Hillary Clinton Should Run Third Party In 2016 – The Bridge To The 21st Century

All is going as we have foreseen. In Muddled Message Mess we stated that Hillary Clinton had to publicly attack Barack Obama. Done.

In Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow we discussed the voters’ demand for real CHANGE FOR THE BETTER and warned that the corrupt Barack Obama forces would do everything to stop the needed CHANGE and force Hillary Clinton 2016 into becoming a defender of the corrupt Barack Obama status quo:

These people are not interested in Hillary Clinton nor what is good for America. They are “pimping” Hillary Clinton for self-interests (yes Donna, we are also talking about you). So what should Hillary Clinton do?

What Hillary Clinton should do is decide on who her friends are and who has the best interests of America in heart and mind. Those Obama apparatchiks now jumping on the Hillary Clinton 2016 team should be squeezed dry of whatever benefits can be extracted from them. But at some point (the clock started ticking the moment ObamaCare registration for January 1 coverage ended) Hillary Clinton has to choose between the Obama coalition and the Hillary Clinton coalition.

Hillary Clinton can win by bringing back senior voters and the white working class voters that have dumped the Democratic Party they once gave allegiance to. This will enrage the DailyKooks and Obama apparatchiks. But it is the only way for Hillary Clinton to win.

Barack Obama apparatchiks that have infiltrated Hillary Clinton 2016 are terrified that Hillary Clinton will succumb to logic and reality and become the candidate of change from Barack Obama. These Obama loving parasites in Hillary Clinton 2016 know if Hillary tells the truth about Barack Obama their lame duck will be a dead duck.

These past few days we have seen the corrupt Obama pimps who PRETENDED to support Hillary Clinton 2016 attack Hillary Clinton for telling the truth about the failure that is Barack Obama. Axelrod tweeted a stupid attack and Obama said it was all “horseshit”. The DailyKooks and Move-On are enraged and threatening Hillary. The lawless Talkleftivists are infuriated and no longer willing to support Hillary Clinton in 2016 because the one thing they love about Obama is his hatred of Israel.

Wittle Ezra Klein and Ron Brownstein think Hillary does not know how much the party has changed since 2008 and wonder why she is running 2008 all over again. Ron Fournier and others think Hillary is cray-cray to criticize Messiah. The New York Times is only now informing its readers that all is not well with Barack and Hillary and their opposing world views. Leftist like Joan Walsh and the Century Foundation are demanding that Hillary bow to their warped view of the world or face obliteration for the apostasy. Bernie Sanders who wants to run for president from the Left is mewling about not “anointing” Hillary.

As usual, foolish Republicans/conservatives fail to grasp what is happening and prefer to snicker instead of getting to safe ground after this momentous political earthquake. Plain dumb are those that take seriously Hillary’s comic “walk back” apologies to Barry. Just plain dumb. Hillary just rammed her eight inch stilettos up Obama’s um, nose, then says “Oh, I didn’t mean to dig so hard… sorry” – this is a real sincere hug and apology, not snark and phony, for the plain dumb and blind.

The only smart analysis from the right we have heard comes from Bill Kristol. Kristol weeps for Hillary’s “ruthless” beating of Barack Obama and tries to tie Hillary as more responsible for Obama boobery but otherwise his analysis is pretty good (especially the part about Hillary’s “brand”).

It is all as we have foreseen. The Kook Left will never allow Hillary to be the nominee of what once was the Democratic Party. The crazed Left will never let go of the great institution they now infest and all the great wealth that powerful institution attracts from the corrupt. And that is our starting off point today.

* * * * * *

In 1992 Bill Clinton fought the Kook Left which repeatedly managed to nominate candidates hostile to the white working class. Those candidates always managed to lose and it was Bill Clinton with his appeal to the white working class bedrock of the Democratic Party who became president. The party establishment was not happy with the Man From Hope but at least he brought them power and the prestige of office.

Bill Clinton took on the rabid Left, race-baiters, the party establishment, and won. But the party then had a large component of common sense liberals. They saw the madness of nominating presidential candidates so far to the Left and so hostile, by demeanor, culture, and economic wealth, to the white working class. The party back then was not beyond saving. Hillary Clinton faces a party that is so far gone, so corrupt, so insanely to the Left that the party establishment would rather lose elections than surrender institutional control and ideological stranglehold of the party.

The Left, as we predicted, is waiting for Elizabeth Warren or some other nut to collect chits and endorsements behind the scenes, issue declarations not to run for president, then once party leaders and Obama’s corrupt machine are in place behind her – emerge to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016. At the very least the Left wants a candidate of the Left to run against Hillary Clinton in 2016 in order to “move” and cement Hillary to the Left.

But two can play that game. Hillary can threaten not to run unless the party does as she demands and move to the center. She has the clout and the credibility. She also has an alternate successful route to the presidency that no other candidate this election cycle has. If the Left wants to deny her the nomination, and they do, Hillary should move soon to prepare for a third way.

Right now only Hillary Clinton has a clear shot to become president. Her only obstacle is getting the nomination from a party that is insane and whose leaders and power centers need her but don’t want her. Her support among the party rank and file is wide if not necessarily deep (although we do think it is deep) but as we saw in 2008 the party establishment is king and they can undermine her. The interests against Hillary don’t care that Hillary is still a powerhouse with the white working class. They know Hillary is still a powerhouse fundraiser. They fear that Hillary, in short, is a force of nature at this point but they think they can still stop her.

The Republicans have many candidates in 2016 with lots of possibilities. Against anyone but Hillary some of these candidates will easily win the White House. Some of these Republicans have strong points of view and even stronger convictions – such as Cruz. Some, like Scott Walker, have figured out how to destroy the institutional support structure of the Left. Some, like Rand Paul, have a new direction and new ideology for the Republican Party. And some like Rick Perry have a tried and true, stick to the fundamentals typical Republican campaign strategy. All can win if the opposition candidate is not Hillary Clinton.

Against Hillary, eh, not so much now that she sees the wisdom of attacking Barack Obama and only if she continues on this course, which of course the Left hates. If she does not stay on this course she will lose but if she stays on this course she will be endangered by the Left.

So what should Hillary Clinton do? She has to attack Barack Obama. But the Left is furious at those attacks and threaten to escalate attacks against her. The Left will run a scorched earth war against Hillary. The Left wants Hillary to move to the far Left and will run a campaign to force her to do so. Hillary’s campaign is infested with Obama termites (yeah Tommy, we’re thinking of you dude) and they can undermine her from within as they did in 2008 when 2×4 Chuck Schumer and Solis Doyle (and Rangel and Rahm Emanuel) not to mention Ted Kennedy done her in with treachery.

Screw them all Hillary and run third party.

A Hillary Clinton third party run would separate the loyal women from the rats. Yes she would lose the institutional power of an established party and all the funding that means. And we are not fools, that is no small matter because the power of our established political parties is greater than most understand. But Hell, you can’t lose what you don’t really own and anyway we live with the internet and that is a great power unto itself.

Now, we are not fools when it comes to third parties. We do not believe a third party is a magic fixer of our political woes. Third parties can be as corrupt and corruptible as Republicans or Democrats. But we are talking about something quite different.

Combine the organizing power of new technologies such as the internet with the brand power of the Clinton name. Spice it with the new fundraising landscape of Citizens United. Add the intellectual juice of the founders and you have what we are talking about.

Hillary Clinton in 2016 can say:

My fellow Americans. You know me. You know what I stand for. You might not always agree with me but you know my love for this exceptional country and my belief that America is and must remain a beacon of light for all the world.

You know me and you know that I like every other political figure in this country have been part of the problem. I have been a supporter of the Democratic Party even when I disagreed with the direction and policy positions of the party. But now it is time for a change. It is time for a new politics. It is time to finally cross the bridge into the 21st century that Bill Clinton talked about in 1996.

Crossing that bridge has been a long time coming. At the beginning of the century a Republican president led us astray. Eight years later a Democratic president has us wandering down the wrong track into oblivion.

A recent study concluded that our citizens have “near zero impact” on government policy. This means our democracy is no more.

The blame for the loss of our democracy is directly attributable to our political parties which care more about themselves than about the American people. The founders warned us. The founders did not want political parties. James Madison stated that, human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.

As I said, I have been part of the problem but now I want to be part of the solution. Republicans hate Democrats. Democrats hate Republicans. Republican voters are angry with the Republican Party and Democrat voters are angry with the Democratic Party. Let’s end this. Let individuals stand for office on their own.

There once was a need for political parties. We needed them to organize for our political interests. But that is no longer true.

With our technology such as the internet and cell phones and text messages and emails and websites we can organize almost instantaneously.

A candidate for political office does not have to adhere to the narrow confines of a party ideology for the sake of party support. A candidate can now come to the American people and say I believe in this socially liberal policy and at the same time I believe in this fiscally sound policy and I ask for your support and financial contributions. It is then for the people to decide.

That’s why today I am asking for your support unencumbered by the chains of a political party and free to speak for the common good not narrow interests.

Whatever party you belonged to, whatever faction once had your allegiance, join me as we finally cross the bridge into the 21st century.”

Hillary Clinton can wait until the last minute to make her move. By then the party will be without a declared candidate or a candidate so weak and so far to the Left that Bernie Sanders will appear to be a giant.

The ideal Hard Choice would be for Hillary to be the destroyer of political factions and lead the country over the bridge to the 21st century to a new politics with the American people back in charge. But if Hillary decides not to bring about the Götterdämmerung, a third party run threat is her whip to beat into submission those that want her to embrace the Kook Left.

Make the Hard Choice Hillary. Give birth to something entirely new and yet entirely old and entirely American. A new birth of freedom.


118 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Should Run Third Party In 2016 – The Bridge To The 21st Century

  1. Hillary just rammed her eight inch stilettos up Obama’s um, nose, then says “Oh, I didn’t mean to dig so hard… sorry” – this is a real sincere hug and apology, not snark and phony, for the plain dumb and blind.

    Her foot on this throat. Running to get popcorn to finish reading your new post, Admin.

  2. We were sent this fun and smart article written by Republican/conservative John Podhoretz:


    Hammering Obama: Hillary has only begun

    Memo to President Obama: You should have made Hillary your vice president back in 2008.

    She was the obvious choice. But you believed you were strong enough without her, and worried that Bill would be impossible to control.

    Big mistake.

    If Hillary were veep, she’d be inside the tent even now, biting her lip. Instead, she took her leave, wrote her book and is now taking aim — at you.

    Hillary Clinton was and is your enemy. She says she’s your friend, but that’s what Iago told Othello.

    In 2008, with blithe self-assurance, you took away from her the thing she most wanted — and as you did so, you allowed as how she was “likable enough.”

    If she doesn’t still hate you for saying that in front of tens of millions of people on national TV, she’d be a better person than 95 percent of the people on Earth.

    And she’s not.

    What’s more, when she was working for you, you refused to give her the reins of US foreign policy and centralized all the power in the White House.

    Fair is fair. You took Michael Corleone’s advice: You sought to keep this enemy close. But you didn’t keep her close enough. And now you shall pay. She has made you start paying already.

    Hillary Clinton is the most popular politician in America now — more popular than you, if you haven’t noticed. And she has decided, for all intents and purposes, to go into opposition.

    That was the meaning of the extraordinary interview she granted Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic over the weekend. It was the annunciation of her separation from you and your legacy.

    Though filled with qualifications and words of praise for Obama here and there, the interview is a rare assault against a sitting president by his former secretary of state.

    The key sentence is this: “Great nations need organizing principles,” Hillary told Goldberg, “and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” [snip]

    She also took pains to separate herself from the administration’s disdainful treatment of Israel’s conduct of the war against Hamas.

    She refused to take Goldberg’s bait and say Israel had acted recklessly or irresponsibly. [snip]

    Some read this as Hillary’s re-emergence as a hawk, but I think it makes more sense to read it as part and parcel of her new determination to serve as an outside critic of the Obama administration’s approach — a critic more in sorrow than in anger, a seemingly friendly critic, who’s neither a Republican pol nor a neocon pundit. [snip]

    Now, as the world comes crashing down upon him, along with his poll numbers and the increasingly disastrous prospects for his party in the November midterms, Mrs. Clinton has laid a bet.

    She is betting she has two years to set herself up not as Obama’s natural successor but as his sadder-but-wiser replacement — the one who saw it go wrong, the one who watched as the mistakes were being made, the one who sought to mitigate or reverse those blunders to no effect, the one best able to take inspiration from a more successful, more centrist Democratic presidency.

    Mrs. Clinton’s political judgment is not to be trusted. She allowed Obama to eat her lunch in 2008 in part because she was overconfident and tacked too far to the center too early. She may well be doing it again.

    But she has made her choice. If Obama stumbles, she’ll be there — with her ankle turned out, to trip him up still further and then, with a sad smile, claim credit for having known that the obstacle had been there in his path all along.

    Hillary called Obama yesterday to assure him nothing in the interview was meant to be critical of him. Well said, Iago.

    Read the whole thing. It is smart, fun, analysis from someone who is opposed to Hillary and Hillary Clinton 2016. You don’t have to agree with everything but we like smart fun tough analysis – not the dumb stuff most of the right and the left are troweling out.

  3. Admin: some day I hope to have a chance to meet you.

    You are, without a doubt, the most strategic and most astute political commentator I have ever known.

    I would hate to ever have to face you as an adversary in a political contest.

    Compared to you, Axelrod, Rove and their ilk would be duck soup.

  4. Old school, third party run has always been a disaster. Even for guys like Ron Paul, who had the real hearts of the young. like Snowden.

    Could Hillary make it work? Could she get the networks to let her in on the debates, without pushing her aside, like others have? Only Hillary has a chance of that.

    I would love to see her run as an Independent, but I fear she is a true blue Democrat down to the core.

    If she were pushed aside in the Primary and someone weak like Almost-One-Drop-of-Blood were nominated, I could see her jumping into the third ring for sure. She would have nothing to lose.

    Then again, if it were right before the Primary, and she saw that the DNC was going to pull the rug out from under her again, yet her polls were still showing she would win in the General…she could use the ‘third party’ escape button as a threat, and the DNC would probably fold their hands.

  5. What better way to seize the initiative, and appeal for the contempt millions of Americans feel for the two political parties, who serve their donors and not the public, than to run third party. The reaction from the elites would go from astonishment to laughter to fear when they see the public reaction, rising against them. The long cocktail line in Washington has bled the middle class dry. Their contempt for average Americans–and I mean big media too, is no longer hidden; it is, as they say in the law of adverse possession: open and notorious. If she heeds that advice, if she goes third party, she needs Jim Carvalle and Pat Caddell on her team as well as Bill. Maggie Williams too. She needs the A-Team. No more Patty Solis Doyles, or Mark Penns. Just remember, Pat is the one who says according to his polls, 2/3 of the electorate would vote for a third party candidate, if they believed she or he could win. Under Obama, the democrat party has become arrogant, overreaching, racist, anti-semitic in ways that would have been unthinkable in years past. If John Kennedy were running today, he too would run third party. Such scions of the old liberal establishment as Bartles Bull have condemned the Justice Department for its open violation of civil rights. This party cannot be reformed from within. And I hold out no real hope for the other party as well, save the fact that their base, unlike the democrat base, are in revolt against their faux leadership. As a third party candidate, Hillary could abandon this zig zag two steps forward three steps back and could not be held hostage to the left. They can put up their candidate, and watch that candidate get crushed in the general election. And most of all, slowly but surely, the public will come to see the new democratic party as it is, rather than as it once was, and ought to be.

  6. wbboei
    August 13, 2014 at 6:04 pm
    Admin: some day I hope to have a chance to meet you.

    You are, without a doubt, the most strategic and most astute political commentator I have ever known.

    I would hate to ever have to face you as an adversary in a political contest.

    Compared to you, Axelrod, Rove and their ilk would be duck soup.

    I agree with you 100% Wbboei

  7. http://nypost.com/2014/08/13/obamaism-is-dead-and-hillary-clinton-killed-it/

    It’s official: Obamaism is dead. Hillary Clinton killed it.

    It wasn’t so much a mercy killing as an expedient one, but that’s politics in the best sense. The important thing is that she broke the Democratic omertà code by stating the obvious: The president’s policy of having America sit on the sidelines of a burning world is a disaster that threatens our national security.

    The power of her argument is confirmed by a report that a testy Obama called it “horses–t” to congressional leaders. Even guru David Axelrod blasted her, proving she scored a direct hit on the Chicago mafia’s central nervous system.

    The panic is legitimate. Clinton’s comments to The Atlantic magazine give security-minded Democrats permission to break ranks with the White House. Good God, they are free at last.

    Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, Pete King, Ted Cruz — they all said the same thing before her, with little impact. But Clinton, well, she’s not just any Democrat.

    Timing matters, too. With an al Qaeda-like state being carved out of parts of Iraq and Syria, and with Russia, China and Iran taking advantage of our retreat, Clinton’s declaration of independence will get the ­attention of demoralized allies from Europe to the Middle East.

    Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” she said in demolishing Obama’s ­excuse for doing nothing.

    As secretary of state, she wanted to arm Syrian rebels to help topple Bashar al-Assad, and now she says Obama’s refusal to agree was a “failure” that led to the creation of ISIS, the murderous Islamists building a terror state.

    Yes, it’s all self-serving, but her logic is compelling and she extended it to other hot spots, even equating the fight against Islamists to the fight against communism. As she told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg:

    “You know, we did a good job in containing the Soviet Union but we made a lot of mistakes, we supported really nasty guys, we did some things that we are not particularly proud of, from Latin America to Southeast Asia, but we did have a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism. That was our objective. We achieved it.”

    She also defended Israel against Hamas, saying of the civilian deaths in Gaza, “Ultimately, the responsibility rests with Hamas.”

    These truths are self-evident — except to the Obama wing of the Democratic Party, the United Nations and appeasers everywhere. The president’s thinly veiled belief that America has been more of a problem than a solution is the foundation of his do-nothingism.

    He rejects American exceptionalism and substitutes “leading from behind,” a concept as wise as the flat-earth theory. The fact that he had to order military strikes against ISIS in Iraq proves the idiocy of his claim that the “tide of war is receding.”

    Mosaic magazine features another smart autopsy of his mistakes, with Michael Doran describing Obama’s approach as a “roundtable” negotiation where good and evil reason together to create an “equilibrium that should replace the American-led ­order of yesteryear.”

    Doran, a former security adviser for George W. Bush, calls the idea “a chimera . . . that instead of ending wars . . . has helped prolong and multiply them.” Obama will not change, he writes, because that “would be tantamount to renouncing his cherished legacy.”

    Clinton renounced it for both of them.

    As for the politics, she obviously sees a break with her former boss as a plus for her 2016 race, or she wouldn’t have done it. That she sounds like a neocon might provoke a primary challenge from the left, and so she could pay a price.

    But in the short term, she changes the subject from her money-grubbing scandals and tries to move beyond her lackluster tenure at State and the biggest failure on her watch, the Benghazi attack, by making a ­serious point.

    So the politics could cut both ways, but the merits are clear. Because she’s right that Obama’s policies threaten our national security, it is immoral to stay silent.

    She spoke up, and I thank her.

  8. I do not at all mind that Hillary apologized. Just so long as she is only sorry until she gets her chance to do it again.

    Barrack the battered duck.


  9. Yeah, baby! Another one out of the park, Admin!!!

    Going outside the Dem Party if DimBots try to deny Hillary a run this time around is certainly her trump card, as you say. (And you know they are ready to put up Mrs McGoo herself — i.e. Elizabeth Warren — as their Leftie candidate.) I think an independent candidate may actually emerge this time around anyway and it might as well be Hillary. We need a credible and serious candidate to demolish the corrupt two-Party system once and for all. The time is ripe for a 3rd way — a new 3rd way that bypasses (demolishes!) the two Parties and that is driven by a new coalition politics powered by the many who still believe in this great country.

  10. If only she would ditch that toxic , confused party. Some people had really thought and hoped she would do so in 2008, and run as an Indy. I never thought she would back then, because of both Clintons’ long standing role within the party, and their loyalty to it. However, at this point, Obama and his thug machine pretty much have blown the party to hell. Forget Big Tent. As we have been informed by Brazillenut, there is no room in the tent for moderate white voters. Hell the seats in the tent are all being reserved for legal citizens of other countries, as well as AAs, Young idiots ( in fact, that’s the name on that particular section of the tent – Young Idiots Section – free weed available), and the most loyal contingent of all – MSM.

    The far lefties think they have taken over the party and will be the dominant force from now on. I say, let them have it, and step away from the toxic dump.

    Admin, what web said!

  11. right on Admin…you pull it all together…

    Hill’s people need to start leaking…as Marc Ginsberg did…and as Podhoretz says – the fact that:

    “What’s more, when she was working for you, you refused to give her the reins of US foreign policy and centralized all the power in the White House.”

    btw…Fournier did have a good comment this evening, he said O is so thin skinned that he could even let Hillary have that one line without sicking his dogs on her…and Kruthammer agreed saying with all that is going on in the world…O and his people had to take time to go after her for that because he is so thin skinned to any criticism…


  12. also forgot to mention…that speech you began to put together is just what the country…common sense people on both sides are yearning for…that is the pulse to tune into…

  13. I don’t see her getting the democratic nomination, so she has no choice but to fun as a third party .

  14. …it is Hillary’s time…she brings the goods and will be ready from day one to get to work…and people will work with her…

    …it will be ‘sober up and get focused’ time…time for the party to be over…

  15. wbboei

    August 13, 2014 at 6:04 pm

    Admin: some day I hope to have a chance to meet you.

    You are, without a doubt, the most strategic and most astute political commentator I have ever known.

    I would hate to ever have to face you as an adversary in a political contest.

    Compared to you, Axelrod, Rove and their ilk would be duck soup.

    I second that emotion. Kudos Admin.

    Hillary 2016

  16. Hillary needs to pin down the super delegates sooner rather than later. They need to understand that if she is denied the nomination, she will start a third party based on a direct appeal to the American people. Let ponder where that will leave them. This is not a threat. This is called democracy. Before doing that, I would bait the other side, so they came forward with pitchforks, so people would understand why a clean break from the party was necessary, and why no one who values liberty will remain under that totalitarian tent. And it is precisely because these people are so thin skinned they will be easy to bait and quick to overreact. Finally, by now one can only hope that Jewish Americans see the light and there is no hope for Israel while Obama surrogates reign.

  17. wbboei

    August 13, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    Hillary needs to pin down the super delegates sooner rather than later. They need to understand that if she is denied the nomination, she will start a third party based on a direct appeal to the American people. Let ponder where that will leave them. This is not a threat. This is called democracy. Before doing that, I would bait the other side, so they came forward with pitchforks, so people would understand why a clean break from the party was necessary, and why no one who values liberty will remain under that totalitarian tent.

    I second that emotion as well.

    Hillary 2016

  18. From last thread (emphases mine), S:

    She has alot of charm…she is likeable…now she has to be Hillary, her own person…not an appendage of O’s administration and his PAST …he does not know what the hell he is doing and has no work ethic…she is a workhorse…

    Absolutely. I started reading her book when it came out, but she kept kissing O’s butt and it was making me sick, so I put the book down and haven’t been able to pick it back up. I want to hear *her* thoughts, I don’t care about O’s feelings being protected – especially since, being a narcissist, he can’t handle *any* criticism anyway. I want to move forward, not waste another moment on that idiot.

    She couldn’t do this literally, but in my fantasies, Hillary tells the far left, “na na na, where ya going to go?” After all, isn’t that what they did to *us*? The worst they can do on election day is not show up, and I suspect it’s just a minority that would apply to. Donna Brazile can just stay home, we won’t miss her on election day.

    We were all saying in 2008, “country before party” (I still wear that tshirt every May 31), and now it’s time for Hillary to live by that.

    I really like when she said recently that we’re not telling our story well. It reminded me of Dinesh D’Souza’s movie “America”, which I loved. We need to get our pride back in this country. I wish Dinesh weren’t such an idealogue (he misrepresented Hillary in the movie), but otherwise he made a lot of good points including that we need to get back in touch with what made us exceptional – which is the same thing that Hillary embodies – the “can do” attitude, the work ethic, the integrity. Dinesh said we’re not just a country, we’re an idea – and too many people don’t seem to know that anymore.

    I’ve seen videos where they interview college students and they don’t know the most basic information, including who was our first president, who did we fight the revolutionary war against. Many people don’t know that we have 3 equal branches of government. My jaw dropped to the ground when I saw these videos. When I went to high school, you couldn’t graduate without taking a US History and Constitution class. Apparently that’s no longer true. We’re going to lose “America” if our “educated youth” don’t even know such basic information. We need Hillary.

  19. I hope this appears the way it is supposed to…might have to get past a commerical to monologue then ‘Tale of the Tape’ Hillay vs Obama

  20. It seems that two wimpy reporter/agitators were given less than open arms treatment by the local police in a suburb of St. Louis were they were supposedly covering riots arising over the death of a black victim under circumstances yet to be determined. These self proclaimed journalist were from HuffPo and WashPo and as we see ever day in their fine blogs and reports, are inclined to get a little hysterical, and claim they were in fear of their lives.

    Please forgive me, but I have no sympathy for these individuals. I know they are not there for the ostensible purpose of reporting. They want action. And neither one of them is beyond starting something so they can get it on film. I personally observed a reporter from NYT trying to foment violence during the WTO protests in Seattle. Tensions were very high and he damned near succeeded. In this case, they are there to play the race card, just like Sharpton did in the Travon Martin case. Consequently, I am highly reluctant to come to their defense.

    These reporters are wimps. In the dark days of World War II, and the London blitz, can you imagine Murrow, Sevarid or Cronkite getting on the radio and whining about being scared. The media enjoys special protection under the first amendment, but it is based on the assumption that their role is critical to the success of a liberal democracy. When they abuse their privileges, create incidents and behave like stooges for Obama, I have little sympathy. My sympathy is for Christians in the middle east who fear for their lives because they are being slaughter while Obama does nothing. That is a far cry from a pair of ivy league wimps with vivid imaginations and a perverse agenda.

    N.B. I was not borne with this sense of cynicism. The 2008 primary and all that came after created it.

  21. Grape: if you are reading the blog, can you tell us if Soros or his lieutenant Wolfe (UBS) are there in Martha’s Vineyard tonight. I think the chances of at least Wolfe being there are roughly 100%, and that he will play golf with the Liar in Chief during which time he will pass on instructions from the old Nazi Soros as has been standard practice. It is reasonable to assume that the message will be to implement the balance of the Soros agenda by executive order during the remainder of his presidency, and because Obama has no relationship with Congress, he will have to do this through executive order which will give new life to the lawsuit against Obama, and get past the issue of standing.

  22. Hillary’s hug and apology are akin to trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. She knows she squirted it all out and there’s no going back. It can also be compared to a newspaper printing a retraction on page 10 in that tiny space below the comics where nobody will see it.

  23. What do I know.

    Very little it seems.

    I used to think Obama was a man of limited accomplishments.

    I even said his resume was bare as a goat’s ass and long as a whores dream.

    That was before I read this, and realized how wrong I was.

    So much so that my New Year’s Resolution for 2050 will be to stop picking on Obama

    First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen–a greater than Washington, perhaps?

    Well . . . not exactly:




    Obama The Overachiever:

    *First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student then deny he was a foreigner.

    · First President to have a Social Security number from a state he has never lived in.

    · First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

    · First President to violate the War Powers Act.

    · First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

    · First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

    · First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

    · First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

    · First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

    · First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

    · First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

    · First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

    · First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

    · First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

    · First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

    · First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

    · First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

    · First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

    · First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

    · First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

    · First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

    · First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

    · First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

    · First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

    · First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

    · First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

    · First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

    · First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

    · First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

    · First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

    · First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

    · First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

    · First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

    · First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona).

    · First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

    · Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion. (Thank God he didn’t get away with THIS one.)

  24. Hillary’s hug and apology are akin to trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. She knows she squirted it all out and there’s no going back.
    When you say she is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube

    I interpret that to mean she feels it was a mistake to tell the truth about Obama

    And seeing the reaction, she regrets it.

    Lets hope that is not the case.

    Because if it is and she wins the general election, then we will have Obama III.

    This nation can ill afford Obama III.

    We are half way to hell now, and we need to reverse course in earnest.

    I would prefer to believe that she does not regret what she said, or the way she said it.

    In that case, she is hugging Obama for the sake of appearance.

    I can imagine Soros operatives contacting her with some kind of veiled threat.

    But that would be the time to call their bluff and go public with whatever threat he made, assuming he did.

    As my grandmother used to say–its a great life if you don’t weaken

    That is an old expression probably from the 1920s–which you never hear anymore.

    But it has direct application here.

  25. I spoke to Ann Lewis at a private fundraiser during the primary. I asked her how far I could go in attacking Obama. She told me that Hillary did not favor direct attacks on him, but believed it was entirely appropriate to “define the differences” as she put it. It seems to me that is all Hillary was doing in her comments about the middle east, comparing and contrasting what she advocated, which was the opposite of what he did, and what he did lead to a thousand misfortunes. Add to this, the fact that, by the most reliable information we have, Hillary was not involved in the final decision on tactics and strategy in the Middle East. That strategy was dictated not by American strategic interests but by the political agenda of Obama, and his desperate attempt to preserve power, and never lay down his self flattering unction. And the authors of that strategy were the worst people imaginable–Jarrett, Axelrod and Brennan aka Strangelove. Given a choice between speaking the truth and defending the indefensible, she chose the former. The reaction of Obama and his fellow travellers is, therefore, sociopathic, and inimical to the interests of this nation. Simply put, if they cannot handle the truth then that is their problem.

  26. Hug It Out, Bitch
    by Larry Johnson

    News is atwitter with word that Hillary and Barack are, “Going to Hug it Out.”


    The only question I have, Who is the Bitch? (snip)

    “Bitch” can be a technical term for a female dog. “Bitch” can be a sexist term to disparage a woman. And “bitch” can refer to a weak man, especially in prison, who is getting the Ned Beatty treatment from Deliverance.

    So, I ask again? Who is the Bitch?

    I say, Barack. (snip)

    Barack, has got the stink of weakness on him

    It is becoming more pungent each day.

    Feckless and clueless at the same time.

    (Except in the eyes of big media, to whom he is Hercules, Aphrodite, and Zeus all rolled into one)

  27. wbb, I’m glad to see the “Stop Trashing Obama” list included a couple of references to B’s administration’s meddling in the auto industry. I know of a couple of people who owned car dealerships prior to the B’s inauguration. They happened to be heavy donors to McCain’s campaign and/or the Pub Party. They were both forced to shut-down, even tho they were making profits and doing well.

    There were some really questionable goings related to B’s handling of this whole auto industry thing. It doesn’t need to be forgotten or overlooked .

    In looking at Hillary’s recent bravery in speaking truth about power, I wondered whether she expected such a crazy, over-the-top reaction from the usual whining weenies who always attack anyone who dares tell the unflattering truth about their B-word. Surely she must have. If so, and if she made the bold move in spite of the public criticism she knew she would receive, does that mean that she was deliberately throwing down the gauntlet? Was she letting the lib wing of the party know that she was running her show as she saw fit – with or without them? Did she want to determine whom she could count on for support if she decided to run? Did she want the far lefties in media and in the party to move ahead right now, in a big way with their plans to push Warren or another of their ilk into the fray?

    The timing is curious. I always thought Hillary would step away from B-word – big time.. But, I figured she would not do so until after November – not that her dissing of B will make that much difference, if any, in the Dims’ ability to retain control of senate. Their chances of that are seeming more and more remote. Even so, it’s a bit puzzling – in a very good way.

    It’s hard to believe that there was not some strategic planning by Hillary and her team regarding her public distancing of herself from the B. But if not, if she did not expect the reaction her words would draw – and that seems about as unlikely as it could get – does that mean she’ has underestimated the antipathy the left wing of her own party holds for her (and for her husband)? Seems unlikely, but a possibility nonetheless.

    Maybe her bold truth-telling at this time means that she is definitely going to run, and she doesn’t give one good damn what the lefties think or say about her. Maybe she knows and has known that it was only a matter of time before they really loaded their little weenie guns and started blasting away at her in a big way. After all, some of them have not stopped blasting since 2008. Maybe she’s saying F -you. Hit me with your best shot!

    Regardless of the fall out from this, whether expected or not, it’s so damn good to hear a Democrat tell the truth in a bold and public way about the damage done by this Dimocrat president. That fact alone is sufficient cause for a major celebration. Neither his fellow Dims nor the weak-willed pubs have really told the truth about the problems resulting from B’s mishandling of everything. It’s good to see anyone – especially Hillary – express an honest unvarnished opinion about this administration.

    She appears to be the only one in this country with the cajones to run it.

    I hope she’s saying to the kooks and the rest of the crazy weenies screaming their guts out:

    Hit me with your best shot! Fire away!

  28. Jen the Michigander, all the hug publicity did was call even more attention to the interview with Goldberg.

    At no time does Hillary’s representatives’ statement retract or apologize for what she said in the very lively interview. Our line about the stiletto and your toothpaste analogy are the correct analysis.

    Those that took the statement to be an apology of any sort are incorrect.

  29. We posted one of our rare comments on another site. Our comment was on a Michael Tomasky article trying to protect Obama and walk back Hillary’s attack on Obama. Considering the comment was posted to a Tomasky piece on Dailybeast we are getting some positive reaction.

    You can read the comment here: http://fyre.it/unp2Cg.4

  30. Rove is a Hillary hater from way back, and his comments on the subject of hugs are to be viewed in that light.

    However, one historical precedent he mentions is relevant:

    Obama’s failure in the Middle East bears a striking resemblance to a similar failure by LBJ in Viet Nam.

    LBJ’s vice president, Humphrey, ran for president in 1968.

    However, he WAITED TOO LONG to distance himself from the president over that war.

    And he went on to lose the election to Nixon.

    That precedent validates Hillary’s decision to distance herself from this failed president.

    The question now is how will this hugging it out business be perceived?

    As you can see, Rove and his ilk, and Obama thugs portray it as a strategic retreat from her comments.

    At a minimum, it was an unfortunate choice of words, if it came from her people.

    The perception it created will either change, or be confirmed by future events.


  31. I must say I was astounded to read ADMIN encourage Hillary to look to a 3rd Party…the American Party has been looking for a leader for a loooog time! The Dem Party is gone, it resembles nothing I supported for so many years, but maybe the wool was pulled over my eyes, maybe it was gone longer than I knew…maybe, I didn’t look close enough.

    Two years is a long time, the Left is not to be trusted. They don’t want Hillary, they hate Hillary. Probably more than they hate the Right.

  32. In looking at Hillary’s recent bravery in speaking truth about power, I wondered whether she expected such a crazy, over-the-top reaction from the usual whining weenies who always attack anyone who dares tell the unflattering truth about their B-word.
    Axelrod and the rest of them are really no different than the Nazis, in terms of how their mind works. At this point, a fuerher bunker mentality has set in as radical islamic terrorism rolls over the middle east and across the world, and allies with their own future at stake look at Obama as a paper tiger. At this point, they are defending an illusion, against the hard facts which reality is throwing at them from all directions. They fear the truth and cannot handle it. They are desperate to construct some kind of a legacy out of all this rubble. And a cornerstone of that legacy was to have been that the Messiah ended the war in Iraq, whereas the feedback from reality is telling us that far from ending the war, the big media beloved and sainted Obama is well on his way to losing it, and creating greater chaos, instability and genocide than ever before. Well, there is that fateful moment in the movie Casa Blanca where disaster in on the cusp, and Bogie tells Bergman, we will always have Paris. And Obama? Why he will always have Martha’s Vineyard, and all the wealthy flotsam and jetsam there assembled.

  33. admin
    August 14, 2014 at 12:18 pm
    To an ideologue like Tomasky, ever decision must be binary . .

    Oh, you do not support Obama on domestic policy?

    Then you must be a racist.

    Oh, you do not support Obama’s cloud cuckooland approach to foreign policy?

    Then you must be a neocon.

    You, Biden, Hagel and all the rest of them.

    Except for Obama who gave a bullshit speech on the subject as a state senator which was pure posturing.

    The binary equation fuels their jets.

    The nuance and the shades of grey which are a part of life have no place in their world view.

    Knowing that, I suppose it is worth defining the difference (again) between her approach and that of the neocon.

    McCain (who most everyone hates at this point) and his bomb bomb bomb bomb boom Iran makes a perfect foil.

  34. S
    August 14, 2014 at 12:29 am

    oops…I forgot to post the link…

    That was great. Looks like Jimmy is over Berry, big time.

  35. Two years is a long time, the Left is not to be trusted. They don’t want Hillary, they hate Hillary. Probably more than they hate the Right
    This is a paradigmatic example of how the totalitarian mind works. No nuance. No shades of grey. All who call themselves Germans must march to the tune of der Fuerher, or else they are an enemy of the people. Never mind the fact that the Fuerher just happens to be the anti Christ, for them he is the one, the way, the brightest star in the heavens. Shades of the Chaplinese movie about the little dictator. How in the world can so many people be so blind and so stupid, as to swallow this shit. The Pied Piper has nothing on this guy. Yes, yes, I know, power relationships have been constructed around this false god, this god who is not only destined to fail, but failing before our very eyes, despite the protean efforts by big media to construct one Potemkin Village after another. At some point, the realist will join the cynic in proclaiming that they no less than he are the destroyer of worlds.

  36. I think I said something worth repeating.

    Isn’t this the third way strategy all over again.

    History has shown us two things:

    Necon strategy does not work.

    Obama strategy (if you can even call it a strategy) does not work either

    Both the strategy of continuing war and the strategy of appeasement

    Are an unmitigated disaster

    Democrats blame Bush and defend Obama

    Republicans blame Obama and defend Bush

    Both of them are half right and half wrong.

    The third way is to accept what is correct, reject what is wrong, and let appeal to the American People.

    Admin has pointed the way.

    Now somebody in a position to decide needs to hear the message.

    Hillary is not a neocon and her Iraq vote was not a vote to go to war, but a vote to provide negotiation leverage.

    She must not accept the charge of the left which reflect their binary calculation.

  37. wbboei
    August 14, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    In looking at Hillary’s recent bravery in speaking truth about power, I wondered whether she expected such a crazy, over-the-top reaction from the usual whining weenies who always attack anyone who dares tell the unflattering truth about their B-word.

    Wbboei Oh!!! I am sure she knew this would be the reaction and planned for it 😆

  38. I work and live around a 99% Dims. So far, all of them want to vote for Hillary in two years, and are SILENT about, or disappointed in Obama.

    Calif voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, and now they have decided it’s “Hillary’s turn”…big of them.

    When they come up and tell me I must be excited about 2016, I love to just look real serious and say I am not sure she will want to run again. Why would she after what she went though in 2008.

    They ALL say that she will run.

    I think she will run too, but I don’t admit it to them.

    Love to watch them twist inside out wondering what would happen if she doesn’t run.

  39. I can not think of a single dimocrat and will have to wait and see what(who) the rhino’s put up. I am not nor have I ever been a progressive. I was always more center left but the left has gone off the rails and pushed me more to the right isil/isis, the border crisis, Hobby Lobby decision, bakers being made to bake gay cakes all the while coddling the religion of peas, ISREAL. I will vote for the candidate who I feel has the countries best interest at heart.

  40. Your are on the wrong side of history thunders big media beloved Obama to Putin.

    The negative inference is that Obama is on the right side of history.

    Question: if being on the wrong side of history means territorial aggrandizement and being a world player who commands respect and fear, vs being on the right side of history means being laughed at by your enemies, distrusted by your allies, and being personally responsible for global chaos, then pray tell, which side of history would you rather be on?

    Put differently, which would you rather have: success or failure. I am not sure the public would answer that question the same way big media beloved Obama would.

  41. Gothic Boy (David Gregory) is OUT!

    Rat Boy (Chuckie Todd) is IN!

    Out with the bad air, in with the bad air, etc.

    This news flash and picture from the town that never sleeps, and has a communist for a mayor

    Note especially the picture, with Gregory in the right corner (careful with that gothic boy, someone might mistake you for a conservative) sporting a pair of dark glasses to hide his identity, and auditioning for a remake of Cats.

    Word has it that copies of this picture were schlepped under David’s door by allies of Ratboy to give him a little nuedge toward the door. When he did not react, those copies were sent to comcast and the rest like Gregory is history.

    Where COMCAST is concerned, from love’s close kiss to hell’s abyss is one short step I trow.

    Meanwhile, let’s start a rumor that Gregory is going to work as a meteorologist at one of the other big media shops.


    Be still my heart

  42. Admin, someone posted your suggested Hillary Clinton 16 speech above in the comment section of the Daily Beast Article. I could not access all of the comments for some reason, but did see some positive feedback.

  43. S, that Jimmy Fallon monologue was really funny. In the Hillary – Obama comparison, I cracked up at this line:

    Hillary’s motto: “2016 can’t get here fast enough” Obama’s motto: “ditto”

  44. A stunning article from a Hillary ally. The DailyKooks will go full Koo-koo on this one. The Progressive Policy Institute:


    Can Hillary Fix Obama’s Mess?

    On Barack Obama’s watch, Democrats have defined their international outlook largely in reactive and negative terms. The president has focused on fixing his predecessor’s mistakes, leaving unclear what positive role he envisions for America in the 21st century. “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” may be sound advice for college-bound kids, but it’s not a foreign policy doctrine. [snip]

    Six years into his tenure, however, the world doesn’t seem to be cooperating with Obama’s policy of risk-averse retrenchment. Russia has reverted to its bad old ways, resurrecting a Soviet-style police state and menacing its neighbors. Europe’s inability to respond effectively has forced Obama to put America back in the business of checking Moscow’s aggression. Washington also is getting sucked back into Iraq, dashing the president’s hopes of extricating the United States from a Middle East convulsed by jihadist and sectarian violence.

    The president’s desire to pull back from foreign conflicts may mirror the public’s mood, but polls suggest it hasn’t inspired much confidence in his ability to counter emerging threats. “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Hillary Clinton said in her Atlantic interview—much to the consternation of White House Munchkins who flamed her anonymously in the New York Times, and Obama consigliere David Axelrod, who fired back a snarky tweet.

    But Democrats would be wiser to accept Clinton’s implicit challenge to talk more about the positive uses of American power. Much of the world now believes that a declining America is abandoning its leadership role. Is that what Democrats believe? For six decades, Democratic leaders have acted upon the premise that a freer world is a safer and more prosperous world. Is this core tenet of post-war internationalism still operative?

    It’s hard for Democrats to answer these questions when their leader oscillates awkwardly between a pinched “realism” concerned mainly with avoiding mistakes, and his party’s more expansive legacy of liberal internationalism. As one former U.S. official recently told the New Yorker, “I think Obama is basically a realist – but he feels bad about it.” [snip]

    But progressive dissenters, including then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, challenged it on strategic grounds. The Syrian debacle shows that nonintervention entails risks and costs too. These include some 170,000 dead, millions of refugees flooding neighboring states and spreading sectarian violence across the region. Worst of all, Syria has become a magnet for foreign jihadis seeking to fill what Clinton aptly called the “vacuum” created by the West’s failure to arm and support moderate opponents of the Assad dictatorship. Forged in the Syrian crucible was the Islamic State, which now controls territory larger than New England and is menacing Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq.

    This sinister turn of events upends a key Obama assumption about the terrorist threat. He has often criticized Bush’s talk of a “war on terror” as overly broad, arguing plausibly that it fed the extremist narrative that America is at war with Islam. But in fixating on al Qaeda, Obama seems to have erred in the opposite direction. The rise of the Islamic State—so savage that even al Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahari has disowned it—makes it clear that the recurrent danger we face arises not from this terrorist group or that, but the Islamist ideology that motivates all of them.

    Yet America, Clinton noted, lacks an “overarching strategy” for containing and ultimately defeating the jihadist contagion that has spread to Yemen, Somalia, North and sub-Saharan Africa, Pakistan, the Caucuses, parts of China and the Philippines. Obama has been so eager to declare an end to America’s overseas wars that he has not prepared Americans for a long twilight struggle against Islamist extremism across shifting global fronts. This campaign may not require putting U.S. boots on the ground—the straw man Obama routinely torches in answer to his critics. But it will very likely require the use of force, probably by drones, special forces and the covert services.

    Fortunately, Americans need not wage this campaign alone. Washington should be organizing a coalition of powers likewise concerned about jihadist terrorism, powers—including Europe, Russia, China, India, Turkey and Egypt—to concert action on intelligence and surveillance of extremist groups, monitor “hot spots” for jihadist recruiting and disrupt terrorist financing networks. [snip]

    Like communism and fascism, radical Islam is a totalitarian creed. It is fundamentally hostile to liberal concepts of individualism, liberty of conscience, pluralism and tolerance. The civilized world can’t coexist with a retrograde doctrine that sanctions barbaric violence against nonbelievers, that kills and abducts girls for going to school, that suppresses women’s sexuality and rights, and that prescribes death for adultery and homosexuality.

    Why aren’t U.S. liberals leading the charge against this deeply illiberal ideology? The fear of being called anti-Muslim is one answer. Another is the anti-war’s left reflexive aversion to the use of the force and mistrust of American motives. Some “peace” groups, for example, have lambasted Obama for ordering air strikes against the Islamic State, even to protect thousands of Yazidis and Christians threatened with mass slaughter. Echoing a canard from the Iraq war debate, some critics say it’s all about oil—in this case protecting U.S. oil interests in friendly Kurdistan.

    More creditable is sheer public weariness with shouldering the Atlas-like burdens of world leadership, especially after a prolonged period of anemic growth and stalled economic mobility at home.

    Still, Democrats ought to push back against the current mood for disengagement, not pander to it. They should reclaim their party’s tradition of tough liberalism and reaffirm America’s will to stand up to tyranny and oppression. Much of that tradition shines through in Hillary Clinton’s comments.

    Read the whole thing. We’ll have more on this soon.

  45. Sorry, but I am still obsessing over that picture of high stepping David Gregory (as in Rasputin). Black suit with brown shoes, and men in black shade? Off with his head! Strike that. Comcast beat me to the punch. Pray that he gets the weather man job. He can continue to be wrong and still keep his job. But if he does not get the weatherman job, then perhaps he can be the spokesman for Buster Brown shoes. And, if that promising gig fails to materialize, well then he will always have Cats,–burned out ends of smoky days, etc.

  46. admin
    August 14, 2014 at 11:09 pm

    A stunning article from a Hillary ally.
    Well, it looks to be pretty damned accurate.

    As Hillary moves forward to forge her own position on foreign policy, in reaction to what occurred under Bush and what occurred under Obama, she must condemn both approaches. The first one created a collapse in the region and put us in the impossible role of nation builder. The second one turned a blind eye to the rise of terrorism and the outlines of a terrorist state in the middle east, failed to seize opportunities along the way, and was as blind to the rise of extremism in this decade as the isolationists and appeasers of the 1930’s were. I think Hillary needs criticize the foreign policy of both presidents. It will stop democrats from from calling her a neocon, and it will stop republicans from gloating, and letting her do the heavy lifting for them. A third party candidacy offers the best platform for doing this. The operating assumption of Washington is that third parties cannot succeed. But this is the first time in history when over 2 out of 3 people tell pollsters like Pat Caddell that they would vote for a third party candidate if they thought she or he could win.

  47. She did a terrific article on the subject in Foreign Affairs magazine, on how to extricate ourselves from the foreign policy mistakes of the Bush Administration. It needs to be updated to include the mistakes of the Obama Adminstration. Every critique of Obamas approach should be coupled with a similar critique of the Bush approach, so that the lame brains of big media realize that we are talking about a third way.

  48. I spilled a lot of ink arguing that the Iraq resolution was not a war authorization act, but a way to arm Bush with the leverage he needed to enforce UN inspections. Bill Clinton wrote a note to a friend who said that I was one of the few people who understood the Iraq resolution, so I do think my analysis was correct. Recently, however, Hillary conceded that point, hoping to appeal to a left wing audience. That was a mistake, because it makes it harder for her now to counter balance her criticism of Obama’s policy of benign neglect and appeasement with the over reach by King George.

  49. Some wag on another blog summarized the impact of the substitution of one peerless big media giant–Gothic Boy, by another peerless big media giant—Rat Boy thusly:

    “Same circus. Different clown.”

  50. New article by Bill Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection. Obviously there is a level of nuance and evasion in the legal response of Obama’s lawyers response that warrants follow-up investigation and testimony.

    Insufficient IRS explanations cause Judge to order sworn answers from IRS about Lois Lerner’s hard drive and emails.
    (Lois Lerner Leaves House Hearing 3-5-2014)

    Judicial Watch has sued over missing IRS emails in the federal district court in D.C., pursuant to its FOIA request for such documents.

    The IRS was ordered to provide explanations as to missing emails, particularly Lois Lerner.

    The IRS provided explanations, but those were not good enough for the Judge, who launched his own inquiry into the matter, as Judicial Watch explained in a statement posted on its website:

    Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement in response to today’s order from Judge Emmet G. Sullivan regarding the recently “lost” emails of Lois Lerner and other IRS officials, which were the subject of longstanding Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. IRS (No. 1:13-cv-1559)):

    In an extraordinary step, U. S. District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan has launched an independent inquiry into the issue of the missing emails associated with former IRS official Lois Lerner.

    Previously, Judge Sullivan ordered the IRS to produce sworn declarations about the IRS email issue by August 11. Today’s order confirms Judicial Watch’s read of this week’s IRS’ filings that treated as a joke Judge Sullivan’s order.

    Judge Sullivan, in his earlier ruling, appointed Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola to manage and assist in discussions between Judicial Watch and the IRS about how to obtain any missing records from other sources. Magistrate Facciola is an expert in e-discovery, and authorized Judicial Watch to submit a request for limited discovery into the missing IRS records after September 10.

    Here is the Judge’s Order (emphasis added, hard paragraph breaks inserted for ease of reading):

    MINUTE ORDER. In light of [26] the Declarations filed by the IRS, the IRS is hereby ORDERED to file a sworn Declaration, by an official with the authority to speak under oath for the Agency, by no later than August 22, 2014.

    In this Declaration, the IRS must:

    (1) provide information about its efforts, if any, to recover missing Lois Lerner emails from alternate sources (i.e., Blackberry, iPhone, iPad);

    (2) provide additional information explaining the IRS’s policy of tracking inventory through use of bar code property tags, including whether component parts, such as hard drives, receive a bar code tag when serviced. If individual components do not receive a bar code tag, provide information on how the IRS tracks component parts, such as hard drives, when being serviced;

    (3) provide information about the IRS’s policy to degauss hard drives, including whether the IRS records whose hard drive is degaussed, either by tracking the employee’s name or the particular machine with which the hard drive was associated; and

    (4) provide information about the outside vendor who can verify the IRS’s destruction policies concerning hard drives.

    Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 14, 2014. (lcegs4)

  51. As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton put it, (Obama’s lawyers) treated his original order directing the IRS to provided sworn testimony on the disappearance of Lois Learner emails as a “joke”.

    Judge Sullivan, however, happens to be an excellent judge, and not a man to be trifled with.

    His response to Obama’s stonewalling is to appoint a federal magistrate to take whatever time is necessary to delve into all aspects with Judicial Watch and the IRS, focusing on the four requirements delineated above.

    The magistrate he appointed to this task has a serious background in CRIMINAL LAW and ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY.

    He appears to the right man for the job.

    Here is his bio:

    John M. Facciola was appointed a United States Magistrate Judge in the District of Columbia in 1997. Prior to being appointed to the bench, he served as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan from 1969-1973, and was in private practice in the District of Columbia from 1974-1982. Judge Facciola joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1982 and served as Chief of the Special Proceedings section from 1989 until his appointment as Magistrate Judge. Judge Facciola is a frequent lecturer and speaker on the topic of electronic discovery. Judge Facciola is a member of the Sedona Conference Advisory Board, the Georgetown Advanced E-Discovery Institute Advisory Board and he is also the former Editor in Chief of The Federal Courts Law Review, the electronic law journal of the Federal Magistrate Judges Association. He has recently been appointed to the Board of Directors of the Federal Judicial Center. His most recent publication is with Jonathan M. Redgrave, Asserting and Challenging Privilege Claims in Modern Litigataion: The Facciola-Redgrave Framework, 2009 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 19 (2009). He received his A.B from the College of the Holy Cross and his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center.

  52. That article from Politico is downright amazing – as is the fact that it was posted on Politico. Maybe cojones are contagious. Maybe Hillary’s honest, well deserved criticism of Obama’s policies or lack thereof has given others the courage to speak out. Maybe it will reduce the fear of Dem leaders who have been afraid to publicly disagree with their party’s leader.

  53. freespirit

    August 15, 2014 at 1:55 am

    That article from Politico is downright amazing – as is the fact that it was posted on Politico. Maybe cojones are contagious. Maybe Hillary’s honest, well deserved criticism of Obama’s policies or lack thereof has given others the courage to speak out. Maybe it will reduce the fear of Dem leaders who have been afraid to publicly disagree with their party’s leader
    I think everybody in Washington is looking for an exit where Obama is concerned.

    Like Carter, he is proving to be an abject failure.

    And time for him is running out.

    Big media is only now coming to grips with this.

    And they have got to be asking themselves whether their decision to be a lap dog will cost them the good will they rely upon in their business.

    My guess is you will see more of this, as more Obama disasters hit the transom and they start saying–Obama, we hardly knew ye.

    But that should change nothing as far as the public is concerned.

    They have no legitimate place at the table where the future of this nation will be determined.

    For the history of the past six years has shown that they are corrupt and they mislead the American People.

  54. Perhaps “Horse shit” Axelrod would like to defend Obama on this one:
    Hundreds of Convicted Criminals Among Illegal Immigrants Released

    by sattkisson
    on August 12, 2014
    in News
    Leave a comment

    The Obama administration freed 617 convicted criminals among a mass release made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in advance of 2013 sequestration budget cuts. That’s according to a new report out from the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General. The IG recounts a litany of miscommunication and budget mismanagement within the highest levels of federal immigration enforcement that resulted in Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano providing incorrect information at the time.

    Read my full report here.

    “The publicized releases occurred the weekend before sequestration went into effect on March 1, 2013, generating speculation that the releases were improperly [politically] motivated.”–DHS Inspector General

    Read the DHS report here. p. 37 shows how many criminal releases were made in each of the 24 field office cities.


  55. wbb

    Big media is only now coming to grips with this.

    And they have got to be asking themselves whether their decision to be a lap dog will cost them the good will they rely upon in their business.


    I hope they finally are getting it, but they haven’t shown much insight thus far. How do the television news outlets still have sponsors – given the fact that they report opinion instead of news, and their opinion always proves to be wrong?!

  56. the leaks are beginning…(thought I saw another article linking this ‘leak’ to Hill’s camp in Newsweek but could not find it)

    need for more and more of the truth to come out…and if O and his camp do not like it Hillary needs to just keep moving forward talking about what she would do…he is the past…the future is ahead…imho…if Hillary ‘wants’ to praise anyone save it for reflection on Bill’s presidency…


  57. S, this is an excerpt from the Daily Beast article you linked at 7:14.


    “Clinton and her senior staff warned the White House multiple times before she left office that the Syrian civil war was getting worse, that working with the civilian opposition was not enough, and that the extremists were gaining ground. The United States needed to engage directly with the Free Syrian Army, they argued; the loose conglomeration of armed rebel groups was more moderate than the Islamic forces—and begging for help from the United States. According to several administration officials who were there, her State Department also warned the White House that Iraq could fall victim to the growing instability in Syria. It was all part of a State Department plea to the president to pursue a different policy.

    “The State Department warned as early as 2012 that extremists in eastern Syria would link up with extremists in Iraq. We warned in 2012 that Iraq and Syria would become one conflict,” said former U.S. ambassador to Syria Robert Ford. “We highlighted the competition between rebel groups on the ground, and we warned if we didn’t help the moderates, the extremists would gain.”

  58. Krauthammer:


    Missing the Big Picture
    The president’s foreign policy is defined by a total absence of strategic thinking.

    “Great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.”

    – Hillary Clinton, The Atlantic, August 10

    Leave it to Barack Obama’s own former secretary of state to acknowledge the fatal flaw of his foreign policy: a total absence of strategic thinking.

    Mind you, Obama does deploy grand words proclaiming grand ideas: the “new beginning” with Islam declared in Cairo, the reset with Russia announced in Geneva, global nuclear disarmament proclaimed in Prague (and playacted in a Washington summit). Untethered from reality, they all disappeared without a trace.

    When carrying out policies in the real world, however, it’s nothing but tactics and reactive improvisation. The only consistency is the president’s inability (unwillingness?) to see the big picture.

  59. freespirit

    August 15, 2014 at 9:35 am


    yes, freespirit…this is what Hill’s people need to do…drip, drip, drip…get it all out…

    not to keep bringing up Marc Ginsberg…but if you check out those c-span clips above he ties it together very nicely…

    he, as a Democrat, definitely states that O’s admin and foreign policy are the most politicized of any presidency…and all the decisions have to go to Valerie Jarret before they make it to O…

    O is not a leader…he doesn’t have the guts to make the “Hard Choices”, instead it is all about appearance and politics with his admin…and now we and the world can see what results his “leading from behind” have produced

    …now we know why Hillary titled her book “Hard Choices”…

    she has been way too gracious in view of how bad things evolved…

  60. S
    August 15, 2014 at 7:14 am

    the leaks are beginning…(thought I saw another article linking this ‘leak’ to Hill’s camp in Newsweek but could not find it)

    S foe sure 🙂

  61. S
    August 15, 2014 at 7:14 am

    the leaks are beginning…(thought I saw another article linking this ‘leak’ to Hill’s camp in Newsweek but could not find it)

    S for sure Yes 🙂

  62. A choir boy.

    An innocent victim of racist white police.

    A justification for days of rage.

    Proof that we are a racist society.

    That is what the NAACP will tell you.

    That is what HuffPo and WashPo reporters/agitators will say.

    But just how innocent is the victim?

    Did he not rob the store and put the clerk in imminent fear of bodily harm, moments earlier?

    Not so says HuffPo, WashPo and NAACP!

    Oh why not?

    Because it does not fit their narrative.

    Since there is a conflict in opinion . . .

    Let’s go to the instant replay camera:

    From the time AA protestors crossed the bridge in Selma to protests over this?

    Is this what the NAACP has come to?


    I am just asking.

    Granted, the information to date is preliminary.

    We will not know the full truth until we hear from the officer, and know more about the circumstances surrounding the actual shooting.

    But no one who lives in the same world as most of us, will doubt the probative value of the security video.

    It goes to the question of whether the officer may have been in imminent fear himself before he discharged his weapon.

  63. Think back to the Travon Martin shooting.

    MSNBC super star Al Sharpton was there promoting violence.

    And NBC twisted the facts to fit their preconceived narrative.


    By calling the assailant a “white” Hispanic.

    Had they called him just a Hispanic, it would have been an altercation between two minorities.

    Question: how can anyone in their right mind trust big media who engages in such deception in order to light a fuse.

    Not surprisingly, this comes from the same network that rigged a GM truck to explode on camera and got their asses sued over it.

    Same question.

  64. Admin
    A stunning article from a Hillary ally. The DailyKooks will go full Koo-koo on this one.

    Dang, I was hoping to see a battle of the Obots in the comments sections, but didn’t see anywhere to post. It was going to be my Friday brunch delight.

  65. I think everybody in Washington is looking for an exit where Obama is concerned.

    Seriously, after 6 years of pure bafoonery, they can’t find an issue to jump off the Titanic?

  66. Admin, what did you say about Hillary not answering the phone when Barry called –

    Hillary Clinton alienates liberals with harsh critique of Obama foreign policy


    After her harsh critique of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy in an interview published last week, the two talked by phone Tuesday and met in person Wednesday at a private party on Martha’s Vineyard. The White House said the president and first lady “were happy to have the chance to spend time” with Mrs. Clinton.


  67. Oh I bet MO was so delighted to spend time with Hillary at a private party.

    And I am sure that BO was giggling like a little 10-year-old girl, when he threatened to keep his minions from supporting her in 2016 if she doesn’t STFU.

  68. Shadowfax
    August 15, 2014 at 1:25 pm
    I think everybody in Washington is looking for an exit where Obama is concerned.

    Seriously, after 6 years of pure bafoonery, they can’t find an issue to jump off the Titanic?
    The problem is, they can’t swim.

    Harvard degrees don’t float–at least not in the water.

    But now, as the ship of state groans and leans hard to port, as the engine room floods, and seawater rises above the gunwales, they are looking for a lifeboat/

    I would give that lifeboat to the people in steerage before I gave it to them.

    They need to know how to swim, and there is no time like the present.

    The sharks will not attack them–professional courtesy.

  69. president and first lady “were happy to have the chance to spend time”

    more like a slap happy rappy and crap happy pappy—michelle and messiah.

  70. When carrying out policies in the real world, however, it’s nothing but tactics and reactive improvisation. The only consistency is the president’s inability (unwillingness?) to see the big picture.
    There is ample precedent for what Obama has failed to do:

    “If you hear of Philip (of Sparta) in the Chersonese, you vote an expedition there, if at Thermopylae, you vote one there. You take your marching orders from him; you have never formed any plan of campaign yourself; never foreseen any event until you learn that something is happening . . . our business is not to speculate on what the future may bring forth, but to be certain that it will bring disaster, unless you face the facts and consent to do your duty”.

    (Demosthenes to the Athenian Senate, First Philipic , 41, 47, 50. Quoted by Major General JFC Fuller, the inventor of the doctrine of Blietzkreig, in his seminal book The Conduct of War, at page 318)/

  71. When carrying out policies in the real world, however, it’s nothing but tactics and reactive improvisation. The only consistency is the president’s inability (unwillingness?) to see the big picture
    Beyond that however Charles misses the fundamental point. There is a strategy here, only it is not a military one. It is a political strategy designed to prop up an ineffective leader, and bamboozle the American People, with the able assistance of big media. Then end result of this administration/Obama connived political strategy is lost victories.

  72. I don’t recall if Rahm and Barry parted on good or bad terms, but some of their poll numbers pair up. 🙂

    Tribune poll: Emanuel flunking on school leadership
    POSTED 8:20 AM, AUGUST 15, 2014, BY JUDY WANG, UPDATED AT 08:58AM, AUGUST 15, 2014
    Snip Broken down by race, the poll suggests that 38% of white voters approve of Emanuel’s performance; but only 14% of black voters approve.
    Parents of public school kids gave Emanuel just a 19% approval rating.
    And in what may be a key indicator of Emanuel’s re-election prospects, 62% of people side with the Chicago Teachers Union — only 23% support the mayor — in the debate over how to improve Chicago’s schools.
    That is especially important, since CTA president Karen Lewis is considering a run for mayor, and some polls show her already leading Emanuel.

  73. A Friday laugh:


    Al Gore Sues Al Jazeera for Withholding Money From Sale of Current TV
    Attorney David Boies also blasts Al Jazeera for making sure the complaint has been filed under seal

    Current TV co-founders Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have launched a fraud and breach-of-contract lawsuit claiming that Al Jazeera is withholding money from its $500 million purchase of the cable news network.

    The complaint was filed under seal in the Delaware Court of Chancery, but information provided reveals that the plaintiffs are seeking $65 million held in escrow.

    Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore is being represented by David Boies, the attorney who memorably represented him in the 2000 battle over a Florida election recount.

    “Al Jazeera America wants to give itself a discount on the purchase price that was agreed to nearly two years ago,” said Boies in a statement. “We are asking the Court to order Al Jazeera America to stop wrongfully withholding the escrow funds that belong to Current’s former shareholders.”

    According to Boies, the plaintiff is also filing the case under seal with some objection.

    “We do not believe that our complaint should be sealed,” he says. “However, despite being a news organization, Al Jazeera America has said that the full complaint should be kept from the public file. We have therefore filed the complaint under seal until the Court can resolve this issue. We expect that the Court will reject Al Jazeera America’s argument.”

    The announcement that Current TV would be sold to Al Jazeera came in January 2013. It was believed at the time that the Qatari royal family, which owns Al Jazeera, was most interested in attaining Current’s favorable distribution deals with cable and satellite TV providers. However, since the deal was made, Al Jazeera America has faced litigation from AT&T and DirecTV. In both cases, Al Jazeera has fought hard to keep details of the lawsuits under wraps.

    Al Jazeera America also was dropped by Time Warner Cable for a time, but eventually returned to that service.

    When launching, Al Jazeera America went on an aggressive hiring spree. However, its ambitions have been dampened by weak ratings, sometimes falling below Current’s. Nevertheless, the cable news network has made waves, most recently in Ferguson, Missouri, where it called for an investigation into media mistreatment after seeing its reporters in the vicinity of tear gas. The network called that an “egregious assault on freedom of the press.”

    When Gore sold Current to Al Jazeera, the climate change activist faced tough questions from the likes of Comedy Central host Jon Stewart for choosing to sell to an oil-rich Middle Eastern nation.

    “I’m proud of the transaction,” Gore responded. “It’s going to really be a positive addition to the U.S. media landscape.”

  74. We predicted back in 2009 that eventually the full truth about Obama will come from his once former friends when they write books. Joe Scarborough joins us years later.


    Joe Scarborough was a guest today, and got very specific about the president’s disconnectedness and the weakness of his staff, as well as the avalanche of negative memoirs heading his way.

    HH: Vice President Cheney, do they not get that the President should not be at Martha’s Vineyard right now?

    JS: Well, you know, we had Dana Milbank on who, again, not the most right wing columnist for the Washington Post, but Dana said it’s one thing for presidents going on vacation. We’re all big supporters of presidents going on vacation. It’s another thing to be in Martha’s Vineyard while you’ve got tanks rolling in Middle America, and all the Middle East melts down. This is a president that does go out of his way to show that he’s not paying attention to what anybody says. He’s going to do exactly what he wants to do, and he’s going to be stubborn about it. He is politically, he is either politically tone deaf or he just doesn’t give a damn. And I tend to believe based on everything I’ve heard from people who work inside the White House, and we’ve got a lot of friends there, and based on my friends who are senior Democratic senators, this president has checked out.

    HH: He is.

    JS: He wants to be the next, I hear it time and time again from his close political allies. This man wants to be an ex-president.

    HH: Yeah.

    JS: He doesn’t want to be there anymore.

    HH: He wants to get to his Carter Center phase, but he’s got two and a half years. I also wonder, Joe, you know how important staff is, whether it’s a Congressional office or all the way up to this staff that you don’t see on the set of Morning Joe.

    JS: Yeah.

    HH: He’s down to Valerie Jarrett. Everyone else is gone. And his national security team looks like they’d be about 16-18 years old. What, do you think that people won’t work for him? Or is he simply refusing to ask people of stature and competence to come and work for him?

    JS: The Obama administration and Valerie, I’ve got to say, I’m good friends with Valerie, too, but you know, Valerie and a lot of people around the White House said early on we don’t want to make new friends. I think it’s one of the biggest mistakes that any president can make. I think George W. Bush in large part made a lot of mistakes, because he was insulated. He had a lot of Yalies around him, and he didn’t want outsiders around him. I always looked to Ronald Reagan, who had James Baker trying to beat him in 1980. The second he beat George H.W. Bush, the first thing he did was hire James Baker and had James Baker run his campaign. And then he had James Baker on his White House, because he wasn’t afraid to have people around him who weren’t inside his bubble. This president wants yes men around him. And again, I hear that from my Democratic friends, I hear that from his own former chiefs of staff. If anybody steps out of line, they’re immediately insulated and pushed out. You know, I said this on set after the cameras were turned off to a couple of people who I knew wouldn’t say it on the air. I said guys, you know as well as I do that the second this administration is over, the books are going to come from former secretaries of state. The books are going to come from former chiefs of staff. The books are going to come, and this president is going to have to deal with 20-30 years of disparagement from his own side, calling him one of the least effective presidents, because he’s one of the most insulated presidents.

  75. Joe Scarborough

    Well, rumor has it that an invitation just arrived in Joe’s mailbox to attend a private party in Martha’s Vinyard. MO and Baracko will be delighted to see him.


  76. I will say that Joe S is absolutely correct, but then we here at Big Pink did know this years ago…

    but Joe S, imo, has proven himself to be a blatant self serving, two faced ‘boob’…I used to watch MJ in the AM to catch some dialogue and points of view…I cannot bare two seconds of him…he is so duplicitous

    on MJ he kisses O and all his friends at the WH’s you know what…and with HH he is trash talking O…

    in the past he loved Hillary, now he goes out of his way to point out every flaw he can think of and what a bad job she is doing…

    if she gets close to winning, he will be in love with “his girlfriend” again…

    I have lost all respect for him…


    on another note…wasn’t it just yesterday that O took to the cameras to declare that we saved the Yazidi and there would be no more need for humanitarian missions…

    and then…lo and behold…just today


    ISIS kills men, abducts women in Yazidi village, officials say

    By Anna Coren and Chelsea J. Carter, CNN

    updated 6:17 PM EDT, Fri August 15, 2014

    Zahko, Iraq (CNN) — Extremist fighters swept into a Yazidi village in northern Iraq on Friday, killing at least 80 men and taking more than 100 women captive, officials told CNN.

    The report of the brutal attack on the village of Kojo comes a day after U.S. President Barack Obama — citing the success of targeted American airstrikes — declared an end to an ISIS siege that had trapped tens of thousands of Yazidis in mountains.

    Fighters with the Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, attacked Kojo after having had it surrounded for days, a Kurdish regional government official and a religious Yazidi leader said.

    The women abducted from the village about 20 kilometers (12 miles) south of Sinjar were being taken to the ISIS-controlled northern cities of Mosul and Tal Afar, the official said.


    we have no leadership emanating from the WH…he should just resign, fake some illness, that disappears when he is free…he is useless

  77. Barack plans to return to DC for a day for a mystery mission, then resume vacay at Martha’s Vineyard. There was some speculation that the purpose of his return is to announce plans to issue an executive order regarding immigration. Some say this is unlikely. There is some concern that this brief return to work will draw criticism because of expensive transportation costs involved.


    August 13, 2014, 01:56 pm

    Why is Obama returning to Washington?

    By Justin Sink

    President Obama won’t make any major announcements on immigration reform during his secretive mid-vacation trip back to Washington next week, the White House said Wednesday.

    The president is expected to return to the White House on Sunday, but officials won’t say why Obama is taking the unusual, and costly, trip back to Washington. He’s expected to return to Martha’s Vineyard, where he’s been vacationing, on Tuesday.
    Speculation has circled around whether Obama might make an announcement of executive actions he’s taking on immigration reform, or a surprise visit from a foreign leader.

    But the White House is “not anticipating a major announcement on immigration when the president is in Washington,” spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters traveling with Obama in Massachusetts.

    Schultz did say that Obama will be meeting with Vice President Biden while he’s back in Washington. And Obama will be without both press secretary Josh Earnest, who is out on paternity leave, and Schultz, Earnest’s top deputy, while in the nation’s capital.

    “Eric Schultz is staying,” the spokesman quipped, dipping into the third person.

    Adding more mystery to the topic, Schultz said the administration did not “anticipate any major significant news developments out of Washington those few days.”

    But if the president is only coming back to meet with staff face-to-face, it could invite questions about wasting taxpayer dollars.

    According to Air Force documents obtained Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, the roundtrip travel expenses for the president’s 2013 vacation to Martha’s Vineyard totaled $1,164,268.

    A return to Washington merely to meet with staff would also seem to undercut assurances offered by the White House that the president is fully operational, even when vacationing away from the capital.

    Asked about partisan criticism of the vacation last Friday, Schultz noted Obama “travels with a wide array of communications equipment, and we also travel with a staff that allows us to have robust operational capabilities.”

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/215054-why-is-obama-returning-to-washington#ixzz3AYilOL48
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

  78. Is this guy smoking the good stuff of what?



    This time, it’s the Democrats who are united

    By Michael A. Cohen  |    AUGUST 16, 2014

    Last Saturday, while most political junkies were tucked comfortably in their beds, Hawaii Democrats were fighting a pitched battle for the soul of their party. The incumbent governor, Neil Abercrombie, was walloped by a little known state senator. Meanwhile, US senator Brian Schatz was barely fending off his own primary challenge from US Representative Colleen Hanabusa. Yet what was so surprising is that such a struggle even happened.
    In an election cycle in which Republicans are seemingly immersed in full-scale intra-party civil war, Democrats are keeping their powder dry. A party that used to be divided over the most primal issues in American politics — race, war, labor vs. business — is more unified than at any other time in recent history.

    When Democrats do tussle it’s on parochial issues. In Hawaii, it was about Abercrombie’s abrasive personality, his controversial appointment of Schatz to the Senate, and long-standing ethnic divides in the state. Other primary battles this year, such as the challenges to US representatives Charles Rangel in New York and John Tierney in Massachusetts, are as much about personality as ideology.
    It’s consistent with the 2008 presidential primary battle between President Obama and Hillary Clinton. While they disagreed over the war in Iraq, the ideological differences between the two were paper-thin. This was a fight about personality and temperament, and any hard feelings within the party quickly dissipated after Obama emerged victorious.
    Today, on issue after issue, there is striking unanimity among Democrats — on gay marriage and abortion; on tax increases for the wealthy; on protecting Social Security and Medicare; and on addressing income inequality. Indeed, President Obama’s ill-fated effort to strike a fiscal Grand Bargain with Republicans now seems like ancient history — a proposal unlikely to be floated by any Democrat in the foreseeable future.
    This newfound harmony is, ironically, a product of the nation’s growing political polarizations.

    This newfound harmony is, ironically, a product of the nation’s growing political polarizations. As the GOP has become more conservative, Democrats have found common cause against a shared political enemy. When Republicans rejected Obama’s efforts at creating a post-partisan presidency — and doubled down on mindless obstructionism — their actions had the effect of uniting Democrats in partisan fervor. That 60 Democrats could be held together in the Senate to support Obamacare was unprecedented — and this unanimity was driven, in large measure, by unanimous GOP opposition

  79. Oh, and, ah, dare I say it, a bit of a bitter partisan as well.

    I am so glad he loves Obama,

    And that now finally there is joy in Mudville.

    Just in time for the mid-term elections.

    And a dimocrat sweep of the House, the Senate and the governors offices.

    Shall I go on, Michal A.?

    Or is that enough choom for now.

    Just don’t try to drive home.

    You are a enough of a hazard to navigation, sitting right where you are.

    Whatever you do, don’t move.

    Hearts with one purpose alone.

    Through summer and winter seem.

    Enchanted to a stone.

    To trouble the living stream.

  80. Forgive me for being so un-observant.

    But he threw me off with those Clark Kent glasses.

    Stick a pair of wire rim glasses on Michael A. Cohen.

    And who have you got?

    A young Trotsky.

  81. freespirit
    August 16, 2014 at 9:22 am
    Is this guy smoking the good stuff of what?
    Possible immigration rift for Obama with Democrats. AP. 8/16/14.
    Snip “This is an issue that I believe should be addressed legislatively and not through executive order,” said Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., one of the top targets for Republicans trying to retake control of the Senate.
    Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., another vulnerable incumbent, said in a statement that he also is “frustrated with the partisanship in Washington. But that doesn’t give the president carte blanche authority to sidestep Congress when he doesn’t get his way.”
    Such statements have immigration advocates on edge.
    A coalition of advocacy groups, in a letter to congressional Democrats on Friday, said immigrant families should not have to wait until after the November elections for relief. The organizations said any attempts by Democrats to delay or dilute administrative changes “will be viewed as a betrayal of Latino and immigrant communities with serious and lasting consequences.”
    The letter was released because of advocates’ concerns that leading Senate Democrats may be shifting their positions because of political considerations after previously urging Obama to act.
    A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., declined to say Friday whether Schumer still believes Obama should act by October, as Schumer had said before. A spokesman for Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat, said the timing of executive action on immigration was up to Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman had no comment on timing.
    Still, Obama looks determined to move forward on his own despite the political risks for Democrats. Snip

  82. Admin: this article from one of the founders of the American Thinker blog, which leans right, has some very positive things to say about Hillary (compared to Obama), and they are well worth noting. (Note: it addition, it raised the possibility that Candy Crowley is on the take, which I have heard from other sources as well.)JBStonesfan, you will be interested in the author’s take on the steady erosion of support for Obama among Jewish voters.)

    “The last 18 months have put to rest any illusions that we have reached “the end of history” or that America can safely retreat, rely on multilateralism, significantly reduce the size of the military, and rely on Obama’s new grand strategy of “don’t do anything stupid” along with its corollary, “no boots on the ground, and especially not in Iraq.”

    Now, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has laid down her marker for the general election in 2016, ignoring any risk that her tougher line on foreign policy will antagonize the left in the Democratic Party (far stronger now than in 2000) and deny her the nomination one more time. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, Clinton argues that there is no grand strategy coming out of the White House, and a lot of caution, which could signal to both friends and foes an absence of resolve.

    This approach is now the toast of the left — from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to the New Yorker’s Steve Coll, both of whom are still obsessing about war for oil in Iraq, even when tens of thousands of defenseless members of non-Muslim ethnic groups are on the verge of vicious slaughter by the world’s worst jihadists. Blame Dick Cheney and Halliburton for all this. And some on the left are uneasy this week, since they hoped to never hear about Iraq any more, and only needed to become apoplectic about civilian casualties if they were in Gaza and Israel could be blamed.

    The bottom has fallen out of the public’s rating of the administration on foreign policy. The most recent Marist survey gives Obama a 32% approval rating for his foreign policy , almost ten points below his overall approval score.

    (There is) a growing unease among Americans that the president is disengaged, or has largely given up. When things are no longer easy (filibuster-proof majorities are gone, the seas are still rising, the earth is not healing), and he has no ability or inclination to work with Congress, another 18 holes or an attack on Republican “straw men” to well-heeled trial lawyers, investment bankers, or environmentalist donors might well seem appealing.

    Where is the president likely to get hurt the most by his new foreign policy woes? It is almost certain that the slow erosion of support among Jewish voters for Democrats will continue. This will certainly be the case for those concerned about the future of Israel and U.S.-Israel relations .

    Clinton argues that we should have armed the opposition in Syria when we could have influenced who the opposition was, that we underestimated ISIS and withdrew too quickly and completely from Iraq, that we should not agree to allow Iran to maintain its enrichment capability, and that we should not behave as a neutral party in the war between an ally, Israel, and a genocidal terrorist group like Hamas.

    Hillary Clinton is sounding a bit like Bill Clinton but even more like Joe Lieberman and John McCain. She is reflecting an older Democratic Party of Kennedy and LBJ, rather than the Carter/Obama/Oliver Stone approach that is now ascendant. The Obama administration thinks America has done more harm than good overseas, and that we should now do very little, other than engage with enemies who hate us (with good reason, of course) .

    What is interesting is that Hillary Clinton appears to believe differently — namely that a president is a leader, and leadership requires building the case for why resolve and engagement abroad matter and explaining the importance of understanding real threats, such as jihadist Islamists. Clinton has clearly decided that she will run as a traditional Democrat on foreign policy, not one who awaits the “peace dividend.”

    It is unlikely that President Obama, even after reading Clinton’s comments, will be rethinking his own vision in the sand trap on 11.


  83. foxyladi14

    August 16, 2014 at 1:07 pm
    Well, this is, after all, Austin. Years ago, another stellar prosecutor for that venue chased Kay Bailey Hutcheson until he finally got buried. The name Ronnie Earle sticks in my mind. This will blow up in the faces of these dimocrats. Already it is starting to unravel. A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, therefore this indictment is frivolous. Like I say, it will backfire.

  84. Well, foxy. Perry has wbb and now Cruz too 🙂
    Cruz: I’m ‘proud to stand with Rick Perry’
    …”Unfortunately, there has been a sad history of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office engaging in politically-motivated prosecutions, and this latest indictment of the governor is extremely questionable,” Cruz wrote on Facebook. “Rick Perry is a friend, he’s a man of integrity – I am proud to stand with Rick Perry. The Texas Constitution gives the governor the power to veto legislation, and a criminal indictment predicated on the exercise of his constitutional authority is, on its face, highly suspect….”

  85. Admin: when the left calls Hillary a neocon, her responses should be to say, I am protecting the nation, and doing the very thing JFK would have done in this situation. Remember, for example, his invocation of the Monroe doctrine and his willingness to play a game of brinksmanship against the Soviet Union over the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK’s record must therefore be studied in detail, to cull from it, specific examples where he stood tall. We must anticipate pushback from certain members of the Kennedy family, those who supported Obama, and have acquired the dubious status of trust fund babies. But other members of that clan are likely to welcome such favorable references to JFK which remind the nation of his leadership in a time of crisis, similar in some respect to ours. The added advantage of this approach is it frames the issue on terms conducive to her candidacy. In other words, the operative question becomes what would JFK have done, rather than what would Hussein Obama have done. In that sense, it boxes in the left, because if forces them to argue against not only Hillary but JFK. And where black people are concerned, it does the equivalent of what is done in a court room, i.e. using one expert to contradict another. In other words, using one icon, JFK, to contradict another icon, Obama, rather than relying on Bill, who Obama, the left and big media have tried to tarnish as a racist, even though unlike Obama he did much to advance the cause of blacks.

  86. Forty years ago, the day before he was indicted, I had lunch with a democrat politician at the Washington Athletic Club here in Seattle, to discuss how I might enter the political process. He asked me why I was interested in doing that and I said because I value public service, or something similarly stupid. Yes, a rube, just like Michael A. Cohen, without the Trotsky schtict. And he called me on it. He said, this game is not about public service. We politicians all say it is, but it is all about power and money. He then pulled out his billfold (not to pay the bill, that was my charge)but to reveal a list of the companies he had bought, or acquired an interest in through his “political connections’, which in some cases involved carrying a bag, which was the reason for his demise exactly one day later.

    plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose

    We need some kind of a working model to understand how the system of corruption operates. That is important because the way it is explained to us today, in terms of parties and personalities is materially misleading. Despite many other interactions with the political system, with both political parties, nothing, and I mean nothing so fixated my mind as the agony of seeing how hard it is to make a difference and how easy it is for a corrupt big media to blind the American People to what is in their best interest.

    Here is the way the system operates today, as I see it. And if I am right, or even half right, you can see just how impossible it will be to change the system from within. The answer lies in the grass roots, and recognizing the false flags which the establishment has planted in the topsoil of our politics, particularly on the left. To me, the Rube Goldberg schematic looks roughly like this:

    1. multi national corporations, and increasingly, the donor class, decide which political issues matter to them in terms of their one, three and five year plan. Typically these issues involve special favors, avoidance of regulations that plague their competitors, and other examples of crony capitalism, or utopian drivel.

    2. those corporations then communicate those priorities to their retained lobbyists along with the money needed to buy votes.

    3. those lobbyists meet with the leaders of congress and the administration at the beginning of the year, pitch those priorities in terms of how they will make the party look good, and how much money they will get for supporting them. Those monies are then placed in escrow.

    4. congressional leaders then decide how much each senator or congressman in his party will get for supporting the bill. The senators get more money than the representatives because it costs more to run a senate campaign, and the payback is for six years as opposed to just two. Also, the bigger the name, the more the money. (Note: this is similar to what we see with Lloyds of London, or the stock market. If you get a big player to sign on–to underwrite the risk, in this case, the political risk, then the smaller fish will sign on, and you can complete the slip).

    5. the majority leader brings a bill up for a vote, the members are told how to vote, and within five days of voting the way they are told to, a check is deposited in their campaign coffers.

    6. the monies in the campaign coffers accumulate over time, and when election time rolls around they are paid in the billions to big media for air time to run campaign ads. And that is how big media is corrupted and why no one in their right mind believes that the job of government is to promote the general welfare, will trust them. They are strictly bought and paid for.

    I live for the day that young Trotsky wakes up and sees what is happening. He is a rube.

  87. If that is how the system really operates, then it become obvious why the political establishment fears people like Hillary, or people like Ted Cruz.

    When Cruz shut down government for a few days, you would think the world had ended based on the reaction of both wings of the establishment vulture.

    Oh, sure, there was a problem with the short term strategy, but the long term strategy–defeating Obamacare, was unassailable– if you believe the Republican hype that they are determined to kill Obamacare–which they are not.

    During that episode, I acquired a keen dislike for Bob Corker who is the junior senator from Tennessee. He was savage in his attacks on Cruz. Why? Was it the strategy or was it something else. To answer that question, I consulted map light, and learned that as a junior seanator, in office for only four years, he collected a whopping 12 million from financial industry and health care lobbyist. There is no indication he represents the electorate, but as long as he can use lobbyist money to attack his adversary and pretend to be something he is not, he’s feted.

Comments are closed.