Today we recall the rotted corpse of Elizabeth Edwards. We all remember Elizabeth don’t we? In the 2008 election cycle we rarely wrote about the John Edwards campaign other than to toss compliments to Mrs. John Edwards. We lived to realize how wrong we had been in our compliments to Elizabeth Edwards. We lived to begin to understand how toxic a schemer Elizabeth Warren Edwards was. We learned that few schemers and scam artists match Mr. and Mrs. John Edwards.
But in 2008 there were many idiots who loved John Edwards. Years earlier we had attended some John Edwards speeches so we realized how charming a weasel he was in person. Even as we admired Edwards for his suave personality we knew there was something very wrong with him and we fled.
But in 2008 many people were taken in by John Edwards and listened to the testimony on his behalf by his wife Elizabeth Edwards. Eventually as the Edwards campaign collapsed (we provided the reasons for that collapse in our analysis from years ago) most of those supporters ran into the lying arms of Barack Obama. Some fools will never learn.
But in 2008 many people believed and trusted Mr. and Mrs. John Edwards. The toxic waste dump called Elizabeth Edwards used her disease and the public sympathy caused by her situation to attack Hillary Clinton in the most personal terms. The shameless Elizabeth Edwards who was aware of her hubby’s wandering penis even dared say that her marriage was happier than the Clinton marriage.
Whether the Edwards marriage was or was not as happy as the Clinton marriage it certainly was not as long lasting. We don’t particularly care about the happiness level of married couples or what goes on in the private life of others. If Elizabeth Edwards had restricted her public comments to delusions about her husbands fidelity we would not be writing about her sordid life today. But toxic Elizabeth Edwards had much more to say:
Elizabeth Edwards offers sharp critique of Hillary
John Edwards would be a better women’s President than Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Edwards said yesterday, trashing the New York senator as too quiet on feminist issues and too muddled on abortion.
Edwards, the cancer-stricken wife of White House hopeful John Edwards, took her shots at Clinton in an interview yesterday before she, Clinton and another 2008 competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, spoke to a Planned Parenthood convention.
“Keeping [the] door open to women is actually more a policy of John’s than Hillary’s,” Elizabeth Edwards, a lawyer, told Salon.com.
But she said she was sympathetic to Clinton and understood, from her own dealings with male lawyers, why Clinton might not focus on women’s issues.
“You want to reassure them you’re as good as a man. And sometimes you feel you have to behave as a man and not talk about women’s issues,” Edwards said.
Edwards, who is fighting terminal breast cancer, said that Clinton, aside from being a woman, has offered no reason for people to vote for her.
“When she announced her candidacy she said, ‘I’m in it to win it.’ What is that? That’s not a rationale,” Edwards said.
She also slapped Clinton for what the senator does say on women’s issues, particularly on abortion. Clinton has tried to soothe religious voters by focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies and describing her stance as keeping abortion “safe, legal and rare.”
“I don’t think we should muddle the language,” Edwards said. “The wiggle room in what she says makes me feel uncomfortable.”
The Clinton campaign declined to comment, although Clinton herself promised during her campaign rollout that she’d “deck” any opponent who attacked her. She also has declined to counter Rudy Giuliani and Obama. [snip]
Obama, who campaigns on the theme of change, suggested the country has moved beyond the “culture wars” that dominated politics in the Clinton years.
“I am absolutely convinced that the cuture [sic] wars are just so ’90s,” he said. “It is time to turn the page. We want a new day here in America.”
Obama’s promise to “turn the page” is certainly a laugh today but when we mocked his “turn the page” crap then it was we who were mocked. Likewise the Clinton campaign refusal to attack Obama with the vigor we suggested is lamentable when viewed from today. Hillary’s rational voice in 2008 as compared to the Obama style nonsense emitted today is a head scratcher which will be paid for in blood during the general election. But the most startling of all the statements from that 2007 article belong to Elizabeth Edwards.
Today, something called Quinn Mulholland puts on Elizabeth Edwards’ dusty dress, and in Harvard Political Review asksWhy Not Martin O’Malley?:
Both reflect a deep concern that all Americans don’t have an equal shot at prosperity. Both demonstrate a growing opposition to the centrist Democratic policies of the Clinton era—the trade policies and the welfare reform—that seemed to mostly benefit the wealthiest Americans.
Yet it is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who has a proven record of accomplishing real progress on these issues on a state level. It is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who became the first major Democratic politician to endorse a national $15 minimum wage at the Institute of Politics on Thursday. And it is Martin O’Malley, not Elizabeth Warren, who is seriously considering challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
So why have political pundits come to the consensus that Elizabeth Warren is the only one who could give Hillary a run for her money in the Democratic primary? Perhaps it is O’Malley’s lack of name recognition. He is currently polling at around 0.3 percent in the Iowa Democratic Caucus, compared to Clinton’s 58 percent, and Warren’s 17 percent. But that number is increasing, and O’Malley received a warm reception in recent trips to New Hampshire and Iowa.
Not content to only wear Elizabeth Edwards’ old dresses, this Mulholland character puts on her lipstick and makeup as well. As if a fowl-like transvestite character from the film Psycho Mulholland speaks the words in the voice of Mrs. John Edwards:
Perhaps it is because O’Malley is not a woman. While a first female president would certainly be a symbolic victory for women, it is unclear that a Clinton presidency would produce many tangible benefits for women. In fact, in terms of policy, O’Malley seems to have proposed just as many, if not more, policies to help women as Clinton has. At the Harvard Institute of Politics, O’Malley declared, “We must recognize that policies that are good for women and families, like paid leave and safe and affordable child care, are also good for our national economy, and for economic growth, because when women succeed, our American economy also succeeds.”
O’Malley also proclaimed his support for a federal $15 minimum wage, which would give a much-needed raise to the 3 million Americans who work at or below minimum wage, 62 percent of whom are women. Clinton has voiced her support for fast food workers striking for a higher wage, but she has yet to establish how much of an increase in the minimum wage she would support. Despite his gender, O’Malley could be the candidate that would make the biggest difference for women. [snip]
Clinton will be nowhere near as “inevitable” in the general presidential election as she was in the Democratic primary, assuming—perhaps prematurely—that she wins it. She will have to face voters on the left concerned with her ties to Wall Street and her flip-flopping on gay marriage and immigration, as well as voters on the right who will have been inundated with anti-Hillary attacks for months. Perhaps America is ready for a genuinely populist Martin O’Malley campaign. O’Malley certainly appears to be ready.
Martin O’Malley is scheduled to announce he is running for president at the end of this month. Thus far Martin O’Malley has made two contributions to the 2016 debate.
The first Martin O’Malley contribution to the 2016 discussion has been to dredge up every horrible consequence of left wing kook control of America’s cities. We call him “Baltimore O’Malley” as those initial letters befit O’Malley’s Barack Obama style boobery.
A different type of boobery is Martin O’Malley’s second “achievement” this early in the 2016 campaign cycle. Martin O’Malley can’t seem to keep his shirt on.
Chelsea’s baby Charlotte is already on the job. The little babe is already hard at work to help her memaw on her mother’s side.
What has the little one done? Well, like a brilliant comic, like a masterful symphonic conductor, it’s all in the timing. Little Charlotte arrived just in time.
Consider, the latest polls that show Obama Dimocrats about to lose badly this November. Consider the latest Barack Obama “blame the staff” performance against the nation’s intelligence services. Consider the beheadings in the middle east and the beheading in Oklahoma which are all the product of brazen terrorists. Consider the dried rose that is the “War on Women” tactic and the rise of the “security moms”. Consider too all the worldwide Hell breaking loose, which now includes Hong Kong. Consider all that and the consequences for the November 2014 elections which are now a teensy-weensy bit more than a month away (even as early voting in Iowa has started and early voting starts in some other states this very week). Would you want to be tied to this mess?
That, in short, has been the predicament Hillary Clinton has found herself in. A lot of kooks on the left have been on full whine lately that Hillary is not doing much to help Obama Dimocrats this election cycle. And for once the Kooks are correct.
Aside from some measured assistance to those that supported Hillary in 2008 Bill and Hillary have not exactly been tearing up the runways for this November’s elections. Bill and Hillary, Hillary and Bill, are paying political debts and doing some pro forma events. But they are certainly not engaged in a whirlwind tour for Dims in which they would only twist themselves into a loser narrative.
That was the dream. The dream of those that stabbed Hillary in the back and called Bill Clinton a “racist” in 2008 was that popular Bill and popular Hill would carry their water up the hill in state after state in a series of ceaseless campaign events. After that the same vipers would not care if Hill and Bill rolled down the hill soaked from the pail of water they carried.
That is what Hillary and Bill were supposed to do. Hillary and Bill were supposed to stop the disaster by covering for Barack H. Obama. But Hillary and Bill must not take the blame from the coming disaster authored and starring Barack H. Obama. Why should they?
Now the leftist kooks are all atwitter and noisy and angry that Bill and Hill and Hill and Bill find themselves otherwise occupied. Barack Obama is as welcome in many states as Ebola at a sauna. Bill and Hill are popular but where are they?
Now, little Charlotte has come along and Hillary and Bill have a perfect excuse to do as little as possible this October as early voting hits full stride across the nation. It’s not like Hillary is about to freeze-frame herself as Whistler’s Mother. Both Bill and Hill will do some events to keep the yapping dogs at bay but mostly they now can say “the baby”. Ah, “the baby”. “Sorry, we’re busy, you see…uh… the baby….”
The discussion of the crazy peoples view featured comrades fresh from the climate change march in New York and assorted OFA kooks. These kooks indulged themselves with attacks against Hillary Clinton and in praise of Elizabeth Warren.
There was one person, who appropriately self-identifies as “Insipid”, who began by attacking good ol’ Big Pink. Yup, our cute pink website. Well, this Insipid person claimed to have been an Hillary Clinton supporter in 2008. “Insipid” knowing the full facts about Baracko back in 2008 immediately ignored the facts about Barack H. Obama and his race-baiting misogynistic campaign and “HAPPILY” went whole hog for bam-bam.
After a bit of Hillary bashing from the supposed supporter and then claims that there are no differences between Hillary and Baracko “Insipid” got testy with the other kooks. It then got ugly. You will have to read the full exchange for the full laughs and to observe what happens when even the slightest kind words amidst a lot of bashing of Hillary will elicit from the Barack Obama crowd. Oh, and don’t miss the back and forth about Hillary not doing much during this 2014 election. “Insipid” argues Hillary is all out for Dims but the truth is Hillary is mostly all out of this election cycle. Smart lady.
The insipid and the clueless cult of Barack Obama witnessed at that comedy site are not alone. Those brainiacs are not even the most dangerous. Consider the Rosemary’s Babies a.k.a. Occupy Wall Street. Remember them?
Occupy Wall Street posed as an egalitarian group of pure democracy advocates who made decisions from the ground up, direct democracy. Remember how they used to say they had no leaders? Ha! We mocked them repeatedly at the time. Occupy Wall Street was a phony Obama re-election operation disguised as a populist movement. Once the election was over and the attacks on Wall Street Mitt Romney no longer needed Occupy Wall Street descended into an even bigger joke.
The People Who Organized Occupy Wall Street Are Now Suing Each Other
The movement descends into litigation. “We can either go and beat him up or we can go to court.” [snip]
WASHINGTON — Activists who organized the dormant Occupy Wall Street movement are suing another activist for control of the main Twitter account, and one of the plaintiffs says there was no other option but to turn to litigation to solve the dispute.
The conflict centers around @OccupyWallStNYC, one of the main Twitter feeds that distributed information during the movement’s heyday in 2011. The OWS Media Group filed a lawsuit against organizer Justin Wedes on Wednesday, which is also the third anniversary of the beginning of Occupy Wall Street. The group, led by activist Marisa Holmes, is seeking control of the Twitter account as well as $500,000 in damages.
The Twitter account, which used to be shared among several activists, is now under the control of Wedes, who explained his decision to take over the Twitter feed in a blog post in August:
In the kingdom of the blind kooks the one-eyed kook is king. So much for “no leaders”.
The kook kingdom is now underground and in full JournoList mode. You do remember JournoList right? It was the listserv of “impartial” journalists that protected Barack Obama in 2008 and attacked Hillary Clinton and John McCain and especially Sarah Palin.
Emails sent by liberal activists and obtained by The Hill reveal significant dissatisfaction with Hillary Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016.
The critical messages about the former first lady show that she has a long way to go to assuage skepticism from influential voices on the left.
The Hill reviewed hundreds of emails from a progressive members only Google group called the “Gamechanger Salon,” a forum where nearly 1,500 activists, strategists and journalists debate issues and craft messaging campaigns.
The group includes prominent Democrats, Sierra Club officials, journalists who work for The Huffington Post and The Nation magazine, senior union representatives, leaders at the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and the president of NARAL.
Over a thousand kooks all out to protect Barack Obama and attack anyone who mocks the ONE. It’s 2008 all over again.
Barack Obama and his minions will do everything in their power to destroy Hillary Clinton and make sure she does not get the nomination in 2016 let alone the presidency.
There is no way that the crazed Obama left is going to go back to the hated paradigm of clinton-bush-clinton-bush interrupted by Obama for clinton-bush years. The crazed left minions might think they love Hillary Clinton now, but wait until their overlords decide they will oppose Hillary and the minions will fall back into the Hillary hate line.
The crazed Obama left is not going to have Hillary Clinton, THE CLINTONS, be the culmination of their revolution by having Hillary inherit the mantle of Obama. The left might be crazed but it is not stupid and the leadership of the totalitarian Obama left is not about to surrender its power to Hillary and Bill and Terry and the hated DLC.
The President of NARAL is part of this secret smear campaign. In 2008 NARAL endorsed John Edwards for president in 2008. NARAL endorsed Barack Obama once Edwards was out. NARAL endorse a pro-choice woman for president? NEVER. Now NARAL, often helped by Hillary Clinton, is part of a secret group to smear Hillary. You better watch your back and learn Hillary.
Clinton’s too much of a hawk, too cozy with Wall Street, hasn’t spoken out enough on climate change, and will be subject to personal questions and criticisms, members of the group stated in the emails.
The existence of the group was reported earlier this year by the conservative outlet MediaTrackers.org, but this is the first time the emails have become public.
“[A] Clinton presidency undos [sic] all our progress and returns the financial interests to even more prominence than they currently have,” Melissa Byrne, an activist with the Occupy Wall Street movement, said in a November 2013 email.
Melissa knows when she is about to be made more extinct that she already is. All her comrades will occupy the same tombs. The Kooks know we are right and they are slated for a beheading, ISIS/Oklahoma style:
The progressives expressed an appetite for an alternative to Clinton to teach her — and those from the centrist wing of the party — a lesson.
Liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has repeatedly said she won’t run for president, but some on the left aren’t convinced.
“The establishment Dems need to be punished, and the best way for that to happen is for Warren to beat Hillary in the primary on a populist message,” Carl Gibson, a progressive activist and writer for Occupy.com, wrote in one email.
Even though months have passed since the emails were sent, the sentiment remains.
It’s almost like a 2008 reunion. Anyone remember Mike Lux? He’s the kook that started OpenLeft because other anti-Hillary sites were too tame. We used to mock OpenLeft as NothingLeft and now the nothing left is back:
Mike Lux, a prominent strategist and an active member of the group, told The Hill that the concerns haven’t changed and operatives “are probably more worried at this point rather than less.”
The hate is strong in this troll.
As MediaTrackers.org has written it is not just Occupy Wall Street totalitarians on Gamechanger Salon. CNN, Reuters and other Big Media contributors participate in these secret cabals of corrupt commentators who wish to usurp the people’s political process with their schemes and smears.
Conversations with a half-dozen of the members of Gamechanger Salon this week confirm that the angst within parts of the progressive movement has only grown.
“There’s good reason to believe the discontent remains the same,” Neil Sroka, spokesman for Democracy for America and another group member, told The Hill.
Much of the exasperation with Clinton hinged on the former New York senator’s vote for the Iraq War, which is still toxic for many progressives. Clinton has since said her vote was a mistake.
Charles Lenchner, a progressive operative and executive director of Organizing 2.0, said Clinton — and anyone else who voted for the Iraq War — is “tainted.”
“And personally, I would like to see a Democratic Party where folks who enabled George Bush to drag the country into a permanent war are punished at the ballot box,” he said in an interview.
Ryan Clayton, a left-leaning commentator and strategist, wrote in a July 2013 email, “The more Progressives I talk to, the more people tell me that they’ll never forgive her for voting for the Iraq War… and won’t even vote for her in the general.”
Another area of irritation is the economic policies instituted by her husband, former President Clinton, that some progressives say contributed to the financial collapse. Lux, a former Clinton administration aide, wrote in an email that while he didn’t think she was involved in crafting economic policy as first lady, he’s concerned about her relationship with Wall Street.
“I also came to know how close she was to the pro-Wall Street forces inside the administration and out, and the downsides on foreign policy are all very real. So I will hesitate for a long time before jumping into her campaign,” Lux wrote in a group email.
Byrne, the Occupy activist, later declared in an email this year: “I have little respect for decisions Sec. Clinton has made in her career and I have a different value set from her.”
One of Clinton’s biggest critics among the group is Guy Saperstein, a major Democratic donor and part owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team.
In emails, Saperstein called a report out in December of last year that Clinton offered a “reassuring” message to Goldman Sachs executives “horrific,” and slammed her for “ducking a lot of issues, like the Keystone pipeline.”
He also raised questions about her leadership at the State Department and referenced “the type of intimidation the Clintons want to quietly promote [in the velvet glove, of course].”
Saperstein expressed concerns that voters would begin to speculate over her personal life and relationship with her husband.
“None of that would be helpful to her candidacy,” he wrote.
It’s all there. The Hillary-Dillery-Dyke innuendo from Saperstein. The economic “values” arguments from Occupy Wall Street types who are busy fighting for dollars in the courts near Wall Street. And then there is the foolishness about the Iraq vote we answered years ago. And why voting against the AUMF would have been foolish we have also discussed back in 2007.
What is most comic about the Iraq vote and the left is the amnesia about others (Botox John Kerry for instance) who voted for the AUMF and those who supported a “yes” vote (um, Al Gore a favorite of the nothingleft).
What do these kooks really want? They want Hillary to bow down to them in the same way Barack Obama bows down to foreign despots.
In interviews and emails, members of the group expressed a near-universal concern — that still prevails — that if Clinton doesn’t take steps to appease the progressive wing of the party, it could be damaging to her chances in 2016.
Gibson wrote in an email, “another establishment pick from a political dynasty family will drive folks to the green party.”
Clayton suggested in an email from January of this year that without a more liberal alternative to Clinton, the party would splinter: “if we have no Progressive candidate with legitimate street cred about taking effective bold action to face the vital issues we’re confronting as a country today (which is pretty much Warren and … cricket, cricket…) in the race for Presidency, that means the abandonment of the Democratic Party by the reemerging and resurgent Left in America.” [snip]
“They’ll either vote for the Green Party of just sit out. That’s a really big aspect of progressive voters’ strategy” to have their voices heard, he said.
Ha! They’re threatening to go PUMA! News to the crackpot left: your species of PUMA has long been extinct. They died off with Ralph Nader in 2000.
What the crackpot nothingleft will not accept is that it is over for them. Their golden calf, Barack Obama is nothing but political Ebola. Even the Republicans realize it.
Throughout the party’s infrastructure, Republicans say that linking Clinton with Obama, especially labeling her possible 2016 campaign as “Obama’s Third Term,” is the most potent attack. [snip]
“Hillary Clinton has a Barack Obama problem,” reads a lengthy research document that will go out to GOP pundits, strategists, conservative organizations and media members Tuesday. “No matter how many of her advisors whisper to reporters that she’s different from Barack Obama, Americans still know who she is: Barack Obama Part Deux.”
The document lists “10 Reasons Why Clinton 2016 = Obama’s Third Term,” including her praise for Obama as she left the State Department in 2013, her role in his first four years of foreign policy and Clinton’s support of Obamacare.
“Looking ahead to 2016, it’s critical that Obama’s 3rd Term is an element of the broader narrative defining Sec. Clinton, especially since she still has a higher approval than he does,” Tim Miller, the group’s director, said in a statement to CNN. [snip]
Therefore, it is something they plan to continue in the coming months and possibly years.
Democrats, too, are concerned about the attack line. In August, some close to Clinton told CNN that labeling the former secretary of state as the successor to Obama’s legacy was a possible problem.
Obama is political Ebola. Hillary should do as we suggested with even more force and vigor. That’s the way to win.
Warning! Another publicity stunt tomorrow! Barack Obama, as usual before every one of his many vacations, will perform at a press conference publicity stunt. The press conference publicity stunt is scheduled on a midsummer Friday so that when Obama proves himself a boob, again, the news or lack of news will be lost to the public because Big Media will have an excuse to ignore the gaffes sure to come. After the publicity stunt Barack goes to Elysium to meet with hypocrite and idiot Matt Damon.
We’ve discussed the once pretty boy, Matt, back in 2011. Our article then was titled Matt Damon Proves He Is Too Stupid To Be Allowed To Criticize Sarah Palin (fun videos to be watched there). Pretty boy Matt of course used to be a big stupid Obama supporter in 2008 and attacked every woman who dared challenge giving Barack Obama more authority than getting Bill Clinton coffee. Now Matt is getting paunchy, bald, and grumpy, – not to mention more hypocritical and idiotic than ever. Paunchy is now so grumpy he is even unhappy with Barack.
But there was a time when the boy blunder used to love himself some Barack. Did you read our last article about Obama’s Face? It’s not just that “milky loads” pig Andrew Sullivan nor overly botoxed horse-face John Kerry that loved Obama’s Face. Then pretty Matt Damon had this to say about Barack, “I think a lot of the problems in the world would be mitigated if he were the face of our country.” That’s not exactly an example of what Matt condescendingly calls “higher order thinking” is it?
We’ll get back to Matt Damon and his meeting with Barack in Elysium shortly. We need to bid good riddance to Barack as he goes on his latest multimillion taxpayer subsidized vacation. Barack Obama, like his mentor Jeremiah Wright, who shouted ‘na, na, na, Not God bless America, God Damn America’ on the Sunday after September 11, 2001 and then moved to a gated community and into a mansion so big it has an elevator in it, Obama knows where to get his buns butttered.
“When he vacations on Martha’s Vineyard, President Obama will stay at the $7.6 million home of a wealthy financier who specializes in corporate restructuring, the type of thing Obama and his allies mercilessly slammed Mitt Romney for during the 2012 campaign.
The owner, David Schulte, is the founder of Chilmark Partners, a company that has been “been providing companies, creditors, and other key stakeholders with clear, careful advice in complex restructuring situations for more than 27 years,” according to its website. The firm also “has decades of mergers and acquisition experience, both in distressed contexts and for healthy companies.” Schulte “has more than 30 years of restructuring experience” and before Chilmark “created and ran Salomon Brothers Corporate Reorganization Group.”
Bain Capital, which Romney led, took controlling stakes in companies and restructured them – sometimes painfully – in an effort to profit from a newly lean and mean corporation. For this basic exercise in capitalism, Romney was relentlessly pilloried during the 2012 campaign as an iniquitous corporate looter by Obama and his Democratic allies. [snip]
But Obama’s moral objections to Romney’s behavior apparently end at the door of his exquisite new vacation rental property.”
Ambrosia. How wonderful to be in Elysium! How knee buckling the splendors of isolation with your own kind. It must be thrilling to know that you’ve left all those poor saps in Chicago, hiding from murderers and poverty, not to mention the stench of the stockyard history, so so behind after so successfully fooling the boobs with flowery words. This weekend is one of entertainments and who knows what debaucheries behind the gates. Perhaps the citizens of Elysium will gather together to watch the film Elysium? Ya think? Maybe?
There’s nothing Obama likes more for relaxation than watching himself so why not watch Elysium the film? Elysium the film opens nationwide tonight as Thursday becomes Friday. By now you must have heard of the film Elysium, right? Elysium stars Matt Damon:
“‘Elysium’ director Neill Blomkamp, star Matt Damon deny movie has political agenda
LOS ANGELES – The Hollywood Reporter calls it a “politically charged flight of speculative fiction.”
Newsmax refers to it “sci-fi socialism” and “political propaganda.”
Variety said its one of the “more openly socialist political agendas of any Hollywood movie in memory, beating the drum loudly not just for universal healthcare, but for open borders, unconditional amnesty and the abolition of class distinctions as well.” [snip]
“I don’t think it is trying to say anything. It just presents the issue – the distinct difference between the haves and the have nots,” he told FOX411 while promoting the flick.”
The haves and the have nots? We know what side Barack Obama and Matt Damon are on. In the “two Americas” hypocrite treacherous boob Barack and idiot once-pretty boy Matt stand with John Edwards and Jeremiah Wright. They’re all in Elysium:
“Set in the year 2154, “Elysium” imagines a world where two distinct classes remain. There is the overpopulated, crime-riddled, poverty-stricken slums of Earth, and then there are the excessively wealthy who reside on Elysium, a slick, mind-blowing man-made space station that comes complete with a cure for every illness, and humans and robots that stop at nothing to enforce anti-immigration laws and preserve the luxurious lifestyles of Elysium’s lucky few.“
“Some of the local newspapers on Martha’s Vineyard report that island goers “can expect extraordinary and lengthy up-Island detours, after President Barack Obama and his family arrive Saturday.” [snip]
One commenter responds, “He really needs to find another place to go. He treats people here terribly.”
“The official synopsis for the upcoming science fiction film “Elysium” has been released online. It’s from “District 9” director Neill Blomkamp and stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster:
In the year 2159 two classes of people exist: the very wealthy who live on a pristine man-made space station called Elysium, and the rest, who live on an overpopulated, ruined Earth. Secretary Rhodes (Jodie Foster), a hard line government official, will stop at nothing to enforce anti-immigration laws and preserve the luxurious lifestyle of the citizens of Elysium. That doesn’t stop the people of Earth from trying to get in, by any means they can. When unlucky Max (Matt Damon) is backed into a corner, he agrees to take on a daunting mission that if successful will not only save his life, but could bring equality to these polarized worlds.
Loud, clunky, and disappointingly shallow, Blomkamp didn’t rock the studio system so much as it seemingly rocked him.
What’s most jarring, and dismaying, about Elysium — about a ruined and impoverished 22nd century Earth and the gleaming space arcology where all the rich people live — is how many tired action movie cliches Blomkamp traffics in. There are many, far too many, Matrix-esque slo-mo shots, so predictable and hacky by now that parts of Elysium look no more sophisticated than a Resident Evil movie. [snip]
In addition to the corny tricks and gimmicks that Blomkamp uses to gild his cluttered, ultra-violent (several people gorily explode in the movie) action sequences, Elysium suffers from a dearth of thoughtfulness. The allegory he’s working with here is about immigration and health care, and while those are indeed pressing topics ripe for spinning into dark and insisting fables, here the messaging is too literal and blunt. A ship full of illegals lands on (in?) Elysium and they flee like immigrants across the U.S./Mexico border, only to be brutally and inhumanely captured. Basic healthcare is hardly available on Earth, whereas on Elysium they have machines that can cure anything, essentially granting immortality. [snip]
Elysium is a disappointment. A big one, in fact.”
Sounds like Elysium the flim sucks huh? But before we descend, or ascend, into movie reviewers let’s discuss that lovable ex-pretty boy blockhead Matt Damon and Barack “the boob” Obama. They are the worst of our American Elysium:
“The place in which they currently work, snicker, frolic, and make millions, is in fact Elysium.
If you want to experience “Elysium” today, just drive down Wilshire or Melrose. In just a couple of miles those famous boulevards turn from a gorgeous, mile-high, palm tree-lined gilded city where the Matt Damons shop, dine, exercise, enema, valet, facelift, chant, and enjoy the greatest healthcare in the world — to shit-hole city: urban sprawl, graffiti, crime, filth, and grinding poverty.”
A father of four (three daughters, aged seven, five and three, and a stepdaughter, 15), this summer he is moving his family from New York to Los Angeles, and the challenge of giving them a childhood that remotely resembles the one he enjoyed is about to get even harder.
Choosing a school has already presented a major moral dilemma. “Sending our kids in my family to private school was a big, big, big deal. And it was a giant family discussion. But it was a circular conversation, really, because ultimately we don’t have a choice. I mean, I pay for a private education and I’m trying to get the one that most matches the public education that I had, but that kind of progressive education no longer exists in the public system. It’s unfair.” Damon has campaigned against teachers’ pay being pegged to children’s test results: “So we agitate about those things, and try to change them, and try to change the policy, but you know, it’s a tough one.”
Hypocrite John Edwards used foundation money that was supposed to fight poverty to pay for his personal travel around the country when he ran for president. Edwards then premised his campaign as a “two Americas” war on poverty even as he built a monster house on real estate in Elysium. Likewise Matt Damon is a hypocrite of monumental proportions. In 2011 pretty boy Matt stroked his activism on behalf of public schools, in public:
What flowery words Matt. How dreamy! Too bad you won’t send your kids to be beaten up on buses because they refuse to buy drugs in the public schools you have flowery words for but won’t put your money or kids where your idiot mouth is. But then again you and Barack live in Elysium don’t you?
How wonderful it is to live in Elysium where you are exempt from your own words.
Matt Damon and Barack Obama have made wonderful lives for themselves by having two faces. One face is the public compassionate face that emits soothing verbiage against the “capitalist system” and that wins applause from fools happy to be parted from their money and their well being.
The other face is ugly, brutal, hate-filled for anyone that stands in their way. They are leaders in Elysium.
If that’s an example of Elysium – we’ll stay in the good ol’ U.S.A.
In 2008 when Obama lied to every Democratic interest group in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, Obama promised to put on some comfy shoes and join the picket line as president if ever the labor unions faced attack. As if. When the fight came Barack Obama ran.
As we wrote with such precision about the many Wisconsin recalls back in February 2011 “The ending won’t be pretty.” If indeed Scott Walker wins his recall election a few weeks from now Barack Obama will have to spend a great deal of time and money to win what was once supposed to be a solid and easy victory for Obama Dimocrats in November. Failure to win Wisconsin in November means President Romney.
The second big battle is the battle for money. This is the battle that has Barack Obama worried. Barack Obama cannot win if he is outspent and Barack Obama knows this.
Barack Obama first promised to accept public funds for the general election in 2008. John McCain of McCain/Feingold campaign finance legislation made the same promise. John McCain kept his word. Barack Obama outspent McCain by hundreds of millions.
The cheap hustler from Chicago is terrified. Obama has little SuperPac support so he has to order a $25 million dollar expenditure out of his own campaign coffers, money desperately needed for the fall. Meanwhile Romney is fundraising with little spending in the next five months. Worse of all, American Crossroads launches $25 million ad campaign against Obama – and that’s the amount in only one month!
“Obama won all of these states in 2008, but all of them are expected to be battlegrounds in this election. Pennsylvania might be the toughest for Republicans to flip under normal circumstances, but Obama’s war on coal, the HHS mandate, and his flip-flop on gay marriage will hurt him in this blue-collar, Catholic state. Michigan will be almost as difficult for the GOP, but Romney’s personal connection to the state gives him at least a shot at it. North Carolina might be the only gimme, after last week’s gay-marriage faceplant and the fact that Obama couldn’t get 80% of Democrats to vote for him in a primary in which he was unopposed.
It’s interesting to see Wisconsin and Missouri left off of this list. Republicans probably have a better shot in those states, and combined they represent more electoral votes than Michigan, or equal to Pennsylvania. Expect further ad campaigns to focus on those states.
This is, of course, why Democrats are panicking on fundraising. With unions spending money in Wisconsin on a losing cause this summer, they won’t have as much of a backstop on the outside-group front, and it’s only going to get worse.”
Strapped for cash and facing a tidal wave of big-money Republican attack ads, Democratic super PACs are putting an unlikely plan in motion: the Super-O-Rama.
The kitschy name is for a massive fundraising push at the national convention in Charlotte, where Democrats aim to woo elusive big donors with parties featuring live music, open bars and mingling with “senior Democratic policy leaders,” according to a fundraising appeal.
Democrats hope the events will lead to a massive cash infusion for three super PACs that have struggled to pull in the big checks necessary to compete with GOP outside advertising juggernauts like the Karl Rove-conceived Crossroads outfits and the Koch brothers-linked Americans for Prosperity.
But the plan isn’t perfect. The Democratic National Convention is just two months before the general election — too late to spend any money raised there on ads, some Democrats worry. Plus, conventions do not typically lend themselves to the type of one-on-one meetings where mega donors usually sign six- and seven-figure checks.
The Super-O-Rama plan is just one example of a larger overhaul afoot among Democratic super PACs, which have gotten a cool reception from some of the party’s biggest traditional donors.”
As Jon Lovitz would say “Super-O-Rama, yes, that’s the ticket.” Raise money when it is too late to spend it. Interrupt the parties at Bank of America stadium to ask for cash. Maybe Barack Obama will do lap dances in satin short-shorts. Hey, if you’re Gay For Pay you might as well go all the way.
“A Democratic operative familiar with the Party’s outside groups characterized the convention fundraising push as last ditch, explaining “It would be better for everyone to have money early, so they can protect incumbents and define their opponents. But you can still spend late money on advertising.”
The Democrats’ super PACs have been crushed in the race for early advertising money. The three Super-O-Rama groups had raised a combined $18 million at the end of March, while a super PAC supporting Romney had raised $52 million alone at that point. And that’s to say nothing of the $100 million raised by the two groups that compose Crossroads or the untold millions raised by other GOP-allied groups that don’t disclose their donors but have been flooding the airwaves with tough anti-Obama ads. [snip]
Unity Convention 2012 is organizing Super-O-Rama and will divide the proceeds equally among its three component groups. Its fundraising appeal indicated that it could accept unlimited “individual, labor union, or corporate” contributions, and laid out four sponsorship categories ranging from $25,000 to $100,000. [snip]
A showy super PAC presence at the convention could create tricky optics for Obama and congressional Democrats, who railed against the explosion of outside group spending sparked by a pair of 2010 federal court decisions, including the Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in a case called Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.”
“Tricky optics?” Big Media thinks they can get away with Obama fundraising lies by using the gulling phrase “tricky optics”. No, Obama promised and his convention planners promised there would be no corporate contributions to his campaign. Now the convention at Bank of America stadium is going to request unlimited funds from corporations and Big Media thinks that’s “tricky optics”? Next we will see Obama’s phrase from his Rezko house scam, “boneheaded” resurrected.
“Mitt Romney has moved out to an eight-point lead over President Obama in North Carolina after the two men were virtually tied a month ago.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Tar Heel State shows the putative Republican nominee earning 51% of the vote to Obama’s 43%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.”
Last month Obama was ahead of Romney 46% to 44%. Romney gets the backing of 88% of North Carolina Republicans while Obama only gets 76% of Democrats. Obama’s flaccid North Carolina poll numbers are not a cause for pressing the panic button. But what if the gay marriage platform fight turns ugly. What if…. press the panic button:
“The state’s Democratic Party is mired in a sexual harassment scandal. Voters just approved a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which conflicts with Obama’s view on the issue. Convention fundraising has been slow, and labor unions tapped to fill the financial gap are angry the convention will be in a city — Charlotte — with no unionized hotels and in a state where compulsory union membership or the payment of dues is prohibited as an employment condition.
North Carolina’s 9.7 percent unemployment rate is above the national average and one of the host city’s top employers —Bank of America (BAC) — has announced job reductions. Obama is scheduled to accept his party’s nomination at Bank of America Stadium in September.
“It’s inconceivable that they would move the convention,” said Don Kettl, dean of the school of public policy at the University of Maryland. “But they may wish that they had placed their chips on another swing state.”
Yup, narcissist Obama thought he could replicate or increase his 0.3% margin of victory even though the past three years have been a disaster. But Obama needs to win North Carolina. Obama has visited North Carolina 11 times to campaign on the tax payer dime. North Carolina is a MUST WIN state for Obama:
“North Carolina is one of about a dozen states that Democratic and Republican strategists say are likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election.
Gay Community Protests
Last week’s vote to approve a state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has triggered calls from gay rights activists to move the convention. Some Democrats also want to include same-sex marriage in the party platform that will be approved at the convention, a potentially headline-grabbing debate. [snip]
Association With Bank
There are political downsides for Obama in delivering his acceptance speech in a stadium named after a bank at a time when he’s championing the need for tighter regulations and more robust consumer protections. [snip]
Preparations for the Sept. 4-6 convention come as the Democratic Party in North Carolina is dealing with fallout from a sexual harassment accusation.
Sexual Harassment Allegations
State Democratic Chairman David Parker submitted his resignation over the weekend following complaints about his handling of allegations by an ex-worker against a former party director.”
Amazing isn’t it? In that entire article not a mention is made that the sexual harassment allegations are male on male harassment. Considering (1) the convention will face a potential fight over gay marriage; (2) which Obama now, for pay, endorses personally, (3) but his campaign is fighting against including gay marriage in the platform – isn’t it rather pertinent to inform readers that the sexual harassment is male on male? Isn’t that likely to play out in a state that just rejected gay marriage and civil unions by putting these prohibitions into the state constitution? Way to go Big Media in shilling for Obama.
Let’s not forget Handsome Johnny who endorsed Obama in 2008 is on trial in North Carolina. But, the focus is still money. Money is the big battle:
“Unlike previous conventions, the Democrats are trying to fund this year’s gathering without million-dollar donations from corporations. They’ve pressed labor unions to fill in the fundraising gap as part of an effort to raise $36.6 million.
Convention planners are expecting to receive, at most, $4 million from unions this year, less than half of the $8 million contributed by organized labor in 2008, according to a person familiar with the funding strategy who wasn’t authorized to speak on the record about fundraising. The number could eventually be less than $1 million and the Charlotte host committee, the main vehicle for funding the convention, is still short more than $20 million, the person said. [snip]
Crone, the North Carolina Democratic strategist, said the decision to hold the convention in his state doesn’t look as smart as when it was first announced, given the controversies that have erupted since then.”
How often do we Democrats get to laugh about gang rape? Yes, it’s Friday and we intend to frolic.
This week Barack Obama said what Dick Cheney said years ago and DailyKooks are celebrating. The flood of flowery words don’t mean a damn thing and Obama certainly didn’t open his lips before the North Carolina vote thereby avoiding a beating. But from the DailyKook reaction you would think Barack Obama grew Abe Lincoln’s beard and signed the Emancipation Proclamation for Gay America.
Hooray, Barack emitted more words! What will the DailyKooks say when Barack Obama opposes putting a gay marriage plank into the platform at the Bank of America convention? What will the DailyKooks say when Obama refuses to immediately sign the gay rights Executive Order on his desk? Will the DailyKooks repeat what Jonathan Lewis said? Jonathan said: “This isn’t a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress.” “He has not been able to provide a single valid reason for why he is now refusing to sign the executive order protecting LGBT workers. It has become increasingly clear that this decision is based on cowardice rather than principled leadership.”
While Barack Obama mouthed words about gay marriage, John Edwards is preparing his wedding dress. John is refitting Elizabeth’s old wedding dress, taking it in to fit his slim hips. Obama endorsed gay marriage, John Edwards will soon be in a gay marriage.The parents of Bruno McMuscles invite you to celebrate the wedding of their misunderstood son Bruno (currently residing in a federal penitentiary) to the renown lawyer and potential Supreme Court Justice and former Senator from North Carolina – the recently widowed John Edwards.
Today the judge in the John Edwards case refused to dismiss the charges against Johnny. John is one step closer to bliss and a long life with Bruno and his assorted friends from Oz. We couldn’t be happier. We wish the couple (and the assorted horny friends) a long life of wedded bliss. It couldn’t happen to a nicer fella.
Speaking of gay marriages, how smart is that Mitt Romney? Lately Mitt has been batting his eyelashes at that rascal Bill Clinton. But Mitt is no fool. Mitt is batting his eyelashes at Bill in order to get to us. Ohh my.
Mitt Romney, knowing a lot of Clinton Democrats are disgusted with Obama and his party of Obaminations, is flirting with us. Color us blushed. Why, we’re not that type of girls Mitt. Or are we. Keep wooing Mitt:
“The reality is that when Bill Clinton ran in ’92, he ran as a new Democrat,” said the aide, citing ticket’s campaign pledge to reform welfare. “That was the famous ad that they ran: Clinton and Gore were going to be different kinds of Democrats.”
He continued: “President Obama has really turned his back on all of that. He hasn’t run as a new Democrat, he’s run as an old Democrat… more spending, more taxation, more regulation.”
Keep talking Mitt. Flirt with us some more. We like:
“While the Obama campaign pushes out its new slogan urging voters to look “forward,” Mitt Romney’s team is feeling reminiscent.
In a press briefing before Romney’s speech in Lansing, MI Tuesday, a senior adviser sought to contrast Obama’s campaign message with that of a Democratic presidential candidate of the past: Bill Clinton. [snip]
In casting Obama as an “old-style Democrat,” the Romney campaign is apparently seeking to undermine the president’s campaign slogan and the message it represents — one of progressive, forward-thinking solutions.
Team Romney’s retort: Look at the past four years.
The aide’s characterization of Obama as being stuck in the past was reaffirmed by Romney’s speech, which sought to draw a contrast with references to Facebook and mobile apps — as well as jabs at what he sees as hollow rhetoric about the future.
“In his campaign kickoff speech last week, he asked us not to think about these last four years,” Romney said, prompting laughter from the audience. “Convenient, but not convincing. Ignoring his record would bind us to repeat it.”
We’re not forgetting anything Mitt. We’re not voting for Barack Obama, no way. More and more people are seeing things the way we see them too. As James Carville gloated, er warned, about:
“Newsflash: Nothing is in the bag. Nothing can be taken for granted. Everybody from the precinct door-knocker, to the Chicago high command, to the White House, to the halls of Congress, to the Senate and House committees, to congressional leadership, here is a simple message: If we don’t get on the offense, reconnect with the American people, talk about how the middle class is in a struggle for its very existence, hold the Republicans accountable and fight like the dickens, we are going to lose.
You can shoot five Bin Ladens, you can save 10,000 banks and 20 car companies, even pass the most sweeping legislation in modern American history; if people don’t think that you are connected to their lives and are fighting for their interests they will vote your tush out of office in a nano-second. For historical reference see Winston Churchill election of 1945 and President George H.W. Bush in 1992…”
Why look so far in the past? Just look at Dick Lugar – out of touch, out of office.
Carville’s “warnings” sound more like gloating don’t they? “Obama is a boob and if the party does not dump Obama it will die from top to bottom” is what Carville seems to be saying. Obama is Jimmie Davis.
“(CNN) — A long time ago a great three-time governor of Louisiana, Earl Long, said about Jimmie Davis, the two-time not very good governor of Louisiana, “You couldn’t wake up Jimmie Davis with an earthquake.”
As I go around the country and see various Democrats and talk to them on the phone, honestly I’m beginning to think that we have become the party of Jimmie Davis.
My message is simple: WTFU. Translated — wake the you-know-what up, there is an earthquake.
You think that Democrats around the country are going to win — as I hear time and time again from people on the street.
Democratic fundraisers, activists, supporters, and even politicians alike have somehow collectively lapsed into the sentiment that the president is going to be reelected and that we have a good shot to take the House back while holding the Senate.
I ask: What are you smoking? What are you drinking? What are you snorting or just what in the hell are you thinking?“
LANSING, Mich. — Mitt Romney has a new hero on the stump and it’s Bill Clinton.
In seeking to drive a wedge between centrist and liberal Democrats, Romney spoke here on Tuesday in glowing terms of the Clinton era’s balanced budgets and rosy economy.
“President Obama chose to apply liberal ideas of the past to a 21st century America,” Romney said. “Liberal policies didn’t work back then, they haven’t worked during these last four years, and they will not work in the future. New Democrats had abandoned those policies, but President Obama resurrected them with the predictable results.”
Romney continued: “President Clinton, remember, he said the era of big government was over. President Obama brought it back with a vengeance. Government at all levels now consumes about 38 percent of the economy, and if Obamacare is installed, that will rise to about half of the economy.”
Furthermore, Romney sought to paint Obama as a welfare president. It was not a far cry from ex-presidential rival Newt Gingrich dubbing Obama a “food stamp president,” and the former House speaker’s work with Clinton to balance the budget in the ’90s also resonated during Romney’s speech.
“President Clinton made efforts to reform welfare as we know it,” Romney said. “But President Obama is trying tirelessly to expand the welfare state, with more promises of more programs, more benefits, more spending.” [snip]
A senior Romney aide told reporters before the speech at a community college here that that invoking Clintonism was devised as a trick to drive a wedge between centrist and liberal Democrats, though with Clinton appearing front-and-center in Obama’s campaign advertisements — not to mention his wife, Hillary, serving as Obama’s secretary of state — the results of such a strategy remain to be seen.
Like Romney, the aide spoke glowingly of President Clinton.”
Recently the evidence has been piling up about this sometimes public, sometimes secret war between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton/Bill Clinton. Sometimes we track the latest developments in our comments section:
“JtJames, thanks for that article. Anyone who thinks Hillary or Bill Clinton don’t remember 2008 should read it. Anytime Bill or Hillary say something nice about Barack Obama that article should be reread. “There are three leading political parties in America.” Guess which one we belong to?”
“The Democratic congressman thought his credentials were in order. He was popular, from a prominent district and the ranking member of a key committee. Most important, he had not endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic presidential race. So through an intermediary, he asked Bill Clinton to headline a fundraiser. The answer: no.
The go-between reminded the former president that the congressman had remained neutral in the race between Obama and Hillary Clinton.
“Yeah, but neutral was the same as endorsing Barack,” the former president said, according to the intermediary, who declined to be named because of continuing friendships with both men. “The answer is still no.”
“The answer is still no.”
The article tracks exactly with what we know. The article tracks exactly with Bill Clinton’s “payback” tour this year and every year since 2007 – reward your friends, punish your enemies. The article tracks exactly with the Al Sharpton complaint that most of those who attack Barack Obama or have negative things to say are Hillary Clinton supporters. The article tracks exactly with Hillary Clinton donors not donating or donating “polite” amounts. The article tracks exactly with Hillary Clinton donors saying “the answer is still no” to Obama’s Superpac.
While Bruno is splashing on the aftershave in anticipation of handsome Johnny nuptials and Romney is making googoo eyes at Bill, Bill is busy giving the skunk eye to Barack. It’s Amateur Hour says Bill.
“Bill Clinton thought so little of President Obama — mocking him as an “amateur” — that he pressed his wife last summer to quit her job as secretary of state and challenge him in the primaries, a new book claims,
“The country needs you!” the former president told Hillary Clinton, urging her to run this year, according to accounts of the conversation included in Edward Klein’s new biography of Obama.
The title of Klein’s explosive, unauthorized bio of Obama, “The Amateur” (Regnery Publishing), was taken directly from Bill Clinton’s bombshell criticism of the president, the author said.
“Barack Obama,” Bill Clinton said, according to book excerpts, “is an amateur.”
The withering criticism is incredible, given the fact that Bill Clinton is actively campaigning for Obama’s re-election.
But according to the book, Bill Clinton unloaded on Obama and pressed Hillary to run against her boss during a gathering in the ex-president’s home office in Chappaqua last August that included longtime friends, Klein said.
“The economy’s a mess, it’s dead flat. America has lost its Triple-A rating . . . You know better than Obama does,” Bill said.
Bill Clinton insisted he had “no relationship” with Obama and had been consulted more frequently by his presidential successor, George W. Bush.
Obama, Bill Clinton said, “doesn’t know how to be president” and is “incompetent.”
“Edward Klein is a seven-time New York Times bestselling non-fiction author. He is also the former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor-in-chief of The New York Times Magazine. Klein frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade, and currently lives in New York, New York.”
But whether the author is wholly creating a fiction or relating the absolute truth, it cannot be argued that Bill Clinton’s arguments in The Amateurring clear as a bell:
““Why risk everything now?” a skeptical Hillary told her husband, emphasizing that she wanted to leave a legacy as secretary of state.
“Because,” Bill replied, his voice rising, “the country needs you!”
“The country needs us!” added Bill. [snip]
She said she had the option of running again in 2016.
But Bill wouldn’t let go.
“I know you’re young enough!” Bill said, his voice booming. “That’s not what I’m worried about. I’m worried that I’m not young enough.”
“I’m the highest-ranking member in Obama’s Cabinet. I eat breakfast with the guy every Thursday morning. What about loyalty, Bill? What about loyalty?” she responded.
“Loyalty is a joke,’’ Bill shot back. “Loyalty doesn’t exist in politics.”
Bill’s verbal battle with Hillary over the presidency, if anything, intensified when daughter Chelsea showed up with her husband, Marc Mezvinsky.
“You deserve to be president,” Chelsea said.
Bill was clearly pleased that Chelsea was on his side and vowed to have allies commission polls on a Hillary-Obama matchup.
“What are you trying to do — force my hand?” Hillary said.
“I want everyone to know how strong you poll,” Bill said.
Wanna know what else is difficult? Keeping track of Obama scams, flim-flams, lies, distractions, stunts, bamboozlements, race-baitings, fake wars, real wars, past broken promises, present broken promises, future broken promises, panders, evasions, tricks, trades, calculated tantrums, calculated sneers, calculated snubs, manipulations, gimmicks, not to mention the golfing, vacations, policy fiascoes, personal obnoxiousness, and the sleeveless partner, is really really difficult. But you have got to keep focused. You can’t cover all the above. You can only prioritize and try to track the trends and overviews of all the above. It’s what we try to do. It’s what we advise Mitt Romney to do.
It’s easier said than done. But as he has thus far mostly done, it is what Mittens Willard Romney should continue to do. Avoid distractions Mitt!
The way this election cycle is going to proceed is that groups outside the campaign have promised to tackle a lot of the issues Obama wants to distract with as well as the advertising which directly attacks Barack Obama in a most negative way. The Romney campaign proper will be able to stay positive and stay focused on the most important issues. By that we mean the economy.
Now we can hear the howls from the phony Obama campaign and well meaning deluded people who are properly concerned with the state of campaign financing. But really, it is time to grow up on campaign financing. Does anyone in the Democratic Left really think that either party is not beholden to the wealthy (“stinkin’ rich” to the Occupy Wall Street dupes)?
“Interior designer Bryan Huffman told the courtroom that Rachel “Bunny” Mellon was unhappy that Edwards tried hiding his relationship with Rielle Hunter using some of the $725,000 that Mellon had funneled to him during the 2008 presidential campaign, The Associated Press reported.
“She thought maybe you should probably pay for your girlfriend yourself,” Huffman testified.
Many in the courtroom laughed — and Edwards even smiled, according to the AP.
Mellon also gave $6.4 million to organizations tied to Edwards’ presidential run, and after he dropped out of the race in January 2008, aide Andrew Young requested an additional $40 to $50 million for Edwards’ poverty foundation, Huffman testified.
“[Mellon] was rather apoplectic at the size of the figure they requested. She was really upset,” Huffman said. “She said, ‘I cannot believe that the senator really wanted me for my money all along.’”
Did you notice? That was all before Citizens United. Millions upon millions for handsome Johnny as he roared about helping the poor – while Flukeing Reille whom we assume could not afford the contraception. It’s a War On Women!
Hey, did you notice? We just got distracted. We were talking about Romney not getting distracted and then we darn well got distracted talking about pretty boy Edwards. He sure is pretty isn’t he? Darn, we almost got distracted again talking about his flaxen waxen hair. Then we got distracted by the War on Women and the silver fox.
Romney knows these outside the campaign groups are going to mostly stick to the issues Obama wants to distract with while he himself sticks to the economy. That’s not to say that Romney might occasionally take some pokes at some of Obama’s most obvious distractions and gimmicks. That’s not to say that the outside groups might not tackle some of the more awkward Obama economic claims and ridiculous slogans such as Forward – for Obama “Forward” means continually going backward:
“Looks like Barack Obama’s new campaign slogan will be incredibly popular … with his opponents. American Crossroads launched a new ad yesterday titled “Backward,”explaining that economic progress has moved in that direction rather than forward for the last three years. More people end up on food stamps, more people drop out of the work force, and the only thing moving forward is … well, watch the clip:”
Romney is going to have to restrict himself to the economy while other Obama schemes are addressed by Romney ally organizations.
“It becomes increasingly impossible to question the notion that Barack Obama is purposefully destructive. [snip]
Consider: The more the economy deteriorates the more Barack Obama profits politically. Americans forced in desperation from even bothering to look for jobs leads to a drop in the unemployment rate and Barack Obama smirks a clown smile and goes on yet another vacation. [snip]
It’s government by willful, purposeful, destruction of America for personal political profit – but it won’t work to save this corrupt clown from Chicago.
On each of these issues Barack Obama pretends to vote “present” or both “yes” and “no” in the HOPE that Americans are as stupid as he thinks they are. After all, Barack reasons, they did elect him so they really are stupid.
But reality, like justice, has its own wheel which grinds slowly but inexorably. On each issue Obama’s chickens are coming home – ready to poop.”
Romney has to tie up some other chickens to the roof of his car and have them poop directly on Obama’s head. One of those chickens has to be Ted Turner. Mr. CNN has now joined George Soros and Jimmy Carter in stating that Romney won’t be such a frightening president. Turner thinks Romney “would probably make a good president.”
We’re much more doubtful about Mittens than Ted, George and Jimmy. We do know that Barack Obama has got to go. From that basic fact, we won’t get distracted.
Some in Big Media and Republican circles are perplexed. They don’t understand how Obama can seriously state that he will veto a short term debt deal, thereby supposedly throwing the country into default, because he wants a long term debt deal. ‘Isn’t that making the perfect the enemy of the good?’ (if we take Barack Obama at his word – which we do not and no sensible person should either) these befuddled observers ask. It’s typical Obama flim-flam.
“CLINTON: There was a particular amendment that I think is very telling. It was an amendment to prohibit credit card companies from charging more than 30 percent interest. Senator Obama voted for it. I voted against it. It was one of the biggest lobbyist victories on that very bad bill that the bankruptcy bill represented. And I think it’s important. You know, if you look at the recent article about Senator Obama’s work on health care reform in the Illinois legislature, it’s a very interesting piece about how he basically did the bidding of the insurance companies during that effort. Now, I’m just saying that if we’re going to…
CLINTON: … be hurling these charges against one another, I’m used to taking the incoming fire. I’ve taken it for 16 years. But when you get into this arena…
… you can’t expect to have a hands-off attitude about your record. And it is perfectly fair to have comparisons and contrasts. I voted against a 30 — I voted for limiting to 30 percent what credit card companies could charge. Senator Obama did not. That’s a fact.
OBAMA: Absolutely. It is a fact, because I thought 30 percent potentially was too high of a ceiling. So we had had no hearings…
… on that bill. It had not gone through the Banking Committee. I don’t know about a lot of folks here, most folks here, if they’ve got a credit card, are paying 29 percent. So under this provision, that would’ve been fine. And we had not created the kind of serious…
EDWARDS: You voted against it because the limit was too high, is that what you just said?
OBAMA: That is exactly what I just said, John, because…
EDWARDS: So there’s no limit at all.“
It was John Edwards’ only decent moment in 2008. Back then the issue was a ceiling on credit card interest rates. Now it’s a ceiling on the national debt. For Obama it is the same flim-flam. In both instances Obama makes the same convoluted argument. On the bankruptcy bill Obama did the bidding of the financial services industry and its lobbyists. Now Obama will do anything to prevent election year discussions of his own record on the economy, jobs, and the debt.
“CLINTON: Well, you know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern. You, in the — now, wait a minute. In the Illinois state legislature…
CLINTON: Just a minute. In the Illinois state senate, Senator Obama voted 130 times present. That’s not yes, that’s not no. That’s maybe. And on issue after issue that really were hard to explain or understand, you know, voted present on keeping sex shops away from schools, voted present on limiting the rights of victims of sexual abuse, voted present time and time again. And anytime anyone raises that, there’s always some kind of explanation like you just heard about the 30 percent. It’s just very difficult to get a straight answer, and that’s what we are probing for.”
Hillary Clinton (and humble Big Pink) warned America. [Those interested in Hillary’s too quick comment about Obama and the “recent article” on Obama and health care should read our very own “The Obama Health Plan Obama Supporters Do Not Want To Discuss.“] Republicans or the very few in Big Media who think they can deal with Barack Obama with any sort of decency or trust should disabuse themselves of that notion quickly. Obama simply cannot be trusted and all he cares about is himself.
Hillary Clinton tried to warn America. We tried to warn America. But even we did not realize it would be this bad, and we thought it would be very bad. Recall the 3:00 a.m. ad?
That ad has to be updated:
Scene: A crisis room.
Leader #1: What do we do? This is a real crisis. What do we do?
Leader #2: What do we usually do in a crisis?
Leader #3: In a crisis we call the president so the president can lead.
Leader #1: So should we call Obama at the White House?
Leader #2: Oh God no!
Leader #3: We want the problem resolved. Whatever you do don’t call that boob.
“It’s no surprise that Republicans, led by House Speaker John Boehner, went out of their way to insult the president, but remarkably Democrats also went forward over the weekend with Capitol Hill debt talks that did not even include a symbolic emissary from the White House.
After a perfunctory meeting with Barack Obama on Saturday — a session he had hurriedly called to maintain at least the appearance of leverage — Democrats and Republicans returned to their caves on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue for the real talks, without anyone from the White House included.
This served to reinforce Boehner’s vow to exclude Obama from the discussions. The internal logic of Washington’s byzantine protocol indicates a bipartisan snub of the president.”
“With the collapse of the Boehner-Obama talks, it looks as if something closer to “regular order” in the legislative branch will probably be needed to produce the final deal to raise the debt limit. The House is moving toward taking up a plan drafted by the speaker and his lieutenants, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid is drafting a competing version for his chamber.
This is a good development. Because it’s been clear for some time now that President Obama has been the real roadblock.”
Whatever you do steer clear of the treacherous, self-interested Boob! He promised celestial choirs of cooperative singing, but A Boob Does What A Boob Does Best: Boobery. The celestial choirs instead are snarling dogs who do not trust the Boob:
“In 2008, Barack Obama, as a presidential candidate, made changing that culture a signature objective; if anything, it has grown more dysfunctional during his presidency.“
Obama’s entire history is a misogynistic dance of self-interest and smoke filled rooms which advance his career – so how did anyone seriously expect him to change the culture of corruption in which he thrived?
David Brooks in 2008 thought Obama was the man of his dreams. Now Brooks, who turns his love for Obama on and off with schizophrenic regularity, is out of love and is saying “Don’t call the Boob.”
“Everything was mysterious, shifting and slippery. One day the president was agreeing to an $800 billion revenue increase; the next day he was asking for $400 billion more. Spending cuts that seemed to be part of the package suddenly seemed hollow. Negotiating partners disappeared.
It was phenomenally hard to figure out exactly who was offering what. Democrats in Congress were kept in the dark and were understandably suspicious. It was all a recipe for misunderstandings, hurt feelings and collapse. [snip]
Obama lectured the leaders of the House and Senate in the sort of patronizing tone that a junior high principal might use with immature delinquents. He talked about unreturned phone calls and being left at the altar, personalizing the issue like a spurned prom date.
Obama’s Friday appearance had a gigantic unintended consequence. It brought members of Congress together. They decided to take control. The White House is now on the sidelines. Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders are negotiating directly with one another.“
Why didn’t Boner, er Boehner, return Obama’s call last week?
Republican Leader #1: Should we call Obama?
Republican Leader #2: No, keep the Boob as far away as possible.
Republican Leader #3: If you want to get anything done keep away from the Boob. Call Reid or Pelousy or the kitchen cat, but for all that is sensible and holy, keep away from the Boob.
The Republican leadership is not alone is recognizing who the flat tire is. For all the Big Media propaganda in service to the golden calf the American public has not been fooled:
“While pundits have been quick to declare President Obama the winner of the messaging war on the debt ceiling negotiations, his poll numbers show no such advantage. [snip]
Yet, it’s hard to deny the trend: A slew of recent polls are increasingly suggesting that public confidence in Obama and his handling of the economy is eroding. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll holds a fair amount of bad news for Obama.
But looking more closely, Obama’s overall job approval, while remaining at 47 percent for the last two months, shows that fewer voters “strongly approve” of Obama’s handling of the economy now than in previous months.
A CNN/ORC poll released Friday showed a sharp drop in Obama’s overall job approval rating, which now lies at 45 percent in July, down from a previous 48 percent.
More notable is that the poll shows Obama’s disapproval rating is at 54 percent, the highest since just before the 2010 midterm elections in September.
The Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling also declared Obama in “perilous shape” after a poll last week found that a rising number of Democrats are unhappy with the job Obama is doing, while independents were evenly split.
One Republican pollster, David Winston, said the trend is more likely explained by deepening pessimism about the state of the economy, punctuated by two straight months of rising unemployment and stagnating economic growth. No longer will Obama’s personal favorability, which has long been sky high, help buoy his job approval going into the 2012 election.
“Ultimately, at some point in time, [Obama’s] overall job approval is going to move toward his economic approval. And it’s obviously not good for him,” Winston told POLITICO. “Typically, when you get disappointing numbers like 9.2 percent, that’s affirming to people that the economy isn’t working.”
Solution: Don’t call the treacherous, self-interested Boob.
“Ironically, the path to a resolution may become more clear without Obama involved in the negotiations, as Congress can now focus on combining the Reid and Boehner plans once they pass in both chambers. Obama’s lack of leadership in this episode won’t be soon forgotten.”
Democrats or Obama Dimocrats who think this is going to be anything better than the Boehner or Reid bill, should put down the Hopium pipe and listen to Carville who knows Obama has boobed up the debt ceiling kerfuffle. Who could be surprised? Weatherman not required. Obama blows.
Cheap and sleazy. We confess. Cheap and sleazy. It is a cheap and sleazy ploy on our behalf. We wanted an excuse to post a certain music video and we have found one. It’s a love ballad by Jimmy Ruffin (“It is a ballad, with lead singer Jimmy Ruffin recalling the pain that befalls the brokenhearted, and their struggle to overcome their sadness so that they can find happiness in the future of their lives.”):
“As I walk this land of broken dreams… I know I’ve got to find some kind of peace of mind.” Such sad lyrics….
“The appointment of Bill Daley to the top staff job in the Obama White House has dealt the final blow to a dearly held fantasy of parts of the left: that a truly liberal president has been ill-served and misinterpreted by Rahm Emanuel and other center-right aides.
The sounds of hearts finally breaking come from key quadrants of the Democratic Party — labor, ethnic groups and the gay community — who had tried to convince themselves for two years that President Barack Obama was still the liberal crusader they had come to believe he was during the 2008 campaign; it was just that his West Wing staff wouldn’t let Obama be Obama.”
“First, when progressives were disappointed, they blamed it on Rahm. Then (interim chief of staff Pete) Rouse came in and they had the same problems,” said one senior labor official. “It’s going to be the same thing with Daley, but folks don’t see the point in trashing him, because it’s going to be the same pattern [of] decisions from the top.”
“There’s a sense of resignation and fatalism,” the official said.”
Oh what will they do with their broken-hearts? And Valentine’s Day is next month! Perhaps they will go on the Maury Povich Show and get DNA tests to force a shotgun wedding.
“Since Obama’s campaign for president, a debate has raged in progressive circles — as on the right — about who he really is. Elements of his biography and his style — his roots as a community organizer, his early romance with Chicago Mayor Harold Washington (an independent and a liberal), and above all his opposition to the Iraq war — made him easy to see as a man of the left, the heir of George McGovern, not Bill Clinton.
His Democratic primary rivals, led by former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, and some liberal bloggers, made the case in vain that Obama was clearly positioning himself as a conciliatory man of the center, not a hero of the left. But his core of support among left-leaning elements of the party — young people and African-Americans — cemented the perception in some circles that he was a liberal Democrat, and conservative commentators worked overtime to make the label stick.”
We don’t recall John Edwards ever leading any anti-Obama anything. John Edwards treated Barack Obama as if B.O. was Reille Hunter – a love on the down low. We recall Edwards campaign boss Joe Trippi going out to drink and cavort with Obama campaigners in Iowa. We recall Edwards repeatedly aligning himself with Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton. We recall Edwards being the attack dog for Barack Obama and accusing Hillary Clinton of representing the “status quo” because she told the truth about poor dear ol’ Barack. We recall Elizabeth Edwards saying Johnny “are you my daddy?” Edwards was the real “woman’s candidate” and creeps at NARAL agreeing with her. But Hell, that’s blood under the bridge.
What is important is that dumb black people and dumb white people chose to ignore reality and deluded themselves that Barack Obama was something he was not. This delusion was carefully crafted by Democratic Party leaders like Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry along with many others and wantonly repeated by Big Media and Big Blog Boys.
Now the dummies who were betrayed by Big Blog Boys and the leadership of organizations that did know better are all weepy and broken-hearted:
“So, Obama has now again chosen a conciliatory, centrist tack, and chosen as his top aide a leading spokesman for the center-left, a man with an affinity for business, ties to Wall Street and no known interest in liberal priorities like gay rights. And the reality is sinking in.
“There’s a recognition that the president determines his agenda,” said Neera Tanden, the chief operating officer of the Center for American Progress, and until recently, a senior advisor for health reform inside the administration.
The statement of AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka Thursday captured the sense, particularly in labor circles, that there’s no longer any point in blaming Obama’s subordinates. Many of Trumka’s constituents loathe Daley for his role shepherding NAFTA in 1993, but the muted statement smacked of resignation, not anger.”
Resignation. Sigh. It’s the end of a love affair. Tears will be shed. They must not have seen the clues. He just wasn’t that into them. And now he’s gone. They don’t even have his new cell phone number.
“Other organizations — particularly those that define themselves on conflict with the center-left — openly blasted the Daley choice.
“The announcement that William Daley, who has close ties to the Big Banks and Big Business, will now lead the White House staff is troubling and sends the wrong message to the American people,” said MoveOn chief Justin Ruben.”
The dolts at Move-On must have missed that news item that Obama missed the vote about Move-On – he was never there for them and only now they realize they have been used. It’s hard to decide who is worthy of more derision.
“But some labor leaders warn that Obama has alienated some workers who could be swing voters in key states in 2012.
“President Obama will need an energized and mobilized base to win in 2012 — it is not to be taken for granted,” said Steve Rosenthal, a Democratic consultant who works with labor unions, in an e-mail. The “agenda over the next two years — and what the president is seen fighting for — will be critical. “
“‘Resignation’ is probably the right word for where people are right now,” he said. “The danger is if the ‘resignation’ slips into ‘disillusionment, anger and or frustration.’”
After two years of treachery all these clods can muster is “resignation”. Eventually they plan to move-on to “disillusionment” then “anger”, then “frustration” – maybe. For now the plan is to hang by the phone and wait for him to call.
Someday these whimpering simps will learn that the best way to get over a broken heart is to find someone new.
When is a clue a clue? When does the obvious become the obvious? How many times must a wo/man turn her/his head pretending s/he just doesn’t see? The answer my friend is not blowing in the wind, it is spitting us in the face!
“It’s not hard to understand how bright women could be appalled by what they saw in the movie but you have to understand that that was the very specific world I was writing about. Women are both prizes [and] equal. Mark’s blogging that we hear in voiceover as he drinks, hacks, creates Facemash and dreams of the kind of party he’s sure he’s missing, came directly from Mark’s blog. … Facebook was born during a night of incredibly misogyny. The idea of comparing women to farm animals, and then to each other, based on their looks and then publicly ranking them. …
More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren’t the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80’s. They’re very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren’t women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)”
“…went to boarding school at Andover, where he joined the Democratic Club and the student government. In the fall of 2002, he went to Harvard, where he majored in history and literature. He and a roommate, Mark Zuckerberg — now the chief executive of Facebook — shared a room that was “just about as small as my cubby at work is these days,” Mr. Hughes said.”
When is a frackin’ clue a frackin’ clue? Jerry Brown attempted to become president by smearing working woman Hillary Clinton. Now, someone in his campaign, possibly his wife, suggested in an overheard conversation that Brown call Meg Whitman a “WHORE”. Many are making twisted excuses for “WHORE”.
Why was the “call her a WHORE” suggestion made in the overheard Brown campaign strategy session? Anyone who actually desires an honest answer to that question has to read our article from late last month:
“This past Wednesday USA Today published an almost universally ignored article which demands attention from all Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin supporters. As we Hillary Clinton supporters know, sexism and misogyny as political attacks are extremely effective:
“Calling a female candidate such sexist names as “ice queen” and “mean girl” significantly undercuts her political standing, a new study of voter attitudes finds, doing more harm than gender-neutral criticism based solely on her policy positions and actions.
Harder-edged attacks, such as referring to her as a prostitute, were equally damaging among voters, according to research commissioned by a non-partisan coalition of women’s advocacy groups.
The survey said the advice often given to women — to ignore the attacks rather than risk giving them more attention or legitimacy — turns out to be wrong. In the study, responding directly helped the female candidate regain lost ground and cost her opponent support.”
Mainline “women’s advocacy groups” (think NARAL which supported John Edwards! then Barack Obama) stabbed Hillary Clinton in the back or disappeared during the primaries. Phony women advocates like Oprah Winfrey (who voted skin color not character) likewise proved either hapless or treacherous. Neither Hillary nor Sarah Palin should expect decency or support from mainline women’s groups.”
“I was stunned at the magnitude of the effect of even mild sexism,” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who conducted the survey. “Right now campaigns tend to be silent and try to tough it out, and this really opens up a whole new strategy of responding.”
The groups that sponsored the research are the Women’s Media Center, the WCF Foundation and Political Parity. Thursday, they will announce a joint initiative called “Name It. Change It” designed to monitor and respond to sexism against female candidates in the media.
Siobhan “Sam” Bennett, president of WCF, says demeaning or belittling language routinely afflicts women in both parties, from Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2008 to Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell of Delaware now.”
We wrote at the time that we expected absolutely nothing from “Name It. Change It.” We have thus far been proven right. The slight consolation is that a few individuals are waking up. Democrat Kirsten Powers:
“The Jerry Brown campaign’s “whore” comment wasn’t the first to slur against a Republican woman. And look where the attacks are coming from—progressives and liberal women.
“What about saying that she’s a whore?”
No, I wasn’t eavesdropping on a Duke fraternity meeting. This was the suggestion of an aide to Democrat Jerry Brown on how to deal with his GOP rival for the California governorship, Meg Whitman.
Brown’s response? “Well I’m going to use that.”
When is a frackin’ clue a frackin’ clue? The sexism and misogyny, as the “creative class” Big Blog Boys love to say is “a feature, not a bug“. More from Powers:
“Once a tape of the conversation was leaked, the Brown campaign apologized.
While we, sadly, are all too familiar with the casual misogynistic comment, what perhaps is more surprising is where these slurs lately have been coming from—progressive bastions like the Brown camp, and liberal women.
Last month, liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller laughed uproariously when a female guest on her show said that if she ever met Michelle Malkin, “I would kick [her] right in the nuts,” and warned, “Wear a cup, lady.”
Or how about this: “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote.” This is what Democratic Rep. Janis Baird Sontany of Nashville said earlier this year of her female GOP colleagues.
Or this: “Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman,” as Cinta Wilson wrote during the tsunami of anti-Palin hysteria in 2008. In her Salon piece, Wilson went on to refer to the Alaska governor as a “Christian Stepford wife in a ‘sexy librarian’ costume” and the GOP’s “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.”
It comes from the coasts, from the most “liberal” “progressive” “creative class” boys and girls:
“Who needs misogynist men when liberal women will do the job for you, often sounding that shopworn theme that women GOP candidates are somehow inauthentic women?
Palin, of course, has been the target of many such smears. She was derided as, “Bush in a skirt” on Huffington Post, and at The Washington Post, Wendy Doniger blogged of then-VP candidate Palin: “Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman.”
Ann Coulter is often referred to as “Mann-coulter” on political blogs in an effort to de-feminize her. And MSNBC’s Keith Olberman once referred to Malkin as a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.”
In a Salon column last month headlined “Forget about the tea party—what about the crumpets?” Gene Lyons wrote that, “The most entertaining aspect of the 2010 election season has been the rise of the right-wing cuties—political celebrities whose main qualification is looking terrific on television. From where I sit, in a comfortable chair in front of the tube, the GOP Cupcake Factor has enlivened an otherwise dreary campaign season.”
“How would David Shuster like it if we started calling his wife a whore? How would David Shuster like it if we demeaned his, if any, children? Perhaps David Shuster would prefer us to restrict ourselves to personal insults about his bald spot – which he tries so hard to hide.
There is a bald pattern of behavior at NBC and MSNBC of Clinton hating that goes back at least a decade.”
The sexism and misogyny is so deeply embedded in the society that many women don’t even recognize sexism and misogyny anymore. But in political strategy dens it is recognized and used as a weapon. Long ago African-Americans engaged in degrees of self-hatred and self-loathing. That behavior was fought with a “Black Is Beautiful” campaign intended to expose and replace that self-loathing with affirmative narratives.
Now that the historically unprecedented Mistake In ’08 (see earlier installments of Mistake In ’08 HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE) has become apparent to all but the Hopium sedated, Obama Dimocrats are concerned. But the concern is about Obama Dimocrats who happen to be women, not about women themselves. Women are walking away from the Obama Dimocratic Party of Women Hate:
“While conservatives are already celebrating the “Year of the Republican Woman,” thanks to a record number of GOP female candidates for Congress, Democrats fear the opposite trend: the year of the women’s wipeout.
Three Democratic women first elected to Congress in 1992 — the original “Year of the Woman” — are at risk. Nearly a quarter of the 56 female Democrats in the House are considered vulnerable, including once rising stars like Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.”
Elections have consequences and when the Democratic Party leadership worked behind closed doors to exploit sexism and misogyny to destroy a qualified women running for president – the consequences are coming home to roost.
In 2008 women like Rebecca Traister could not see the sexism and misogyny – or at least speak out against it. Traister supported Barack Obama. Now that she is selling a book about women in the 2008 campaign Traister opens her peepers to see the sexism and misogyny deployed in the Obama health scam. Only now does book selling Traister see the treachery, sexism and misogyny from the Democratic Left:
“When Hillary won New Hampshire, she became the first woman in American history to win a primary. I mean, I sort of knew that, of course, what she was doing was historic. But this was a massive thing, a change in 220 years of presidential history. I didn’t know, and it was my job to know. [snip]
The thing that had a radicalizing impact on me began after [Hillary lost in] Iowa. Because there was this pile-on, and to me it was mind-bending. It was coming often from people on the left. It was like something they had been keeping inside as they bit their tongues and covered this woman who had the gall to be the front-runner and the “inevitable” candidate, which was the word that they threw out there. And finally she had shown weakness, and they were just going nuts.”
“Left-leaning lady trouble is ironic, since by many measures women are the Democratic Party—or at least 57 percent of it in the 2008 election. Moreover, the party has long been tagged as feminine: focused on purportedly soft concerns like healthcare, reproductive rights, social programs and the economy, as opposed to the more testicular national security obsessions of Republicans. Twenty-five of the thirty-eight female senators in history have been Democrats, and sixty-nine of the ninety Congressional seats currently held by women belong to Democrats. As Stephanie Schriock, head of EMILY’s List, says, “I think the Democratic Party strives to be a party of fairness and equal opportunity; that can be seen in the Democratic structure itself. You have a chair and vice chair, and in every state one has to be a man and one has to be a woman.”
The gender quotas, (usually) female-friendly policy priorities and slowly but steadily improving stats are all terrific. So why are we not hearing the party own its commitment to women’s progress by lending full-throated support to its female candidates? Democrats were recently forced to cough up the baleful statistic that only three of thirteen members of Red to Blue, its battleground district support network, are female. At around the same time, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee backed the male candidate, Representative Ed Case, in a special election for a Hawaii House seat, attempting to push his female opponent, Colleen Hanabusa—endorsed by EMILY’s List, labor unions and both of Hawaii’s senators—out of the race. Although gifted Texan orators Barbara Jordan and Ann Richards have given star-making keynote addresses at the party’s national conventions, Democrats have not put a woman on that particular podium since 1992. And in the six cycles since the history-making nomination of Geraldine Ferraro for the vice presidency, in 1984, not one other woman has been named to the top ticket.
A reluctance to advertise the centrality of women within the Democratic Party has been explained away for years as tactical necessity.“
Traister still makes excuses. Instead of exposing the sexism and misogyny she accepts the narrative that Obama Dimocrats have done a great job for women. Traister states that Sarah Palin’s “claims to feminism” ring “false” but does acknowledge the woman power represented by Palin (we’ll add Tea Party women to this phenomenon). Then there is this:
“They come to you every four years and say, We need your vote, but never ask for voices and visions,” says Wilson. “If you don’t give people opportunity and power within a system, they don’t stick with you…. It’s time for the party to stop just asking us to vote and say, We want you at the table of power.”
Too late, too late, too late – wake up and smell the testosterone. 2008 is not forgotten. Atavistic memory and documentation gouges at the fake claims of equality and feminism from the Frat Boy Left and Frat Boy White House. Look at Favreau writing the speeches, Hughes organizing the frat boys, Axelrod digging the dirt.
Loot at the National Organization For Women. After Jerry Brown and the “WHORE” comment NOW endorsed, not the woman, but the guy. NOW begged for a firing of the “WHORE” suggester but quickly backed away and called it a “teachable moment” for the future not the recent past. We’ve had enough fake “teachable moments” from Obama and his enablers. What America needs now is to open the eyes and admit the sexism and misogyny lesson of 2008 spitting us right in the face.
“The White House may view the last 18 months as historic, racking up a legislative scorecard that includes a $787 billion stimulus package and an overhaul of the health care system.
A majority of women, however, see it as a failure, according to a new poll conducted by Kellyanne Conway for The Kitchen Cabinet, a conservative women’s group.[snip]
Fifty-six percent of women consider the health care reform law a failure, while 29 percent view it as a success, according to the poll.
The economic stimulus package is viewed only slightly more favorably: 53 percent say it was a failure, while 34 percent say it was a success.”
The elderly/senior citizens used to be the “Democratic base” after FDR and Social Security – but in 2008 John McCain won that important demographic. In 2010 Republicans will reap the benefits that comes from that big voting in midterms demographic. Obama Dimocrats dumped the always voting senior demographic for the easily diverted young white urban liberal demographic.
“…their 2008 miracle voters—the young and the nonwhite—are so not interested in picking the Congress as they were in picking the president.
I hate to be a (Democratic) party pooper, but here’s the next piece of bad news. Guess who’s not coming out to vote? White women. The enthusiasm among all women is down, but Gallup shows that white women are the least enthusiastic of all the major demographic groups.” [snip]
Gallup conducted its regular weekly survey of 1,750 adults (1,500 registered voters)—then, for the period between August 1 and September 22, ran the data controlling for race and gender. The result: A dismal 27 percent of white female registered voters expressed excitement about the contest, compared to 36 percent of black men and women and 40 percent of white men. It is fair to say that the white women’s numbers are not depressed by indifference among the almost entirely white Republican women. At least in June, Gallup was finding that the Republican women were the most enthusiastic of the registered female voters. It’s the independent women (21 percent!) and the Democratic women (24 percent) who aren’t revved up about the coming midterms. [snip]
Remember the PUMAs, whose motto was Party Unity My Ass? They were the supposedly angry white women (the horror) so pissed off by Hillary Clinton’s defeat they were going elect John McCain? The PUMAs were sort of lost in the pixie dust storm of the Obama election. I wonder if we declared them an endangered species too soon? There were glimpses that all might not be well with white women in the exit polls even then. Turnout was up in 2008, but white women as a percentage of the electorate shrank a couple of points. The percentage of white men stayed the same, and nonwhites, both men and women, voted in larger percentages in 2008 than 2004.”
“Here’s why white women matter. Pundits like the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority predict that a growing nonwhite population—combined with the clear-sighted fealty of the big-brained voters of the postindustrial economy (read, young white guys in chinos) and the conventional gender gap—means that Republicans would soon lose their electoral dominance. But the 2010 election seems to indicate their predictions were either wrong or way premature. Obama’s majorities were probably more anomalous than transformative: a fragile coalition of marginally less rabid white men, a few more dutiful white women, and overwhelming nonwhite support. [snip]
But that combination of holding Democratic losses among whites and unprecedented support among nonwhites did not even last two years. In June 2010, when Gallup combined the preferences of the 25 percent of the registered voter sample who are nonwhite with the 75 percent who are white, the Democratic losses among white voters had gone up and the support among nonwhites had gone down so much that the Democrats ended up trailing the Republicans overall 47 percent to 45 percent.
Until the demographics shift, decades from now, Democrats need more reliable white votes.”
“Amid the frenzy, Stephen Colbert asked what few had observed: What about “the ladies in the film”? In his interview with Sorkin on Sept. 30, Colbert mentioned Erica, Zuckerberg’s “super smart” (ex-)girlfriend, played by Rooney Mara, then said, mischievously: “The other ladies in the movie don’t have as much to say, because they’re high or drunk or [bleep]ing some guys in the bathroom. Why are there no other women of any substance in the movie?”
As we noted earlier, Sorkin has answered the question this week posed to him by Colbert: sexism and misogyny.
In the film The Social Network the Obama base of sexists and misogyny is exposed for all the world to see but few want to say “sexism and misogyny”:
“But Colbert was right. Women in the movie—apart from the lawyer and Erica, who sets the stage and disappears—are less prizes than they are props, buxom extras literally bussed in to fill the roles of doting groupies, vengeful sluts, or dumpy, feminist killjoys. They are foils for the male characters, who in turn are cruel or indifferent to them. (In a somewhat ironic turn of events, former Harvard President Larry Summers is perhaps the only man in the movie portrayed both as solicitous and respectful of a woman’s opinion.)”
“Last week, I attended the Smart Girl Summit in Washington, D.C. The conference was filled with women of strength, of brains, of beauty and of fierce resolve. Women from all walks of life who came together, fighting and trying to do what is best for their children and this country. But, I was struck by something else; to the Left, these women are either whores or some creepy new invention of faux women, worthy of only mocking and ridicule.
Many told of times where they had been, like I have, called “gender traitors” or not real women. I’ve been called a dumb tart, just a rack, and told “I have better meat for her mouth.” I’ve been accused of being a wholly owned subsidiary of male dominated culture, whatever that means. We dumb tarts can’t seem to figure out things like that.
Every woman I met laughed such things off. That part didn’t shock me. See, we don’t relish victim-hood. We are also secure and comfortable in our own skins, breasts and fancy wombs and all. But, another reason it is laughed off did bother me. Because we are “used to it.” The thing is, we shouldn’t be. It shouldn’t be happening. Yet, it does. Over and over.
Kirsten Powers attended the panel I was on, called Feminism 2.0, the New Face of Feminism, with Jenn Q. Public and Pamela Gorman, moderated by Adrienne Royer. While Kirsten is an unabashed liberal and likely disagrees with us on most policy points, she listened and understood the vile hatred toward conservative women that comes out of the Left. Her article at the Daily Beast today reflects that. She touched on some examples, including the most recent one whereby Jerry Brown called Meg Whitman “a whore.” She’s a dame, you see. Thus, anything concerning financial things, which women can’t possibly understand, is whore-y. Am I right, fellas?”
“Jerry Brown isn’t alone. And it isn’t just coming from men. Alleged feminists are some of the worst offenders, spewing sexist and outright misogynistic garbage at conservative women.”
Yes, the sexism and misogyny comes from the Big Blog Boys and the Facebook frat brats but it also comes from women. Recall our great liberal Randi Rhodes when she, in the service of Barack Obama and the boys, called Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton “f*ucking WHORES”, “a big f*ucking WHORE”.
“Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole “malevolent, power-mad shrew” thing sounded pretty good, too.
Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as “wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn’t matter we swear.” The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.
Without a hint of irony.
Clinton was suddenly a bitch, a witch, the Queen of Hearts “who has parasitically attached herself to the legacy and record of” her husband, the screech on the blackboard with an elitist trademark laugh. “Hitlery,” “Hildebeast,” and “Billary” – staples of 1990s criticisms of the feminist First Lady have returned with a vengeance. She was a monster, the devil in a pantsuit, targeted with dehumanizing and eliminationist rhetoric to which liberal bloggers used to object when the right used it against liberals, but apparently now consider okay, as long as it’s only directed at a candidate they don’t like.
In a spectacular ballet of aggressive misogyny, attacks on Clinton’s femaleness masquerading as critiques of Clinton’s policies and campaign failures (separate altogether from legitimate critiques of Clinton’s policies and campaign failures), and indifference to the former, the liberal blogosphere – once a proud conglomeration of feisty challengers to Republican memes – embraced as its own one of the most pernicious strategies of the 1990s anti-Clinton conservatives.[snip]
One diarist on Daily Kos even provided a helpful guide to all the scandals of the Clinton years, with ratings from one to 10 based on scandal level and the level of Hillary Clinton’s involvement. The “Level of Scandal” for some of the scandals listed is artificially inflated by the diarist, JohnKWilson (author of a book on Obama…. [snip]
By April, the blogfather Kos himself was agreeing that Clinton wasn’t even to be considered a Democrat anymore.
“It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren’t even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them. [snip]
And Randi Rhodes – a “progressive talk radio personality” – fresh from calling Clinton a “fucking whore,” fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.
“Billary”, the two-headed monster created by the rightwing to demonize the “two-for-one” presidency of Bill Clinton and his feminist, advisor wife Hillary Clinton, also stumbled out of its grave, given new life by liberals who defended the Clintons against the very same attack when it was her being used against him during his administration, but now found it politically expedient to use him against her. [snip]
Even the architect of many of the most significant smears against the Clintons during the 1990s, Richard Mellon Scaife, had apparently dropped his campaign against them. Indeed, Scaife, the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, inserted himself into the paper’s editorial board’s interview with Clinton while she was campaigning in the crucial state of Pennsylvania and walked out impressed – so impressed that the paper endorsed her.
Not that this satisfied the Democratic critics of Clinton, though – if anything, the howls of outrage that she would sit down with Scaife after what he’d done only got louder. [snip]
Hyperventilated one Daily Kos diarist: “This is a bigger story than if Bill Clinton and Ken Starr decided to become best friends forever. This is like OJ and the Goldman family developing an alliance.”
Other sources of the attacks of the 1990s found fresh credibility, as long as they were smearing the Clintons.“
Those were our friends before 2008.
As the Mistake In ’08 becomes clearer every day, is it any wonder that women are beginning to walk away or stay away from the Party of Women Hate – Obama’s Dimocratic Party?
Senior citizens walked away from the Obama Dimocratic Party in 2008 and continue to walk away in 2010. Women are getting a clue too. Men are getting a clue. Barack Obama and his party of women hate must be destroyed in November 2010. No amount of prayers for or to Barack will help. If the party does not reject Obama and his fellow sexists and the misogynists, men and women, the destruction must continue into 2012 as well.
It’s time for the airing of grievances, It’s time for feats of strength, Let others celebrate Christmas in July. It’s Festivus for the rest of us.
The origins of Festivus are not shrouded in the mists of time. We know exactly and with precision the origins of the effulgent holiday. We know the traditions. We honor the short lived traditions.
So throw away the distracting tinsel, grab the aluminum pole – it’s time for airing of the grievances and amazing feats of strength. Festivus is here.
Last week, Nancy Pelousy and Obama congressional Dimocrats, the very people who cheated and lied to drag Obama’s limp body accross the finish line in the 2008 primaries, began the airing of the grievances: “House Democrats will air grievances to Obama” blared the Politico headline. It seems that the congressional Dimocrats are now aware that Obama only cares about himself and does not care about their reelection.
That was a rather tepid and late grievance. For a full fleged festive Festivus grievance we turned to scandal sheetGlobe magazine:
“President Barack Obama is tangled in the mystery surrounding the murder of the gay choir director of his controversial Chicago church – and the slain man’s mother is demanding answers NOW! This week’s GLOBE blows the lid off the shocking scandal America can’t afford to ignore.”
Now that is surely a Festivus grievance. A mother of a dead gay son clamoring for answers to the murder. The Globe has aluminum pole popping Festivus grievances to air:
“Norma Jean Young speaks out about the murder of her son, Donald Young, former Choir director of Obama’s Church Trinity United in Chicago. Mrs. Young “What was the cause of my son’s death? I’m very suspicious that it may have been related to Obama.” “Donald and Obama were close friends.”
Asked who benefited from a cover-up, Norma says, “it could be anyone, including Obama.”
That is certainly a shocking airing of grievances. But Festivus should have some heart-warming stories of cheer. And what could be more heartwarming than a job promotion in these tough times? The uppity people at Uppity Woman warm our hearts with this lovely story:
In a comical move even for a czar-happy president who has rewarded dozens of cronies with distinguished titles, the White House has named the Obama’s personal Chicago cook as “Senior Policy Adviser for Healthy Food Initiatives.”
It’s no joke, even though is sounds like a bad one. The Chicago chef’s rapid ascension, reported this week by a conservative Washington D.C. newspaper, has been kept under the radar for the last month. Sam Kass went from being a 20-something, Windy City gourmet cook—privately paid by the Obama’s to feed them—to big-time White House adviser in a matter of months.
At first we thought the promotion was for “Obama’s personal Chicago crook” but we realized that it was a cook who was in this particular mix. Indeed, the cook in question, Sam Kass is quite a beauty (picture HERE). But he is a cook, not a chef as the uppity women seize the distinction and enlighten us all on this spontaneous Festivus. This particular cook is also named as one of “Barack’s Beauties” in a People magazine list.
But the news of the promotion for the lucky cook, was not the main news for those uppity people. The real story was about a dead woman and her living children (in contrast to the Globe story about the live woman with her dead son). It turns out that Charlotte McCourt proves that Festivus is also for the dead.
“Charlotte M. Tidwell McCourt, 84, of Pahrump, passed away July 8, 2010, after a long illness. She was born Dec. 25, 1925, in Wellington, Utah, and was a 40-year resident of Nevada. Charlotte held a zest for life and loved serving her family of five children; 20 grandchildren; and 65 great-grandchildren. She had been the wife of Patrick L. McCourt for 67 happy years. Active in her community, she assisted in many political figures’ campaign efforts. As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Charlotte served as a leader in the Relief Society for over 20 years. She and her beloved husband also served a full-time mission in the Cabanatuan Mission in the Phillipines. Charlotte is survived by her husband, Patrick; children, Pat and Nellie McCourt, Dan and Lanny Shea, Bill and Marsha Sortor, David and Sherry d’Hulst, and Tom and Ann McMullin; and many grandchildren. A memorial service was held Saturday, July 10, at the LDS Chapel, 921 E. Wilson, in Pahrump. We believe that Mom would say she was mortified to have taken a large role in the election of Harry Reid to U.S. Congress. Let the record show Charlotte was displeased with his work. Please, in lieu of flowers, vote for another more worthy candidate.”
Well, guess what. Obama boob and overall oily Gulf incompetent Ken Salazar is still on the job when he should not be. But… without a word of thanks to Big Pink and at least 80 days late, James Lee Witt is now on the job. And apparently he is doing a wonderful job. That’s what they’re saying in the Gulf – oh and Jim Carville is celebrating Festivus (along with grievance airing Anderson Cooper) too and airing grievances:
Oh, we get no appreciation. Sigh. Grievance. Festivus.
“Now, Obama is letting his supporters strip away his image of a post-racial president by their increasingly racial rhetoric and his support for radical black activists.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers so obviously guilty of racial intimidation at the Philadelphia polling places in 2008 is of a piece with the NAACP’s loud denunciation of the Tea Party movement as racists, likening it to the White Citizens Councils of the segregationist past. And the Obama Administration’s decision to sue to overturn the Arizona immigration law — despite the fact that Americans approve of the statute, and disapprove of the lawsuit to void it, by 59-28 — is an attempt to foundation his appeal to Latino voters in racial terms.
In a bid to increase enthusiasm and, therefore, turnout among minority voters, Barack Obama is sacrificing his white support and his non-racial image.”
Morris is wrong. Obama was stripped of the fake “post racial” fairy tale during the Henry Louis Gates race-baiting episode.
As we wrote in “Is Barack Obama A Racist?“:
“The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn’t matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: “He made everything out like it was all racial.” On one occasion, Obama thought he’d gotten a bad break on the school basketball team because he was black. But Kakugawa recalls his father’s telling the teenager, “No, Barry, it’s not because you’re black. It’s because you missed two shots in a row.”
Now Obama Hopium Guzzlers describe anyone who opposes their Mess-iah as “racists”. But people criticize Obama not because he is black, but because he “missed two shots in a row.” Obama is a boob who race-baits to advance himself and when we point out he is a boob, the response is “racist”. Obama and his supporters make “everything out like it was all racial” but it is not. A boob is a boob, a thief is a thief, a jerk is a jerk, and color is irrelevant.
“According to the FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll, Obama’s job approval among Democrats has dropped from 84% two weeks ago (June 29-30) to 76% on July 13-14. At 76%, this level of job approval is below any the Fox News poll has ever recorded.
Why the collapse? Most likely it is due to liberal disappointment with the continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued use of Guantanamo, Obama’s inability to cope with the oil spill, and his refusal to push immigration reform when he could have passed it before he lost his 60 vote majority. Undoubtedly, the renewed sluggishness in the economy is also playing its part.[snip]
But Obama is making his troubles worse by his insistence on focusing on his minority voters to the exclusion of even the white liberal electorate. Consider Obama’s decision to sue Arizona over its immigration law. The general electorate backs the Arizona statute by 59-29 according to the FOX News poll. But 38% of Democrats support it as well (50% oppose it). Obama’s refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation after they stationed themselves outside a Philadelphia polling place in military uniforms with clubs also underscores the growing exclusion of whites of all stripes — including liberals — from the Obama base.”
“Thursday’s Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department’s decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?
For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn’t been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.
“The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.
But in this case, coverage is justified because it’s a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights’ investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.
National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy “significant,” said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.
Better late than never. There’s plenty left to explore.”
There sure is plenty left to explore. Grievances should be investigated and fairly debunked or fairly confirmed. Maybe someday The Washington Post will discuss the 2008 primaries.
And there is this latest installment into the investigation:
Air the grievances Obama lovin’ Charles Blow. Keep making excuses and keep deluding yourself that things will get better for the boob and that he will be reelected. Air the grievances you idiot blowhard:
“A CBS News poll released on Tuesday found that “a majority of Americans have a negative impression of the economy and expect the effects of the recession to linger for years.”
One of the most stinging findings: “Only 13 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s economic programs, among them the stimulus package, have helped them personally. Twenty-three percent say they have hurt, while 63 percent say they have had no effect.” Ouch. That’s an abysmal favorability return on an enormous financial investment.
A Gallup poll released on Friday found that satisfaction with the direction of the country among members of the president’s own party has dropped by a fourth since last month.
The BP disaster poisoned the waters of the gulf and sent saddening waves of tar balls and dead animals washing up onto its beaches. One of the president’s responses was to call for a moratorium on new deep-water drilling. Not cool, say gulf residents. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Wednesday found that 3 in 5 residents from the areas most affected disapproved of the moratorium and 7 in 10 disapproved of the government’s overall response to the disaster.
Polls continue to find that more people disapprove than approve of the Justice Department’s decision to sue over Arizona’s immigration law, a move that Hillary Clinton let slip was being made under Obama’s direction.
And, the N.A.A.C.P. scratched an old wound this week when it called on the Tea Party to expel racists from its ranks. The Tea Partiers protested — too much methinks — because the racism is a rap they can’t seem to beat.”
Continue to race-bait Charles Blow. Continue to think that Obama is sure to win in 2012. Continue to notice that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not friends. Air your grievances. You will however not be invited to the wedding.
All those people who wrote silly stories about how Obama now controlled the Clintons and now Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were part of the Obama Team, now have grievances to air. They were wrong. They will not be invited to the wedding. A lot of people will not be invited to the wedding. No Oprah, no Barack, no Doris. Air your grievances – it’s Festivus.
“Aaron Sorkin — best known for creating “The West Wing” — will make his feature directorial debut with a John Edwards biopic.
Sorkin’s adapting and producing Andrew Young’s “The Politician: An Insider’s Account of John Edwards’s Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down.” Project’s not yet set up at a studio.
Young, a longtime Edwards aide, gained notoriety during the 2008 presidential primary when he admitted — then later recanted — an affair with Edwards’ mistress Rielle Hunter and claimed Edwards’ child from that relationship as his own.”
Ah, the grievances of Festivus. But something is missing. Something is missing. Where are the feats of strength?
Nearly half of voters (49 percent) would be less likely to vote for a candidate if President Obama campaigns for them. That’s 10 points higher than the number that would be more likely to vote for that candidate (39 percent).
It’s about the same for former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin: 51 percent would be less likely to vote for a candidate she backs and 37 percent more likely.
Former Republican presidential candidate and Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney also risks doing more harm than good: 31 percent of voters would be more likely and 39 percent less likely to vote for a candidate if Romney campaigns for them.
Only former President Bill Clinton receives an overall positive response. By 45-41 percent, voters would be more likely to vote for a Clinton-backed candidate, rather than less likely.
By 16 percentage points, independents are more inclined to vote for a candidate supported by Clinton (47 percent) than Obama (31 percent). Clinton also outperforms Palin among independents by 24 points.”
Whoa! Can you imagine what a Hillary Clinton endorsement is worth these days? Talk about feats of strength.