And Roseanne Barr, has a Big Pink smile and an “I told You so” about Hillary (which reads at times word-for-word like a certain Big Pink website).

when the dems screwed Hillary, they screwed america out of health care and out of jobs. I knew it. I [...]]]> Update: Read “Pink Grenades” at PUMA P.A.C.

And Roseanne Barr, has a Big Pink smile and an “I told You so” about Hillary (which reads at times word-for-word like a certain Big Pink website).

when the dems screwed Hillary, they screwed america out of health care and out of jobs. I knew it. I told you so. I got so sick to my stomach as I watched forty years of the work of women get washed down the drain by axelrod and emmanuel and dean, richardson kerry and kennedy.

When Oprah, who knows nothing about politics and who never in twenty years did one show on the subject, put the final nail in the coffin of the health care candidate, i was stunned. I lost my faith in everything, including God. I had seen the dismantling of the working class since 1980, and had fought against it so hard, doing everything i could, and using everything at my disposal. I thought, how can an entire generation of feminism die right when the hope for it was at its strongest. I pleaded with friends not to back Obama. I said, but you know Hillary is the health care candidate, and he has not even a plan for any kind of healthcare in his platform or in his campaign! I blogged every day on the subject for about a year.

I knew the phony progressive left was just a trick of Soros and billionaire criminals to take down health care. I knew Obama got more wall street money than any other candidate, and I knew he was a phony too, all the way, as I watched him snicker about Hillary, the woman’s candidate being “likable enough”. I didn’t like her vote on Iraq, but she promised to end the war, and I believed that she would. I knew that she would listen to women, not completely abandon them as Obama has done. I knew that she would listen to working people, before bankers, unlike what Obama has done.

They set her up like they always set up women, and after we do all the groundwork, they take it away, and then they divide the spoils between themselves and their old boy network. Now, it is all coming clear to all the idiots that the wrong person is in the white house. Another George Bush. He has not saved one home from foreclosure nor created one job. He just wants to get down on his knees in front of those republicans and grovel, and HE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE TO!

They triangulated race and class AGAIN!! They may have token black people in congress and the senate and the supreme court, and elsewhere, but they have never ever in this history of this country had ONE token poor person in anything.

Class, not race is our real national nightmare. Race and gender are second and third. Damn, so close to single payer and real change, now so far. My God, India has had more women at the top of its government by about 5X than we have.

From Ecclesiastes 3:1-15 MV

A time to mourn, a time to gather stones together:

It’s a time to fight.

——————————————————————————————————-

Perhaps it is because we at Big Pink were alone for so long throughout all of 2007 that we see things today through Pink colored glasses. But what is it with all the stupid depression these days?

Perhaps it is because one month into our existence we were under direct attack from Peggy Noonan, and Tim Russert himself attacked us on his creepy Sunday show, and rigged emails were sent to us from Politico and TechPresident, and there was a ceaseless campaign to destroy this website with hacks and phony Patricia/Wonk websites dedicated solely to attack us and our commentors, and the creeps at DailyKooks demanded our destruction, and Donna Brazile was emailing Hillary to take us down – that we see things through Pink colored glasses.

As we approach yet another anniversary this April we see how much we have advanced. We have many Hillary websites with many viewpoints online now. Back in 2007 we were alone. Today, we have Republicans fighting sexism and misogyny even if it is in their own self-interest (the best politics). Back in 2007 we were alone, and Obama and his thugs, along with Republicans (exception from some like, oddly, Pat Buchanan) indulged in daily sexism and misogyny.

Today, an attack on Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin or women gets a quick response from Hillary sites. Back in 2007, Youtube was an Obama attack machine against Hillary Clinton. Today, Youtube is an arsenal of explosives documenting Obama lies.

Back in 2007 we were alone in describing Obama as a thug and boob and a corrupt circus clown from Corrupt Chicago surrounded by corrupt circus clowns from Chicago. Today, all the narratives we created are routinely repeated.

Back in 2007 some Republicans bought into the Obama lies. Today, these Republicans are embarrassed if not yet totally Hopium free. Back in 2007 Dimocrats waited for the comet to join the celestial choirs and sing praises to Mess-iah Obama. Today, these Dimocrats at least suspect they were duped by the Dimocratic establishment into support for a stooge who makes George W. Bush look good. So what’s with the depression these days?

We’re not referring to the departed or the departing. People like our commentors “S” and “JanH” have family heartbreaks to deal with and they rightly need to take a leave from the battlefield in order to tend to the family fields. Even the most intrepid soldiers deserve, and need, a little R&R. There is no shame to recharge. There is not even shame in retreat (ask George Washington and Winston Churchill).

We are in Winter quarters waiting for the political Spring and the “muster” command. Waiting can be difficult. But let’s remember the mission. Puma Eyes has the eyes on the prize and remembers the mission:

Remember the mission. So what, if the cleanup job requires us to sweep out Dimocrats along with Republicans. Good riddance to all. There’s a job to be done.

Today on the worthy Confluence we heard a cri de coeur:

We didn’t even get to enjoy the end of the Bush administration.

Another thing that has been bothering me is that I really wanted to be wrong about Obama but I wasn’t, and saying “I told you so” doesn’t make up for having my worst nightmares become true. If anything, he’s even worse than I feared.

But what really has me bummed out right now is the realization that there is no end in sight for the mess this country is in. The single biggest problem facing our nation is the illness in our political system. When I say “illness” I mean the equivalent of an inoperable cancer that has metastasized. If we fixed our political system then we would actually be able to do something about those other problems.

For most of my adult life I believed that the Democrats were the good guys so even when they were getting slapped around by the Republicans I could support them and hope that after the next election they would grow a pair and start standing up for the liberal ideals they campaigned on.

I finally realized that the majority of the Democrats who hold elected office are not only corrupt but they have the same agenda as the Republicans. Oh, the say they’re on our side, and when it’s time for them to represent us they might make some speeches andr play some parliamentary tricks but when the nitty meets the gritty they lose on purpose. Lots of times they don’t even bother to put on a dog and pony show anymore, they just vote to bail out Wall Street or take away our civil rights as if that’s what we wanted them to do.

Now as far back as I can remember the Republicans were corrupt and they tended to be pricks or assholes, and sometimes both, but they weren’t insane. Nowadays there’s a lot of GOPers that are crazy as shithouse rats. That not only includes the elected ones but the voters too. Then you got the tea baggers who don’t think the Republicans are crazy enough.

On the left side they’re getting just as bad, they’re just insane about different things. If you read both the left and right blogs on a regular basis you’d think think they inhabit completely different worlds. It’s almost like they don’t speak the same language.

Next fall we’re gonna have and election and right now it looks like the Republicans will gain seats in Congress, and maybe even get control of one or both houses. But no matter who wins, we lose. The same thing in November of 2012. – If either the Democrats or Republicans win, we’re screwed.

We’re not going to say “cheer up”. We are not even going to argue with the sentiments expressed even though we disagree with some of them and agree with some of them. What we will say is a Warholian “so what”? It’s a struggle, so what? It’s a mess, so what?

You think this little 7 year old boy and his 6 year old sister had an easy day?

The boy and his sister had a tough day. They waited, organized, called out. They fought back in the only way they could.

We’re strapping on our Pink grenades every morning and getting into the fight. If we get depressed amid the lunacy, we’ll say “so what?” We’re in the middle of a fight not at the end of one. The time for hammock swings and Pink lemonade is not yet here.

We might not like it but we realize that the Tea Party people for now are allies. So we will not disparage them as “teabaggers”. Politics makes strange bedfellows and these are strange times. We have learned that we do need two parties in opposition to each other, and other parties to live and die in order to keep those two parties in check and to let the major opposition parties know our votes cannot be taken for granted.

We might not like it but we realize that there are two choices: live or die. We’re not going to die and go away. We’ll live to fight another day.

We might not like it but we realize we are not alone in our opposition now and will not be alone in attaining our goals later. Our partners will change but we are not alone any more.

We might not like it but we realize that we were correct all along about Obama and his thug machine and his situation comedy demographics coalition. The ones who should be in deep depression and shame are Obama supporters who allowed themselves to be duped by the Dimocratic establishment and elect a stooge.

As the clinicians say, “depression is anger turned inwards“. By that definition Obama supporters should be suicidally depressed. Good riddance.

It is Obama supporters who deserve to be depressed. Obama should be suicidally depressed. Publicity stunts with children, dead mothers, “I love you” Mess-iah cult of personality worshipers, won’t save the nicotine addict’s ‘do what I say, not what I do’ mass transfer of wealth health scam. Obama publicity stunts are now countered with growing protests of thousands where it is “standing room only” in opposition to Obama.

Obama’s Michigan enablers are sent to jail (Monica Conyers sentenced to 37 months today) and more to go. Why should we be depressed? Let’s depress Obama supporters.

The Obama Dimocrats are forced to rabid tricks (such as the Slaughter Rule) to pass the Senate version of the Obama health scam, without a vote. It’s almost like the Democratic nomination – no vote is respected, mob rule Chicago rules.

We’ll depress Obama supporters with the truth about how health premiums will go up even with the Obama health scam. We’ll depress Obama supporters with the truth of Obama support at 43%. We’ll depress Obama supporters with the truth that all 41 Republican senators will uphold the “Byrd rule” in any reconciliation fight.

We intend to depress Obama supporters even more. Hillary supporters should strap something on, preferably a Pink grenade, and stay in the fight.

[We'll return to our regularly scheduled programming early tomorrow.]

As we noted yesterday, [...]]]> America is placing a 911 call to Hillary Clinton. We know it’s time to sober up. It’s time to put away the Hopium, the wine and the roses. It’s time for Americans to send Obama cartons of cigarettes – he’s fired up and ready to go – go away.

As we noted yesterday, Hillary Clinton understands the disaster of record U.S. budget deficits – which lead to bigger U.S. debt – which lead to bigger interest payments. To Hillary this deficit and debt are “a matter of national security” not just economics. To Hillary Clinton the financial irresponsibility and the increased reliance for Hopium dollars from nations like China are a danger and “The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever.”

The Tea Party movement, once derided by Dimocrats, is now seen as a powerful force – even by delusional Dimocrats like Nancy Pelosi. What fuels the Tea Party movement, is what fueled the 1990s Ross Perot movement – fiscal irresponsibility by the U.S. government. Bill Clinton seized that moment (his last four budgets were in balance or in surplus) and made the Democratic Party the party of fiscal responsibility. Now Hillary Clinton is poised to do the exact same seize-fortune-by-the-forelock moment.

Republicans under George W. Bush were fiscal madmen. Barack Obama’s Dimocratic Party Obamination is likewise a party of crazed spenders. Hillary Clinton’s focus on the need to “turn the clock back” is the way to the future. Hillary Clinton, in last week’s critique of “this deficit and debt”, is saying “It’s The Economy, Stupid!”

In 2012 no political party will be able to run with the promise of new programs or new spending proposals. There is simply no money left. When interest rates begin to rise significantly, as they surely will having already started to slightly rise, interest payments on the debt will balloon and make that part of the budget a cancer that feeds on the nation. Dimocrats will not only be deprived of a promise based election but they will also be deprived of a “stay the course, we are competent” election run.

The fire next time will not be promises of new programs or new spending proposals but of change back to competence and experience and vision. The fire next time will be fiscal sanity, paying the bills, the American economy, and jobs, jobs, jobs.

* * * * * *

Hillary Clinton The Fighter

Barack Obama savaged Hillary Clinton as a polarizing force who could not get the celestial choirs to sing. Hillary was likened to Karl Rove. Celestial Choirs Obama promised, promised, Americans he would be a “uniter not divider” and now he is caught in a trap of his own making and whose promises must be held to account:

Hillary Clinton is fiscally responsible but that does not mean what must be done won’t be done. Hillary fights. When the health care legislation failed to pass in the 1990s, Hillary Clinton did not give up. Hillary continued to work on health care issues and legislation was passed which provided health care to children. Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama attacked Hillary. In 2008 the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur tried to drive Hillary off the bridge with lies. Here’s Fact Check:

“One of Clinton’s signature claims has come under fire from political foes, quoted by the Boston Globe, who say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance for millions of children.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the SCHIP legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality. [snip]

The newspaper also said that “privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming” over Clinton’s claim but didn’t name any of them. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who cosponsored the 1997 legislation that eventually led to the creation of SCHIP, was asked whether Clinton was exaggerating her role. The Globe said he wouldn’t criticize Clinton “directly” but said: “Facts are stubborn things … I think we ought to stay with the facts.”

Kennedy, of course, is now backing Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama, for the nomination. But last year, before that endorsement, he was quoted by the Associated Press as saying something quite different, which the Globe did not note in its story:

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007: The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

In that same story, The AP’s Beth Fouhy concluded, “While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady’s pressure was crucial.” She quoted Nick Littlefield, who had been a senior health adviser to Kennedy, as saying, “we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it.”

The AP’s assessment is backed up by others we consulted. [snip]

One of the co-authors of the plan, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, credited Mrs. Clinton for her “invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program.”

Years later, when Clinton was first running for the Senate, Kennedy’s aide Littlefield was still giving her credit. The New York Times quoted him as saying, ”She was a one-woman army inside the White House to get this done.” [snip]

Moreover, Hillary Clinton took a major role in translating the new law into action. [snip]

Our conclusion: Clinton is right on this one.”

Hillary Clinton fights to do what is necessary. This does not mean Hillary will be fiscally irresponsible. Hillary will get the job done and the job is jobs. Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the job done with wistful wishing and dreaming. Barack Obama must go, and Hillary Clinton has to answer the 911 call from the American people.

It’s The Economy (and Jobs), Stupid!

Hillary has a history of fighting to invest precious taxpayer dollars wisely. Yet, Hillary Clinton knows the job of the president must be to create jobs and to get the engine of American power, the economy, back to sanity. Her non-candidate message is, “It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a balanced budget, that we were on the way of paying down the debt of the United States of America.”

Fiscal sanity versus fiscal madness will be what elections for the foreseeable future will be fought over. The pompous Obama endorser Dan Gerstein gets some things right today:

The Democrats considered the $787 billion recovery package not just an essential step for saving the economy from depression, but also a first strike in White House’s “big bang” strategy. It would, by their way of thinking, build political momentum for a range of other major Obama agenda items like climate change. But for much of the public, the poorly conceived and marketed stimulus plan was the last straw in the unsettling explosion of government and debt that began with the bipartisan bailout bonanza in the waning days of the Bush administration.

Ever since that dividing line was crossed, the Democrats have seemed to be operating in a hermetically sealed political vacuum, impervious to the public’s changing post-crash priorities and diminishing tolerance for big government solutions. The complex, sector-remaking cap-and-trade bill is a perfect example. That plan may have been a tough but closeable sell in a stable economy, given the short-term sacrifices we would have to make to secure the long-term rewards. But it was a dead letter in a near-depressed economy with a mistrustful electorate prone to believe the most damning attacks about higher taxes and lost jobs. Yet the Democrats plowed ahead with a bill in the House and only stopped when Senate moderates bolted.

That was nothing, though, compared to the multi-pronged Democratic disconnect on health care. It was clear early on that the public wanted the president and Congress to focus on the economy, especially after the evidence mounted that the stimulus, whatever its disaster-preventing benefits, was not going to spur job growth any time soon. Yet the Democrats went ahead and devoted most of the last year to health care reform, which only reinforced the growing perception that Washington was still as arrogant and unresponsive as ever and that the Democrats, like their predecessors, were still out for themselves and their political aims.

It’s the economy, but Obama and his Dimocrats think it’s about Mess-iah’s diminishing cult of personality and the acolyte Dimocrats. But it’s about the economy and the voters. The damage Obama and his Dimocrats do now will last for “years to come” if not generations to come.

Most voters are impressionistic, especially independents and moderates of both parties. They look at the whole of what you have done and the how of what you have done. If Democrats ram through an unpopular trillion-dollar health care bill in this climate, with Congress’ approval rating at 15%, they may well cement their image as the worst of Washington and sever their claim on the public’s trust for years to come. Even if ObamaCare delivers over time–and if it avoids the substantial premium increases that the Massachusetts universal care system has produced–it most likely will be too little too late.

Again, consider the context. Trust in government–which has been trending substantially downward since the crash of 2008–is in tipping-point territory right now. A recent New York Times poll showed that 70% of Americans are angry or dissatisfied with how Washington is handling the people’s business; 80% said that members of Congress are more interested in pandering to special interest groups than in serving the needs of people who elected them; and 81% said members of Congress across the board deserve to be thrown out. A new CNN poll out this week goes a step further and shows that 56% of Americans now think the federal government poses a threat to their rights, with even 37% of Democrats sharing that view.

Those numbers beg the question: Would the Democrats actually be better off if their comprehensive health care bill does not pass? I tend to think so, though as I argued last week, the best course for Democrats would be to skip the all-or-nothing trap and pass a center-out bill that contains the 80% of insurance reforms on which both sides already agree. But that’s a moot point: The Democrats are going for broke (in more ways than one). The more salient question is when will the Democrats start connecting the dots–and recognize that the American people are not going to accept a government that is not willing to heed their doubts.

What happened to “jobs, jobs, jobs”? The High Church of Barack Obama, the New York Times is scratching it’s head:

By the time March arrived, President Obama was supposed to be entering his third month of the year talking about three things: jobs, jobs, jobs.

That was the plan of the White House — and the plea from many Democrats — as the unemployment rate remained frozen near 10 percent and the economy showed only hints of brightening. The administration created a “White House to Main Street” tour, giving Mr. Obama a forum to see and feel America’s pain, and offer his plan for relief.

So whatever happened to that shift from health care to the economy?

Have a cigarette, Barack. Eat some greasy food, Barack.

Democrats on midterm election ballots feel a growing sense of worry that the year is quickly ticking away. If the next chapter of the health care debate consumes the month of March, will there be time to pursue other legislation before campaigning begins in earnest?

The trip was Mr. Obama’s first to Georgia since campaigning against Hillary Rodham Clinton nearly two years ago in the presidential race. He was greeted by an editorial in The Savannah Morning News, with a headline declaring: “Welcome Mr. President: It’s about jobs.”

With Barack Obama it’s always words, words, words and now the words are “jobs, jobs, jobs”. But Obama’s words do not match Obama’s actions.

“When it comes to domestic policy, I have no more important job as president than seeing to it that every American who wants to work, and is able to work, can find a job, and a job that pays a living wage,” Mr. Obama said. “That was my focus last year, and that is my focus this year.”

If we take Obama’s word that “jobs’ was last year’s “focus” and this years “focus”, the conclusion must be that a focused Obama is still not getting the “job” done. Where are the jobs? Today Obama will try again to force through the massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to a system that is acknowledged by most to be broken. Obama says he is focused on “jobs” but in reality is focus is on bringing more people into a system that is broken and forcing taxpayers to pay for the punishment.

He intended to move forward whether they joined him or not, aides said, so the White House could return to its originally scheduled message of jobs, jobs, jobs.

Where are the jobs?

* * * * * *

Where’s the economy?

Judd Gregg, the Republican Barack Obama wanted for Commerce Secretary, was interviewed recently by Ed Luce (the reporter who recently rocked Washington with a “blame the staff” article on Barack Obama’s collapsing White House) believes the U.S. is near a “financial meltdown”:

“The US is heading for a debt-driven “financial meltdown” within five to seven years, according to Judd Gregg, the outgoing Republican senator for New Hampshire. [snip]

“We have had China say that they are looking for other places to put their reserves and that is probably a smart decision on their part,” said Mr Gregg, who will not seek re-election in November. “So the warning signs are pretty clear and the path is unsustainable and, at this point, unless we take different actions, unavoidable.”

But the senator, who was the most high-profile Repub­lican invited by Barack Obama, the president, to join his administration last year, an offer Mr Gregg accepted and then turned down, said he doubted that the two parties would get together to tackle it.”

Thus far, Gregg is right that the two parties are unable or unwilling to tackle the problems the American economy faces. The American economy has 8 million manufacturing jobs and an economy with 150 million workers. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

Americans strongly believe the country is on the wrong track and Obama’s approval is tracking down, down, down. It’s going to get worse. In a major article, the Atlantic magazine explores “How A New Jobless Era Will Transform America“.

“The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar men. It could cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a despair not seen for decades. Ultimately, it is likely to warp our politics, our culture, and the character of our society for years to come.

In 2012, the Republicans will blame Barack Obama and his self-alleged “focus on jobs” failed policies for continued joblessness. At best Barack Obama will be able to respond “I am a boob” in his own defense. The defense will be valid, but the situation will be dire.

According to the liberal Atlantic magazine, even by 2014 unemployment will only decline “a little”; average duration of unemployment last year surpassed six months; the jobless and those that have given up looking for work reached 17.4% in October; teenager unemployment reached 27%; unemployment “may already be plunging many inner cities into a kind of despair and dysfunction not seen for decades.”

Whatever alleged benefits of the Obama stimulus scam, they have come and gone (according to Obama’s economic adviser chair Christina Romer, the Federal Reserve, and Goldman Sachs). “The economy now sits in a hole more than 10 million jobs deep—that’s the number required to get back to 5 percent unemployment, the rate we had before the recession started, and one that’s been more or less typical for a generation.” Due to population growth the economy must produce about 1.5 million new jobs a year “just to keep from sinking deeper.”

“Even if the economy were to immediately begin producing 600,000 jobs a month—more than double the pace of the mid-to-late 1990s, when job growth was strong—it would take roughly two years to dig ourselves out of the hole we’re in. [snip]

The construction and finance industries, bloated by a decade-long housing bubble, are unlikely to regain their former share of the economy, and as a result many out-of-work finance professionals and construction workers won’t be able to simply pick up where they left off when growth returns—they’ll need to retrain and find new careers. (For different reasons, the same might be said of many media professionals and auto workers.)”

The bad news is long and ugly. For the Barack Obama addled young, a large chunk of that demographic, the bad news is “fun”. Stories of “funemployment” abound among the Hopium guzzler Obama young.

Many of today’s young adults seem temperamentally unprepared for the circumstances in which they now find themselves. Jean Twenge, an associate professor of psychology at San Diego State University, has carefully compared the attitudes of today’s young adults to those of previous generations when they were the same age. Using national survey data, she’s found that to an unprecedented degree, people who graduated from high school in the 2000s dislike the idea of work for work’s sake, and expect jobs and career to be tailored to their interests and lifestyle. Yet they also have much higher material expectations than previous generations, and believe financial success is extremely important. “There’s this idea that, ‘Yeah, I don’t want to work, but I’m still going to get all the stuff I want,’” Twenge told me. “It’s a generation in which every kid has been told, ‘You can be anything you want. You’re special.’”

Barack youth will have a rude wake up call. Many African-Americans will have a tough time too. The Atlantic relates these facts:

“In June 1999, the journalist Ellis Cose wrote in Newsweek that it was then “the best time ever” to be black in America. He ticked through the reasons: employment was up, murders and out-of-wedlock births down; educational attainment was rising, and poverty less common than at any time since 1967. Middle-class black couples were slowly returning to gentrifying inner-city neighborhoods. “Even for some of the most persistently unfortunate—uneducated black men between 16 and 24—jobs are opening up,” Cose wrote.”

“The best time ever to be black in America” was when “racist” Bill Clinton was in the White House. Another tough wake up call. In the age of Mess-iah Obama the White House is a bleak house:

“But many of those gains are now imperiled. Late last year, unemployment among black teens ages 16 to 19 was nearly 50 percent, and the unemployment rate for black men age 20 or older was almost 17 percent. With so few jobs available, Wilson told me, “many black males will give up and drop out of the labor market, and turn more to the underground economy. And it will be very difficult for these people”—especially those who acquire criminal records—“to reenter the labor market in any significant way.” Glen Elder, the sociologist at the University of North Carolina, who’s done field work in Baltimore, said, “At a lower level of skill, if you lose a job and don’t have fathers or brothers with jobs—if you don’t have a good social network—you get drawn back into the street. There’s a sense in the kids I’ve studied that they lost everything they had, and can’t get it back.

In New York City, 18 percent of low-income blacks and 26 percent of low-income Hispanics reported having lost their job as a result of the recession in a July survey by the Community Service Society. More still had had their hours or wages reduced. About one in seven low-income New Yorkers often skipped meals in 2009 to save money, and one in five had had the gas, electricity, or telephone turned off. Wilson argues that once neighborhoods become socially dysfunctional, it takes a long period of unbroken good times to undo the damage—and they can backslide very quickly and steeply. “One problem that has plagued the black community over the years is resignation,” Wilson said—a self-defeating “set of beliefs about what to expect from life and how to respond,” passed from parent to child. “And I think there was sort of a feeling that norms of resignation would weaken somewhat with the Obama election. But these hard economic times could reinforce some of these norms.”

A year ago, in “Who Obama Hurts Most” we wrote Obama would most hurt those who voted for him – his own deluded supporters. Those deluded supporters are the one now most in need of – Hillary Clinton.

We never worshiped Hillary Clinton. We don’t drink Hopium, even if it is Pink. It was never about Hillary. It is about us, the American people.

The American people in 2012 will dial 911. Hillary Clinton must answer. She’s our only hope.

After George W. and Barack Obama, experience might finally come back in vogue on the presidential candidate resumé. Experience could be the Hillary Clinton 2012 campaign theme yet again. But there is a deadly Barack Obama caused problem, [...]]]> Elect a boob, expect boobery. This time, “Try Experience – For A Real Change.”

After George W. and Barack Obama, experience might finally come back in vogue on the presidential candidate resumé. Experience could be the Hillary Clinton 2012 campaign theme yet again. But there is a deadly Barack Obama caused problem, and opportunity.

* * * * * *

When President Bill Clinton left office, with approval ratings in the mid-60s, the economy was purring and the deficit lion tamed. The debt carnivore too was in retreat. Then… we’ll let Hillary Clinton explain:

“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday said “outrageous” advice from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan helped create record U.S. budget deficits that put national security at risk.

Appearing before congressional panels to defend the State Department’s $52.8 billion budget request for 2011, Clinton said the massive U.S. foreign debt had sapped U.S. strength around the world.

“It breaks my heart that 10 years ago we had a balanced budget, that we were on the way of paying down the debt of the United States of America,” Clinton said.

“I served on the budget committee in the Senate, and I remember as vividly as if it were yesterday when we had a hearing in which Alan Greenspan came and justified increasing spending and cutting taxes, saying that we didn’t really need to pay down the debt — outrageous in my view,” she said.”

George W. Bush signed into law “a massive tax cut while spending billions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sponsoring a major expansion of the Medicare health program for seniors.” Experienced Hillary “urged lawmakers to tackle the federal budget deficit, which reached a record $1.4 trillion for the fiscal year that ended last September.”

“We have to address this deficit and the debt of the United States as a matter of national security not only as a matter of economics,” Clinton said. “I do not like to be in a position where the United States is a debtor nation to the extent that we are.”

Having to rely on foreign creditors hit “our ability to protect our security, to manage difficult problems and to show the leadership that we deserve,” she said.

“The moment of reckoning cannot be put off forever,” she said. “I really honestly wish I could turn the clock back.”

Wistfulness over the past will not produce the needed change. Hillary Clinton is going to have to produce that change. And don’t think Hillary did not understand the meaning of her words. (Go to the head of the class “Antifish” for your comment on PumaPAC “Does anyone else see possible “campaign talk” in this testimony, or am I just wishfully thinking?“)

Unease and outright distrust of the Federal government by a furious public due to runaway debt and deficits are the Barack Obama caused problem and opportunity. For the foreseeable future candidates for president are not going to be able to run on campaign promises which require the expenditure of vast sums of money. Barack Obama drained what little was left in the Treasury. This campaign limitation will not particularly hurt Republicans. But for anyone running with a “D” after their name the problem will be insurmountable – but not for Hillary.

* * * * * *

This morning (8:45 a.m. EST) Lynn Forester de Rothschild will appear on Fox And Friends. The discussion will center on her latest published article which ends with the following:

“Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope.”

We at Big Pink believe that in November 2010 Dimocrats must suffer devastating defeat and doom – it is the only way to wake them up to the massive Mistake In ‘08 and the need to return to the FDR/Hillary Clinton Coalition. We agree with Lynn Forester that in 2012, once Obama is out of the picture, a reassertion of responsibility and fiscal common sense must be returned to the national government on a bipartisan basis.

American power, prestige, influence and our way of life are predicated on a strong economy. For a strong economy we need jobs for Americans in America. Barack Obama does not know what to do to strengthen the American economy. Barack Obama does not know what to do to help the private sector create jobs. That’s why Obama distracts with schemes which will reward his friends and donors with massive transfers of wealth from the American taxpayer pocket.

In 2012 the issue will be the economy. Other than President Bill Clinton himself, no one better understands “It’s the economy, stupid!” than Hillary Clinton.

The Republicans know the economy will be the issue in 2012. Mitch Daniels who won a big Indiana victory in 2008 when Democrats won big just about everywhere, is the latest favorite flavor of the day for Republicans. Mitch Daniels will run on the economy:

“If the country has soured on a charismatic orator who brought glamour but little executive experience to the presidency, the thinking goes, then Daniels could provide the antidote.

“Do we want a president that’s pretty, or do we want one who can get the job done?” is how Anne Hathaway, a former Republican National Committee chief of staff who is now back in her native Indiana, puts it.

At 60, Daniels’s résumé is exhaustive: He’s a Princeton-educated former Senate chief of staff-turned political operative-turned think tank chief-turned Fortune 500 executive-turned White House budget director-turned two-term governor. [snip]

He has cut spending, cut taxes, leased the state’s toll road to a private company for billions and expanded health insurance and prescription drug access in a market-friendly way. The result is an approval rating of 70 percent, according to one recent survey, placing him among the country’s most popular governors. [snip]

Top party strategists say that characteristic would enable Daniels to fill at least three spaces in the Republican primary.

First, there’s the obvious: He’s the charismatically challenged opposite of Obama. And recent presidential history reveals an electorate that tends to elect presidents with the traits contrary to the outgoing chief executive.

But because of his record and background, he would offer more substantive contrasts, too.

“He’s a budget deficit hawk, but he’s also the interesting reformer,” said one of the Republican Party’s most influential officials, who insisted on anonymity to avoid being seen as taking sides.

Supporters think Daniels can appeal to voters who are fed up with what they see as excessive government spending as well as those who want a candidate who has actually delivered policy results that extend beyond reducing red ink.”

Whether it is Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Mitch Daniels, or Mike Huckabee, in 2012 there is only one real and true Democrat who can win – Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama is poison already and after November Obama will be poison unbottled. Barack Obama must be driven out of the race so competence and experience can make a return and so that Democrats realize we must return to the winning FDR/Hillary Clinton coalition.

* * * * * *

March is National Women’s History Month. “The overarching theme for March 2010 is Writing Women Back into History.” Barack Obama and the Democratic “leadership” along with a colluding Big Media tried to write Hillary Clinton out of history. Instead, Hillary Clinton supporters will write Obama, the Democratic “leadership”, and Big Media a ticket to oblivion.

[Part II tomorrow.]

On Memorial Day 2008 we wrote that the “Democratic Party is now engaged in the opening battles of a Civil War. As in the 1860s this war cannot be avoided.” [...]]]> We are not making Joe Stack style, lucid death threats today. We are making a political analysis of what must happen politically.

On Memorial Day 2008 we wrote that the “Democratic Party is now engaged in the opening battles of a Civil War. As in the 1860s this war cannot be avoided.” The worldviews of both sides are so opposed that one side must die. Either Hillary supporters will die, or Barack Obama supporters will die – nothing else will do to end this Civil War. If Barack Obama supporters win, the situation comedy coalition of Barack Obama wins and Obama appeasement and weakness will provide Republicans with a golden future and many victories for generations to come. If Hillary Clinton supporters win we return to the winning FDR coalition and a party which reaches out for common ground but will fight and hold our ground on core Democratic values.

Hillary supporters who believe there is any hope of rapprochement with Obama supporters are fooling themselves. Hillary supporters who whine about the need for an “apology” from Obama supporters delude themselves and misunderstand the basic nature of the Civil War we are engaged in. The urge for unity in order to fight for issues we supposedly hold in common is understandable. But there is no going back to work with Obama supporters – not with their abominable view of reality. One side must die; one worldview will prevail, one reality will win out.

Recently many Obama supporters have begun to awaken to the “plain as the nose on your face” corrupt boob that is Obama. What they do not acknowledge is their complicity with the most corrupt forces in American life to inflict Obama on the mostly blameless Democratic rank and file and on the nation. Obama is and was the candidate of the Democratic establishment and a Big Media stooge of the Big Media Party.

Left Talker Obama supporters now admit that they were “more than a little hopey changey”. These fools who continue to expound on issues and believe they have an ounce of brains are the same fools who

“…thought Obama was a new FDR. The ones who said vote for Obama because he is a “media darling”.

The Left Talkers thought turning over the Democratic and the democratic process to Big Media was a smart strategy.”

The Left Talkers are not alone. Other toxic allies of Barack Obama and his filth from Lake Michigan persist in their collusions and deceptions and warped worldview. No more disgusting example of the worldview and mentality that must die can be found than Katha Pollitt at The Nation magazine. Pollitt writes:

“I’m still glad I supported Obama over Hillary Clinton. If Hillary had won the election, every single day would be a festival of misogyny. We would hear constantly about her voice, her laugh, her wrinkles, her marriage and what a heartless, evil bitch she is for doing something–whatever!–men have done since the Stone Age. Each week would bring its quotient of pieces by fancy women writers explaining why they were right not to have liked her in the first place. Liberal pundits would blame her for discouraging the armies of hope and change, for bringing back the same-old same-old cronies and advisers, for letting healthcare reform get bogged down in inside deals, for failing to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan–which would be attributed to her being a woman and needing to show toughness–for cozying up to Wall Street, deferring to the Republicans and ignoring the cries of the people. In other words, for doing pretty much what Obama is doing. This way I get to think, Whew, at least you can’t blame this on a woman.”

The worldview represented by Obama supporters and voiced by such as Katha Pollit, The Nation magazine, and the Left Talkers, must die. Nothing else will do. Pollit the Obama supporter (and her ilk), is so stupid, her world view so distorted and debased, that she wants us to believe that Hillary would have been as incompetent and inexperienced and stupid and corrupt as Barack Obama; and that the sexism and misogyny of Big Media and Obama supporters must not be fought but instead surrendered to. Hillary is not the inexperienced corrupt boob Barack Obama proves he is every day and Hillary and Hillary supporters are not afraid to fight and fight hard until we win. We do not give up. We do not accept weak bowing substitutes.

The Katha Pollitt world view must not only be defeated it must be killed and destroyed. The mentality of the Pollitts and the Left Talkers and The Nation magazine must be killed and burned and the ashes scattered to the four winds. These people should not have any place in our national discourse. They are corrupt forces filled with loathing and stupidity. No long list of synonyms for “fecal matter” is sufficient to express the disgust they inspire with their cowardice and complicity and mendacity. They must die.

They must die.

* * * * *

From Business Week:

Banking Past Haunts Obama Friend [...]]]> Put on your toxin resistant black rubber gloves and your waist high mud boots. We’ll quote today from websites deep into Obama love. If you thought the Massachusetts senate election was a disaster, we have one word, one name: Chicago.

* * * * *

From Business Week:

Banking Past Haunts Obama Friend Who Wants His Old Senate Seat

“Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate — they’ve got plenty,” Obama said Jan. 17 in Boston, signaling a broader strategy to tie Republicans to Wall Street greed.

In the (Illinois) race to fill Obama’s old Senate seat, the banker in question is a Democrat, Alexi Giannoulias, a presidential friend whose family’s bank once held deposits for an Obama campaign committee…

Giannoulias, 33, a former senior loan officer and bank vice president, now serves as treasurer of Illinois…Giannoulias said he now owns 3.6 percent of the bank…

The $1.2 billion community bank, founded in 1979, has been part of Giannoulias’s public profile since he won election in 2006 because it made loans to a bookmaker as well as convicted Illinois influence peddler Antoin “Tony” Rezko.

Here at Big Pink we wrote about Obama’s Mob back in 2007. The mob chickens are coming home. We wrote about Alexi Giannoulias and Michael “Jaws” Giorango in 2007, but few in Big Media listened. Now, even the Obama lovers see the connections and they are worried.

From the fourth Gabor sister’s website, Huff n’ Puff (keep those gloves and mud boots on):

CHICAGO — If the Massachusetts special election was a kick in the shins for President Barack Obama, the political turmoil in Illinois, his home state, is a pain in the neck that never seems to go away.

His former Senate seat, already stained by an ethics scandal, is a major takeover target for Republicans. So is the governor’s office.

Going into Tuesday’s Illinois primary, the first of the 2010 campaign season, Democrats are in disarray, with no political heavyweights in their lineup for the Senate seat that Obama gave up for the White House.

Losing it would be a bigger personal embarrassment for the president than Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts, which took away the late Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat.

The front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination in Illinois, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, describes Obama as his mentor. He is only 33 and hasn’t served a full term in office, and his only previous experience was working for a family bank now in financial trouble.

More from Huff n’ Puff’s Obama lovers:

“Massachusetts was more of a referendum on Obama. In Illinois, it’s going to be a referendum on Democratic incompetence,” said Pat Brady, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party.

In Massachusetts, Brown made his opposition to Obama policies, particularly health care overhaul, a centerpiece of his campaign. Obama had little choice but appear there two days before the special election on behalf of Brown’s Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Since then, Illinois Republicans have mentioned the Massachusetts upset at every opportunity.

“I believe Illinois is ready for a Scott Brown experience,” Adam Andrzejewski, one of six contenders for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, said in a recent debate.

The great hero of the Polish revolution and the workers’ Solidarity Union, Lech Walesa, will campaign for Andrzejewski.

A Polish politician who spearheaded the movement that led to the fall of communism in Poland is taking a stand in Illinois politics.

Lech Walesa, the former polish president, is endorsing Polish-American Adam Andrzejewski in the Republican race for governor.

Walesa an iconic figure of Poland’s rise from communism but today Lech Walesa is hoping to give Adam Andrzejewski a lift in the race for governor. he two men joined together for an event at the Union League Club of Chicago.

Why is Walesa doing this?

“I have good political nose,” told ABC7 through an interpreter.

Walesa says his endorsement is about more than merely sharing Polish heritage. He believes the Hinsdale businessman would bring a new honest approach to Illinois government.

“Because he has no baggage. He is open. He can put things in order. Clean house,” said Walesa.

The former Polish president is well aware of the stain of corruption in Illinois politics. He joked, tongue-in-cheek, that he won’t need to visit his chosen candidate in prison.

“He doesn’t depend on anyone and this is his greatness,” said Walesa.

“We’re gonna defend the taxpayers of Illinois. We’re gonna bring good governance to Springfield. This is a new era of governance that we can work on together,” said Andrzejewski.

In Massachusetts the Kennedy clan thought they were the Polish communist regime which oppressed the people. Walesa is not afraid that his candidate is the underdog:

Andrzejewski doesn’t seem to mind the underdog status and neither does Lech Walesa.

“Nobody gave us a chance to win over the communists. Nobody. And we proved them wrong,” said Walesa.

There are freedom fighters in Chicago. A website called Alexi the Unelectable will fight corruption’s courtiers in the Illinois Senate race.

Obama loving dogs at Nothing Left are barking a warning:

The story broke on January 26th, the day after both PPP and Rasmussen completed their polls on the campaign. As such, any polls showing Giannoulias performing better in the general election than his two main rivals, David Hoffman and Cheryle Jackson, are now out of date.

Being caught in a banking scandal is always bad. Being caught in one during this political environment is practically a death sentence to a campaign. If Giannoulias were to win the primary, Democrats would be extremely hard pressed to keep the seat in November. Even worse, having a prominent Senate candidate–the Democratic nominee for President Obama’s old seat–personally involved in a banking scandal like this could hurt Democratic chances in many other elections, too.

The bark of the dogs is clear and loud:

However, if Illinois Democrats either ignore this scandal, or give Giannoulias some sort of sympathy vote for being targeted, this Senate seat is probably gone. Many others will become endangered, too.

These barking fools have been so wrong, for so long, most recently in the Massachusetts race that ordinarily they can be ignored. But we have been writing about Chicago Corruption since 2007 and every day we have been proven correct.

No bigger dog that the Paul Hackett hater and Hillary hater and Obama lover David Sirota is busy barking:

Illinois’ U.S. Senate Democratic primary is coming up in less than a week, and it poses a potentially enormous problem for the Democratic Party, in Illinois and therefore nationally. That “therefore” is important: Because President Obama is from Illinois, and because Republicans have invested so much time and resources trying to nationalize the concept of the corrupt “Chicago politician,” whoever ends up the Democratic nominee for Obama’s old seat will likely be made by the GOP into a face of the Democratic Party as a whole.

That’s why the candidacy of Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is so problematic. Holding a slight lead in the polls against other Democratic challengers, he has become a poster child for everything that is wrong with the American economy – everything that the Republican Party’s right-wing populism desperately needs to find traction.

Sirota is so worried about the politics, but not a word about the Obama Chicago Culture of Corruption. Sirota blames Republicans for the fight against Corruption. Corruption, Corruption, Corruption – Chicago.

Sirota and the Hillary haters are worried about the loss of a senate seat. The worry is political, not a cleansing of Obama Chicago Corruption. Sirota writes, “Bloomberg News shows just how mortally dangerous to the Democratic Party Giannoulias would be if he wins the nomination“.

Real Democrats, not the Obamination Dimocratic Party care about cleansing the system of Obama Chicago Corruption. Independents too, not just Republicans want to cleanse the system of Obama Chicago Corruption:

As these stories make clear, if Giannoulias is the winner, we can expect to hear for the next year about how the Democratic Party is so corrupt it is now promoting a scandal-plagued banker to fill Obama’s old Senate seat. While Giannoulias leads likely Republican nominee Mark Kirk in one early poll, you better believe those polls will change in a general-election battle that focuses in on this banking theme.

Thus, if Giannoulias, it would be a clear disaster. He is literally the walking personification of all that the public clearly despises right now – an Establishment politician closely connected to the industry that has destroyed the economy.

With him as the nominee, Democrats could lose yet another senate seat, and more broadly, they could lose any national high ground they need to reclaim. At a time when the Democratic Party desperately needs to reclaim the populist economic mantle and prevent Republicans from being able to mount their own right-wing populist campaign, Giannoulias would become the face of a Democratic Party that has already become increasingly synonymous in voters minds with the most hated aspects of the financial industry.

Sirota and the Nothing Left, DailyKooks crowd have destroyed the Democratic Party and even these Leninist “vanguard of the proletariat” “creative class” clueless clowns know the Dimocratic Party will be destroyed just as they destroyed the Democratic Party:

I’m not endorsing any of the other candidates, and I have absolutely no personal stake in the outcome of this primary election, other than hoping it doesn’t destroy the Democratic Party I’ve worked with and for over the last decade. Maybe that party I once worked with and for is already totally destroyed – I have a sneaking suspicion that it is. But maybe not. That’s precisely why I write this: To point out that if this particular candidate becomes the new face of the Democratic Party, the “maybe not part” could easily disappear.

Even Big Media sees what we saw in 2007.

Giannoulias = Obama; Obama = Giannoulias:

The front-runner for the Democratic Senate nomination in Illinois, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, describes Obama as his mentor. He is only 33 and hasn’t served a full term in office, and his only previous experience was working for a family bank now in financial trouble. [snip]

Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is in danger of losing in the primary because of his association with disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was expelled from office.

Quinn twice ran as lieutenant governor on the same ticket as Blagojevich. He has also taken heat for proposing a tax increase to clean up the state’s financial mess and for working with Obama to move terror suspects from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to an Illinois prison. His effort to cut costs by letting some nonviolent inmates out of prison turned out to include releasing violent offenders — some of whom have been accused of serious new crimes.

Obama is Poison. Obama is Poison, even in Illinois:

In Massachusetts, Brown made his opposition to Obama policies, particularly health care overhaul, a centerpiece of his campaign. Obama had little choice but appear there two days before the special election on behalf of Brown’s Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Since then, Illinois Republicans have mentioned the Massachusetts upset at every opportunity.

“I believe Illinois is ready for a Scott Brown experience,” Adam Andrzejewski, one of six contenders for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, said in a recent debate.

Republicans would love for Obama to go to Illinois to campaign for his mob. Republicans repeatedly send out the message that Obama can help his Dimocrats in Illinois. But Republicans know that Obama is poison.

Even at Huff n’ Puff the Obama stink is smelt:

Recently I spent a lot of time with some relatives and old friends, so when the president’s happy or frowning visage came on the tube I could gauge the gut-level reactions.

My family and friends run the gamut of the political spectrum, so they form my own little focus group. The moderates and conservatives are both Republican and Democrat, and most of them actually voted for Obama, convinced by the candidate’s soaring rhetoric and his elderly opponent John McCain’s creaky appearance that the first black president in American history should be given a chance. Yet when Obama’s face came on the tube, every one of them reacted negatively.

Some shook their heads, kind of smirking. Others were more visceral in their grimaces and body language. [snip]

Interestingly, when I pointed out that the Congressional Republicans seem dead set on opposing anything Obama does, most of them agreed. But they were interested in results, not excuses. And the man they had voted for to solve the nation’s problems was bogged down in the swamp of Washington DC. “We elected him to figure this out,” said one. “He hasn’t figured out anything, and the country is going downhill.”

Oh yes, “the country is going downhill”. Even liberals who shamed themselves into voting for the African-American to prove they were so enlightened, ignored the content of base character and instead voted for the color of skin – are now disgusted:

The reaction of the liberals in the family was even more surprising. Most of them were even more visceral in their disgust with Obama than the conservatives. Having been ecstatic when Obama was voted in, having felt themselves part of a historical wave that had elected what they thought was a transformative figure like Franklin Roosevelt, now they were deeply suspicious.

“I can’t believe a word he says,” said one. “He completely duped us. On the campaign trail he showed us one face, and now as president another.”

Liberal and real Democrats who were duped into joining the Obamination we call the Dimocratic Party are awake:

Despite all of Obama’s soaring oratory about pulling together as a nation to solve deep economic, health care and global warming crises, they all felt Obama is not delivering. Whether his inabilities are related to personal shortcomings or the defects of America’s antiquated political system, they were not much interested. All they were interested in was results. And a year into his presidency, Obama was failing to produce much of those.

So when seeing Obama on their TV screens, nearly every one of them shook their heads, grimaced, snorted or chuckled, and then quickly changed the channel. I don’t recall George W. Bush reaching this point in his presidency until near the end of his first term. If that’s a bellwether, then Obama is in trouble. His post-election mandate is gone, his 60 votes in the Senate are gone, and what’s left is the tough slog ahead of modest accomplishments. Unfortunately, the country needs much more than that. Fasten your seatbelts, we are in for a long ride.

Alexi and Obama are Poison. Obama is poison in New York. Obama is poison everywhere.

Americans woke up too late to the Obama Corruptions.

Chicago Dimocrats are in for a rude awakening.

Supposedly alone, in her crazed bitterness, spouting obscenities, discombobulated, womanish ways, Hillary Clinton answered another 3 a.m. emergency call. Of course Hillary was qualified [...]]]> Supposedly alone and “racist”, Bill Clinton, as the envoy to Haiti will soon be in the forefront of rescue for the predominately black people devastated by the massive earthquake in Haiti.

Supposedly alone, in her crazed bitterness, spouting obscenities, discombobulated, womanish ways, Hillary Clinton answered another 3 a.m. emergency call. Of course Hillary was qualified and experienced enough to answer that cry for help from Haiti because she, as in just about everything, knows the region and the issues well. Almost immediately Hillary spoke about the deadly earthquake:

“The United States is offering our full assistance to Haiti and to others in the region. We will be providing both civilian and military disaster relief and humanitarian assistance and our prayers are with the people who have suffered, their families and their loved ones,” Clinton said at the start of a speech on Asian relations in Honolulu, Hawaii.”

As during the Christmas day attempted crashing of a plane into the city of Detroit, Barack Obama slept and let one of his TelePrompTer ghostwriters issue a statement. Jesus wept.

* * * * *

Before this week’s gossip book “Game Change” Mark Halperin along with John Harris (who now runs Politico and has been hawking the latest gossip tome on TV and on the website) Halperin wrote another book. This is what Halperin wrote then:

A candidate who runs principally on his or her biography is acutely vulnerable to the accusation that this biography is embellished. Such a candidate, in other words, is a fat target for the Freak Show. One signature of Freak Show politics is a fixation on personality and alleged hypocrisy. Another is the ease with which shrewd political operatives can manipulate the Freak Show’s attention to hijack the public image of an opponent.

Barack Obama ran only on his biography, or rather his autobiography, which was more fiction than fact. Big Media and Mark Halperin in his latest book never questioned that fake autobiography. Big Media protected Obama and never asked those questions of “acutely vulnerable” Barack Obama. In Hillary Clinton Tested And Ready we quoted an article by Lynn Sweet which received zero follow-up by Big Media and soon thereafter Sweet and others realized that questioning Obama would not get them attention so they stopped writing critically about the fake candidate. Here is what Lynn Sweet wrote about Barack Obama’s fake autobiography so greedily gobbled up by Big Media as truth:

Obama changed names of real people, created composite characters and re-created conversations in his best-selling memoir. [snip]

Times staff writer Peter Wallsten raised the question in his story of whether Obama took too much credit in helping residents of Altgeld Gardens fight the Chicago Housing Authority over asbestos removal in the South Side complex in the 1980s. The paper headlined the piece ”Fellow activists say Obama’s memoir has too many I’s.”

Obama, 45, is hoping to dilute questions about his experience by arguing that the totality of his career – from community organizer to state senator to the U.S. Senate — should count, and not just his last two years in Washington. [snip]

Obama disclosed in his introduction that he used literary devices to buttress his recollections. He also kept a journal. In August 2004 I wrote a column about Obama’s use of literary license in Dreams and concluded: ”Except for public figures and his family, it is impossible to know who is real and who is not. . . .

“Colorful characters populate the Chicago chapters: Smitty the barber, LaTisha, the part-time manicurist, Angela, Ruby, Mrs. Turner and one Rafiq al Shabazz. Who they really are, or if they are composites, you would not know from reading the book.” [snip]

The Times article quotes Altgeld resident and community activist Hazel Johnson. My colleague, Sun-Times political writer Scott Fornek, interviewed her in 2004 and again on Monday.

Fornek reports that Johnson, 72, objects to Obama taking credit for helping force the CHA to remove asbestos at Altgeld Gardens. Johnson has not read Obama’s book. She said he played no role in the asbestos-removal fight. She said he did help get “angel hair,” another type of dangerous insulation, removed from attics in the complex’s row houses — and worked on public transportation issues and helped get a library built. ”He was not with us on the asbestos,” she said.

In any boxing ring or political fight there are three people in the ring – the two fighters and the referee. In 2008 Hillary Clinton was in the ring fighting not only Obama but the referee as well. If Obama cheated and Hillary raised a question – the referee accused her of being negative. If Hillary said anything to buttress her claims of experience and qualifications – the referee accused her of boasting and immediately demanded an investigation. If Hillary said nothing – the referee accused her of being a weak woman. If Hillary said anything – the referee accused her of being shrill. If Hillary dressed with a blouse – the referee accused her of exposing her breasts to prove she was a woman. If Hillary had a dog or cat – the referee accused her of abuse. If Obama made one of his many mistakes – he was protected. If Obama did not, on rare occasions, bumble and stumble – he was praised as magnificent.

In our article, written in December 2007, we discussed some of the many fake incidents and many questions that needed to be asked about Obama. We asked, in December 2007, many questions and observations and quotes from articles:

Hillary has an innovative website called “AttackTimeline” which documents that it was Obama and Edwards which initiated the negative attack tactics in the Democratic Presidential campaign… The Hillary I Know website has testimonials from “those who know her best”. Over 40 people testify on video about Hillary. Betsy Ebeling has known Hillary since the sixth grade… There is however no “The Barack/Barry I Know” equivalent website for Obama… Where are the Obama testimonials?... “Less than two months after ascending to the United States Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors”… “Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed about the stock deals, has already had to contend with a controversy that arose out of his reliance on a major campaign contributor in Chicago to help him in a personal financial transaction”… “His wife, Michelle, a hospital vice president in Chicago, received a promotion that March, nearly tripling her salary to $317,000, and they bought a $1.6 million house in June”… “But he put $50,000 to $100,000 into an account at UBS, which his aides say was recommended to him by a wealthy friend, George W. Haywood, who was also a major investor in both Skyterra and AVI BioPharma, public securities filings show”… “Within two weeks of his purchase of the biotech stock that Feb. 22, Mr. Obama initiated what he has called “one of my top priorities since arriving in the Senate,” a push to increase federal financing to fight avian flu”… “Iowa Independent asked the Obama campaign for a more detailed accounting of Obama’s travels in Europe, both in an official capacity and as a private citizen. Nearly 48 hours later, we have not received any such information”… Doubts about Barack Obama’s presidential credentials have crystallized during the past two weeks over his stewardship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on European Affairs, which has convened no policy hearings since he took over as its chairman last January… “I was on the single-A team, and at the end of practice I was just raining down threes”… “High school basketball veterans for truth! A reader points out that Obama’s basketball days seem to predate the three-point line, which was introduced in the NBA in 1979 and college ball in 1980″… Obama lied at Selma about the energy bill and about his own conception, he lies about his community organizer days. He lies about his health plan and “preconditions” and attacking Pakistan. He lies about basketball. Basketball.

We still don’t have answers to those questions. Mark Halperin never asked.

When Halperin wrote his last book in 2006 with Politico’s John Harris Media Matters for America had these comments about Halperin’s work which also gloomily apply to “Game Change“:

Here’s how dishonest Beltway journalism has become.

Books about politics and the press don’t come much more dishonest, or depressing, than the new tome hitting stores this week, The Way to Win (Random House). Written by corporate media bigwigs Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News and founder of its political newsletter The Note, and John F. Harris, national political editor of The Washington Post, the new digest — it’s their take on how to win the White House — is already being toasted by celebrity journalists inside the Beltway, which in today’s environment means the book politely re-enforces preferred conventional wisdom and graciously avoids asking tough questions about Republicans [Our Note: replace Obama for Republicans and this all applies to "Game Change"]. The press corps also skates by in the eyes of Halperin and Harris, who continuously rewrite recent history in order to ensure that journalists shoulder little or no blame for D.C. pressroom disgraces such as Whitewater, the blatantly dishonest coverage heaped upon Al Gore’s presidential campaign, and for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth hoax that ensnared Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential run.

I say The Way to Win is dishonest because Halperin and Harris are obviously smart professionals who understand how politics and the press now (unfortunately) work in this country. Indeed, the two are celebrated as among Beltway journalism’s best and brightest and are paid handsomely for reaching the pinnacle of their profession. Unfortunately, political journalism isn’t what it used to be, and unfortunately, the duo opts to conform to the artificial guidelines that dictate public debate inside the Beltway today.

That’s precisely why CBS’ Bob Schieffer has already flacked the book on Face the Nation, why Charlie Rose has invited the two for an intimate chat, and why the Way To Win D.C. book party was awash with boldface guests, as elites from the press and politics flocked to toast the
latest re-writing of the conventional wisdom. It’s because Halperin and Harris tell a reassuring story that Beltway players, particularly in the press, love to hear. And for anybody who still thinks there’s an ounce of friction between the true media elites and the Beltway’s mostly Republican ruling class, read The Way to Win and think again. The Beltway really has become a tension-free world where journalists and
politicos bond effortlessly.

Replace “Republicans” with “Obama” and this old review is applicable to the latest gossip garbage.

What Halperin and Harris absolutely refuse to acknowledge is the willing role the press played in those key Democratic setbacks and the media’s shrieking double standard that’s been on display for the last decade.

George W. Bush and Barack Obama and Big Media – nothing has changed. Hate of Bill and Hillary Clinton by Big Media – nothing has changed. Replace George W. Bush with Barack Obama (The Third Bush Term) and nothing has changed.

Halperin and Harris refuse to consider the option that it’s been a conscious choice the press has made to dog Democrats while going easy on Bush, repeatedly holding him to an absurdly low standard of professional and personal conduct.

Halperin and his co-author of “Game Change” laud Obama in the new book and trash Bill and Hillary – just like the old days in the Bush era.

Replace the Big Media attitude toward George W. Bush and Karl Rove with Obama and Axelrod and the old is relevant again:

That way its authors — both longtime Rove and Bush admirers — can argue with straight faces it was the combined genius of the two men that secured victories over hapless and overmatched Democrats, not the United States Supreme Court or a manufactured wartime culture.

Big Media protected Barack Obama and trashed Hillary, no matter what she did and now Big Media wants Americans to believe that “it was the combined genius” of Obama and Axelrod “that secured victories” over Hillary and McCain/Palin. Nonsense. Big Media protected Barack Obama. The referee was on the take and many of those “referees” now work for Barack Obama as they flee the “news” industry they have helped destroy with their biased “reporting”.

Hillary Clinton, according to Ben Smith at Politico (which we responded to yesterday) is savaged for “vicious tactics” by supposedly (and this has been denied by her campaign workers like Peter Daou) wanting to discuss Obama’s drug use. Big Media protected Barack Obama and does not want Obama’s drug use discussed or examined. Same with George W. Bush:

Indeed, Halperin and Harris elevate the act of playing dumb to Olympian heights. Note how they fawn over Bush and Rove in 2000 for deftly handling curiosity about the candidate’s previous drug use by simply announcing they would not answer reporters’ questions on that touchy subject. Good Lord, why didn’t Clinton’s War Room think of that in ‘92 when its candidate was nearly driven out the race over the issue of youthful drug use? According to Halperin and Harris, apparently all Clinton had to do during the destructive press orgy was do what Bush later did, which was show “fortitude,” “discipline,” and “steadfast commitment” and pull off the “daring” strategy” to not answer any questions and the press would have respected the Democrats’ privacy and backed off.

All those questions about Barack Obama’s and Michelle Obama’s dirty finances? No questions for Obama. No questions now about how Obama destroyed proposed health care reforms in Illinois either. No questions for Obama, but plenty of attack questions against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

And remember Whitewater? Well, Halperin and Harris don’t. The duo devotes an entire chapter detailing Clinton’s often troubled first term in office, yet the phrase “Whitewater” never appears in print there. Keep in mind that reproducing The Washington Post’s library of breathless Whitewater stories printed during Clinton’s first term would likely fill three volumes the size of The Way to Win, while ABC’s Whitewater archives could fill a weekend of around-the-clock coverage. But for Halperin and Harris, the story, and the media’s absolutely central role in keeping alive a Republican-generated hoax about a long-ago real estate deal, goes down the memory hole. How’s that for a “Trade Secret”?

Big Media has polluted our politics for a long time now. Big Media continues to pollute our politics. Sarah Palin watch out more than you have been because Big Media is out to get you too. After all you are a woman (dangerous enough) and you have a folksy way of talking (like Bill Clinton) and Big Media barons don’t like “folksy”.

Big Media’s lack of curiosity about Bush’s probable drug use or his Texas Air National Guard service pales to insignificance compared to the lack of curiosity about Barack Obama. Democrats then wanted to know all about Bush, but now, Democrats do not want to know anything about drug use or school records (dare we say “birth certificate?), travel records, friends, addresses, or financial deals. Where are the inquiring minds in the Left today? Bush was blasted for what Obama is protected. Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have it even worse that George W. Bush.

George W. Bush and Rove were protected, but not nearly as much as Barack Obama:

While The Way to Win disses Dems, it is positively glowing toward Republicans. For instance, we’re assured Rove’s work is “scholarly and meticulous” and that Rove got into politics because “he was interested in ideas” and wanted to “advance the policies.” Yet what about the fact that
during the 2000 campaign Rove completely camouflaged Bush’s true governing intentions — hiding the ideas and policies Bush
would later implement — by running the candidate as a moderate? Halperin and Harris, constantly bumping into their own contradictions, think the maneuver was a stroke of genius. So much for the power of ideas.

Replace “Bush” and “Rove” with “Obama” and “Axelrod” and we begin to see how “uniter not divider” Obama was just a ploy. Nothing’s changed.

Obama and Axelrod ran a stumbling, bumbling campaign but it is now called “brilliant” in “Game Change” and in Big Media outlets. According to the accounts from Obama campaign operatives like Plouffe the Obama campaign was completely unprepared for the Jeremiah Wright explosion, could not respond to the “bitter and clingy” Obama boobery, and lost primary election after primary election to an outspent Hillary. But Big Media protected Barack Obama. Big Media calls Obama’s campaign “brilliant” but it was a boobery campaign. What saved Obama was that Big Media protected Obama’s stumbling and bumbling and trashed Hillary at every turn. There was no game change, just cheap change. The same Big Media protection at a lesser level helped Bush/Rove:

I’m talking about the blatant strategic errors Rove has made, like during the 2000 campaign when he wasted Bush’s time and money during the closing days by sending him to places like New Jersey and California where he lost to Gore by double digits. Like how Rove, bragging about how Bush was going to “win in a walk,” allowed a badly outspent Gore to win most of the key toss-up states, including come-from-behind victories in Minnesota, Iowa, New Mexico, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Maine. For Halperin and Harris, too busy polishing Rove’s resume, those
blunders don’t exist.

Bush actually got some vetting and some examination of his finances and history. Barack Obama was completely protected.

The two habitually misrepresent recent elections in order to slavishly adhere to their talking points that Bush and Co. have cracked the campaign code. Read this:

“This means that no one (NO ONE!) is immune to this Trade Secret: The fight for every presidential nominee and every general election campaign dredges up past votes, quotes, actions, and inactions from everyone who runs for president, no matter what rough-and-tumble political scrutiny they previously have endured.”

Really? A quick history lesson: Looking to raise money to pay off his investment in the Texas Rangers baseball team, Bush sold two-thirds of his Harken Energy stock on June 22, 1990, for $4 a share and pocketed $848,560. In short order, Harken quickly announced that for the quarter ending June 30, 1990, it had lost $23 million, dwarfing the company’s previous largest loss. Right after Bush sold his shares, Harken stock was trading for just $1. Critics wondered whether Bush, a member of Harken’s three-person audit committee, sold his stock knowing the company was about to announce huge losses. Adding to his troubles, Bush then waited 34 weeks before filing forms with the SEC notifying it of his insider stock sales.

Think back again to Halperin and Harris’s “Trade Secret” about how every detail from a candidates’ past gets dredged up, because here’s how many times during the 2000 general election race The New York Times raised questions about Bush’s 1990 sweetheart deal with Harken Energy: 0. The Washington Post? 0. The Chicago Tribune? 0. ABC News? 0. NBC News? 0. CBS News? 0. CNN? 0.

You get the idea.

And here’s how utterly bored the press was with the topic of Bush, with fleshing out his policies or filling in a portrait of the man: More than one year after the Texas governor announced his run for president and one week before Election Day, David Broder at The Washington Post casually mentioned to readers “there was little public knowledge of Bush’s record and little understanding of his major proposals.” [Emphasis added.] Broder did not suggest there was anything odd about that.

Broder and company certainly had no interest in the story of Bush’s mysterious service in the Texas Air National Guard. Halperin and Harris insist that “for a variety of reasons” the press looked away from that story in 2000. But why? Halperin and Harris are mostly mum. Despite the fact the two worked for major
news organizations during the 2000 campaign and could presumably offer up some insight as to what the “variety of reasons” were that the press gave
Bush an unprecedented pass regarding the gaping holes in his personal biography, Halperin and Harris refuse to do so, since that would mean raising uncomfortable questions about their employers, ABC News and The Washington Post, which, you guessed it, ignored the story in 2000
and made major blunders while trying to cover it, belatedly, in 2004.

At least people knew that Bush had financial entanglements. Has any Dimocrat asked about Rezko or Obama’s pharmaceutical company stock? Only after the election did we ever find out that Obama took a trip to Pakistan with a friend, but we still don’t know how he paid for it. We don’t even know how he paid for his expensive schools either (except for his expensive prep school in Hawaii). To paraphrase the old Batgirl theme song: “Where does he come from, where does he go? We still don’t know.

George W. Bush’s military career was examined as was Bill Clinton’s military exemption (”He’s a draft dodger!” shouted Big Media). Questions about George W. Bush were asked:

The Bush National Guard story was born and bred in Old Media; on the front page of The Boston Globe, May 23, 2000, to be exact. After combing through
160 pages of military documents and interviewing Bush’s former commanders (every quote in the story was on-the-record), reporter Walter Robinson detailed how Bush’s flying career came to an abrupt and unexplained end in the spring of 1972 when Bush asked to be transferred from his Texas unit to an Alabama unit so he could work on a Senate campaign there. But Bush did not show up for drills in Alabama and by most indications never returned to serve with his Texas unit either. He simply walked away from his military obligation with nearly two years still remaining. The press corps remained nonplussed. During the 2000 campaign The New York Times published just two references to the Globe investigation into Bush’s often no-show Guard service. And the paper was not alone. Just seven days after the Globe story ran, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews sat down with candidate Bush for an entire hour and refused to raise the troubling National Guard questions documented in the Globe article. That’s how committed the press was to ignoring the story.

Chris Matthews was also not curious about Barack Obama and only seeks to make him “a success”. The George W. Bush history at least was a matter of curiosity. Barack Obama was a matter of protection. And now we know that the Democratic Party “leadership” was also out to protect Barack Obama and make sure that Hillary Clinton never became president.

Bush’s 1999 autobiography, A Charge to Keep, was plowed for questions – Obama’s fake autobiography was peppered with praise. Hillary Clinton’s astonishing and fact filled autobiography was slimed with scorn.

Bush’s days in Boston were explored for details. Barack Obama’s days in Boston were fodder for adulation.

Mark Halperin’s latest compendium of garbage, at least where Hillary Clinton is concerned, violates his own standards. Here is what Mark Halperin himself wrote in Time magazine in November 2009:

Media bias was more intense in the 2008 election than in any other national campaign in recent history, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin said Friday at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election.

“It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war,” Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

The “extreme bias” continues.