league. After Crowley made her “x, y, z” remarks to Suzanne Malveaux on October 5, the two campaign counsels, Bob Bauer for President Obama and Ben Ginsberg of the Romney campaign, jointly reached out to the Commission to express concern that the moderator’s comments seemed in direct conflict with the terms of their agreement. The Commission sent back word that they would discuss the matter with Crowley and reconfirm her function. It is not known if such a conversation has taken place, however.

  39. And what really ticks me off are the reports of dozens of LSM from Brokaw to Todd to all the usual suspects providing free advice to the POS. Never do I hear of any constructive advice for MR. It is such a turnoff. Reporters are supposed to friggin be objective and at the very least refrain from public pronouncements in favor of one candidate over another. At the small local newspaper I wrote for I would have been fired for appearing to take sides during an election.

  40. Or. let me put it this way: I would have gotten significant grief from candidates and parties parked outside my editor’s door frothing with fury over any perceived slight to their side. And since the editor’s don’t want any extra flack it would have been my butt on the line. At the very least I would have had to provide a clear and believable defense of my story.

    There is ZERO accountability for the LSM presstitutes. NONE!

  41. And here’s the NYT editorial ion the Benghazzi Hearings.

    Shameful! (The NYT, not the hearings) Just imagine if there were a Repub in office now.

    “There are many unanswered questions about the vicious assault in Benghazi last month that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. And Congress has a responsibility to raise them. But Republican lawmakers leading the charge on Capitol Hill seem more interested in attacking President Obama than in formulating an effective response.

    It doesn’t take a partisan to draw that conclusion. The ugly truth is that the same people who are accusing the administration of not providing sufficient security for the American consulate in Benghazi have voted to cut the State Department budget, which includes financing for diplomatic security. The most self-righteous critics don’t seem to get the hypocrisy, or maybe they do and figure that if they hurl enough doubts and complaints at the administration, they will deflect attention from their own poor judgments on the State Department’s needs.”

  42. The video interview cited in today’s article in which Axelrod won’t say if Obama met with National Security Council before flying off to the Las Vegas fundraiser:
    If he had, then Axelrod would have said yes. The answer is no. Wallace should have pinned him down on that, for the benefit of the majority of viewers who were half listening. Axelrods mawkish assurances that nobody takes this more serious than the president is belied by the facts. Axelrod is a serial liar, and a good cross examiner could destroy him.

  43. Thanks. Tomorrow will be very exciting. Hope Mitt can continue to pound away as it will be difficult with the format and moderator. Obama will be much more aggressive and perhaps overplay his toughness to ofset his passivirty last debate. It will be interesting. On an even more exciting note the Stones( who have not toured while Obama has been in office) just announced two (2) london shows in late Nov and two (2) Dec dates in Newark, N.J!!!! . Hopefully Obama will not be in office when these concerts occur!!!

  44. Everybody relax. You can stop worrying about Obama being in discomfort. His pillows are fully fluffed by the taxpayers:


    Obama Preps for Debate in Splendor

    President Obama’s distaste for debate preparation may be mitigated by the location his current tutorial, the fabulous Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg Virginia, featuring stunning scenery, deluxe accommodations, and three championship golf courses.

    A portion of the tab for this luxury is of course being picked up by taxpayers, who largely footed the bill to fly Obama down there aboard Air Force One and house his White House retinue in Williamsburg for three nights. Presumably many of his aides, including a large security detail, are at the hotel itself.

    Exactly why Obama needed to be training for his debate at the Kingsmill Resort instead of the White House or Camp David is unclear.

    The best explanation is probably that this is largely a political trip. Virginia is a key swing state and Williamsburg is perfectly situated between two of the major media markets, Richmond and the coastal area of Norfolk and Newport News.

    Obama, who has avoided taking a vacation this year in order to focus on the campaign and avoid charges that he is luxuriating while the nation suffers, certainly has an opportunity now to make up for lost vacationing when he’s not rehearsing his debate lines.

  45. Buzz Bissinger, former reporter, on journalists.

    Buzz Bissinger is a former reporter (with the Philly Inquirer) and “Friday Night Lights” author. He got a lot of liberal static online for endorsing Romney, but the most telling static came from his liberal reporter buddies.

    “There’s no doubt in my mind that there’s a definite liberal bias in the mainstream media…You are simply not expected, when you’re a journalist and a writer, to endorse a Republican. And don’t tell me it does not seep into the coverage. I mean, you look at The New York Times, you look at their editorial today on Afghanistan, you would feel it’s the Republicans’ fault we’re still there, but that’s Obama’s decision. It does seep in, and I know because as a journalist it seeped in when I wrote for the Philadelphia Enquirer.”

  46. Basil – maybe someone should send this story to the NYT:

    Issa: State Dept. sitting on $2 billion-plus for embassy security

    10/14/12 11:13 AM EDT

    Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) says the State Department is sitting on $2.2 billion that should be spent on upgrading security at U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide, but the Obama administration will not spend the funds.

    Issa made his comment during an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to discuss the recent attack in Benghazi, Libya, that left U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead. Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, held a highly partisan hearing on the incident last week.

    (PHOTOS: 10 slams on Obama and Benghazi)

    Issa claims the State Department will not spend the already approved funds because they didn’t want to the appearance of needing increased security.

    “The fact is, they [the State Department.] are making the decision not to put the security in because they don’t want the presence of security,” Issa said. “That is not how you do security.”

    With Republicans turning the Libya into a political issue, Democrats have countered that House GOP leaders actually sought to cut funding for embassy security, which Issa tried to refute.

    “You can’t always look to [new] money when there’s money sitting there,” Issa said. “We’re going through a ‘Mission Accomplished’ moment. Eleven years after Sept. 11 [2001], Americans were attacked by terrorists who pre-planned to kill Americans. That happened, and we can’t be in denial.”

    Issa said that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice may be called before his panel for testimony. Rice said shortly after the Benghazi attack that the incident was caused by an anti-Muslim video, not terrorists, a position that even President Barack Obama has now refuted.


    Read more about: State Department, Darrell Issa, Libya

  47. Axelrod presents the classic case of the runaway witness. The way to deal with him, or Cutter, or La Bolt, when they launch into a long unresponsive narrative designed to evade the question and score talking points is to cut them off as often as necessary and say: my question to you sir is . . . again, my queston to you is . . . you can give your talking points later, but first answer my question, etc. This will alert the audience who is half asleep that something important is happening, and at that point, the evasiveness of the witnesss works against them, not for them. Sometimes media people will cut in and say this is my interview, I get to ask the questions. That is bad form. The way to do it is to repeat the question, over and over and over, until everyone watching in can see that the witness is evading the question. The point is not that you have the forum. The point is Axelrod etc. refuses to answer the question. At some point, if they get snide you can get cute and ask them whether they are asserting the fith amendment. But for god sake, stop letting these ideologues run over the moderator. It is as bad as in the Nurenmberg trials when Herman Goering ran over Justice Jackson, who was trying to examine him, and ended up looking like the fool. Jackson believed this billet would lead to an appointment by Eisenhower as Chief Justice. But Eisenhower was more concerned about California, and the man who delivered that for him was not Jackson, but Governor Earl Warren.

  48. Victor David Hansen is brilliant. This is a must-read article


    The Obama Breaking Point

    Victor Davis Hanson

    Was it the blame-gaming — “Bush did it!,” ATMs are at fault, tsunamis are the culprit, no other administration has had such challenges, the euro meltdown is to blame, earthquakes shook our confidence — that finally turned the country off of Obama?
    For the last two years, millions of Americans have grown, ever so insidiously, tired of Barack Obama and his administration. The Tea Party brought such frustrations to the fore. And now the debates — and the ability of Romney to show millions that he is a decent, competent alternative to Obama rather than the caricatured greedy white man of Obama’s sleazy ads — are closing the deal.

    In the first debate, Romney was not just far better-informed and spoken, but far more likeable. Joe Biden’s frenzied rudeness was the sort of debate performance that mesmerizes one by its very boorishness, eliciting a weird reaction in the room like “Come over and check this out: I can’t believe the Vice president of the United States is trumping The Joker” (after all, the sick Joker is more entertaining that the sober and judicious Batman) — but within hours leaves a bitter aftertaste in the mouth of something along the lines of “Surely, we could have done better than that rude buffoon?”

    The election is not over, but it is starting to resemble October 29 or November 1 in 1980, when, after just one debate, the nation at last decided that it really did not like Jimmy Carter very much or what he had done, and discovered that Ronald Reagan was not the mad Dr. Strangelove/Jefferson Davis of the Carter summer television ads. Like Carter, Obama both has no wish to defend his record (who would?) and is just as petulant. In the next three weeks, he has only three hours left to save his presidency.
    Enough Is Enough

    Add all this up, and millions of voters — quietly, on their own, without much communication — are becoming wearied by Obama, in a way that is quite miraculous. They are coming to the conclusion not just that it is now OK to vote against Obama, but that even if it is not politically correct, they don’t much care anymore.

    There is much more at the link

  49. Norma,

    Good to see you!

    Did you see the 2:29 post about today’s NYT editorial basically agreeing with Elijah the hearings were a witch hunt?

  50. With Republicans turning the Libya into a political issue,
    Fucking Politico.


    Who cast the first stone on this one? Who failed to attend security briefings before the fact? Who failed to meet with his National Security team afterwards, so he could rush off to a fundraiser? Who claimed that this was not an act of terrorism but caused by a video, long after the facts had become clear? Who is invested in the meme that “I” took down Obama and have al Quaeda on the run, ergo re-elect me?

    These people are beneathe contempt.

  51. Wow. TCH posts a very informative Erik Erikson post listing the DC media elite and tier connection and then offers his own analysis. Here’s the list.

    Neil King is a political reporter for the Wall Street Journal. He is married to Shailagh Murray who left a reporting job at the Washington Post to take the job of Joe Biden’s communications director. She replaced Jay Carney who moved to the White House and who himself left Time to take the communications director role for Biden.

    John Harris of the Politico is married to an abortion rights activist who used to run NARAL Virginia.

    The Politico’s Chief Washington Correspondent, Jonathan Allen, left the Politico to work for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, then returned to the Politico.

    Andy Barr of the Politico left the Politico to work for the Democratic National Committee and now works for Richard Carmona, the Democrats’ candidate for Senate in Arizona against Jeff Flake.

    George Stephanopolous of ABC News used to be a strategist for Bill Clinton and even after becoming Chief Washington Correspondent still engaged in regular conversations with Rahm Emanuel, James Carville, and Paul Begala from the Clinton days. (Ironic, isn’t it, that John Harris wrote that story)

    Michael Scherer of Time, where Jay Carney left to go to Joe Biden’s office, got his start in left wing publications, as did Ezra Klein of the Washington Post who famously created the left wing Journolist filled with Washington journalists and pundits to bounce around themes in the left wing echo chamber.

    Linda Douglass of ABC News left ABC to serve as Chief Propaganda Officer for the Obama White House in charge of getting Obamacare through.

    Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times made up the story about President George H. W. Bush being surprised and taken aback by a common supermarket check out scanner. The story was made up by Rosenthal who was not even present. Andrew Rosenthal is now the Editor of the New York Times Editorial Page.

    The BuzzFeed crew are mostly left of center, hang out with left of center reporters and pundits, and the media considers them and their cat GIFs the second coming of a supposedly objective Huffington Post.

    Chuck Todd himself is married to a former DNC staffer and he worked as a Democratic staffer to Senator Tom Harkin. He works with Chris Matthews who worked for a Democrat in Congress and Jimmy Carter. They both work with Andrea Mitchell who is married to Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
    miq2xu says:

    If you add up all the elected and top-level appointed officials in Washington that is only a thousand or so people. My high school graduating class was nearly that big. Add to that all the top aides and top assistants as well as every military officer with a star on their collar and the top lobbyists and that’s still only four or five thousand people. Last but not least are the top members of the media.


  52. More on the town hall tomorrow

    The 80 or so undecided voters chosen for Tuesday’s event must submit their questions in advance and moderator Candy Crowley of CNN will decide which people to call on. She can pose her own follow-up questions.

  53. HI BASIL!

    Yes, I did.

    Re: NYT – I still get the free version (I get to read 10 stories a months or something) but I have it delivered to my inbox daily.

    It never fails. I get to about the 3rd story headline and I am seeing red.

    I finally decided to wait until after coffee before I even look. Or, I delete it entirely, knowing full well I will see “All the News that’s Fit to Print” somewhere on the intertubes during the day or evening.

    It’s better for my health.


    But OT –

    The Obama Phone Lady is back!



    Super PAC Tea Party Victory Fund is using the “Obama Phone” lady in a new Ohio swing-state aimed ad.
    The pitch for the video, which asks donors for help in spreading the video in the state, is written by the Fund’s chairman Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s former secretary of state, via SLATE:

    This is it– this is the October surprise. We just need to get this ad on television today. Will you help us?

    This commercial is a microcosm of the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans want to create an environment where free people make their own choices and pursue their dreams. President Obama and the Democrats want to create a dependency on Government that ensures that Americans will continue to rely on Washington from cradle to grave.

    What this lady said is so offensive because it’s so blatant–she finally comes out and says what we all know that the Democrats really think. That’s why this ad is so damaging to the President here in Ohio.

    Let me tell you something, I’m from Ohio — I was elected statewide as the Secretary of State, and Ohio State Treasurer–this ad is effective. If swing voters in this state see this ad, they simply will not support President Obama, and he will lose Ohio.

  54. Linda Douglass of ABC News left ABC to serve as Chief Propaganda Officer for the Obama White House in charge of getting Obamacare through.
    Married to a big Washington lawyer and Obama bundler who profits from government contractors, and on and on and on it goes. That is what we are fighting. Washington DC VS The American People, where minorities and youth are the pawns.

  55. yep, these people are all obot elitist establishment maggots. No other way to put it. They will try everything to keep power evergrowing and concentrated in DC. They don’t give a real damn about the American people or America. They pretend to, but they really don’t.

  56. Update: As we note in the main article, the DailyKooks cheered Biden but there is a lot of damage to Obama. Additional hurt via Biden comes from Romney knowing exactly how Obama will defend himself on the Libya Fibya and other assorted diasters.

    One of Biden’s tactics: lie. A history of Chuckles the Clown’s own private Idaho, er, history of Xtreme wrestling with the truth for Obama to emulate at the Hofstra Halloween Horror Penultimate October Debate tomorrow night will help Romney prepare for his responses. Serial lies are the Chicago Way which gives Joe Biden ward heeler status in the windy city.

    For those worried about Obama suffering as he tries to save his ill deserved Nobel Prize job, fear not. The American taxpayer is making sure Obama Preps for Debate in Splendor. The pillows of the imperial wastrel are fluffed and you are paying for the pillows and the fluffers.

    More good news? Obama raised an amazing $181 million last month but Romney drops his own number on Hofstra Halloween Horror eve. Romney, RNC raise $170 million in September. The important number: Romney/RNC have $191 million cash on hand.

    Thanks to Powerline for the “pick” of Big Pink today.


  57. OTurd might have raised a bit more than Romney… 181 v 171 million.

    However, I just read the details, Romney actually released the amount of money they have to use…. Approximately $191.23 Million Cash On Hand

    How much do OTurd and his dem minions have on hand? *crickets*, never released. Will the Obot LSM ask? nah.

  58. admin
    October 15th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
    You are, without question, the most brilliant commentator and analyst on the political scene. Oh, there are others who are damned good, like Krauthammer, Bill Jacobsen, Jay Cost, Doug Shoen and particularly Pat Caddell. But you insights Admin are always the best. I do not always agree with you, but on those rare occasions where we do not agree initially, either sober reflection or new evidence confirm the validity of your analysis. I talk about my experiences when I blog here, when I think they are relevant, but I know for a fact that there are others here who know as much or more about the process than I do. I learn alot from all of you.

  59. oops, sorry admin, just realized your post also specified how much cash Romney has on hand. Didn’t see it before posting my comment.

  60. WHOA!

    BREAKING: Obama Preparing Military Strike Against Benghazi Terrorists

    by Ulsterman on October 15, 2012 with 0 Comments in News

    The Associated Press is now reporting that the Obama administration has given the order to prepare for strikes against terrorist forces in Libya. The timing of this announcement is very suspicious given the potential political implications. A true Wag the Dog moment – and perhaps something even more sinister as to what the true intended use of now dead Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be for the Obama White House. Dead lips tell no truths…

  61. Huh!?!? what world or country is she living in??!

    ” First Lady Michelle Obama said in a radio interview on Friday that the United States is in the “midst of a huge recovery” because of what “this president has done.”

    Pablo Sato, co-host of Pablo & Free on WPGC 95.5, a Washington, D.C.-area hip-hop radio station, asked the first lady: “Mrs. Obama, you know what, in your words, tell us what you think the state of the union is in right now?”

    Mrs. Obama said, “I mean, we are seeing right now that we are in the midst of a huge recovery. Right? Because of what this president has done.””

  62. how nice. They’re giving open warnings to the terrorists about this strike, how very nice of OTurd and Jarrett to give such a warning to the terrorists. /sarc

  63. From Politico

    The Associated Press reports:

    Administration officials say the White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to hit militant targets from Libya to Mali, if U.S. investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador in Libya.

    But the officials say the administration also is weighing whether the short-term payoff of being able to claim retribution against al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes would be ineffective and rile governments in the region.

    Details were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke only on condition of anonymity.

  64. Don’t think the wag the dog will work. The tide was shifting before the last debate, nobody I know want the current grifter in the WH. Everywhere I go people are talking … now they must get out to vote. I think the undecideds most likely made their mind up after the first debate, they won’t even tune in to the 2nd one.

  65. Pat Caddell: NYT Engaging In Near-Complete Suppression of Libya Story To Shill For Loser President

    Pat Caddell trashes NYT.

    [I]f you look at the front page of the New York Times on Monday morning, Libya is nowhere to be found. Yet, the Benghazi attack on 9/11 that killed our ambassador and three others was the topic of every Sunday talk show this weekend.

    The New York Times still thinks of itself as “the paper of record”; it’s the one paper every network newscast consults on a daily basis. So why isn’t Libya on the front page Monday morning?

    Here’s why: The Times is so in the tank for the Obama administration it’s scary. I’ve never seen anything like it. They are doing everything they can to protect the Obama White House over this disaster.

    When are Republicans — and all Americans — going to call on the press to look into this outrage?

  66. was driving to the store today, and I saw a lawn all decked out in political signs. One for our state rep, one for our congresswoman,– all Democrats. Then twice as big om that said “Romney/Ryan 😆

  67. foxy…i’m in fl…dem country…have not seen one O sign…all romney signs all over the place…went to get gas today…guy in front of me…out of the blue starts saying he is so excited about this election…

    as i’m walking back to my car i ask him…how do you think it will go…he goes crazy…Romney is going to win…we are taking our country back…O is ruining our country, etc, etc…
    and like i said above…the cuban americans in fl are going for romney in big #

    i think Mitt might win Florida by bigger numbers than we suspect…just saying…and hoping…

  68. wbboei
    October 15th, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    October 15th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
    You are, without question, the most brilliant commentator and analyst on the political scene. I learn a lot from all of you.

    I agree with wbb and appreciate having Big Pink to help me find the way in all the weeds.

    I am sort of MIA with moving to a new apartment, everything that could go wrong, has. No phone yet, no internet until a least a week – where I will be mailed a kit and hope to God I can figure out how to set it up and I will have all the necessary pieces.

    Only about 6 decent channels on a new TV I had to buy just to see these few. 😡

    I feel like I have been moving into a tech free zone and I have gone nuts. Desperate enough to drive to a closed Starbucks using my iPad to save a Big Pink page from the parking lot, in the dark on the way home…and read that capture.

    I long for normalcy. At least I see the blog at work.

  69. So he was MIA or rather partying in LV instead of trying to rescue the Amb and others in Benghazi, now he is going to bombard them with drones. What a fucking coward.

    But looks like Romney is surging with women and in swing states.

  70. There is an interesting account floating around Washington concerning the Bengazi raid, and the refusal of the Obama Administration to provide the additional security requested, and its refusal to concede that it was an act of terrorism. to come clean on it.

    In essence, this was a staged political event by the Obama Administration that went sour. The Obama campaign had planned for an October surprise, which would consist of a staged SEAL rescue of an endanged diplomat from the clutches of terrorists. The purpose of this event was to burnish Obama’s credentials as a terrorism fighter and provide the sort of bump he got from the killing of Bin Laden. In other words, wag the dog.

    The gist of the plan was to place Ambassador Stevens in harms way (with his prior knowledge and consent), and have a contingent of contract terrorists arranged by Obama’s friends in the Muslim Brotherhood assail the compound and a SEAL operation could be deployed at the direction of Obama to kill them and rescue the Ambassador. Obama planned to tell the press that these were remants of the Kaddfai Administration, al Qaeda, and Libyan security forces. And then he would be swept into office despite the bad economy.

    What caused the plan to go wrong was politics within the CIA. There is a faction within the CIA which is controlled by Zieb Brzezneski, who were allied with Soros, who were instrumental in instigating the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revoultion in Ukraine, as well as he failed Cedars Revolution in Lebanon and the Green Revolution in Iran. Also, this group helped Obama win in 2008. But there is another group, indeed a larger one which is pro American and is known as the Bill Casey boys. They do not support Obama and when they got wind of what he was planning, and so did Israeli intelligence. This group moved in to thwart Obama. They bought out the the contacts, and nature took its course. Their goal was to allow the hostages to be rescued by Romney after he took office, ala Iran.

    But of course it did not work out that way.

    Before you dismiss this as pure fantasy, or the maunderings of a toxic mind, consider what one commentor said on this subject below. Also, you may wish to read the article by Lame Cherry, whom Confloyd on this blog used to cite: http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2012_09_26_archive.html

    October 15, 2012 at 9:06 pm
    OCTOBER 15, 2012 BY C.O. JONES

    I received a phone call from an old friend that has been in Washington D.C. for years and is ‘fairly well-connected politically’. What she told me was ugly and sinister, yet very compelling.

    She said she had received information from someone ” high up in White House circles”, and wanted my thoughts. No, there is no leaked email, no concrete proof, and this article is based on “hearsay.” I’m not one that usually engages in or repeats hearsay, but

    if this is true, it could be the biggest story in 50 years.

    According to her, Barack Obama, wanting an “October Surprise,” had secretly arranged with the Muslim Brotherhood for a kidnapping of our ambassador.
    Then sometime in October before the election Obama was to orchestrate some great military action to rescue Ambassador Stevens, causing all of America to cheer Obama’s strong foreign policy and bravery and making him look like a hero. After all, his supposed killing of Osama Bin Laden bounce had long since faded. Thus, sweeping him to victory in November. Imagine the headlines and talking points. The election would be a lock.

    The Muslim Brotherhood has every reason to want Obama re-elected in November and have an American President sympathetic to their causes. Not to mention an administration filled with Muslim appeasers. Therefore, they agreed to aid in these theatrics.

    Unfortunately for Ambassador Stevens and three others, the Brotherhood could not control the “hired thugs” that were to perform the kidnapping and things escalated and four American lives were lost.

    Panic set in at the White House and with little time to place blame as far away from Obama as they could, they settled on a ridiculous fairy tale about an irrelevant video posted four months prior on YouTube and ran with it. Barack Obama even ran with it after evidence showed he knew better and ran with it all the way to his speech at the U.N.

    So now, they are admitting it was a terrorist attack. They are admitting that the State Department had denied requests for more security from Washington, but nobody told them.

    Blame anyone but Barack Obama.

    I’m betting the White House is smirking and perfectly happy to be accused of having a breakdown in communication as opposed to the alternative. This scenario, if true, more than satisfies my common sense gland.

  71. I read elsewhere too that the Ambassador was “supposed” to be kidnapped. So maybe there is something to it. In fact, the lackadaisical attitude of this WH on that night during attack would seem to support this theory. It is as if they were expecting something like it to happen. Obama even went to bed and jetted off to LV the next day but by then he knew that Stevens was murdered.

  72. Here is an excerpt from CNN article: Unfuckingbelievable.. Why is she doing this?

    “”I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

    Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.

    “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.”

  73. alcina
    October 15th, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    I’ve had Fox on in the background, I did not hear that. they showed a clip of her speaking, but nothing to the extent of “the buck stops here” type sentiment.

  74. pm317
    October 15th, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    But the POS STILL has not publicly blamed the Benghazzi on a terrorist attack! His last statement was that either it was the video or he didn’t have enough info.

    For him to attack now without having clarified that he’s decided the September assassinations were caused by terrorists and not by the video . . .

    I mean, check some of these comments from ACE.

    So now the question is…

    Did President Obama deliberately set up the embassy for attack by removing the protection and ignoring threats so he could then launch a counter attack close to the election?

    It certainly looks that way.

    Anyone buying into a conspiracy theory that Barky McDicklock let Benghazi happen to set up Wag the Dog? I’m not (they’re stupid enough to fuck it up with no motives, just incompetence), but if that turns out to be the case I would not be at all surprised.
    Posted by: logpro So Obama’s intelligence (insert joke here) operatives who wrongly reported there was a protest outside the embassy before it was attacked will all of the sudden get all super accurate with their information and know exactly who murdered the ambassador and three other Americans, and where and when they will be available to catch a missile? Really?f at October 15, 2012 06:56 PM (V/U0X)
    We were told over and over and over
    for 4 weeks that everything was due to THE VIDEO.

    Shouldn’t the Obama admin have a
    giant missile pointed at Nokoula’s prison cell?
    But WHY would the POS do this now? The presstitutes already have
    their marching orders that the Benghazzi incident was not a terrorist
    attack. and was caused by an amateur video.

    An attack now would cast more attention on the original lies

  75. wow, just wow. First Bill goes around campaigning for this PO$, now Hillary is giving him a free pass; all the while OTurd and his america-hating minions go after State, the intelligence offices, and Hillary. Absolutely disgusting. I am disgusted with both of them!

  76. Now Hillary is making excuses for Susan Rice, saying “fog of war”. I am disgusted, absolutely disgusted with both of them, what the hell are they doing?? And right on the eve of the townhall debate, coincidence? No. They are going to cover for OTurd, absolutely disgusting.

  77. My husband thinks this will backfire for Obama. People will look kindly on her for taking the responsibility but critical on him. Why was he not involved?

  78. I guess they are democrats first and foremost. I don’t care anymore, I am disgusted beyond words. I’m getting close to losing every ounce of respect and support I had for them. They are actually actively covering for OTurd. She is now making excuses for him, she is making excuses for Susan Rice. Who else is she going to excuse for now? Disgusting.
    The people in her state dept have already testified to the opposite of what actually happened, and yet she is covering for OTurd, Susan Rice.

  79. so when BO is asked the question regarding responsibility for the Benghazzi attacks, will he say “it’s Hillary’s fault”?? how will that sound?

    makes me sick. time to log-off.

  80. “This is Libya we are talking about, why weren’t you involved?” That should be the first question to Obama.

  81. alcina, I’m with you, my wife just heard the news, disgusted is an understatement. And she adores Hillary, she’s pretty much lost all respect at this point for her. I’m logging off too.
    Its no coincidence that this happened right before the second debate, so is Hillary going to resign? of course not, she’ll just keep covering for that jerk in the WH. Disgusting, both Bill and Hillary, after everything done to them in 2008, they still keep covering for that jerk in the WH.

  82. alcina – I was watching Lou Dobbs when that news broke. I couldn’t believe it!

    What about the interview that Hillary did with the Daily Mail yesterday saying just the opposite?

    What happened here? Was Hillary threatened?

    I am sick over this!

  83. Come on, guys. Don’t take it out on me. This is a sudden switch. I am trying to piece together like everyone else what is going on.

  84. No one’s taking it out on you, pm317, at least I’m not.

    Anyway, I am off for the night. I just hope this is not a big del in tomorrow’s debate. i can just hear Crowley saying, “In light of the fact the SOS has taken responsibility for Libya . .” .

  85. pm317

    the only silver lining i can think of is that no one will buy this. check out the comments @ the cnn link. the majority think HRC is covering for BO in a bad way.

  86. This was on the 9th. Even if she takes responsibility for the security lapse, the WH coverup is still there.

    The State Department has said that it never believed the September 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was the result of a protest over an anti-Islam movie – directly contracting the rest of the Obama administration.

    By trying to distance her department from the inept and deceptive handling of the Benghazi attack, which left U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials dead, Hillary Clinton could help herself politically for a 2016 presidential run.

    A dramatic new account by the State Department reveals that Stevens was locked inside a ‘safe room’ choking to death from diesel-heavy smoke as the building around him burned to the ground.

    Alongside him was a security guard, tasked with the impossible choice between staying in the deadly room – or facing the rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns outside.

    Eventually the guard slipped through the window – and was cut down by the grenades.

    No-one saw the ambassador alive again – another agent tried desperately to enter the safe-room, but could not find him anywhere.

    The State Department’s insistence it never bought the story – expressed by the White House and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations – that a crude anti-Islam film made in California triggered the attack gives ammunition against Obama both to the Romney campaign and congressional Republicans.

    State Department sources have said that Clinton has never forgotten that Rice, who served in her husband Bill’s administration, was an early supporter of Obama. Rice has ambitions to take over from Clinton if Obama is re-elected but the Benghazi debacle could scupper her chances.

    In a briefing on Tuesday, State Department officials said ‘others’ in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department’s conclusion, reporters were told.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html#ixzz29PwedGxL

  87. alcina, that is what I am expecting too. And my suspicion is that the career diplos will leak something big in the next couple of days. This taking responsibility gambit will give cover for Hillary and not turn it into a political football between Obama and Hillary. You know the media is always eager to throw her to the wolves.

  88. I agree with Alcina. Hillary’s comments are too late after all the other things that have been stated by the administration. It will just bring up more questions and people aren’t going to buy it.

    Maybe Hillary has some other motive here?

  89. It’s scary, how much the New York Times is in the tank for Obama over Libya
    By Patrick Caddell

    Published October 15, 2012

    Radio talk show host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham was right when she confronted New York Times political reporter Jeff Zeleny on the set of “Fox News Sunday” this weekend:

    “I would hope that the New York Times, as they camped outside of Scooter Libby’s house during the whole Valerie Plame thing — are you guys camped out of the Susan Rice residence?” She said, “This is ridiculous and I think the press is partly culpable here.”

    And she wasn’t alone in voicing that sentiment. Fox News’ Brit Hume agreed with Ingraham during the same roundtable discussion on the program Sunday.

    “I do think Laura’s made a good point. It shouldn’t be up to the campaign and candidates to try to get to the bottom of this before Election Day. This should be a job for all the good investigative reporters in the media to be out on this story, investigative teams such as they are should be all over this. This does have, it seems to me, an extremely strong scent of cover-up and it does looks like that it was engineered in some way. There’s just something about those five appearances on a Sunday with a story that they had to know was off base. That doesn’t smell right and ought to be exposed.”

    Both Ingraham and Hume are 100 percent right. Yet, if you look at the front page of the New York Times on Monday morning (view front page here), Libya is nowhere to be found. Yet, the Benghazi attack on 9/11 that killed our ambassador and three others was the topic of every Sunday talk show this weekend.

    The New York Times still thinks of itself as “the paper of record”; it’s the one paper every network newscast consults on a daily basis. So why isn’t Libya on the front page Monday morning?

    Here’s why: The Times is so in the tank for the Obama administration it’s scary. I’ve never seen anything like it. They are doing everything they can to protect the Obama White House over this disaster.

    When are Republicans — and all Americans — going to call on the press to look into this outrage?

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/15/new-york-times-is-so-in-tank-for-obama-over-libya-it-scary/#ixzz29PyNPaYV

  90. AmericanGal
    October 15th, 2012 at 8:37 pm

    Maybe Hillary has some other motive here?

    So the night before Obama’s BIG LAST CHANCE to prove his foreign policy credentials, Hillary essentially states, “The buck stops here”, stealing his mojo.

    No one really thinks, “It was ALL Hillary’s fault”, even OBOTs.

    So she is:
    a) proving loyalty to Dems
    b) stealing Obama’s mojo the night before the big debate
    c) falling on her sword publicly without major repercussions; people will ask, “Why didn’t the White House/Obama know about anything???? Why is SoS taking the full brunt of the blame??? Why does the buck stop with her???”

  91. Here is an excerpt from CNN article: Unfuckingbelievable.. Why is she doing this?

    “”I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

    Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.

    “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.”
    That is NOT what she said. Someone at CNN has taken twisted her words. On FOX she said she takes responsibilty for the actions of the State Department. And the State Department is not responsible for security. I think we need to see what she actually said. Unless she said something different to CNN than she said to FOX. I think CNN has distorted her comments. There is something going on here that makes no sense.

  92. Ah wbb, good eye. These LSM fukkers are willing to twist their damn lies to Olympian levels to protect their golden pony.

    I agree, Hillary can can say, “I’m taking responsibility for my corner of the store”, which implies that Obummer as the “store owner” is not taking responsibility for everything else that is NOT State Dept.

  93. And on the eve of the debate, sucking the air out of the “Obama looks for a come back in 2nd debate” fairy tale.

    Oooh, did I just say “fairy tale”???

    Wasn’t that racist of me?

  94. Maybe Hillary has some other motive here?
    Al Hague after Reagan was shot: “I am in charge.”

  95. warehouse,

    Lima, Peru (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the buck stops with her when it comes to who is to blame for security ahead of a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.

    “I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

    Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.

    “I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.

  96. Here’s the rest:

    The attack killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the consulate.

    The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week’s vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected. Following the debate, the White House said the vice president did not know of the requests because they were handled, as is the practice, by the State Department.

    Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded.

    In the wake of an attack, there is always “confusion,” Clinton said. But the information has since changed, Clinton said in the interview.

    The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an “intense, long ordeal” as staff tried to find out what had happened.

    Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again — but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.

    “We can’t not engage,” she said. “We cannot retreat.”

  97. I went back to the Fox report and the reporter (who is in Peru with Hillary) said she took responsibility for Benghazi and all the State Dept personnel but security was done by security professionals.

    In other words, she took responsibility but there is something else coming that we will find out soon.

  98. The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an “intense, long ordeal” as staff tried to find out what had happened.

    Where was Obama? oh, that is right! He went to bed and then off to LV for fundraising.

  99. Hillary and Bill have really gone above and beyond to help Obama. Some think they are brilliantly maneuvering around to protect the party, but with this latest statement
    from Hillary, it just makes no sense.


    Okay, Ms. Clinton: What are the names of these “security professionals” you say made this decision? Forgive my suspicions, but I’d like to ask them for their side of the story.

    I’d also like documentary evidence for all of these claims.

    Bonus: In April, the consulate was attacked.

    The State Department suspected their very own guards carried out the attack.

    State Department officials suspected that two Libyan guards hired by its own security contractor were behind an April incident in which a homemade bomb was hurled over the wall of the special mission in Benghazi, according to official emails obtained by Reuters…
    The April attack illustrated concerns among some U.S. officials in Libya that hiring local residents for embassy guard duties could in itself raise security issues.

    The emails identified one of the suspects in that incident as a former employee of Blue Mountain Group who had been fired four days earlier for vandalism, and said the other was still working for the company. Both were unarmed guards who performed routine security tasks, such as screening visitors.

    An assessment of the guards stated that they were of “extremely low caliber.”

  101. Memo to Hillary: the buck does NOT stop with you. It stops with the president. He is the elected leader. You were appointed. There is a big cover-up going on here.

  102. Something else is going on here. Wait for the other shoe to drop. Also note, she is not taking any responsibility for the cover up fairytale emanating out of this WH. If security was not in the per view of the State for Benghazi, wait for the other shoe to drop. There was another article today about the security contractor a British company, Blue Mountain which got the contract out of the blue, no pun intended. Who runs this company and how are they connected to Obama?

  103. If Hillary knew there were 230 incidents of violence and Hillary did not tell the president then Hillary should resign. Be careful what you plead guilty to here Hillary. She needs to be reminded she was not elected to anything, she was appointed and serves at the pleasure of the president. And if the president does not know about security concerns in hot spots around the world, then he is not doing his job. In any company, the ceo can read operational reports to his hearts content, but if he does not know what the hot spots are and what is going on, then the company will fail. She has no right to say that the responsibility goes no further than her. That is laughable.

  104. I confess I LIKE this comment from HA.

    “I can’t believe some of you think Hillary is taking the fall. She’s denying him his ‘hero’ moment at the debate tomorrow night. His plan was to make his ‘buck stops here’ speech then have all his weasels leak that it was really all Hillary’s fault. Faux Chivalry fits Obama like a glove.”

  105. Obama has to be defeated in November. The damage that he has done is most likely to some extent irreparable! I’m concerned about Ohio.

  106. Basil, HA could have a point BUT to the Hill fans this is like a stab through the heart. I just want to be able to see that jerk out of the WH. I know Hillary is done but this leaves a huge stain on her resume. No chance she’ll ever run for anything again. Yes the buck should stop with the big desk but LOOK who will be remembered for the attack, Hillary Clinton. I’m sorry I just can’t believe she and Bill don’t have something up their sleeve but honest to God who would have ever thought an upstart from nowhere would ever run boomdoggle over the Clinton machine.

    I’ll be glad when it’s over. I so hope Romney wins and wins big time.

    I think prayers are in order for tomorrow night and I don’t even normally pray.

  107. The FEC Reports on the September haul does not come out until October 20th. It has been my experience that Obama inflates his numbers by adding up the receipts for Obama for America and the Obama Victory Fund 2012, without discounting the funds transferred from the OVF to the OFA. So maybe he did not haul in more than Romney.

  108. Hill said the other day that Rice answered to the White House not her so Rice had to have gotten her story from Jarrett/Donilon/Obama (one of these clowns).

    I don’t believe her for one second. I think it was Obama’s whole enchilada and she’s throwing herself on the sword for him. Charlotte Lamb said in the hearing that they were watching the attack in real time. They saw the whole thing go down and I know Hillary and the State Department would have notified the idiot in charge what was going down. If she’s trying to help Obama she’s not because people aren’t stupid and they aren’t going to believe that Obama didn’t have anything to do with it. At least people who have a lick of sense won’t believe her.

  109. I, for one am not angry about Hillary taking full responsibility for the Benghazi incident. It is just right. She cannot blame the White House for this. If she can, she would have. I don’t think this is about helping Obama. This is the decent thing for Hillary to do. It is HER responsibility and I am glad that she is owning up to it.

    The President provides the direction for the security posture of the consulates and embassies and I think that it is a mistake that they decided to normalize the security posture in Libya. Although the President provides the direction, I can only assume that Hillary agreed with this direction and if she did not, she should have stood her ground. In the end, this is her department and she should take ownership of its successes as well as its failures.

    What happened in Libya is a failure of the world view of Democrats that we will be safe just as long as we play nice with the terrorists, as long as we don’t make waves and as long as we are prepared to make concessions. This is the result of the weakness of the US foreign policy. I strongly believe that this falls squarely on Hillary. I can only hope that I am thoroughly misinformed and I would be happy to be educated about what Hillary’s real vision about foreign policy is.

  110. Hillary is far from done over Benghazi. She stopped the buck because she wanted it. The Boob looks even worse for being such an empty suit in an empty chair. Watch her show the world how to take responsibility and clean up a mess. Like a President should.

  111. When Charlotte Lamb said at the Issa hearings that they were watching it in real time, you’d better believe the red phone to the White House was burning up. What a crock of schit! She’s covering for the loser and everybody knows it.

  112. I am thinking (and hoping for) leaks from the State. A memo from the WH saying we don’t need big visible security in Benghazi or something to that effect. Remember what Woodward said — Obama wanted a “normal look” to the consulate there.

  113. Hillary is not the President though and she’ll never be with this hanging over her shoulder. Never take responsibility for something that is NOT your fault.

    Left the party after Hillary lost and I have to admit that I really think I was wrong about the whole party itself.

    I’m proud to be an independent now and leaning more conservative every day.

  114. Here’s LJ’s entire post.

    Talk about a spineless wimp. That is Barack Obama when it comes to Libya. Hillary Clinton tonight, while speaking in Peru, takes full responsibility for the failure to have the consulate in Benghazi properly secured and Ambassador Chris Stevens appropriately protected. And she’s right. She is at fault.

    But having Hillary take the hit does not get Obama off the hook. She ultimately may have been responsible for the security failure in Libya, but she was not the one who sent Susan Rice out to lie to the American people. That was Barack Obama’s call. Here is the irony–when Obama was busy spiking the football for taking out Bin Laden he was quick to claim the credit for making the tough decision. He could not wait to get in front of the cameras and set in motion leaks that completely exposed a top secret US Navy Special Ops unit.

    But while Ambassador Stevens’ corpse was still warm, what did Barack do?

    He jetted off to Las Vegas to raise campaign cash. He had no time nor inclination to brief the American public on this epic fail on 9-11, 2012. His campaign was counting on doing a triumphant foreign policy march waving the body of Osama Bin Laden as a victory scalp. That meme turned to ashes with the shell of the burned out US Consulate and annex in Benghazi more than one month ago.

    So, Hillary accepts responsibility? Fine. She should tender her resignation. She failed to do her job and four Americans are dead that should not have died. If she stays on the job, then we know this is just a cheap, political gesture with no substance. With her should go Pat Kennedy, the Under Secretary for Management, who had the job of directly supervising and managing Diplomatic Security.

    I am not saying that Hillary personally decided not to provide security to Benghazi. That decsion was taken at a lower level. But it is her job to be responsible. We had no responsibility in place during the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the first 9-11. No one lost their job then. Now we have the debacle in Libya. While we have lost far fewer American lives there as compared to the deaths in New York City, Pennsylvania and Virginia, it is a serious breach of security.

    Now we have the spectacle of Barack Obama cowering in the White House, praying that Hillary takes the heat and that he gets off the hook. But Obama is delusional. Just because Hillary proved that she has bigger balls than Obama does not mean Obama gets a pass on this disaster. Where does the Buck stop Barack?

  115. If Hillary resigns now then Obama will take a huge leap in the polls. What most people will see is that Obama was so good to give her a job and LOOK she failed….he isn’t to blame for anything at all if she just wasn’t doing her job. He gets another freaking free pass because people are sheeple.

    She is indeed falling on the sword for him. Fcuk them all. Pray for Romney to win. Pray for America to be safe and to wake the heLL up. I’m so fuming over this.

  116. Even Newt says that HRC will take one for the team. The media is going to still call out teh won and his vp lapdog. Facts matter and that should sink teh won.

  117. @ dot

    I look at the bill everytime I fill my gas tank. I had a bot tell me that it is not double the price that it was in 2008 today. Woah, did his face turn green when it finally hit him in the face. It’s a fact.

  118. It what universe would Hillary’s resignation cause Yobama to increase in the polls? He’s still done nothing to show any leadership or responsibility. The only people buying any of this are the Obots.

  119. mcnorman,

    Look upthread for the post about who the LSM major players are.

    October 15th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    The are not going to cover anything which could be harmful to the POS.

  120. The CNN reporter claims that Hillary took responsiblity for the entire Bengazi incident–meaning the failure of the military, the CIA, the White House as well as state sounds like an inaccurate summmary. And she went on to say that the responsiblity stops with her and Obama/Joe did not know and are not responsible. This is of course hearsay, because we have only the reporters word for it. And it raises all he problems of bias, motive, interest, plus ability to understand, remember and accurately report etc. Finally, that CNN report is contradicted by the live video she gave which FOX which is not hearsay, and shows us exactly what she did say in a related interview. Her elocution is much more limited. She takes responsibilty for the State Department only. And she does not exonerate Obama. Therefore, I suspect CNN who hates Hillary anyway, and hired trained marketing professionals to come up with negative words like devisive and polarizing on the eve of the 2008 primary is up to their old tricks. But if that is not the case and she did say those things then Romney should take Obama to the mat over this:

    I believe Romney should raise this issue with Obama tomorrow night. If this were a cross examination, then it could proceed along the following lines. Since it is not, some or all of these points should be repackaged and used to confront him on is breach of duty. This needs to be made plain to the electorate.

    Q-1: It has been reported on CNN (where the blimp moderating this debate, who is so non partisan that she has called my running mate a death wish) that your secretary of state has taken full responsibilty for what occurred at Bengazi?

    Q-2: It has also been reported that she has said you and your vice president knew nothing about the security concerns in Bengazi and that you have no responsibilty for what happened there, even though you are president, and commander in chief?

    Q-3: Tell me sir, do you agree with your sos said, as reported by CNN?

    Q-4: You are a lecturing professor in Constitutional law are you not?

    Q-5: Then surely you know that the president is commander in chief and is ultimately responsible for the military failure in that operation?

    Q-6. And you also know that as head of the executive branch, the president is responsible for the CIA?

    Q-7: And finally you realize that the secretary of state is appointed, serves at your pleasure and you are responsible for foreign affairs too?

    Q-8: Yet, you ask us to believe that you are not responsible for the military, intelligence and state failures which caused this tragedy.

    Q-9: Have you changed the constitution by executive order without telling us?

    Q-10: In my administration, I will be responsible for each of these areas, I will make it my business to know what is going on, and no subordinant of mine will stand before the media and claim, like Al Haig did, I am in charge. Because in my administration the buck stops with me.

    Q-11. I know you are a very busy man, but how is it that you had no knowledge of the need for enhanced security in that volatile region?

    Q-12. At your convention, you and others claimed that al Quaeda was on the run?

    Q-13: But that was not true was it?

    Q-14: Axelrod went to heroic lengths to assure us that nothing is more important to you than the security of your security people?

    Q-15: Is that why you failed to meet with your security counsel after the event but instead flew out to a political event in Las Vegas?

    Q-16: Is that why you blamed the attack on a video?

    Q-17: Is that why you sent Susan Rice out to tell all the networks that this was not a terrorist act, when you knew at the time that it was?

    Q-18: And, if the additional security they asked for had been provided it would have raised questions about whether al Qaeda was in fact on the run?

    Nothing further.

  121. Q-19: And that would have undermined your campaign narrative?

    Q-20. And, very possibly, lost you the election? Correct?


    “Clinton: I’m Responsible for Diplomats’ Security”
    by Elise Labott, CNN

    Lima, Peru (CNN) — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

    “I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.


  123. BASIL99
    October 15th, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    Look upthread for the post about who the LSM major players are.

    October 15th, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    The are not going to cover anything which could be harmful to the POS.

    True enough. But when the dikes are spinging multiple leaks and there are not enough fingers and toes to plug them . . . what then?

  124. gonzotx
    October 15th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
    October 15th, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    not going to happen with Crowley
    Don’t be so sure. Crowley is six axehandles wide, but my guess is Romney will find a way around her and go at Obama. She already has a big question mark hanging over her head, after her assine comments against Ryan. These moderators will be given some latitude, the heat is on them from both sides. It would have been worse for that dipshit who moderated the vp debate, only uncle joes bizarre behavior and the self inflicted wounds he delivered to Obama, really did steal center stage.

  125. Lu4PUMA
    October 15th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
    I think CNN took some liberties with Clinton’s statement to absolve Oblowit on the security decisions.
    My bullshit detector tells me the same thing. Hillary cannot absolve the military, the intelligence community and Obama for what occurred. Yet that is what the CNN report has her doing. I think this is manufactured testimony. But Romney should proceed on the assumption that the cnn story is correct and drive Obama through the wall on it, by making the points I tried to lay out above. Also, if Obamas position is we need to conduct an investigation to find out what happened, then by the same logic he should stay his hand between now and the election to make sure we are not murdering innocent people, thereby inflaming he Arab world. If he reliable information that they were planning a second attack, then we should act now, but if it is simply retaliation for what has already occurred, and he does not wait, then it will come across as wag the dog–life imitates art.

  126. wbb

    The questions around Martha Raddatz didn’t matter. Nothing matters to these people but the Messiah.
    The one it matters to is the independent voter. That is the audience I am interested in. The media people are dead souls.

  127. gonzotx
    October 15th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
    Hillary may resign before Nov if this is to be believed
    That is one of the possibilties Mickey Kaus talked about. But she will not do that because it could diminish the enthusiam of the base. If the former Hillary supporters have any intelligence left after remaining in the party, then they must realize that by throwing herself on the sword for Obama, she has closed the door on 2016, such that the idea of supporting Obama in 2012 to open the door for Hillary in 2016 is no longer on the table/

  128. If I was unsure that Barack Obama was an Islamist before I am sure of it now. First he sends out Susan Rice to lie for him and then he uses Hillary Clinton as a human shield while he ducks for cover.
    What a complete and utter PUNK!!!!!!
    If you voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democrat primary of 2008, how could you possibly vote for this man!!

  129. obama’s middle east meddling has fallen to pieces. If Romney fails to attack him on it tomorrow night, he will surely do it during the upcoming foreign policy debate.

    The Muslim Brotherhood birthed Al Qaeda. Romney needs to educate the public about this. obama handed over Egypt to terrorists. This is a fact.

    Call him out!

    obama will attempt to put Romney on the defensive tomorrow, but Romney is no Paul Ryan, Romney will turn the table on Zero.

  130. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/15/gene-simmons-obama-piss-poor-president

    Gene Simmons of KISS fame voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Here’s betting he won’t make the same choice again.

    Simmons, chatting as part of a fantasy rock ‘n’ roll camp event, told an interviewer President Obama hasn’t lived up to the hype.

    Only Simmons was more colorful in his critique.

    “The country is so divided … I’m very disappointed in his job. He’s been a piss poor president as far as I’m concerned,” Simmons says.

    As for Romney, the veteran rock star isn’t entirely sold on his presidential campaign, but the ex-governor is more qualified to get the country working again.
    “He’s a businessman, he ran the Olympics. He knows how to create jobs …

    Obama is a wonderful family man. That’s pretty much where the resume stops.”

  131. Unless I am missing something here, Hillary has exercised extremely poor judgment in taking responsibility for the security lapses which led to the brutal murder of an ambassador and the other Americans. What she has admitted to is a grave mistake with catastrophic consequences, which tarnishes her legacy beyond redemption in my opinion. Earlier on, I surmised that she would do anything here to avoid that responsibility, short of tarnishing the Clinton legacy. If she said what was reported, then she has no idea how bad of an admission this is. She has taken responsibility for the failure to know of the security concerns, the failure to address them, the failure to take the very steps that would have saved the life of four Americans, including one of her Ambassadors. In doing so she has shielded the military, the CIA, and the Obama Administration from the joint and several liability they deserve. But above all, she has exonerated a man who disparaged her as a racist, and cheated her out of the nomination. This is an act of self immolation. She has compromised the legacy she has spent a lifetime building, and foreclosed any possibility of pursuing the presidency. I am sorry. The fog of war does not cut it.

    The good news it this will not save Obama. The ultimate responsibilty here is his.

  132. Maybe Admin is not responding because she is researching. I hope she finds a good one. What was Hillary thinking if this did not come of out context? I agree she is responsible for the consulate, but to shield the fraud of any wrong doing? This is so absurd.

    He takes claim of killing Bin Laden, he must take claim of failures, and oh my how he has failed.

    And I wonder, she had to make a statement in Peru? Not at home. This is just so wrong.

  133. I have been thinking about this all night and I can’t “spin” this. Here is what Hillary said tonight:

    1. I will take full responsibility to bail out Obama.

    2. I have no intention of running in 2016.

    3. My party is more important than my supporters or my country.

    I am just beyond myself after supporting her since 1992. To get thrown under the bus by her after 20 years has staggered me.

  134. Question: what does it mean to “take responsibilty”?

    1) CitizenCarrier (16 October 2012 3:51AM)

    Okay, so she’s responsible. Are there going to be any consequences? Any repercussions? Is she going to resign?

    I don’t expect anything like the surviving officers of Dien Bien Phu sending their commander a pistol in a velvet lined box accompanied by a single bullet, but what exactly does assuming responsibility for the debacle entail?

    2) Share NikosRetsos (16 October 2012 3:55AM)

    What is Mrs. Clinton’s “responsibility taking” good for? It is pointless, isn’t it? In oriental and other societies, an official taking responsibility for something serious, apologize, and then resigns on the spot. Apologies and taking responsibility in the West is quite preposterous, because it doesn’t mean anything. Taking responsibility in Asia means that responsible heads must roll, not just speaking in a microphone about taking responsibility, then turning your back and leave without actually “being held responsible or accountable for the reason you are apologizing.” It is just a pathetic parlance – nothing more!

    What happened in Libya reminds us how the vast and sluggish “public bureaucracies” work – or actually provide loitering on the job for well connected party or unions members, and when things go wrong, someone declares that they take responsibility – “scot-free” that is, and then they close the books!

    Apologies not accepted, either on moral or ethical grounds, because they are practically meaningless! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

  135. The French General CitzenCarrier refers to is Henri Navarre. He was indulging in wine, women and song hours before the final massacre by the Viet Mihn, which was the grand climeractic of French Viet Nam, and led to the partition. If they had had Charles De Gaulle running the military operation at that time, the result may have been different.

  136. LJ: “So, Hillary accepts responsibility? Fine. She should tender her resignation. She failed to do her job and four Americans are dead that should not have died. If she stays on the job, then we know this is just a cheap, political gesture with no substance. With her should go Pat Kennedy, the Under Secretary for Management, who had the job of directly supervising and managing Diplomatic Security.”


    LJ: “Now we have the spectacle of Barack Obama cowering in the White House, praying that Hillary takes the heat and that he gets off the hook. But Obama is delusional. Just because Hillary proved that she has bigger balls than Obama does not mean Obama gets a pass on this disaster. Where does the Buck stop Barack?”


  137. Hillary is finished for 2016, i think she knows it and that we know it and i think she may well be dropping Obama in this in the worst way , a “I take responsibility” now Obama has to either ask for her resignation or back her….get the picture. I hate it and Bill Clinton must have advised her to take this course but this will cause untold damage to Obama for the next few weeks.

    Hillary will most probably be forced to resign and i suspect she did this “admission” without the WH permission, they look scared to hell at what she’s done.

    This all makes Obama look worse and worse by the second. People are already saying he is hiding behind her skirt. GOP will demand resignations by morning. Make no mistake, no matter what a Clinton resignation means now for Obama is nothing short of a disaster.

    Maybe Hillary and Bill assumed this was the only way out, not like she had any good options for face saving.

  138. moononpluto
    October 16th, 2012 at 1:24 am

    Moon, clear analysis, as always.

    Now, let us enter the speculative realm and theorize about what may be going on here . . .

    Let us begin with what we know is true: Obama did not want to intervene in Lybia. Hillary was the one who pushed him to do so, and for that she also enlisted the suppport of Rice and Power.

    When Obama did finally commit, he did so under cover of the UN and gave us this blather about leading from behind. But he was never invested in the project, except when Kadafi was overthrown he showed up to claim the credit.

    By default, Hillary assumed authority and responsibility for the entire Libyan Mission. And Ambassador Stevens acted as her agent. He was the liason to the people who overthrew Kadafi, and he was charged with the task of nation building.

    That is where our knowledge stops. Why he went to Bengazi when he did, why he was not given the security he asked for and why the administration perpestrated the lie they did about the cause of this, we can only guess.

    But it has been my experience that often, when people confess to something, they do so to insulate themselves against for liability for something worse. I wonder if that same principle is not animated Hillary at this point, and whether that something has megapolitical dimensions.

    If Hillary was ultimately in charge of Libya, and was working with the CIA on some major project, unbeknownst to Obama, because he is so disengaged, then that might provide the answer. This may be what she at least is trying to hide through this blanket confession. The counsulate was identified as a CIA operation.

    Upon learning of it, however, Obama became deeply concerned about the political implications, and became despondent at times, and erratic at others. We saw evidence of this in the first debate.

    By confessing as she did, Hillary sought to protect Obama, keep the bigger purpose here secret, and blunt the investigation into the real project. But if that is the case, she failed to realize the consequences of taking responsibilty in this instance. The rewards, if any, will not be found this side of the grave.

    This would not be the first time that the CIA tried to spring a trap on the enemy, and got outwitted.

  139. So she must have known that she was about to get lynched by her own WH on this and this is getting ahead of the jump, it opens more questions than it answers and that is not what Obama wanted. Obama is going to go into this debate tonight, crapping himself.

    If this statement by Hillary intended to lance the boil, it has only made it worse actually. No good options in this for Obama, its really the worst set of options.

    No coincidence she did this out of the country, it means she cannot be questioned for days.

    I strongly suspect this is a way out for her and a knife in the back for Obama all at once.

  140. With her should go Pat Kennedy, the Under Secretary for Management,
    I completely agree. He was intimately aware of the risks–230 incidents, etc. And what did he do about it? Why he sent two cables and then let it drop. He failed to advocate the point, and settled for a cya. A responsible government official would have done far more–including going directly to the boss in person and demanding the security required. And he would have made notes of this. He did not do that however, therefore they should go together. Let others determine what went wrong here. If Hillary and Pat do it, they will never get to the truth. And we do need to know the truth here. Not because we need to determine who is at fault. We know the answer to that question, and she has already confessed. We need to know what exactly went wrong so history does not repeat itself.

  141. So she must have known that she was about to get lynched by her own WH on this and this is getting ahead of the jump, it opens more questions than it answers and that is not what Obama wanted. Obama is going to go into this debate tonight, crapping himself.
    True. If she is guilty, then she can be a good soldier by confessing, or the goat responsible for the loss of the election if does not. But as you say, it does put Obama between a rock and a hardplace, as illustrated by my mock cross examination of him at wbboei October 15th, 2012 at 10:24 pm above.

  142. The other thing is remember how worried the State Department was when CNN obtained the diary. I suspect that details of the CIA/State operation, if any, were in it, in addition to his private fears and concerns about being a target.

  143. I suspect the New York Times and Washington Post know the truth about Bengazi and that is why they have buried it, hoping that others will follow their lead. They do not want the public to know the truth, because it might cause them to vote against Obama, who is of course their hero.

  144. If Hillary believes that she will be forgiven by the public for taking responsiblity for the debacle, but refusing to lie about the reasons why it happened, then she is delusional. I hope it is not that and I doubt that it is. My sense is it has more to do with the scenario proposed to Moon above. The whole thing is a cover-up, she is involved, and the goal here is to not let it affect the election. The Obama media is adhering to that program as well. Nothing in NYT or NBC–the two most corrupted media outlets.

  145. When I speculate that what they are covering up is a CIA operation, the scope and purpose of which we do not know, I am not saying that said operation is not in the interests of the United States. That may or may not be. I am merely suggesting that its disclosure could be damaging to those interests, and that might in turn justify throwing herself on a sword to protect those interests. That scenario makes more sense to me. The other scenario, parallels what Moon is saying. Under this scenario, she and Obama both had mistakes they wished to hide from public view. Therefore, they had a mutual interest in circling the wagons, rather than throwing each other under the bus. He kept his mouth shut about the lead up to the attack, and she supported the false meme that the video did it. But when Biden shot his stupid mouth off last week, and claimed that he and Obama knew nothing about the requests for additional security, that left her holding the bag. Therefore, she retaliated by confirming that the video was not the cause in fact of the attacks and that this false account came from the White House, and Obama to whom Rice reported. Whereupon Obama planned to blame her at the debate, so she pre empted that attack by taking responsibilty. That made it sound like she was showing management strength, but in fact she was pre-empting his attack. That makes some sense to me, based on the limited information we have.

  146. tim
    October 15th, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    how nice. They’re giving open warnings to the terrorists about this strike, how very nice of OTurd and Jarrett to give such a warning to the terrorists. /sarc


    Rumor has it they’re headed for Dearborn.

  147. with all the scenarios and questions regarding HRC’s actions, is the WH setting romney up for walking into a trap tonight?

  148. Everybody talks about 2016 but it will not happen and Hillary knows it. I could never imagine this botox society to vote for 69 old woman for president. 2016 is a meme created by the media and Obama minions to keep the Hillaryites happy for this election. The righties use it to rub it in. So what is the right thing for Hillary to do in this current situation. Extricate herself with the least possible damage and not get dumped on for everything that Obama is responsible for. She has put Obama in a bind — it is your move, sparky! She knows she will get protection from the righties (Guiliani and Newt were already on it last night) and they will still go after Obama.

    You may want to read this:


  149. We just have to wait and see how this will play out. But Hillary did change the dynamic. The big media and Obama wanted to hide this under the carpet, the usual nothing to see here, move on and they were trying to hang Romney for “politicizing” it (and silently pointing a finger at the State) but now Hillary has put it on the front burner again and with more burning questions. That should make the kitchen very hot for Obama, in fact enough to get out of the kitchen.. heh

  150. Here’s why some Democrats are worried tonight. If Romney wins the three Southern battlegrounds (FL, NC, and VA) and OH, he is at 266 electoral votes. Leaving the other five battlegrounds unallocated, that means Obama would be at 237 and Romney would only need to win one of the remaining five states to get to 270+. See the map above.

    One senior Democratic official expressed real concern tonight unlike I have heard before about Ohio potentially slipping away from Obama (the state has been trending Republican in statewide races, Rob Portman has become a force, religious and gun groups are flooding the state with voter contacts, two of Romney’s top strategists have recently won a statewide race there, etc).

    Read more: http://thepage.time.com/2012/10/15/the-romney-scenario/#ixzz29SXUVXS3

  151. I still keep using my AverageJoe thinking on this because I’m an AverageJoe voter. Most voters are AverageJoe’s, they don’t read political blogs, forums or even keep up with what is going on in the world everyday.

    What Average Joe knows is this

    4 Americans killed in Libya, HC and WH blame video for days
    Headlines in papers start to doubt those claims .. however WH still says it was not a terror attack

    WH finally admits it was a terror attack, Average Joe says oh well they finally will admit it

    Biden all of a sudden says well me and big guy weren’t told they needed more security .. Average Joe says to himself, well that could be believable because of course that is why big guy has all these people under him. He’s running the country so he depends on these people

    HC comes out and absolves big guy of anything … takes full responsibility. SEE this is what Average Joe see. Hillary Clinton failed by not doing her job and therefore big guy can’t be held responsible

    HILLARY UNDER THE BUS one way or the other.

  152. Is it now possible that Hillary may leave her post a bit early? Is that what her strategy is? Admit to something that is quite damaging so that she can goodbye to the slimeball?

  153. wbboei
    October 16th, 2012 at 12:10 am
    This is totally unexpected, and disheartening to me. Honestly, her admission makes her look like an idiot(although I am not calling her one since no one has yet to figure out what is actually going on. Maybe it’s exactly how it appears, but I doubt it). These most basic security requirements should have been met without a second thought. I am not sure exactly what she is up to, but if she is taking the wrap for Obama, then she is making a big mistake. Now, if both she and Barack claimed mutual blame, then that would be a different story. Obama is the inept one, not Hillary, yet Hillary is shouldering the blame. Yet, maybe she is actually the one that should be held accountable considering that security of American embassy/consolate complexes is a State Department responsibility? I am perplexed on this. If she is doing this to further the Obama agenda in any way, then I was fooled by her, and that’s a horrible way to come to a realization that someone is not the person that I thought. I am going to wait to see how this all shakes out before I come to any conclusions about this. There is more to this story, and the motives behind it.

    One other comment. The relatives of the dead victims are probably angry that it has taken so long for someone to accept responsibility for what happened in Libya. They will probably now be directing their anger at Hillary. I would not want to be in her shoes.

  154. I thought about this as much as I could. I’m tired of making excuses for Hillary and Bill, I don’t care about the Clintons as much as the this country. 4 Americans are murdered, 1 US Ambassador, I no longer care about party, or who’s running in 2016. OTurd is a PO$ destroying this country, and anyone who helps him get re-elected is part of the problem in my eyes, and that includes the Clintons.

    We went into Libya because Hillary insisted we do, because of Gaddafi’s threats of a massacre, ironically in Benghazi, nice thanks we get from those people, we save them and they murder our people.

    She of all people should have known how that entire place is over rule by islamic radical. If she is so sincere in her responsibility, then resign! And I don’t believe her statements are purely of sincerity, this was a very political move too, to help OTurd, on the night before the second debate? of course it was political, to help OTurd, to help her, who knows?

    Now, what’s she’s done is basically inoculate OTurd. He hid behind her pantsuits in 2008, he’s hiding behind them now in 2012. He wants credit for things that go well, like the Bin Laden raid, when when things turn to chit, its always someone else’s fault. And the buck ultimately stops with OTurd, however as this was under Hillary’s dept, she shares a lot of blame too, and words aren’t going to cut it, if she’s so contrite about what happened, then turn in your resignation!

    I’ve supported the Clintons since the 90s, heck I even supported Bill through impeachment saga. I no longer recognize these people, no longer recognize the party I was proud to call myself a member off, I’m tired of making excuses for them, I’m tried of constantly trying to figure out “how does it help Hillary in 2016”. I no longer care. Bill is helping OTurd, so Bill is part of the problem, 2008 I could see they had to help, why are they helping now? especially after what they know, especially after what they’ve seen.

    So, we have people who put their party before the country. I’m very tired of making excuses for them. Passports for this country don’t say “democrat” or “republican”, it says “American”. I am sick of this nonsense, tired of making excuses for them.
    This country comes first, not any party, not any politician.

  155. Yes, Tim. Country first.

    The admin recently explained the ins and outs of strategy, and how the Clintons are using it to further whatever their goals are. Although I understand strategy, it is difficult to get beyond the appearance of self-interest as in “if I do this, what will be in it for me”? This type of appearance can make me very cynical. ARe you doing what you do for yourself or for the country? It’s a valid question. I still believe the Clintons to be patriots at this point. I do not know if I agree with how they have operated in the background, but again, I need to see a lot more information before I come to any conclusions.

    One other thing to consider in the context of all this is the purported feud that is now going on between the Clintons and Obama. Is there really a feud? I think the answer is yes when it comes to Bill and Barack, yet Bill is helping him which puts so many questions in my head that I would rather not be thinking.

  156. “his type of appearance can make me very cynical. ARe you doing what you do for yourself or for the country? It’s a valid question. I still believe the Clintons to be patriots at this point.”

    Do I consider them patriots compared to OTurd, yes. But when people enable those loathe this country, have shown they loath this country, and yet people enable these people who loath/hate this country, what does that make them?
    So what will the conclusion be, if Bill and Hillary help OTurd over the finish line and OTurd destroys what’s left of this country? Will the blame only be on OTurd solely or also on those who helped him, enabled him to regain power? I blame the enablers just as much, and I include Bill, Hillary, etc in that mix.


    October 15, 2012

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) today released the following statement on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments this evening regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

    “We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.

    “However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

    “Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it di

  158. From RBO2

    Puzzle at the HRC decision, the night before the presidential debate, to stand in the way of the blame for Benghazi directed at Candidate Obama. Why?

    1. Does HRC mean to make Obama look better, because he did not know and did not ask and maintained the convenient fiction of a spontaneous mob riot for nearly two weeks after the event — perhaps up to and including the POTUS UN speech of September 25?

    2. Or does HRC mean to make Obama look worse, because it has been more than a month, and Candidate Obama has only made indirect remarks about the tragedy, and some of those remarks, such as at the Univision interview, have been misleading.

    3. Does HRC even care about the debate? The Piers Morgan remark to his guest, Dan Rather, “Quick reaction to that, Dan?” — and Dan Rather’s unhesitant, “Uh, playing defense,” point to the likely narrative of the episode.


  159. OMG. Can someone tell me if this is a real tweet from AxelHole?? and can someone save it, because I’m sure it will be erased!


    This is what AxelHole tweeted out, in response to Hillary’s statements:
    “Sick. Mitt mouthpiece jumps shark. RT @JRubinBlogger: First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does.. Hillary no feminist, more like doormat”

    WTH!? I am absolutely livid, what the hell? He’s going after Hillary on a personal level? What a piece of chit AxelHole it!

  160. tim, axelrod is going after jrubinblogger for posting the tweet “First Bill humiliates her and now Obama does….Hillary no feminist, more like doormat”. His contribution to the post is only the first part – “Sick. Mitt mouthpiece jumps shark.”

  161. rickya
    October 16th, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Thank you for explaining. My wife saw this and she is hopping mad, I still don’t understand twitter enough to understand who is “retweeting” what, the whole thing is still very confusing, to me at least. I’ll pass along what you said. Thanks!

    An excellent statement. Written by Graham, I am sure. Whichever way he turns, Obama is screwed. Now, Romney needs to fix on that line of attack with lazer intensity, and not let fat Candy or Obama or the Obama media blunt that discussion.

  163. AxelHole does not get it. He does not resonate outside the hardcore dim cabal and big media. The more he gets out on the front line, the worse the campaign looks–I mean slimy like him, and evasive like him, and inarticulate like him. A terrible spokesman, yet he does not see it.

  164. BASIL99
    October 16th, 2012 at 8:47 am

    Agreed, they summed up better than what I put up last night. Hillary showed she would take the heat, but in contrast, it shows Obama only takes credit, but never takes responsibility.

    And the timing, just before the debate (and while she’s out of town), is a kick in the testicles to Obummer.

    For Obummer, it is somewhat similar to Bush’s Katrina moment; either you knew what was happening and looked away (evil), or you were clueless (inept). Pick your poison.

    At some point, SoS had to say something, rather than pull an “Eric Holder” stonewall job. And for her to try to get away with “Hey, not my yob” would not fly.

    So she’ll get credit for “taking it like a man”, but everyone else (in this case, Republicans!!!) can ask, “Is she the only one in the whole administration and across Dod, CIA, FBI, etc., to bear responsibility???!”. That doesn’t pass the smell test.

  165. everybody is freaking out but we’ve got to stay focused. Who knows what hillary knew in time we’ll find out. Mittens has to finish off obama in the debate tonight. Hillary has given him the ammunition. All mittens has to do is say yes I heard what hillary said, The biggest mistake the Democratic party did in 2008 was gifting Obama the democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton is an honorable woman and you President Obama are no Hillary Clinton. done dusted. you wanna get to the heart of 18 millions voters remind them of 2008. enough it’s time to finish this jackass off, and we’ll worry about hillary later. The investigation will either clear her or show that she was covering for the White house.

  166. Gee Barry, maybe you shouldn’t have pissed off the Libyan govt by telling them you know more than they do, in their own country!


    “The White House, under political pressure to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, is readying strike forces and drones but first has to find a target. […]

    Even a strike that happens with permission could prove problematic, especially in Libya or Mali, where al-Qaida supporters are currently based. Both countries have fragile, interim governments that could lose popular support if they are seen allowing the U.S. unfettered access to hunt al-Qaida.

    The Libyan government is so wary of the U.S. investigation expanding into unilateral action that it refused requests to arm the drones now being flown over Libya. Libyan officials have complained publicly that they were unaware of how large the U.S. intelligence presence was in Benghazi until a couple of dozen U.S. officials showed up at the airport after the attack, waiting to be evacuated – roughly twice the number of U.S. staff the Libyans thought were there. A number of those waiting to be evacuated worked for U.S. intelligence, according to two American officials. Cont.”

    Maybe Barry can go apologize to them and bow to them.

  167. jtjames
    October 16th, 2012 at 10:44 am
    everybody is freaking out but we’ve got to stay focused. Who knows what hillary knew in time we’ll find out. Mittens has to finish off obama in the debate tonight. Hillary has given him the ammunition.

    Spot on!

  168. Shall we take a break from Hillary’s mea culpa?

    Voters Equally Favorable to Romney, Obama
    Favorable ratings among registered voters are 52% Romney, 51% Obama

    by Jeffrey M. Jones

    PRINCETON, NJ — Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will enter Tuesday’s debate with similar favorable ratings from U.S. registered voters. In fact, among the electorate, the two presidential candidates’ favorable ratings have been almost identical since May, after Romney clinched the Republican nomination.

    Romney’s unfavorable ratings among registered voters are slightly lower than Obama’s, partly because Obama is better known, and more have an opinion — positive or negative — of the president. Romney’s lower unfavorable ratings, and similar favorable ratings to Obama, give him a slightly better “net favorable” rating than Obama (+8 vs. +3). Romney’s net favorable rating among registered voters has been no worse than tied with Obama’s since May.


  169. Ruh oh.

    Susan Rice says she relied on “talking points prepared for senior members of the admin by intelligence professionals” wapo.st/V3bc9L

    well, intelligence professionals only said one thread of intelligence was about the movie, they never said the assassination of the ambassador was because of the movie. State dept officials never said it was because of a movie, so who came up with these talking points? Barry Oturd? Valerie Jarrett? MeeeeChelle?

  170. Another thought on HRC’s timing.

    Obviously, she wasn’t expecting to yell it out loud in a forest where no one hears it. She full well expects some repercussions, even if it doesn’t bode well for her future prospects.

    But by doing it right before the debate, tonight’s town hall forum will suck up some attention from her statement.

    Oh, and deliciously, gives Mitt quite a bit to talk about. Oh, and questions coming from the audience are sure to ask, “Why is SoS where the buck stops, and not your desk?”

  171. “Favorable ratings among registered voters are 52% Romney, 51% Obama”

    Good to hear! wonder if the numbers are even better among likely?

    Also, how can Barry act like a thug aka Biden without damage to himself? Maybe he’ll give that finger he used to give Mccain, and Hillary.



    Poll: Romney surges ahead of Obama in the dozen swing states

    By Jonathan Easley – 10/15/12 03:46 PM ET

    Mitt Romney has opened a 5-percentage-point lead over President Obama in the 12 battleground states that are critical to determining the outcome of the 2012 election, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday.

    Romney has 51 percent support among likely voters in the poll, compared to Obama’s 46 percent. Among registered voters, Obama holds a slight 49 percent to 47 percent advantage.

    The poll was conducted in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire. There was no state-by-state breakdown of results.

    The Obama campaign quickly disputed the poll’s findings. It circulated a memo from pollster Joel Benenson calling the USA Today/Gallup poll “an extreme outlier” that defies “the trends seen in every other battleground and national poll.”

    The memo pointed to past Gallup surveys that deviated from the final outcome, and said the current results underscore “deep flaws in Gallup’s likely voter screen.”

  173. What a punk. A lazy a$$ punk. No other way to put it. Romney better go after him just as hard as he did in the first debate. The punk has got to go in 4 weeks.


    ” From the White House pool report, this brief exchange between the LA Times pooler and the president as he headed to a debate prep session:

    Reporter: “How are you feeling about tonight?”

    Obama, smiling: “I feel fabulous. Look at this beautiful day.”

    Reporter: “Are you aware Michelle voted for you yesterday?”

    Obama, turning to yell back: “Thank goodness!”

    Reporter: “Is Hillary to blame for Benghazi?”

    Obama: Silence. Kept walking.”



    The Wizard of Obama The president didn’t just lose a debate. He lost an entire image of genius and control.


    After President Reagan’s listless performance in the first presidential debate of 1984 raised speculation that he was too old for the job, the Gipper took command in the second debate. Of his opponent Walter Mondale, Reagan famously said that he wouldn’t try to score political points by exploiting his opponent’s youth and inexperience.

    Perhaps Barack Obama can likewise reassert himself in Tuesday evening’s town hall in Long Island. But his problem is this: In Denver he didn’t just lose a debate—he lost the carefully cultivated illusion of a larger-than-life figure who was Lincoln and FDR and Moses all wrapped in one.

    Mostly this image was the making of his own immodesty, starting the night he clinched the 2008 Democratic nomination. Mr. Obama might have simply declared victory and congratulated Hillary Clinton on a valiant fight. Instead it became the backdrop for one of his more infamous egoisms. History, he said, would look back at his victory as the moment “the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

    This was no aberration. A man who interviewed for a job on the campaign was told by Mr. Obama: “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”

    Everything about his campaign fed that idea. The Styrofoam Greek columns at the Democratic convention when he was nominated. The faux presidential seal with its own Latin motto. And before the campaign, the two books he authored about—himself.

    The press, far from exhibiting any skepticism about this immodesty, bowed before it. Leave aside the NBC reporter who conceded it was hard to remain objective in the face of all the “infectious” energy emanating from Mr. Obama’s quest for the White House. Or the New York Times commentator who knew Mr. Obama was meant to be president by the crease in his pants leg. Or the historian who told radio host Don Imus that Mr. Obama’s IQ was “off the charts”—but when asked what it was could only answer that he was probably “the smartest guy ever to become president.”

    An editor at Politico (and veteran of the Washington Post) put it this way: “I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters need to go through detox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill.”

    None of this abated after Mr. Obama was elected. He arrived in Washington for his inauguration in a train to provoke comparisons to Lincoln. Soon he was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for—well, it’s still not exactly clear what he was awarded it for. He affected unworthiness, but it is more telling that he didn’t decline it.

    In short, Mr. Obama was the man who declared that he would change the thinking of the Muslim world by the mere fact of his election, restore science to its rightful place, and win what he called the “necessary war” in Afghanistan.

    And then came this month’s debate in Denver.

    That night, the American people watched “the smartest guy in the room” struggle to put together a simple declarative sentence, and then ask the moderator to move onto another topic after Mitt Romney had given a strong statement about jobs and growth and tax revenues.

    Some 67 million Americans were watching on TV. What they saw was the scene from the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy’s dog pulls back the curtain to reveal there is no wizard at all, just a man from the Midwest who pumped himself up into something far beyond his mortal self—and got the whole of Oz to believe it.

    Yes, we had earlier glimpses that Mr. Obama might not be all he has pretended. We saw how quickly he becomes irritated whenever an interviewer departs from the full fawn, such as when a Dallas TV reporter corrected him about his margin of defeat in Texas in the last presidential election. We’ve even seen the occasional lampoon, such as the 2008 Saturday Night Live skit satirizing how journalists who went hard on Hillary Clinton during Democratic debates served up softballs to Mr. Obama.

    These, however, were only moments. They were nothing like the 90 minutes of presidential incoherence in Denver and the outrage of liberals who now hail Joe Biden for his savvy—not to mention the days of pointed, sustained Obama ridicule on late-night TV that, for the first time, laughed at the president rather than with him.

    In the two remaining debates, Mr. Obama will surely be more assertive, more competitive, and more engaged than he was in round one. But this time the curtain has been pulled back and the aura is gone. That means Mr. Obama’s Republican opponent—for the first time in two presidential contests—will finally be contesting a mere mortal, not a wizard of his own Oz.

  175. I thought about this overnight and here is the explanation for Hillary’s actions that I have come up with. On the one hand, she has acceptance of responsibility for the lapse of security. On the other hand, she has separated herself from the false narrative that the video did it, and pointed the finger at the White House. Here are my thoughts and conclusions about all this:
    1. Biden: the president and I were UNAWARE of the requests for additional security. Therefore, we are not responsible.

    2. Question: is ignorance a defense for president? Or does the buck stop with him?

    3. Hillary: I am aware. I take responsibility. The buck stops with me.

    4. Question: isn’t truth and accountability what we expect from leaders.

    5. Obama: for weeks, the video made them do.

    6. Hillary: that was not my conclusion. That came from the White House.

    7. Conclusion 1: by taking responsibilty, Hillary demonstrated leadership on the issue, which has been conspicuously absent from Obama.

    8. Conclusion 2: by taking responsibility, Hillary pre empted the move by Obama–telegraphed by Biden, to blame her for this disaster.

    9. Conclusion 3: by taking responsibility, Hillary could not be blamed for causing him to lose the election, and thereby protected her standing with the base.

    10.Conclusion 4. by taking responsibility, Hillary put Obama in a double bind: to throw her under the bus, or keep her. Notice she did not resign.

    11.Conclusion 5: by taking responsibility, Hillary shifted the spotlight on Obama to explain why he did not know, what was going on in this volatile region, where so many interests are at stake, and where he promised to provide stability and order, but has in fact produced chaos and death.

    12.Conclusion 6: by taking responsibility, Hillary shielded what was obviously a CIA operation, and thereby protected the interests of the United States.

    12.Conclusion 7: by saying that the explanation advanced from the White House, i.e. the disaster was caused by the video, not terrorism, Hillary separated herself from the cover-up, consistent with the Watergate axiom that it isn’t the crime, it is the cover-up that does you in.

    13.Conclusion 8: by affirming that the false explanation did not come from her but from the White House, she again focused attention on Obama, and its pattern and practice of misleading the American People. Another lesson derived from Watergate.

    14.Conclusion 9: by doing these things, Hillary laid the groundwork for a Watergate style investigation of Obama, while appearing to do the very opposite.

    Hardly the actions of a doormat. It is not the sexism of the blogger that is most offensive. It is the sheer stupidity.

Comments are closed.