In the article we discussed in Mistake In ‘08, Part II – The Power of Hillary Clinton Supporters we included the following information about [...]]]> At every turn Obama Hopium guzzlers and goons shout “racist!” Any mention of “white”, as in “white working class” is deemed “racist!” The White Working Class itself is deemed “racist!”

In the article we discussed in Mistake In ‘08, Part II – The Power of Hillary Clinton Supporters we included the following information about the White vote and Buchanan County in Virginia:

Reviewing the primary fight, Michael Barone noted that Obama got majorities “from whites only in his home state (Illinois), in states where the white Democratic primary electorate is unusually upscale and non-Jewish (Virginia, Vermont), and in mountain states where the cultural divide is not black-white.” This racial divide, Barone explained, was part of a larger, cultural divide between Jacksonians and academics. “In state after state, we have seen Obama do extraordinarily well in academic and state capital enclaves. In state after state, we have seen Clinton do extraordinarily well in enclaves dominated by Jacksonians.”

The Jacksonian Democrats tended to be white and working-class; the academics tended to be highly educated, and often government employees. This divide is often attributed to latent racism in the Jacksonians. But a suspicion of Barack Obama shouldn’t make you a racist. Consider the case of Buchanan County, a Jacksonian stronghold on the Virginia border next to both West Virginia and Kentucky. Obama lost Buchanan County to Hillary Clinton by a margin of 90 to 9. Which might make one view Buchananites with some suspicion—except that in the 1989 gubernatorial race, Douglas Wilder won Buchanan County by 18 points over his (white) Republican rival.

The Obama Hopium guzzlers and goons want to terrify with shouts of “racist!” Hillary supporters and anyone who dares speak to Obama’s lack of qualifications and inexperience. But White Working Class voters in Buchanan County in Virginia voted for white woman Hillary Clinton and black man Douglas Wilder – but not Barack Obama. In the latest elections in Virginia, true blue New Jersey, and blue of the bluest Massachusetts, White Working Class voters turned with fury against White Obama Dimocratic candidates.

John Judis has examined the question of Obama, the White Working Class and the charges of “Racism” and he has an answer as to why the White Working Class snubs Barack Obama. The Judis article is called “He’s a Yuppie. Why Obama can’t connect with the working class”:

Here is a fact: Barack Obama has trouble generating enthusiasm among white working class voters. That’s not because they are white. He would have had trouble winning support among black working class voters if they had been unable to identify with him because he was black. He has trouble with working class voters because he appears to them as coming from a different world, a different realm of experience, a different class, if you like. And that’s because he does.

I have recently read several stories about Obama that treat these difficulties as if they were paradoxical. The latest is from The Washington Post. “Despite his roots,” the article is headlined, “Obama struggles to show he’s connected to middle class.” And the story—which seems to use middle class, working class, and blue collar interchangeably—describes his supposedly non-elitist roots as follows: “He turned down high-paying jobs after graduating from Harvard Law School and became a community organizer, compelled by the experience of growing up with a single mother who sometimes lived on food stamps. He married a woman from a working-class family on the South Side of Chicago, and they rented a walk-up condominium in Hyde Park.”

The first thing to note about this description is that, like many accounts I have read of Obama’s life, it gets its facts wrong. He didn’t become a community organizer after graduating from Harvard Law School, but after graduating from Columbia. He left community organizing to attend Harvard Law School. After graduating from law school, he joined a prestigious Chicago law firm with offices just off Michigan Avenue. In 1991, he began teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago. He was chair of a Chicago branch of the Annenberg Foundation. Obama’s wife, who admittedly did grow up working-class, nevertheless graduated from Princeton and Harvard Law School. And Hyde Park is a pricey upper-middle-class section of Chicago.

Judis is inconsistent and somewhat afraid of the “white” in “white working class”. He should not be afraid. The long term euphemisms “lunch bucket Joe/Jane”, or the “blue collar” terminology all mean “WHITE working class” it is just that cowardice abounds when race is the topic. Judis might be inconsistent, if not cowardly, in his use of “WHITE” but he is commendable in the declaration that the reason why WHITE working class voters do not trust/like Barack Obama has little to do with skin color.

Many African-American voters fooled themselves into feeling “affinity” for Obama because of his skin color. “Affinity” is a politically correct term for voting for someone we feel comfortable with. When a campaign wants to “reach out” to a group the campaign drafts a “surrogate” speaker who has an “affinity” with the group being courted. A union speaker will speak with a group of union members, women speakers to women’s groups, gay speakers to gay groups, etc. Judis appropriately notes that BLACK working class voters gave a “pass” to Obama because of his skin color. White voters appropriately did not provide Obama with the “pass” Black voters gave.

Judis must also be commended for his restrained, Obama biography. Judis, as just about every Big Media personality, accepts Obama’s autobiography as if the facts are true – that is an argument for another day. For the sake of argument let’s accept for now the generally promoted Obama “facts” as if they were true and go with that narrative. We see the “community organizer” picked up his Jeremiah Wright tapes and headed on to Harvard. The “community organizer” Obama, like a thief “casing the joint”, knew who the power players in Chicago were and how to court them, and then he came back ready to cut deals.

* * * * * *

Judis contributes a good working definition of “working class”. Judis expands on Marx’s definition of working class. For Marx the working class “cannot claim to own or control the means of production”. Judis rightly notes that even within that meaning there are “enormous social divisions” that must be considered in modern American society. Writes Judis, “Race and income are important, of course, but so is function, which separates people who perform routine or menial or manual tasks from people who produce ideas and complex services. College professors do not always make more money than electricians; but they live in a different world.” Judis distinguishes the world of “professionals from that of “operatives, laborers, clerical workers, and technicians.”

Obama’s parents were professionals—his mother was an anthropology PhD and his father was a Harvard-trained economist. How much money they made was immaterial. His grandmother, who raised him in Hawaii, was a bank vice-president. He went to a fancy private school and to prestigious colleges (Occidental and Columbia) that turn out professionals and managers. He clearly was not obsessed with making money, but with performing a public service—yet that doesn’t distinguish him from other professionals or other Columbia graduates. It does distinguish him from a working- or middle-class American for whom being a civil rights lawyer or professor or politician is at best a passing fantasy.

[Some words of warning for John Judis: prepare for the "uppity" defense. Any time a class based argument is introduced, or Obama is called "arrogant" or "out of touch" or "fancy", the Hopium guzzlers and goons shout: "this is code language! Obama is being called "an uppity Negro" which proves Obama critics are "racist!!!" Of course, acceptance of such a ridiculous defense means that no black person can ever be "arrogant" or "well-off" financially or socially.]

Judis lampoons an Obama myth with restrained flair:

It is admirable that Obama spent three years after graduating as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, but many graduates of elite colleges spend several years after college doing something unusual, before returning to graduate school or settling into a profession. Some travel around the world; some join the Peace Corps; some try to write novels. In the days of Theodore Roosevelt or George H.W. Bush, some became cowboys or oil wildcatters. It’s a tradition that goes back over a century. It’s called “sowing your wild oats.” Afterwards, they usually return to more sober and sedate occupations appropriate to their social background and education. That’s what Obama did. As I wrote of his community organizing period, he became weary of the life of the community organizer. He doubted he was accomplishing much, and decided to go to law school. He didn’t choose to go to Kent College of Law or John Marshall Law School—schools where he could have retained his ties with working class Chicago—but to Harvard Law School.

Once out of law school, Obama lived and worked over the next decade in a grey area between the very upper reaches of professional America and the country’s managers, owners, and rulers. He didn’t just have access to more money and live differently from ordinary Americans; he possessed power and authority that they didn’t have. He was of a different world, even if as a politician he would occasionally visit theirs.

Judis is subtle in his dissection of Barack Obama. In his previous work Judis noted about Obama that he was “a disillusioned activist who fashioned his political identity not as an extension of community organizing but as a wholesale rejection of it.” Like a Chicagoan on a hooker binge weekend, Obama tired of the play and decided to advance himself. Isn’t that what Howard Dean did too? Dean became a ski bum as his “wild oats” adventure, Obama decided to check out the “peeps” he never knew and was disgusted by.

Judis concludes with the obvious – but it is still an “obvious” that Big Media will not allow the public to read on Big Media outlets:

There is no paradox, therefore, in Obama’s distance from white working class voters. What would be unusual is if he were able to echo their concerns in a deeply moving rather than in a somewhat mechanical way. Yes, there have been some gifted politicians of an upper class or professional background who have been able to do so. Some, like Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson, or Ronald Reagan, could draw upon their working class childhoods; others, like Franklin Roosevelt or Edward Kennedy, could evince a kind of upper-class paternalism.

This is not the first time we have quoted John Judis here at Big Pink. Judis had a smart thought about Obama’s “bitter” and “clinging” remarks as well. John Judis at The New Republic had this to say at the time:

These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they’re much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters’ opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological–a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called “false consciousness.” On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade–Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement–he was simply pandering to these voters’ displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, “I am really one of you, and I am not one of them.”

Was it “code language” that Judis employed when he traced Obama’s remarks in San Francisco to Marxist Marcuse? Certainly, like his “creative class” cheerleader pom-pom Big Blog Boys, Obama has contempt for the White (yes, Black too) Working Class. For those that have forgotten, here is what Obama said in San Francisco, among the wealthy:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Like liberal John Judis, Patrick Buchanan picked up on the hateful subtext of Barack Obama’s words, which dripped with loathing aimed at the white working class:

It was said behind closed doors to the chablis-and-brie set of San Francisco, in response to a question as to why he was not doing better in that benighted and barbarous land they call Pennsylvania.

Like Dr. Schweitzer, home from Africa to address the Royal Society on the customs of the upper Zambezi, Barack described Pennsylvanians in their native habitats of Atloona, Alquippa, Johnstown and McKeesport. [snip]

This is the pitch-perfect Hollywood-Harvard stereotype of the white working class, the caricature of the urban ethnic — as seen from the San Francisco point of view. [snip]

Though he sees himself as a progressive who has risen above prejudice, Barack was reflecting and pandering to the prejudice of the class to which he himself belongs, and which he was then addressing.

A few months back, Michelle Obama revealed her mindset about America with the remark that, “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.” Barack has now revealed how he, too, sees the country. The Great Unifier divides the nation into us and them.

The “us” are the privileged cosmopolitan elite of San Francisco and his Ivy League upbringing. The “them” are the folks in the small towns and rural areas of that other America.

The Obama “us” versus the “them” was eloquently expressed by Donna Brazile and David Axelrod:

Donna Brazile: A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

David Axelrod: The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

Obama snubbed the White working class and now the white working class returns the favor. [We'll have more on the implications of this in Part IV of this series of articles.]

Hillary Clinton was the change, the big change and could have altered the electoral landscape. According to CBS News:

CBS News’ Election and Survey Unit’s survey analyst extraordinaire Jennifer De Pinto goes inside the exit polls from last week’s election and finds some interesting nuggets about those Hillary Clinton supporters who voted for John McCain:

As voters left the polls on Election Day, many were asked how they would have voted if the election match-up were between Hillary Clinton and John McCain rather than Barack Obama and McCain. 52 percent said they would have backed the former Democratic candidate; 41 percent would have voted for McCain, wider than Obama’s 7-point margin over McCain.

Interestingly, 16 percent of McCain voters said they would have voted for Clinton, the Democrat, if she had been her party’s nominee.

So who were these potential cross-over voters?

# They were older: 61% of them were age 45 and above.

# 53% were women; while 47% were men.

# 43% of these voters who supported McCain but would have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Independents. 31% were Republicans; while 26% were Democrats.

# 84% of them were white – higher than the electorate at large. 12% were Hispanic, compared to 9% of the total electorate.

# 21% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton said race was factor in their vote. 19% of McCain voters overall said race was factor in their vote.

# 61% of these McCain voters who would have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 39% earned less. 61% do not have a college degree.

# These voters valued experience over change. 47% said experience was their top candidate quality and 32% said a candidate who shares their values. Just 10% picked change. But like voters overall, the economy was the top issue for these voters.

# 58% of McCain voters who would have supported Clinton if she were a candidate said their candidate’s personal and leadership qualities was more important in their vote; 36% said it was their candidate’s positions on the issues.

# Among McCain backers overall, voters were divided with 48% choosing issues and 49% picking qualities. But among the electorate at large, 58% said their candidate’s position on the issues was more important.

While 85% of Obama voters said they would have voted for Clinton had she been the Democratic candidate, 13% would not have supported her including 6% who said they would have backed McCain and 7% who said they would not have voted.

# 60% of these voters were under age 45.

# They were mostly men. 59% were men; while 41% were women.

# 41% of these voters who supported Obama but would not have backed Clinton if she were in the race described themselves as Democrats. 20% were Republicans; while 38% were Independents.

# While most of these voters were white (74%); 17% were black – higher than the share of the total electorate. 5% were Hispanic.

# 53% of these Obama voters who would not have backed Clinton earned $50K or more annually. 47% earned less. 58% do not have a college degree.

# These voters were clearly looking for change – 57% picked it as their top candidate quality. This was followed by values (20%) and cares (12%). Experience ranked last with 8%.

# 60% of these voters said issue positions were more important; 38% said it was leadership and personal qualities.

With Hillary Clinton we could have had fundamental change AND an experienced leader, not a boob and a stooge. But the Democratic establishment imposed their will and gifted Obama the nomination. This is one of the greatest historical mistakes in American history.

The “Mistake In ‘08″ is increasingly recognized but not yet repudiated by the perpetrators. The guilty will be punished with the electoral death penalty.

[Part IV, coming soon.]

JanH, quoted from a gossip columnist [...]]]> A little snowflake can’t do much. Put enough snowflakes together however, and it’s a beautiful sight to see. Whole cities stop functioning and entire countries are forced to wait until those little snowflakes go away. Sometimes those snowflakes don’t go away – they’re called Hillary Clinton supporters.

JanH, quoted from a gossip columnist yesterday. The quote goes to show that even in those precincts, the smell of Obama desperation is in the air. Cindy Adams published a ridiculous “item” which can be dismissed completely as a possibility, but the news “item” is but a small example of how even in the society pages the “ladies who lunch” are aware of the mess Mess-iah Obama is and the only solution to the problem: Hillary Clinton. Here’s Cindy, fresh from a manicure:

Now, anyone mentioned the so far mumbled-about-only-behind-sealed-doors possibility that in this coming Supreme Court draught Our Father Who Art in the White House could . . . would . . . might . . . nominate Biden to the bench? The idea being to get Hillary as VP. To shore up his poll numbers. Let nobody say he’d even throw Michelle under the bus so’s to keep his government housing job. Let nobody say that. However, let somebody say that since his support has eroded with working-class Democrats, and that’s Hillary country . . . is all I’m saying.

Hillary country. Cindy Adams is saying what Americans of all colors and all parties are saying: Obama is a loser; “Hillary, save us!”

Cindy Adams is wrong on the Supreme Court nomination angle, but this gossip “item” is exactly right on the point of Hillary Clinton’s strong support with working class Democrats. Oh, and Michelle should be worried, that bus has big tires.

* * * * * *

Big Pink readers know we wrote long ago and often about the situation comedy demographics of the monster Obamination Dimocratic Party. We wrote long ago about how this hideous apparatus which supplanted the winning FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition was a loser that would not last. Barack Obama Destroys the Democratic Party, we wrote because his situation comedy coalition essentially is the old George McGovern coalition. The financial emergency and the reemergence at the end of 2008 of George W. Bush to deal with that financial emergency created an historical aberration: the election of Barack Obama after the selection and gifting of the Democratic nomination to B.O.

That historical aberration which led to the current catastrophe is increasingly recognized even among the Obama Apologists who are in retreat. Now, almost on a weekly if not daily basis, articles are published which agree with the arguments we have made for years.

The latest article which adopts most if not all of our premises comes from the Weekly Standard. The article is called The Clinton Voters Jump Ship:

The conventional wisdom is that Barack Obama’s decline in the polls represents a new, unexpected turn against him. But an examination of the results of the recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts suggests that what we might really be seeing is a return to the skepticism that significant portions of the electorate have showed about Obama from the beginning of his national career.

Barack Obama was the chosen stooge of an establishment cabal we now know. Hillary Clinton could have healed the breach in the Democratic Party caused by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and united African-Americans and the White Working Class under one huge Democratic tent. Unlike JFK who worked for the votes of Southern protestants resistant to his candidacy, Obama choose to ignore the white working class and now the white working class will ignore Barack Obama.

More from the Weekly Standard article:

For six months during the 2008 primaries, Obama and Hillary Clinton crisscrossed the country wooing voters. Obama consistently failed to win over important parts of the Democratic base, even after it became clear that he was going to be his party’s nominee.

On February 5—Super Tuesday— Obama did poorly in both New Jersey and Massachusetts, losing to Clinton by 10 and 15 points, respectively. The exit polls were in line with Obama’s performance throughout the primary race: He did very well with blacks, wealthy voters, highly educated voters, and very young voters. He did poorly with working-class whites and older voters.

In other words, Obama did well with his situation comedy demographic, an ephemeral grouping at best, which benefited his candidacy in the 2008 elections but are a very poor choice to build a party on. But it was always about Barack, not about the Democratic Party. Now the Democratic establishment which conspired to drive Hillary Clinton from the race and install their monstrous selection, will inherit the wind.

And then there was gender and race. In New Jersey, Obama was -19 among white men; in Massachusetts he was +1.

In addition to the demography, there was geography. Obama ran well in urban enclaves. He also did well in college towns and state capitals. But he did poorly in the suburbs and in smaller industrial towns.

“Bitter” and “clinging” small town America, rejected Barack Obama and his insults and snobbery.

Reviewing the primary fight, Michael Barone noted that Obama got majorities “from whites only in his home state (Illinois), in states where the white Democratic primary electorate is unusually upscale and non-Jewish (Virginia, Vermont), and in mountain states where the cultural divide is not black-white.” This racial divide, Barone explained, was part of a larger, cultural divide between Jacksonians and academics. “In state after state, we have seen Obama do extraordinarily well in academic and state capital enclaves. In state after state, we have seen Clinton do extraordinarily well in enclaves dominated by Jacksonians.”

“Jacksonians” as in Andrew Jackson. Every year Democrats in many states celebrate at “Jefferson/Jackson” festivities and fund-raisers. “Jefferson/Jackson” are the Democratic Party and in the modern era we add FDR and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The is the core, the heart, of the Democratic Party. That heart has now been removed to install a TIVO situation comedy.

The Jacksonian Democrats tended to be white and working-class; the academics tended to be highly educated, and often government employees. This divide is often attributed to latent racism in the Jacksonians. But a suspicion of Barack Obama shouldn’t make you a racist. Consider the case of Buchanan County, a Jacksonian stronghold on the Virginia border next to both West Virginia and Kentucky. Obama lost Buchanan County to Hillary Clinton by a margin of 90 to 9. Which might make one view Buchananites with some suspicion—except that in the 1989 gubernatorial race, Douglas Wilder won Buchanan County by 18 points over his (white) Republican rival.

We will discuss the “racism” angle tomorrow in Part III. For now let’s focus on what has happened post 2008 election.

The question, then, is how these various coalition groups—the white ethnic enclaves, the Jacksonians, the suburban and industrial town voters—have reacted to Democrats since Obama took office. And the answer is: Without enthusiasm.

In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell won an 18-point victory in a state Obama carried by 6 points. Obama had been -24 among white men in 2008; McDonnell was +43. Obama had carried every income bracket under $75,000 by at least double-digit margins. McDonnell was -8 among those making between $15,000 and $30,000 a year. He was +6 from there up to $50,000 and +28 among those making between $50,000 and $75,000. Where Obama had lost whites without college degrees by a big margin—34 percent—McDonnell did even better than McCain had, rolling up a 51-point advantage. Buchanan County? McDonnell won it by 26 points, a 21-point swing against the Democrats.

In New Jersey, it was worse. Chris Christie was outspent by a millionaire incumbent in a state Obama won by 15 points. Christie won by 5 points, and the exit polls showed defections among the same groups who had been against Obama in the presidential primaries. Where Obama had been only -3 among white men, Christie was +34; where Obama had run even with older whites, Christie was +25; where Obama had been competitive among non-college educated whites (he was only -4 in the general election), Christie was +34. In the rural south, Obama had won Gloucester and Salem counties easily. A year later, they went for Christie. In heavily industrialized Passaic County, Obama had won by 21 points; Christie came within 8.

Which leaves Massachusetts. There were no exit polls for the January special election. One approximation comes from a Public Policy Polling survey conducted a few days before the election, which concluded with Scott Brown ahead by 5 points. Brown was +12 among white voters (Obama had been +20), and the poll suggested that Brown did very well among middle-aged voters: He was +14 among those age 30 to 44 and +3 from age 45 to 64. Among these groups Obama had been +18 and +20. The town and county results tell the same story. Plymouth and Worcester counties are two ethnic, blue-collar strongholds that went heavily for Clinton in the primaries, by 21 and 25 points, respectively. Brown won them by similar margins: +26 in Plymouth and +23 in Worcester.

What the above numbers mean is that Dimocrats should have seen the blood gushing from the chest in Virginia and New Jersey as an arterial wound, not a paper cut. Bluest of the blue Massachusetts was more than an arterial wound, it was the Democratic heart itself, stabbed and writhing.

But if we accept that the comparisons are at least marginally valid, then Obama is not encountering some new, unanticipated resistance from the electorate. Instead, it may be that his general election triumph was the aberration—that his coalition was never as strong as the financial panic of September 2008 made it seem. It would mean that he is now returning to his natural base of support and that the Jacksonians and others who resisted him in the primaries have turned away once again from his charms.

2008 November was an aberration. McCain followed the winning Republican playbook of “come out fighting only after the convention and ride to victory”. McCain was winning even though Big Media was out to destroy him and Sarah Palin. It was then that the financial crisis hit and George W. Bush came back to the fore and Americans decided enough was enough. Americans had had enough. It took the alleged collapse of the financial system to once again drag Obama over the finish line.

As we wrote in August, the Democratic Party died once Obama was gifted the nomination by the establishment cabal. Now the Obamination wolf which wears the Democratic clothes must be destroyed. It’s the only way to restore the common sense Democratic Party of Jefferson-Jackson-FDR-JFK-Bill-Hillary Clinton.

But it also suggests something more, that the Democratic party is now the party of Obama, for good and for ill. While the president is no Jacksonian, his party has many in its ranks. Democratic officeholders should be concerned about their voters fleeing not just from Obama but from their party as well. The president may be in the process of trimming the Democratic base back into something that looks an awful lot like his own primary base.

Obama’s primary base is the desired demographic of a situation comedy. Situation comedy’s are good to laugh at but they do not last. Hillary Clinton supporters are standing by the door in Winter quarters – bags packed and ready. From those Winter quarters Hillary Clinton supporters will either leave to do battle for Hillary, or we will leave, never to return to the fold.

A few weeks ago Representative Marion Berry, a Jacksonian from Arkansas’s First District, recounted an exchange he had with the president. Asked how he was going to prevent a midterm disaster on the scale of 1994, Obama replied, “Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.” Which may be precisely the problem.

The problem precisely. Barack Obama is the Problem.

[Part I HERE. Part III tomorrow, and the "racist" question.]

Martha Coakley is a mainstream Democratic candidate. Coakley is not worthy of hate nor vilification. Yes, Martha Coakley has made many [...]]]> We are one day away from the very special election in Massachusetts. On the ballot itself the contestants are Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown as well as Libertarian Joe Kennedy.

Martha Coakley is a mainstream Democratic candidate. Coakley is not worthy of hate nor vilification. Yes, Martha Coakley has made many mistakes, but those mistakes are not what weigh on her. Coakley ran a smart campaign for the Democratic nomination against the opposition of the Democratic establishment and won. Nancy Pelousy, went to Massachusetts to campaign against her but Coakley won. The Kennedy clan was against her but Coakley won. Coakley vowed to vote against Obama’s health scheme to enrich insurance companies and Coakley won.

After a huge victory in the Democratic primary Martha Coakley became the Coca Cola company. Remember the “New Coke” fiasco? The Coca Cola company threw out its popular product only to replace it with “New Coke”. Americans stocked up on “Old Coke”. It was a disaster which forced the company to return to “Classic Coke”.

After her massive Democratic Primary win Martha Coakley became the “New Coak”. She embraced the Kennedy clan and she embraced Barack Obama’s health scam. Martha Coakley took a draught of Barack Obama. Barack Obama is poison.

Scott Brown is a Massachusetts Republican. Scott Brown is not worthy of hate nor vilification. Scott Brown is not the monster Dimocrats, in desperation, try to create. Scott Brown is a canny candidate from a district that voted 60% for Barack Obama. Scott Brown will likely win in blue of the bluest Massachusetts tomorrow because he appeals to the voters the Obama Dimocrats threw out. Indeed, Scott Brown’s trajectory began to rise when he ran a campaign advertisement and tied himself to the old Democratic coalition. Scott Brown embraced John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

In the 1960 election Catholic John Kennedy had a problem. Protestant America and the white working class did not trust John Kennedy based on his religion. John Kennedy went to West Virginia and spoke to the Protestant white working class voters in the South. Kennedy won their trust and won the presidency. Kennedy, like Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and especially Bill Clinton won the white working class vote.

Barack Obama took a detour from the coalition that FDR and Jack Kennedy built. JFK also appealed to the increasingly enfranchised African-American voters after his historic call to Coretta Scott King, wife of the imprisoned and missing Martin Luther King, at a moment of great peril to the life of Dr. King.

Barack Obama snubbed the white working class voters and did not even bother to campaign much in states that Hillary Clinton would win, at a time that Obama was the presumed Democratic nominee, by 40 point margins.

Barack Obama chose to run a race based campaign and tarred Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton, as well as their supporters, as racists. It was the “New Coalition” which we call the “situation comedy” demographic.

The Obama/Axelrod/Brazile vision for the Democratic Party mimics the desired demographics for a television sitcom.

As the long suffering Donna declared A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

Axelrod has declared The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

Into that abandonment of the white working class steps Scott Brown. There will be many Republican Scott Browns from now on until the “Classic Democrats” reject the “New [Coke] Coalition”. In “purple” Virginia the “situation comedy” was rejected. In “blue” New Jersey the “situation comedy” was laughed at. Tomorrow “bluest of the blue” Massachusetts will also likely change the channel.

Barack Obama, with all his money and tricks and schemes, was about to lose to the clumsy and often mocked John McCain who was in the actual lead for weeks after the Republican convention. It took a return to the center state of a loathed George W. Bush, due to a massive economic crisis, for American voters to finally shift to the inexperienced and unqualified Barack Obama.

Now, after a year of Obama, reality sets in. The voters reject Obama and the foil of their rejection and anger will be the Massachusetts special election. What happens tomorrow is almost beside the point. Republicans this close to victory in Massachusetts is already a rejection of Barack Obama and his “situation comedy” coalition.

At the height of the civil rights movement, Dr. Martin Luther King spoke to the better angels of our nature. Dr. King did not speak in terms of skin color but of character as the defining attribute.

Barack Obama is not a fulfillment of Dr. King’s vision for America, quite the opposite.

Dr. King spoke at a time of dogs and fire hoses and vicious racists. Dr. King would not have smiled at race-baiting. Dr. King also knew that the white working class was not to be rejected but embraced and loved and must be part of the future.

Tomorrow blue of the bluest Massachusetts will decide, not by madness or stupidity, who their representative to the U.S. Senate will be. The voters of Massachusetts will not accept the “teabagger” (Tea Party), “birther” (Obama birth certificate), “wingnut” (right of center), “batsh*t crazy”, labels a desperate and vindictive Obama Dimocratic Party will try to smear Scott Brown with. The voters of Massachusetts will not accept the sexism and misogyny directed at her from some (not the Scott Brown campaign) misguided opposition supporters.

Martha Coakley or Scott Brown will win tomorrow. Barack Obama will lose. Dr. King’s dream will live on. Barack Obama’s dream will die.

In the wake of our article on the [...]]]> Let’s make sense of the Brown versus Coakley U.S. Senate race in Massachusetts, the Democratic Dimocratic Left “Creative Class”, Mark Halperin’s latest book “Game Change“, the Tea Party Movement’s return to Boston after a few hundred years, and the growing NObama Coalition we talked about in January 2009.

In the wake of our article on the Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley race in Massachusetts (Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley) we have been accused of being “Libertarians”, “Republicans”, “stupid”, along with other nonsense assertions of non-fact. The “Libertarian” accusation was particularly humorous because it would have made sense IF we had endorsed the Libertarian Joe Kennedy in the Massachusetts race, and/or if we did not believe in the good sensible government can do (that’s why we supported Hillary Clinton’s HOLC and Universal Health Care Plan). The “Republican” accusation is also silly for anyone that has read this website for the past several years. Indeed, we considered ourselves left-of center Democrats. But stupid, we have never been.

“Stupid” is what now passes (we call them PINOs – Progressives In Name Only) for the Democratic Left. These modern day Leninists love to call themselves the “creative class”, in a paroxysm of egomania matched only by airheaded class “D” celebrities. The current Obama loving Dimocratic Left is “stupid” – very “stupid”.

These stupid creatures are really latter-day Leninists. These stupid creatures believe they, the comic book superhero style “creative class”, are the “revolutionary vanguard” sent down by celestial choirs to lead “the masses” and be adored by the proletariat. These stupid boys – and they are mostly boys and men who are terrified of women (with some Left Talking women who desperately want to be one of the boys) are extremely in need of self-reflection and a rational, and reality based, analysis of American politics.

How stupid is the “creative class” Dimocratic Left that loves to mock the Tea Party movement as “dumb redneck hicks” and “teabaggers”? The “creative class” is so stupid that they whored themselves for Barack Obama, thinking he was the “change” candidate. Now as they sit down and listen to audio tapes of the Mark Halperin book “Game Change” they realize they actually backed the establishment candidate. Self-styled revolutionaries whored themselves for the establishment – how dumb is that?

Our series of articles Mark Halperin’s Book – Harry Reid’s Negro Macaca, Barack Obama’s War On Hillary Clinton, Part I, Part II, and Part III discussed the big flaws in “Game Change” as well as the lessons to learn. While we doubt the speculations and bias in “Game Change” what cannot be denied is what is self-confessed by participants, now that the book is out: the Democratic Party establishment was the chief sponsor of Barack Obama’s candidacy and what forced him to run.

The public excuses in “Game Change” for gifting the nomination to Barack Obama and destroying Hillary Clinton is that Hillary could not win the election because she could not win men and the white working class.

Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination. He argued that Obama’s lack of experience might not be crippling; it might actually be an asset, allowing him to cast himself as a figure uncorrupted and uncoopted by evil Washington, without the burdens of countless Senate votes and floor speeches. [snip]

Obama had heard these arguments before from other senators. His friend and Illinois counterpart, Dick Durbin, was urging him to run, but that was to be expected. More intriguing were the entreaties he was receiving from New York’s Chuck Schumer. Schumer’s relationship with Hillary had always been fraught with rivalry and tinged with jealousy; though she was technically the junior member of the New York team in the Senate, she had eclipsed him in terms of celebrity and influence from the moment she arrived on the Hill. [snip]

The political handicapper in Schumer was fascinated by Obama’s potential to redraw the electoral map, a capacity Clinton surely lacked. In conversations with other senators and strategists in 2006, Schumer would make these points over and over. He made them to Obama as well, and repeatedly; in one instance Schumer even double-teamed him with Reid. Although Schumer was careful to signal that home-state decorum would prohibit him from opposing Clinton publicly—“You understand my position,” he would say—he left no doubt as to where his head and heart were on the question.[snip]

These were not the only senatorial voices importuning Obama. Daschle, too, was on the case, and so was a coterie of senators close to him, including Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad, both of North Dakota. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Barbara Boxer of California, and even Ted Kennedy—all were nudging Obama to take the plunge. Their conversations with Barack were surreptitious, a conspiracy of whispers. They told him that 2008 was going to be a change election and that he uniquely could embody transformation.

Add Pelosi, McCaskill, Dean, Kerry, and the Democratic organizations to the anti-Hillary mob. Bamboozlement! A clan of corrupt and coopted establishment figures knew Obama could be MARKETED as a candidate of “transformation”. Bamboozlement! Inexperience became an asset. Not voting became a defense. A stooge was marketed as a leader.

The real Game Changer of course was Hillary Clinton who could unite African-Americans and the White Working Class Men and Women and Latinos and Women Independents and Republicans and truly transform the Democratic Party into a majority party for a long time. Hillary Clinton who won in Southern States with the enthusiastic support of men and who, according to exit polls, would have gotten more Republican votes in the general election and a bigger margin against John McCain than Obama was blocked BY THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT for their own power purposes.

Ted Kennedy, the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur, who had backed Obama for years and was a secret power (mocking Bill Clinton in secret with “hick” imitations and laughed because few knew that he, Ted Kennedy was no “neutral” but instead the power behind the stooge), gifted Obama the nomination and as part of the strategy smeared Bill Clinton as a racist. The establishment did their sleazy job well and the “creative class” dupes and dimwitted stooges went right along. How dumb is that?

* * * * *

Hillary Clinton supporters are the spearhead of the NObama coalition because we better than anybody know the content of Obama’s character. The main body of the spear, the lance, is the Tea Party movement. While Hillary Clinton supporters and the Tea Party movement have issue differences of some gravity, we are united in the NObama coalition. That cross-ideological merge is a necessary response to the manipulations, sexism, misogyny, deceptions and plots of the Democratic “leadership” stooge-masters who gifted unqualified stooge Barack Obama the Democratic nomination thereby imperiling the nation for their own cynical benefits.

The Tea Party movement, mocked as “rednecks” and “hicks” and the sexually leg-rubbing term “tea baggers” by the boys of the “creative class” has proven to be smarter than the stupid “creative class”. The Tea Party movement has not only removed a pro-Obama on healthcare Republican candidate in New York’s 23rd congressional district. The Tea Party movement almost carried a non-telegenic bore and skeleton fright Tea Party candidate to victory in that race.

In Florida, the Tea Party candidate is about to smash the popular ex-governor who was the Republican establishment candidate for U.S. Senate. In Massachusetts, the Tea Party candidate has moved a sure loss of a seat held by Ted Kennedy and John Kennedy for more than half a century into an historic, truly earthquake level race.

The Tea Party movement is what the “creative class” imagine themselves to be. The Tea Party movement is a powerhouse movement of grassroots citizens that is imposing its will on the Republican Party establishment and effectively opposing Barack Obama. The Tea Party movement is actually accomplishing its admittedly still inchoate goals. If Scott Brown wins, the Tea Party movement will have effectively written the template for all Republican candidates this November (and even some smart Democrats) as well as effectively control the Republican Party – whether the Republican Party establishment agrees or not.

The Tea Party movement, if Scott Brown wins, will be true and reborn to its inspiration, in the city of the first Tea Party – Boston. We saw the Tea Party movement as “strong” back in April (Weak Obama, Strong Tea). We understood the force and significance of the Tea Party movement back then too (The Meaning Of The Tea Parties: No Taxation Without Representation). The “creative class” of Dimocrats were too busy tittering and rubbing their legs with teabag jokes to recognize what was happening. The “creative class” is the “clueless class”.

In Massachusetts, the Hillary Clinton movement is meeting the Tea Party movement. What happens in Massachusetts will shape the still growing NObama coalition.

In our article Victory In Massachusetts – Brown Versus Coakley we posited that whatever the election results, next Tuesday, Hillary Clinton and her supporters will emerge victorious. Every day brings new evidence that only “lonely” and “racist” Bill Clinton can possibly save Martha Coakley. Whether Coakley is worth saving remains to be seen. A Coakley win will bolster Bill Clinton in his war with Big Media and Barack Obama and his thugs.

A victory by Scott Brown will effectively destroy Barack Obama’s useless administration and short-circuit all the plotters which gifted Barack Obama the Democratic nomination.

In our earlier article we gave some advice to Martha Coakley and her campaign. Today it is Scott Brown who deserves advice.

We have researched many websites and news sources to monitor the election in Massachusetts. We have noted one ugly note sounded by Scott Brown supporters on a few websites. Scott Brown is not the one to blame nor is his campaign. But we have noted that some Scott Brown supporting websites are engaging in ugly sexism and misogyny against Martha Coakley. Again, Scott Brown and his campaign are not to blame in any of this. The website owners are mostly not responsible for the sexism and misogyny directed against Martha Coakley. But the sexism and misogyny is oozing out in comments and in whispers. This has got to stop.

First of all, the sexism and misogyny is wrong and stupid and is more in line with the mindset of the “creative class” PINOs. The worse stereotypes of men as “mouth-breathers” and neanderthals is reinforced by some of the ugly sexism and misogyny we have read on some websites. The women who engage in calling Martha Coakley ugly names, from the worst of the world of rap music, demonstrate the lack of self-respect these women have towards themselves. This has got to stop.

Second of all, the sexism and misogyny hurt Scott Brown and Republicans and the Tea Party movement and alienates Hillary Clinton supporters. The sexism and misogyny hurt Scott Brown because he is not responsible for any of it and he does not need to go down that dirty Barack Obama road. If Scott Brown supporters want to be called right of center Barack Obama’s then keep up the sexism and misogyny.

Further, the sexism and misogyny will hurt, not only Hillary Clinton but Sarah Palin as well. The same whisper campaigns and stupid sexism and misogyny utilized to hurt Martha Coakley has been used against Hillary Clinton and will be used against other women candidates such as Sarah Palin. We have all, left and right, witnessed the sexism and misogyny employed by Dimocrats and Republicans against Democrat Hillary Clinton. We have all, left and right, witnessed the sexism and misogyny employed by Dimocrats and Republicans against Sarah Palin. It is time for all of us to recognize common interests. So, stop the sexism and misogyny. Stop it.

* * * * *

Martha Coakley to her credit has denied that Scott Brown will be prevented from immediate recognition as a Senator if he is elected. Coakley’s denial was not immediate and it has not been strong or repeated enough. That is hurting her whether her supporters and she like to hear it or not. For her own self interest she should vigorously denounce such a ploy. We wrote about this enough previously so we won’t belabor it, but this is hurting her a lot. The story is not going away and even Big Media outlets are reporting this sensational side line. This is not the only mistake she is making.

Martha Coakley is making mistakes and Scott Brown is taking full advantage of them. In the recent debate Coalkey declared Afghanistan to be free of terrorists. We doubt most Americans or even those in Massachusetts believe Al-Qaeda is not operating there. In advertisements Coakley allies and the Coakley campaign are tagging Brown as “pro-torture” because he wants military imprisonment for terrorists, not trials in civilian American courts. Whatever the merits of those positions as policy issues, the reality is that most Americans, even those in Massachusetts agree with Scott Brown. Why is Coakley’s campaign making this an issue? Is it to get out the alleged Democratic base? How does that work when a sufficiently significant part of the base too agrees with Brown? How does that help? The Coakley campaign needs a refresher course in the Paul Tully message box.

On terrorist trials 65% of Massachusetts voters agree with Brown. How does that help Coakley to make this an issue?

Scott Brown is also making a strong appeal in person and in advertisments to independent voters, which number more than Democrats or Republicans in Massachusetts. Coakley is pursuing a “base vote” strategy. This is at best confused and an abandonment of a huge amount of voters.

Whoever gets elected next Tuesday will be in office for two years only, then they will have to run for election again. That will be a presidential election year. But after next Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts there will be a nationwide contest this November. Coakley has clarified the situation for Dimocrats who are still thinking Barack Obama’s (non-existent) popularity will save them. Coakley recently said at a fundraiser:

“If I don’t win, 2010 is going to be hell for Democrats . . . Every Democrat will have a competitive race.”

Her defeat was also described as “Waterloo for health care.“

About that fundraiser, it was not exactly a sharp political move. Coakley, like Obama attacked lobbyists, but then went to Washington to take their money. Is this wise? Does this help?

Many groups are now spending money on the Massachusetts race. SEIU is spending $700,000 on advertisements which trashes Scott Brown’s “values”. Americans for Responsible Health Care is spending $200,000 in advertisements to trumpet the news that Scott Brown can be the 41st vote to stop Obama’s health scam. The DNC and DSCC are spending more that a million dollars to help Coakley. It’s all flim-flam because the race is Brown versus Coakley and healthcare scam versus a “NO” vote.

Frankly, the best outcome for Republicans would be for Scott Brown to win the election; the Dimocrats via trickery and chicanery to prevent Brown from his rightful place in the Senate; and via this snub of the voters Dimocrats pass the Obama health scam. This would mean the Republicans get the 41st vote against Obama; they run on “repeal” in 2010; they get no blame for blocking Obama and his scam; and the American people will be so furious at the skulduggery to pass the scam that Dimocrats will be decimated. Everyone will be happy but the American people and America goes further into Obama Hell.

Machinations by Republicans and Democrats is what has the country so fed up. This disgust felt by the American people is being exploited by a wily Scott Brown.

Scott Brown is even utilizing his daughters to exploit the fed up attitude the Tea Party movement represents.

Scott Brown is a wily politician who is ripe for the moment America faces. Above all Scott Brown, more so than Martha Coakley, understands the disgust Americans feel. Scott Brown is taking advantage of the moment and he is leading the NObama Coalition right now with a smile not a scowl. Americans understand now, the cynicism of Barack Obama, at some level. Americans know Obama proposes a debased version of plans he attacked – after making big deals with Big PhaRma and Big Insurance. Obama attacked McCain for having a better version of what Obama now proposes:

Obama attacked McCain for having a better version of what Obama now proposes:

Scott Brown is seizing the moment. Martha Coakley is letting the moment slip by. The Obama health scam which transfers vast amounts of wealth from Americans to Obama’s Big Money pals must be stopped. If Martha Coakley does not understand that simply fact, Scott Brown does.

————————————————————————————————-

Exactly one year ago today the Mephisto Waltz began [...]]]> Update: 1:28 a.m. August 26, 2009, International Women’s Day – Ted Kennedy Is Dead. Special election for his Senate seat will be held in 5 months. Senate Dimocrats now have 59 Senate seats. The Obama vacation continues. The Mephisto Waltz continues.

————————————————————————————————-

Exactly one year ago today the Mephisto Waltz began to play in Denver, signaling the death of the Democratic Party, and the death of Universal Health Care and health care reform along with any fight for core Democratic values.

On August 25, 20008 we wrote:

Obama supporters email us ever day with pleas to “unite” and support the unqualifed Obama. [snip]

The problem with all these emails are that they do not accept what we know to be true: Obama is not qualified to be president. Obama is a divider. Obama race-baited, and gay-bashed, and woman hated, throughout the primary. That is how Barack Obama would govern.

Spare us your emails, We Do Not Trust Obama. Obama cannot be trusted by either “friend” or foe. We do not believe anything Obama says. We will not be “red flagged” like bulls into supporting the unqualified, race-baiting, and gay-bashing, and woman hating, Barack Obama. Hope that Obama is telling the truth this time about abortion, the Supreme Court, the Iraq War, the economy, or uniting the country is not enough. We don’t believe or trust Barack Obama because we have seen him close up and examined his “present” voting record and been burned by his race-baiting.

One year later, the full horror of the Third Bush Term confronts Americans.

Pretend Progressives, or Progressives In Name Only (PINOs), eggheads, now say what we have been saying:

During most of the last 40 years, the Democratic Party has defined itself primarily through opposition to the ascendant Republican Party. Never was this clearer, or more necessary, than during the eight years of the Bush presidency. Public anger at the Republicans by the end of the Bush administration was almost certainly the major contributing factor to major Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. Being the party of opposition relieved the Democratic Party of having to initiate or agree upon any vision or policies. This worked fine, until the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress and the White House in 2008.

The failed policies of the Bush administration and the extraordinary desire for change during the last few years masked the reality that once again the Democratic Party was not unified around, and to some extent did not really stand for, anything. This was not a problem during the campaign or even the last two years of the Bush administration, because the Democratic Party could effectively define itself almost entirely relative to the Republican Party. However, it has become a big problem now.

There once was a Democratic Party, but not the current obomination. Hillary Clinton is a leader and a fighter for core Democratic values, but Dimocrats like Dean/Pelosi/Brazile/Kerry/Kennedy gifted the Democratic nomination to an unqualified, inexperienced, man – who was at best just like the inexperienced George W. Bush. The Republicans during the eight Bush years surrendered their purported values in defense of George W. Bush. The Democratic Party set itself ablaze, in Denver, in August 2008, in order to worship at the false prophet, golden calf, Barack Obama.

Pretend Progressive, PINO, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post writes one year after August 25, 2008:

In the end, the success of the health care reform effort comes down to trust. A lesson of the raucous town-hall meetings is the sense of panic, the fear that this man in the White House does not appreciate the anxiety that middle-class Americans fear about health care — whether they will keep what they have, whether they will have enough or whether their last years will be spent in painful, degrading poverty.

Trust? Trust?? Trust???

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

Fouad Ajami, one year after August 25, 2008:

We were led to this summer of discontent by the very nature of the coalition that brought Mr. Obama, and the political class around him, to power, and by the circumstances of his victory. The man was elected amid economic distress. Faith in the country’s institutions, perhaps in the free-enterprise system itself, had given way. Mr. Obama had ridden that distress. His politics of charisma was reminiscent of the Third World. A leader steps forth, better yet someone with no discernible trail, someone hard to pin down to a specific political program, and the crowd could read into him what it wished, what it needed.

The leader would be different things to different people. The Obama coalition was the coming together of disparate groups: the white professional liberals seeking absolution for the country in the election of an African-American man, the opponents of the Iraq war who grew more strident as the project in Iraq was taking root, the African-American community that had been invested in the Clintons and then came around out of an understandable pride in one of its own.

Hillary represents the successful FDR coalition that led with courage and fight for core Democratic values where justice was more than a literary quote from an historic figure in the land of E Pluribus Unum. Obama represents a collection of vapors, mouthing words from well educated callow misogynists scribbling on TelePrompters.

One year after August 25, 2008, Universal Health Care has no champion – she is busy saving the world. Obama is the enemy of universal health care and health care reform.

Liberal icon Russ Feingold, in a moment of unstudied truthtelling:

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold told a large crowd gathered for a listening session in Iron County last week there would likely be no health care bill before the end of the year – and perhaps not at all.

It was an assessment Feingold said he didn’t like, but the prospect of no health care legislation brought a burst of applause from a packed house of nearly 150 citizens at the Mercer Community Center.

“Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens,” Feingold said. “The divisions are so deep. I never seen anything like that.”

Feingold reiterated his appraisal a bit later.

“We’re headed in the direction of doing absolutely nothing, and I think that’s unfortunate,” he said when asked about the plight of uninsured Americans.

Feingold added: “This thing right now is not going in the right direction. We might be in a situation where there won’t be a bill worth passing.”

There won’t be a bill worth passing because there is no president to trust. George W. Bush and Obama both promised to be “uniters” but one year later Feingold says “The divisions are so deep. I never seen anything like that.”

If there is any unity to be seen it is seniors and young people (one of the noodles in the new Obama stew of vapors) increasingly coming together in disgust:

First off, note Obama’s drop-off among young people. Young people were supposed to be a critical component of the new Democratic majority. Granted their approval is still slightly higher than the other groups, but it has far and away been the most volatile, dropping more than any other. This should not come as a huge surprise. Baby Boomers were partial to McGovern in 1972, but swung around to Reagan in the 80s. Young people’s political dispositions are still being formed.

Yet, Obama’s worst poll number here is actually his share among seniors. I’m guessing it relates to the health care debate. The White House should be very concerned, and for one simple reason: seniors vote.

Obama is busy termite-ing the American economy too. The Congressional Budget Office numbers outline the Obama economic disasters:

The U.S. national debt will nearly double over the next 10 years, government forecasts showed on Tuesday, challenging President Barack Obama’s economic and healthcare overhaul agenda. [snip]

The spending blitz could push the national debt, now more than $11 trillion, to close to $20 trillion. The debt is the total sum the government owes, while the deficit is the yearly gap between revenues and spending.

“If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they’re gone,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, adding that economic stimulus funds should be diverted to pay down U.S. debt.

As we have repeatedly warned, the Obama “stimulus” scam along with the other economic scams threaten destruction. We warned of the dangers of hyper inflation.

Liberal icon Feingold now agrees with us, too late, of the dangers of hyperinflation:

“And I have told the administration not to count on me for another stimulus package. You can’t just keep doing this because it creates hyperinflation.”

Feingold also said he has not been a supporter of so-called cap-and-trade proposals, and he compared the issue to global warming, at least with respect to gaining cooperation from other nations.

“You know, the other countries won’t play ball,” he said of his attempts to get the international community to work together on global warming. “Maybe we should impose tariffs. We should put some pressure on them. They cannot be given a free pass, and we cannot do cap-and-trade alone.”

It’s not just health care nor cap and trade, not Afghanistan, nor Iraq, not renditions, not ACORN – it the totality of Obama’s rootlessness, deceptions and corruptions that stink in the nostrils of American history.

Americans could have had a leader with the courage to fight for core Democratic values. Instead of tooth rotting softdrinks we could have had a V8. Instead of soul crushing, inexperienced, unqualified, gay-bashing, woman-hating, flim-flam man Obama – we could have had Hillary!

Instead, the first of the four Mephisto Waltzes began to play one year ago today.

The historic Woodstock Music and Art Fair was held at Max Yasgur’s dairy farm in Bethel, New York from August 15 to August [...]]]> As the Nutroots and the Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter B.O.T.s) gather to admire themselves we’ll celebrate the 40th anniversary of Woodstock – the music and art fair of counterculture America.

The historic Woodstock Music and Art Fair was held at Max Yasgur’s dairy farm in Bethel, New York from August 15 to August 18, 1969.

Woodstock begat the “Woodstock Nation”.

This all has relevance to our discussion of Barack Obama and the current political situation which we will brilliantly tie up all together in our next installment in this series.

Today however, we’ll celebrate the music, and ask the question: Where’s Woodstock Nation today?

* * * * *

Some of the answers to the above question will be found in Barack Obama’s Situation Comedy and in
Barack Obama’s Situation Comedy, Part II

For now, keep in mind these quotes from Part I of the Situation Comedy:

Paid Obama shill David Axelrod and unpaid Obama shill Donna Brazile have a vision of the Democratic Party.

The Obama/Axelrod/Brazile vision for the Democratic Party mimics the desired demographics for a television sitcom.

As the long suffering Donna declared A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

Axelrod has declared The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

Keep those quotes in mind as we search for Woodstock Nation.

Undoubtedly some burnouts and genuinely good citizens of Woodstock Nation are now part of the Hopium addled Nutroots. But not all.

To borrow from John Lennon (from the “Paul is dead” era), “here’s another clue for you all“: the young become old, the old do not become young. And for Obama and his B.O.T.s and Hopium addled fanboys the old are a herd to be herded:

Here in Iowa, the Organizing for America effort resembles the earliest days of a presidential campaign, a shoestring operation where homemade signs hang from the walls and only the most diehard of supporters attend events. Many of the young campaign aides who became familiar faces in towns across Iowa are now working in Washington, so a new crop of workers has taken over to help direct older volunteers.

The young campaign aides of 2008 are now replaced with new young campaign aides to herd the old, former Woodstock Nation citizens. The grayer citizens of Woodstock Nation will be herded by the new, new young, of Nutroot Nation.

Is there any wonder why Obama has a Woodstock Nation problem?; and a Bobby Soxers problem?

The Soylent Green crowd is not going quietly. Woodstock nation has a problem with Nutroots Nation:

Democrats have a senior citizen problem.

Frustrated older Americans are packing the town halls on health care. They are incredibly passionate about their Medicare benefits. Polls show senior citizens largely disapprove of health care reform ideas so far.

And of course, they vote — in larger numbers than any other demographic.

As the young become older, then old, they tend to vote more and more. Woodstock Nation has more citizens than Nutroots Nation who vote regularly and with attention to the issues.

But so far, Democrats have focused much of their health care sales pitch on middle-class Americans and the uninsured — a slight that has been noticed by senior citizens, who hold great influence with members of Congress. [snip]

But Obama is talking about finding hundreds of billions in savings from Medicare — cuts supporters say will trim fat from the program — including slashing $156 billion in subsidies to Medicare Advantage, a privately administered Medicare program.

“Seniors are one of the most attentive and engaged constituencies, especially on health care issues, and we’ve seen that in the Medicare Advantage programs,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans.

Woodstock Nation and the Bobby Soxers are not Obama fans. Woodstock Nation and Bobby Soxers vote.

A July 31 Gallup Poll found that just 20 percent of Americans aged 65 and older believe health care reform would improve their own situation, noticeably lower than the 27 percent of 18- to 49-year olds and 26 percent of 50-to-64-year-olds who say the same.

The senior citizen problem could pose a serious problem for the 2010 election cycle.

Older Americans turn out in much higher numbers than other age groups during midterm elections. In 2006, the 55-and-older age group still had the highest voting rate of any age group, at 63 percent, even though younger voters turned out in record numbers for a midterm, according to census data. Half of all votes cast in the 2006 midterms were from voters age 50 or older, according to AARP. And one out of four were AARP members.

But voting statistics tell only part of the story. Look at the faces at these chaotic congressional town hall events across the country. They are the faces of older Americans who paid into Medicare most of their working lives and are now enjoying the health care benefits they believe they’ve earned for their senior years.

Citizens of Woodstock Nation and near citizens of Woodstock Nation along with the earlier Bobby Soxers have experience to guide them. The situation comedy demographics of Brazile and Axelrod do not align with citizens of the former Woodstock Nation.

Obama’s problem with senior citizens isn’t new. Polls showed that John McCain bested Obama among seniors, even though Obama made gains across almost every other demographic.

Some experts say the real problem is that Democrats haven’t done enough to address seniors’ concerns to date, allowing the perception to grow that seniors will lose under reform. [snip]

Critics say the proposed $380 billion Medicare cuts in the House bill — including cuts to the privately administered Medicare Advantage program — will lead to long waits for care, doctors dropping patients and doctors deciding if their older patients “are worth the cost,” as one TV and Web ad from the 60 Plus Association warned.

“Why would you want to cannibalize Medicare in order to create a new plan? Why wouldn’t we fix Medicare first? I think those are the concerns that are being raised,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said during a conference call Tuesday.

Woodstock Nation and the Bobby Soxers are not dancing to Obama’s off-key tunes. It’s shocking that the bamboozling insurance industry has more credibility than Obama when it comes to Woodstock Nation.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group for insurers, contends that slashing $156 billion from private Medicare Advantage plans would have a significant impact on seniors.

“Seniors have been told that their coverage is not going to change and if they like their coverage, they can keep it,” Zirkelbach said. “The fact of the matter is that if these cuts to Medicare Advantage go through, seniors are going to face increased premiums, reduced benefits and, in some parts of the country, they’re going to lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan all together.”

Woodstock Nation wants legal medication now. Woodstock Nation does not want to feel the purple haze of Hopium.

[Stay tuned for our thrilling Part IV installment wherein we tie it all together.]

You see, I long to dash forward, flaming sword in hand, to champion President Obama’s [...]]]> Before insulting “bitter and clingy” Americans who oppose the health care scam Obama is pushing (”They are too irrational and, let’s face it, too ignorant”) Katha Pollitt at that Temple of Obama Love called The Nation magazine says something uncharacteristically sensible:

You see, I long to dash forward, flaming sword in hand, to champion President Obama’s healthcare plan. Every day I get e-mails from Health Care for America Now, Organizing for America, MoveOn.org and similar groups urging me to write my Congressman, attend a town-hall meeting, host a gathering. But how can I speak knowledgeably about a plan that does not yet exist and in which the parameters keep shifting?

Pollitt yearns for an army of Barack Obama Thugs (hereinafter, B.O.T.s) “who swarmed the country less than a year ago” to forgo their infatuation with “Obama’s charisma” and go to town halls as organized groups to confront what she surmises, incorrectly, as the fake anger of “ignorant” people allegedly organized by right wing groups.

We’ll forgo comment on the hypocrisy of the Dimocratic Left calling forth non-existent armies to organize and battle what they deride as “astroturf” efforts. We will however discuss the “astroturf”.

What is “astroturf” in the political lobbying sense?

Unlike genuine grassroots activism which tends to be money-poor but people-rich, astroturf campaigns are typically people-poor but cash-rich. Funded heavily by corporate largesse, they use sophisticated computer databases, telephone banks and hired organizers to rope less-informed activists into sending letters to their elected officials or engaging in other actions that create the appearance of grassroots support for their client’s cause.

[Hypocrisy Alert: Bob Beckel (Barack Obama Thug pretending to be disinterested commentator during the primaries) the "liberal" commentator on Fox News attacks the "mobs" protesting the Obama health care scam as "astroturf". Beckel admits he was an "astroturf" operative but he leaves out one of the crowning achievements of his firm's astroturfing.

As Chairman of astroturfing Beckel Cowan, a Cassidy Company Bob Beckel can take proud credit for his "astroturf" techiniques.

"Astroturf techniques have been used to:

[snip] defeat the Clinton administration’s proposed health care reform, through a front group called “Rx Partners” created by the Beckel Cowan PR firm, and the Coalition for Health Insurance Choices, created by public relations consultant Blair Childs.”]

* * * * *

The pro-Obama, cash-rich, people-poor, Hopium addled B.O.T.s do not care that they are pushing something they don’t know the contents of. Barack Obama and the B.O.T.s are back to lying and fear-mongering. Obama says:

“Now is the hard part — because the history is clear — every time we come close to passing health insurance reform, the special interests fight back with everything they’ve got,” Obama told a town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday. “They use their influence. They use their political allies to scare and mislead the American people. They start running ads. This is what they always do.”

Obama lied and fear-mongered during the campaign about Hillary and even about John McCain’s health care plan. This Obama batch of lies was debunked by FactCheck:

These claims are false, and based on a single newspaper report that says no such thing. McCain’s policy director states unequivocally that no benefit cuts are envisioned. McCain does propose substantial “savings” through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures. We’re skeptical that either candidate can deliver the savings they promise, but that’s no basis for Obama to accuse McCain of planning huge benefit cuts.

Now the astroturf B.O.T.s and the Death-Eaters are back with more lies and fear-mongering:

A new coalition on Thursday launched $12 million in television ads to support President Barack Obama’s health reform plan, in the opening wave of a planned tens of millions of dollars this fall.

The new group, funded largely by the pharmaceutical industry, is called Americans for Stable Quality Care. It includes some odd bedfellows: the American Medical Association, FamiliesUSA, the Federation of American Hospitals, PhRMA and SEIU, the service employees’ union. [snip]

The group is likely to be the biggest spender in support of health reform. The campaign will serve as a counterweight to the critics at town meetings, which are getting saturation news coverage while Congress is out of town.

In a reversal from former President Bill Clinton’s 1993-94 health care debacle, the group’s campaign is likely to mean that White House supporters keep the upper hand on the airwaves.

Bill Clinton’s genuine health care reform plans Put People First so Big Pharma and Big Insurance fought with astroturf campaigns. Barack Obama Is The Enemy Of Health Care Reform so the Death-Eaters will support him with cash-rich, people-poor, advertising wars:

PhRMA’s participation is key, because the group has promised to kick in as much as $150 million for advertising and grass-roots activity to help pass the president’s plan.

“Grass-roots activity” in this case means astroturf.

An astroturf “soothing male narrator” parrots poll tested, public opinion manipulating lines:

“What DOES health insurance reform mean for you? It means you can’t be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition or dropped if you get sick. It means putting health care decisions in the hands of you and your doctor. It means lower costs, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, tough new rules to cut waste and red tape and a focus on PREVENTING illness before it strikes. So what does health insurance reform really mean? Quality, affordable care you can count on.”

The official provides a little more back story: “These groups were part of a looser coalition that started back in January that focused on the links between health reform and the economy. Now that the debate is turning on what health reform means for the individual, they felt the need to launch a new front that addresses some of those particulars while debunking some of the myths that are floating around. Plus, these groups recognize that their collective voice packs more punch than if they were to just speak out individually.”

The ad was made by GMMB, which was a lead agency for Obama for America. Partners include Frank Greer and Jim Margolis.

The ads do not state that there is no actual plan. The ads do not state that there is no actual plan nor is there a dollar figure for how much the cost will be for someone with a pre-existing condition. It’s quite possible that a plan will emerge that provides access but with such high cost the insurance is simply not there.

Americans could find themselves in a cash for clunkers program that serves money monthly to companies that provide zero services.

Perhaps a plan will emerge that will do all sorts of wonderful things like cut administrative and medical costs down to pennies a year and provide every American with plans worth multi-millions of dollars with Hollywood spa-like hospitals, as well as bring century long health to all Americans along with lovely skin, strength, stamina, bright smiles, silken John Edwards hair, swimmer/gymnast builds, eat-what-you-will-diets without weight gain, and an end to disease and pain – all with lower taxes and a vanished debt and surpluses instead of deficits.

For now, Americans wait and watch and attend town halls – in righteous anger and distrustful vigilance.

Obama sycophant Ezra Klein is bemoaning the rising ocean of opposition to Obama and his alleged health care “plan” (which [...]]]> Obama is and always has been the enemy of health care reform. Obama Dimocrats and Big Media sycophants refuse to accept, let alone publish that fact, so they are now in a tizzy about Democracy.

Obama sycophant Ezra Klein is bemoaning the rising ocean of opposition to Obama and his alleged health care “plan” (which does not exist) as a failure of Democracy. Writes whiny Ezra in an article called It Is Democracy, Not Health-Care Reform, That Is Sick:

What we’re seeing here is not merely distrust in the House health-care reform bill. It’s distrust in the political system.

Obama sycophant Ezra cites Obama sycophant Josh Marshall in his argument. Marshall whines “the health care debate right now… it’s clearly in a place where any sort of logic is incapable of making sense of what’s going on.” Democratic “strategist” Ed Kilgore, clearly an amnesiac who has misplaced his memory that it was Obama Dimocrats who planned to sell the non-existent Obama/Dimocrats health care “plan” via town halls, nows says ’screw the town halls’. Whines Kilgore:

But I have a different question: authentic or phony, should these protests matter to Congress? We are talking, after all, about relatively small groups of people vociferously expressing a point of view (yes, some ask “questions” of their representatives, but generally of the loaded and rhetorical sort). Should these expressions be given disproportionate weight, perhaps more than, say, the party or ideology of Members of Congress, their understanding of their districts’ needs, or surveys of public opinion?

Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal also wrote an article along the same lines called Health Debate Isn’t About Health. Writes Seib:

The health debate, which now has moved beyond the Beltway and into raucous town halls across the land, is so intense in part because it’s not really about health care at all.

On a deeper level, it’s about the role of government in America’s economy. And that is a raw and unresolved topic, only made more so by months of exceptional government intervention amid a deep recession.

Clearly the question of trust of the political system is a factor in the health care debate. Democrats used to love to protest and demonstrate. Now Dimocrats hate protests- “unAmerican” they say. Claire McCaskill, Obama sycophant extraordinaire, whined yesterday “Beg your pardon … you don’t trust me?” McCaskill said. “I don’t know what else I can do.”

No, we don’t trust you Claire even as you try to hide from your Obama drenched past. As to trust in the political system: Hillary supporters do indeed know quite a bit about that.

Let’s talk about trust.

* * * * *

Yesterday we discussed just some of the lies Barack Obama and the Dimocrats and sycophantic Big Media engaged in when Obama clearly was the enemy of health care reform. Today Ruth Marcus, in the Washington Post, echoes our article. Marcus does add the detail about how Obama attacked, in commercials, those he now has deals with:

The campaign even aired an ad singling out Billy Tauzin, the drug industry’s chief lobbyist. “The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies,” Obama said in the ad. “And you know what? The chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year. Imagine that.”

Now, it turns out, the Obama White House has cut a backroom – actually, Roosevelt Room — deal with Tauzin: Drugmakers would ante up $80 billion in savings in return for a promise that Medicare wouldn’t be allowed to negotiate drug prices.

Ruth Marcus does a wonderful job of cataloging Obama lies in her article Change We Can’t Believe In? Marcus ends with the question, The secret deal with Tauzin can only deepen the skepticism. Which leads to the core question facing the still-young administration: What happens when people start to wonder whether they can really believe in this change?

Hillary supporters do remember the Obama lies and have always known that Obama was change no one should believe in. We remember the threats of riots in Denver if Obama was not given the nomination. We remember the long list of lies and the long list of how the political system was twisted – with Ezra and Josh cheering on the election theft. We remember Harold Ickes protesting the election theft and sounding a warning about how corruption begets distrust.

Hillary supporters remember the corruption.

We also remember the 15 Million Lies Obama uttered during the campaign while Ezra and Josh cheered. We remember Paul Krugman, before he joined the “racist” shouting Obama brigades, as Krugman described “the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s [health care] plan“. Krugman noted how Obama was “attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points”. Krugman made it clear that Obama gives “aid and comfort to the enemies of reform“.

Krugman eventually amplified his critique of Obama’s health care lies. Krugman wrote “Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right — which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.”

It turned out to be true. Obama’s words now are repeated by many to the detriment of genuine universal health care reform. Krugman wrote:

My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

Also true, Obama ripped off Hillary lines during the campaign on just about every issue but Obama never understood the words he mouthed or had the guts, the testicular fortitude that Hillary had in abundance, to fight for what the words meant.

“Bitter and clingy” Americans may recall Hillary when she said “we’ve got to put up a candidate that’s willing to stand for it and fight for it.”

Health care reform died in Denver in August 2008 when Obama appeared with Grecian columns to utter more words. It’s a hard truth for Democrats who cared about the issues and health care in particular. On August 28, 2008 we mourned the death of the Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt with these prescient words:

For Hillary supporters, for those of us here at Big Pink issues do matter and are worth fighting for. For us Obama must be defeated in NOvember. We have written before and we repeat today our reasoning to oppose Obama in NOvember: Better to fight McCain and the Republicans with Democratic majorities forced to fight than to bow to Obama’s betrayals of core Democratic principles and appeasements to Republicans. Obama cannot be trusted by neither friend nor foe. We want Democratic elected officials to fight for core Democratic principles. Obama would betray Democratic principles, appease the worse of Republican demands and anyone who opposed Obama as in the past would be called a “racist”. We say NObama, NOvember.

Because of the economic crisis and the high profile of the despised George W. Bush the John McCain/Sarah Palin lead was washed away by November 2008. But can anyone deny the cheap treacheries of core Democratic values by Barack Obama now?

No, he can’t. No, he won’t.

No, he won’t because he never wanted to. No, he can’t because his Rezko style conflicts have Obama entangled with the most retrograde forces in America.

Obama recited right wing arguments to hit at Hillary Clinton during the campaign. Now Obama cuts deals with the health care industries. Yesterday we discussed Obama’s deals with Tauzin and the drug companies. We promised to discuss why we don’t believe the “misdirection” of Obama vs. the insurance industry.

Slate Magazine’s Timothy Noah analyzed how Big PhaRMa “conned the White House out of $76 billion”.

Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, has cut a secret deal on health reform with the White House. [snip] “The president encouraged this approach,” White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina said in an e-mail. “He wanted to bring all parties to the table to discuss health insurance reform.”

Why is the White House’s PhRMA deal a bad bargain? Because in securing $80 billion in savings over 10 years, the White House is forgoing what could be as much as $156 billion over the same time period. That’s what a 2008 report by energy and commerce’s investigations subcommittee calculated to be the savings if Medicare were permitted to buy drugs at the same rates negotiated by the (much smaller) Medicaid program.

So Tauzin conned the White House out of $76 billion. [snip]

In striking the bargain with PhRMA, Obama broke a not-insignificant campaign promise (”Obama will repeal the ban on direct negotiation with drug companies and use the resulting savings … to further invest in improving health care coverage and quality”). Candidate Obama, citing a paper by Roger Hickey, Jeff Cruz, and Dean Baker of the Institute for America’s Future, put the savings at $30 billion a year, which over a decade would be roughly twice the $156 billion savings envisioned by the energy and commerce committee. [snip] By this reckoning, Tauzin swindled not $76 billion from President Obama but $220 billion.

We don’t necessarily agree with Noah that the White House was “conned”. We expect a great paying future job for Michelle from Big PhRMa or another hospital or some type of Chicago style deal.

Rich Galen too mocks the Chicago way:

In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good.

So, what if the previously dreadful, greedy, self-serving oil companies sent their lobbyists in to cut a deal with Obama to support a cap-and-trade bill though heavy advertising? Might they trade for removing any caps on their profits?

I think I’m beginning to get how this works.

It works like … Chicago!

The drug dealers have been taken care of. What about the allegedly hostile to Obama insurers? We’re being told repeatedly that the insurers are not on board with Obama. How true is all this? Has Obama, the enemy of health care reform, made a side deal with the health insurance companies?

Businessweek magazine says The Health Insurers Have Already Won:

How UnitedHealth and rival carriers, maneuvering behind the scenes in Washington, shaped health-care reform for their own benefit

By Chad Terhune and Keith Epstein

As the health reform fight shifts this month from a vacationing Washington to congressional districts and local airwaves around the country, much more of the battle than most people realize is already over. The likely victors are insurance giants such as UnitedHealth Group (UNH), Aetna (AET), and WellPoint (WLP). The carriers have succeeded in redefining the terms of the reform debate to such a degree that no matter what specifics emerge in the voluminous bill Congress may send to President Obama this fall, the insurance industry will emerge more profitable. Health reform could come with a $1 trillion price tag over the next decade, and it may complicate matters for some large employers. But insurance CEOs ought to be smiling.

Remember Tom Daschle? Daschle was the tax cheat Obama wanted as Secretary of Health and Human Services as well as to serve as Obama’s health reform czar. Now tax cheat Tom has a new job with the insurance industry:

Sommer has retained such influential outsiders as Tom Daschle, the former Democratic Senate Leader who now works for the large law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird. Daschle, a liberal from South Dakota, dropped out of the running to be Obama’s Secretary of Health & Human Services after disclosures that he failed to pay taxes on perks given to him by a private client. He advised UnitedHealth in 2007 and 2008 and resumed that role this year. Daschle personally advocates a government-run competitor to private insurers. But he sells his expertise to UnitedHealth, which opposes any such public insurance plan. Among the services Daschle offers are tips on the personalities and policy proclivities of members of Congress he has known for decades.

Conceding that he doesn’t always agree with his client, Daschle says: “They just want a description of the lay of the land, an assessment of circumstances as they appear to be as health reform unfolds.” He says he leaves direct contacts with members of Congress to others at his firm.

Daschle was the man Obama wanted to run what he now calls health insurance reform. Daschle no doubt knows the “personalities and policy proclivities” of a lot of Obama friends and has a direct line to them. We suspect a lot of phone calls from Washington to Michelle’s former hospital employers in Chicago too.

Businessweek suggests Americans should not trust the numbers we are hearing either about profits nor costs:

What people in Washington tend not to discuss, at least on the record, is the open secret that insurers are minimizing their forecasts of the eventual windfall they will enjoy from expanded coverage for Americans. UnitedHealth has given certain key members of Congress details about its finances and tax liability—both historical numbers and figures projected under various cost-sharing scenarios. But some on Capitol Hill are skeptical. “The bottom line,” says an aide to the Senate Finance Committee, “is that health reform would lead to increased revenues and profits [for the insurance industry]. … There will be [added] costs [to the companies], but we’re not sure the revenues and profits will be as low as they say.”

* * * * *

Why should anyone be surprised?

Krugman agreed with us long ago that Barack Obama Is The Enemy Of Health Care Reform.

Obama bragged during the primary campaign in 2008 of his work in Illinois. Remember: “Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama spoke at a rally Thursday in Atlanta. Obama has tried to distinguish himself from rival Hillary Clinton by criticizing her ties to lobbyists.” Remember? Remember? Obama’s health care lies about what he did in Illinois:

When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the “Health Care Justice Act,” they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system.

Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama’s remarks on the Senate floor.

Why is anyone surprised. Obama always was and is the Enemy of Health Care Reform. It’s his history. History is a teacher. History is a teacher, sometimes History repeats itself in just about every detail:

The Health Care Justice Act, which Obama sponsored in the state Senate, grew out of work done by the Campaign for Better Health Care, an Illinois coalition of healthcare advocates, labor unions, and nonprofit organizations. The ostensible goal was simple: make affordable healthcare available to all Illinoisans. But the politics were anything but simple.

On one side were healthcare advocates, eager to capitalize on the Democrats having won control of the General Assembly and the governor’s office. On the other were most insurers, who worked vigorously to sink the bill. Obama was in the middle, trying to reconcile a range of agendas to get a viable plan signed into law.

Obama tried to take credit for the work of others. Obama wasn’t just in the middle – he worked both sides to profit and advance himself.

The bill originally called for a “Bipartisan Health Care Reform Commission” to implement a program reaching all 12.4 million Illinois residents. The legislation would have made it official state policy to ensure that all residents could access “quality healthcare at costs that are reasonable.” Insurers feared that language would result in a government takeover of healthcare, even though the bill did not explicitly say that.

By the time the legislation passed the Senate, in May 2004, Obama had written three successful amendments, at least one of which made key changes favorable to insurers.

Most significant, universal healthcare became merely a policy goal instead of state policy – the proposed commission, renamed the Adequate Health Care Task Force, was charged only with studying how to expand healthcare access. In the same amendment, Obama also sought to give insurers a voice in how the task force developed its plan.

Lobbyists praised Obama for taking the insurance industry’s concerns into consideration.

Rezko vs. freezing tenants – Obama sided with Rezko. Universal Health Care in Illinois – Obama sided with the lobbyists and the insurers. Citizens of Illinois poisoned by radioactive leaks vs. Exelon – Obama sided with Exelon.

Why is anyone surprised?

Obama always was, Obama always will be – The Enemy Of Health Care Reform.