Before Hillary, let’s get some unpleasant Obamaish business out of the [...]]]> Americans really needed universal health care. Instead we got a Pelousy bill which transfers taxpayer wealth to Big Insurance and Big PhaRma. Things continue to fall apart. So, as a pick-me-up, it’s time for a little bit of Hillary in the night.

Before Hillary, let’s get some unpleasant Obamaish business out of the way first.

* * * * * *

As we’ve written before, there is a lot for Hillary supporters to be thankful for. Back in 2007 we here at Big Pink were alone but now there are wonderful Pink-kissed websites to frolic with. One smart website is Not Your Sweetie, which continues to document how the Dimocratic attacks on Eric Massa and David Paterson are drive-by revenge killings. Not to sweep away the current allegations, but if Paterson and Massa had done as they were told, the Obama thugs would not have ordered the hit.

Not Your Sweetie notes about the Paterson allegations that they are mostly “bogus”. As proof, a Daily News front page retraction is cited:

Investigators have found little direct evidence that Gov. Paterson tampered with a witness in a domestic abuse case against one of his top aides, the Daily News has learned.

While several key people have yet to be interviewed, the woman at the heart of the case, Sherr-una Booker, told probers she didn’t feel the governor threatened her in a phone conversation a day before a Feb. 8 hearing in the case.

Investigate Paterson and all the allegations thoroughly, but we suspect the perpetrators of the Paterson “hit” are at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It’s a hit job to benefit Andrew Cuomo, the former “racist” turned Obama hero. It’s a gang bang with Cuomo and Obama trying to wipe out David Paterson and the memory of Carl McCall. Charlie Rangel and Tim Geithner get away with tax evasion but Paterson is not so lucky:

Cuomo is also investigating charges that Paterson lied under oath about freebie Yankees tickets he got for Game 1 of the World Series. Kuby said Cuomo has a different problem there – the case “is total silliness,” he said. “We really will be laughed out of the Union if we prosecute our governor for cheering on the Yankees at a World Series game.”

And there is more Obama-Cuomo-Paterson, along with the reasons why. Cuomo is running away from the investigatory gun, and, Not Your Sweetie quotes the Wall Street Journal as to why Here’s the Wall Street Journal:

Since taking on the investigations of Mr. Paterson, the state’s first African-American governor, Mr. Cuomo has seen a slip in his popularity, particularly among minority voters.

A poll released on Tuesday found that Mr. Cuomo’s approval rating among New York voters had dropped 13 percentage points to 54% in a week.

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, suffered a decline of 22 points among nonwhite voters in New York, according to the Marist Poll.

Watch out Andrew! Remember the old Al Capone warning: “If they do it for you, they’ll do it to you.”

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.

Poor New Yorkers. They’ll have two hapless candidates, Cuomo and Lazio running for governor in November. Both deserve retirement, not promotion.

* * * * * *

Health Care. Remember the “Obama Health Plan Obama Supporters Do Not Want To Discuss”? Basement Angel reminds us today of this:

James Roosevelt, who was chair of the Rules and Bylaws Committee that decided to dock Michigan and Florida half of their delegates and award 4 of the delegates Clinton won in Michigan to Obama, as well as all of the uncommitted delegates, is the CEO of a health insurance company – Tufts Healthcare. Okay? Got that? The guy who made sure that Obama had the necessary to delegates to win the nomination – even to the point of assigning delegates another candidate won to him arbitrarily – is the CEO of a health insurance firm.

And what Roosevelt wants in a health insurance reform, is a reform that relies entirely upon private insurers. He does not want a public option. He wants a plan like Massachusetts has: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/04/09/healthcare_lets_build_on_what_we_know/

I’m thinking he considers Barack Obama a man of his word.

James Roosevelt will learn soon enough:

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.

* * * * * *

Can’t trust him. That’s what Desirée Rogers, the Michelle Obama and Barack Obama Chicago pal, has learned. Sorry Desirée, no pity party here, you got what you deserved from some sleazy characters. Keep in mind the Big Pink catechism:

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.

* * * * * *

More to be thankful for: Add pink boots to match the Pink Grenades and the Pink cupcakes.

* * * * * *

More warnings to Barack Obama on his sinking, unqualified and inexperienced boobery and bumbling. Non-Republicans Stanley Greenberg, James Carville, Kate Monninger and Andrew Bauman of Democracy Corps are hoisting the red flag and desperately yelling to the boob-in-chief. In a PDF document on the latest polls on the economy the non-Republicans say this:

“The biggest challenge facing Democrats in 2010 after passing health care is getting the economy right – and this is even more important than health care.

While economic growth is better than contraction and stagnation, it poses immense problems for progressives wanting the support of voters – starting with the growing gap between improving macro-level indicators and lagging micro-level ones, like job and wage growth. There is reason to believe – confirmed by this survey – that progressives are losing many blue collar and non-college voters as elites focus on “economic success.”

We’ll translate, “Obama you boob, we know you don’t know what to do about the economy, but stop it with the heath care scam already, you are killing the Dimocratic Party. Your situation comedy coalition is a joke and that cannot be hidden anymore.”

Here’s some more C.Y.A. advice from the pollsters and strategists and more proof we have been right all along that Obama’s situation comedy coalition is a joke and a disaster and that the Democratic Party committed suicide with the massive Mistake In ‘08. The pollsters, politely warn Obama:

“The second big and growing challenge is the gap between the hopes of the new progressive base voters who created a progressive majority in the country in the last four years – African-Americans and Latinos, young voters and unmarried women – and their own experiences in this economic crisis – loss of employment, wages and health care and cutbacks in state services. These voters are dominantly the “drop-off” voters – those who voted in the 2008
election but are not likely to in 2010. [snip]

The key findings are summarized below:
1. View of the economy worsens after one-year anniversary of the ‘stimulus.’ [snip]
2. The real economic indicators – job loss, reduced wages, and cuts in state services and state assistance – could fuel the blue-collar protest and demoralize the new base.[snip]
3. Knowing how people experienced the economic crash will help us understand how to reach them during the recovery.
4. The real economic indicators do show some gains and progressives must figure out how to use them effectively.
5. But always remember, the most important groups for this election may be experiencing and viewing all this differently.
6. Lack of confidence in Democratic approaches to the economy.

Notice how it is the pollsters that put the word “stimulus” in quotes. We were right about the “stimulus” flim-flam.

* * * * * *

Other Democratic pollsters are sounding the same warnings. While Patrick Caddell has long since drifted away, Doug Schoen is still essentially a Democrat. Both note the same warnings as the Greenberg/Carville Democracy Corps. Caddell and Shoen:

In “The March of Folly,” Barbara Tuchman asked, “Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests?” Her assessment of self-deception — “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts” — captures the conditions that are gripping President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership as they renew their efforts to enact health-care reform.

Their blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November.

We laughed as we read, “At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is crucial to the success of the American enterprise.” That Democratic party committed suicide in Denver guys.

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Get the ShamWow! We’re laughing and the tears are flowing:

“Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. [snip]

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it… Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.”

Get the 2×4, it’s an election year. Time to beat the senseless out of ‘em.

This is the key point:

“Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters’ minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.”

You get it, you really get it. It’s the Arrogance!, stupid!

* * * * * *

Dee Dee Myers is also politely stroking while slapping Barack Obama. She writes: “Memo to President Obama: Get back in touch”

Ha!

Dee Dee cites a real president who was qualified and had the necessary experience and fortitude and work ethic:

“Almost anyone who ever traveled with President Bill Clinton can tell a similar tale. At the end of a long day, Clinton would unwind by working the rope line. He would shake hands, clasp shoulders — and listen. When there were no stories left to hear, he would bound up the steps onto the plane, stretch out his arms and declare, “That was great!”

For his staff, this routine eventually lost its charm. But Clinton never tired of it. For him, politics began in the stories of those ordinary Americans. His continuing dialogue with them — in classrooms and on factory floors, at rallies and on television and, yes, along the rope line — kept him connected.

* * * * * *

Immigration reform? Ha! Whether you are “fer” or “agin” immigration reform, there is one thing you must remember:

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.

After promising the gullible (Gay-groups, black groups, women’s groups, Jewish groups, etc.) that in 2010 he would finally get around to their issues, Obama is running away. With a diaper full of excuses though:

“President Obama said Thursday that he would proceed with an overhaul of the immigration system this year if he could attract substantial Republican support. But a leading Republican who supports an overhaul said an immigration bill could not go forward if the president used a legislative shortcut sidestepping Republicans to pass his health care bill.

That’s some qualifier! Translation: Obama says “screw you” to the fools that thought immigration reform was going to happen. Obama has also given the Republicans an excuse (none was needed anyway) to continue to vote “NO” to his repulsive nonsense.

Hey! immigration groups:

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.

You’ll get words, flowery words, but it’s all a lie.

* * * * * *

No Quarter given:

* * * * * *

Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are having vacation problems.

“Democratic aides said House leaders wanted the vote to occur before a two-week spring break scheduled to start on March 26. Otherwise, they said, wavering lawmakers might buckle to pressure from critics of the bill, who plan to step up their campaign against it during the recess.

President Obama plans to leave Thursday on a trip to Indonesia and Australia. With his health care bill hanging in the balance, he faces intensifying questions about whether he should put off the trip, which was timed to coincide with his daughters’ spring break.

Heavens! It’s a family vacation in the middle of what is supposed to be a major fight. No one knows what’s in the bill they are supposed to be voting for, but it’s Obama vacation time. The eventual mess of a bill that emerges is in trouble as more and more Dimocrats say they won’t buy a pig in a poke.

Why travel on vacation when every day is vacation day? It’s party time at the White House.

“President Barack Obama hosted a movie night at the White House for Hollywood heavyweights Tom Hanks and director Steven Spielberg on Thursday – at which they watched a preview of the star duo’s new World War Two miniseries “The Pacific.”

The Hillbuzz boys are not alone in wondering why it is always party time as the Party dies.

As we wrote, why travel on vacation when every day is vacation day? Things are so bad even the New York Times thinks the vacation should be canceled.

But Obama won’t cancel a vacation. Obama can’t wait to get back to bowing and scraping before foreign potentates. But as it turns out, the pressure is such that he will have to wait. The girls and Michelle will have to stay and try on old Desiree Rogers’ dresses. Obama will hang out a few more days before his vacation trip to Guam, Australia and Indonesia.

What did we learn from vacation-gate? (1) There is no vacation Obama will cancel (unless it is someone else’s vacation); and, (2) the March 18 Obama deadline for his health scam vote will, as other deadlines, not be met.

* * * * * *

No one knows what is in the latest health scam legislation. Is there any wonder why Dimocrats are omerta?

“Hardly any Democrat running for Congress seems to want to talk about healthcare.

Of the 26 leading Democratic House candidates contacted by The Hill, only one would commit to voting for the Senate healthcare bill if and when it comes to the House floor.

Out of the more than two dozen Democratic challengers and open-seat House candidates, only 10 commented for this story. Eight outright declined to comment.

Eight more didn’t respond to several days’ worth of requests via phone and e-mail.”

Run, little Dimocrats, run – away from Barack Obama.

* * * * * *

At long last, Hillary.

The Confluence too is feeling the love, with a “focus on something that’s working.”

Not much is working, but Hillary is for sure working. She doesn’t stop. Hillary’s work ethic inspires.

In Shakespeare’s Henry V, the future king, Prince Harry, before a dangerous battle, vastly outnumbered by the foe, goes quietly among the troops. It’s the prologue to Act IV,

“With cheerful semblance and sweet majesty;
That every wretch, pining and pale before,
Beholding him, plucks comfort from his looks;
A largess universal, like the sun,
His liberal eye doth give to every one,
Thawing cold fear, that mean and gentle all
Behold, as may unworthiness define,
A little touch of Harry in the night.

Thus, with Hillary.

Yesterday, the Washington Post took notice of Hillary at the helm:

“We have had other secretaries of state who have cared deeply for the institution,” said Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management and a senior Foreign Service officer. “None who have done as much internal outreach.”

The foreign officers must be kept organized until such time as a real president is in charge.

“Those interviewed inside and outside the agency say Clinton has done a good job of heading off the historical tensions between career employees and quadrennial political newcomers by relying on the counsel of senior Foreign Service operatives and reaching out in general.

She has walked the halls and popped into offices unexpectedly, created an electronic “sounding board,” and held seven internal town hall meetings to listen to gripes about everything from policy to cafeteria food to bullying in the workplace. She installed six new showers that joggers requested, is taking steps to remedy overseas pay inequities and instituted a policy that allows partners of gay diplomats to receive benefits. She became a heroine to the Foreign Service when she went to bat to get funding for 3,000 new Foreign Service positions for State operations and the U.S. Agency for International Development — the first boost of this magnitude in two decades.

Jeffrey Feltman, assistant secretary for the Near East and a Foreign Service officer, is one of those whom Clinton surprised — and won over. He was already looking for a new job when she tracked him down at his barbershop 24 hours after she was sworn in to seek his advice. A few weeks later, she asked him to stay on.

“We’ve heard it before: Yes, diplomacy matters. Yawn. Sounds great, but we tend to be cynical about such language in comparison to the actual resources devoted to DOD versus State,” Feltman said. “She has tried to demonstrate that it’s more than lip service by fighting for resources . . . and listening to us.”

Added Kennedy: “She fully understands that when she came in there was a weak and degraded platform. You need it to be refreshed with new people and new blood, and that’s what we are getting in now.”

Wily Hillary outsmarted her opponents. Husband Bill keeps the political fires burning. Hillary runs an operation with global reach, while waiting:

“Clinton had one condition that eclipsed all others as she considered Obama’s offer to be secretary of state: She demanded hiring authority at the department. To Team Clinton, this meant every political job — about 200 — from the most senior level to the 20-something researchers. Historically, it is the president who fills these political positions, and no one can recall a Cabinet secretary in recent memory requesting and receiving this kind of hiring latitude.

So rare are Obama people at the agency that Alec Ross — an Obama campaign Internet star who aggressively sought to work for Clinton — is jokingly referred to as the “Obama guy.”

Guarding the door at Foggy Bottom last year was a trio from the top echelon of Hillaryland. Among them — Cheryl Mills, who was deputy counsel in the Clinton White House; Hillary Clinton’s White House chief of staff, Maggie Williams; and Tamara Luzzatto, her Senate chief of staff — they knew everyone who had ever worked for Clinton over the years and who hoped to join her at State. They also recruited high-profile experts who had not worked for Clinton — but neither were they associated with Obama.

Of the three, only Mills joined State, as Clinton’s chief of staff, along with other longtime confidants and charter members of Hillaryland: global women’s expert Melanne Verveer; protocol chief Capricia Marshall; her Senate spokesman, Philippe Reines; traveling aide Huma Abedin; speechwriter Lissa Muscatine; and Jacob Lew, Office of Management and Budget director under President Bill Clinton and a deputy secretary of state.”

Keep the Obama thugs and boobs out of foreign policy. They’ve caused enough trouble.

“According to three sources with knowledge of State personnel decisions who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the White House made one significant request last year: that Clinton tap as her deputy James Steinberg, a foreign policy expert who had worked for her husband but whom Obama passed over for White House national security adviser. There are differing views as to whether Clinton was enthusiastic about hiring Steinberg, but there appears to be a single view on whether he’s a good fit: Numerous sources inside and outside the department describe Steinberg as unhappy in the job. He did not respond to two requests for an interview.

After bringing on Steinberg, Clinton hired Lew for a second deputy’s slot — filling the job for the first time since it was created a decade ago. Those close to her insist that the intent was not to undercut Steinberg but to ramp up efforts to increase the agency’s budget and take back control of its ability to manage development programs. Lew has an office adjoining that of Mills, whose office connects to Clinton’s.”

Hillary and Hillaryland know how to deal with bureaucratic plants and oafs.

Hillary also knows how to get the information she needs.

“Several career employees said they were caught off guard initially by Clinton’s level of engagement in internal management, particularly coming on the heels of her more reserved predecessor, Condoleezza Rice. On her first tour of the building, before she was sworn in, Clinton requested a budget briefing. Kennedy said it soon became clear what she meant: not an overview, but a line-by-line review that took three sessions to complete.

Shamila Chaudary — a self-described “backbencher” — had toiled for years as a faceless expert on the Pakistan desk when one day she found herself invited to brief Clinton. Chaudary, 32, said the two sparred over whether it was prudent to engage non-governmental power centers in Pakistan, with Clinton expressing skepticism.

Chaudary held her ground, making the point that “we’ve been seen as not engaging with them, and it’s hurt us a lot.” She said that although she and Clinton “didn’t necessarily agree . . . she said that it’s very important for us to debate like this. . . . This is how she said she wants to do business.”

Within 48 hours of their meeting, Chaudary was promoted to a front-line job in the office of policy planning.”

Thanks Hillary for light in the darkness.

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.

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.]

It was Chuck Schumer who surreptitiously advised Obama to “take a 2×4 to Hillary”. In public [...]]]> The New York Times catches up to us today. We wrote a while ago that Chuck Schumer can be taken down with a 2×4 in November’s election. Chuck Schumer is due for some Clinton Karma.

It was Chuck Schumer who surreptitiously advised Obama to “take a 2×4 to Hillary”. In public Schumer pretended to be a Hillary supporter. In private Schumer was part of the establishment puppet-masters gifting the Democratic nomination to the stooge from Chicago.

It will require a woman to run against Chuck Schumer if he is to be defeated. A woman who can point out how Chuck played his anti-Hillary dirty game with a 2×4. It’s time for Chuck to be shucked aside.

We wrote that the New York Terror Trials are a good wedge issue against Schumer – Schumer ran away from the Terror Trials. What prompted the Old Gray Lady to belatedly echo Big Pink was watching Chuck Schumer run from the Terror Trials and this February 1, 2010 Marist College poll:

Senator Chuck Schumer’s once rock solid approval rating has taken a slide. For the first time in nearly nine years, Schumer’s approval rating has fallen below 50%. According to the latest Marist Poll in New York, 47% of registered voters statewide report Schumer is doing either an excellent or good job in office. 31% rate the job he is doing as fair, and 17% view him as performing poorly. This is Schumer’s lowest job approval rating since April 2001 when 49% of voters approved of the job he was doing.

The approval rating of New York’s senior senator has declined over the past couple of months. In Marist’s last survey on January 15th, 51% said Schumer was doing an above average job. In November, he received a thumbs-up from 54% of registered voters in New York, and just last September, his approval rating was 58%.

Schumer’s decline is most pronounced in New York City. 51% of New York City voters currently give Schumer high marks while 57% did the same two weeks ago, 64% in November, and 66% in September.

“Senator Schumer is not immune from the anti-incumbent sentiment among voters, but it would take a major effort to unseat him,” says Dr. Lee M. Miringoff, Director of The Marist Institute for Public Opinion.

It will take a major effort to unseat Chuck Schumer from his treachery perch. But it can be done. It is a job for a woman. Larry Kudlow will not be able to do it and he is the rumor of the week. It will take a woman to do this job.

Here is the New York Times story published today which echoes older Big Pink articles:

The usually unavoidable-for-comment, if-it’s-Sunday-here-is-my-press-release senior senator from New York is being a little tetchy about going on the record.

Senator Charles E. Schumer has had a not-so-hot run recently. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg accused him of failing to deliver enough federal health care dollars for New York, and the city’s titans of finance at a recent closed-door meeting accused him of being insufficiently pro-Wall Street; one indignant fellow stood up and demanded his donation back.

Some Democrats whisper that he plays the too-aggressive kingmaker, shoving aside challengers to Kirsten E. Gillibrand, the appointed junior senator. And a recent Marist College poll suggested that Mr. Schumer’s favorability ratings had leaked helium, falling to 47 percent.

Is this fatal to the senator as he seeks his third term? That seems highly, deeply, profoundly unlikely, even according to those same pollsters and to senior state Republicans, who prefer to place Ms. Gillibrand in their cross hairs for the fall of 2010. But a harsh wind is howling for incumbents, and Mr. Schumer, who has been running for office since just about the day he left Harvard, does not like talk of any Democrat’s political mortality, particularly his own.

So he carefully measures out his verbs and nouns for a reporter, trying not to say what he knows: It’s been a rough year.

Chuck Schumer losing his U.S. Senate Perch of Treachery is “highly, deeply, profoundly unlikely” for sure. It is a near impossibility. It is as impossible to comprehend as a Republican sitting in Ted Kennedy’s double width senate chair.

A woman can beat Chuck Schumer. A woman who travels New York State, with a 2×4, and informs Democratic voters of Chuck’s double dealing can do the job. A woman who informs the voters of Chuck’s 2×4ing of Hillary will dispirit and alienate Democratic voters who admire and trust the wonderful Hillary Clinton, can do the job. A woman who carries a 2×4 against Chuck, informs Democratic New Yorkers of Chuck’s treacheries and inflames Democratic voters against Chuck, as well as summons forth Republican voters in New York State can do the job.

Chuck is nervous and knows we are right. Chuck fears the 2×4. Chuck talks tough and whistles as he enters the graveyard:

“There was another poll this same week that had much different numbers, so you can’t rely on polls,” he says, striving for a studiously bland manner.

In truth, even Lee M. Miringhoff, head of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, agrees it is not the end. He has sifted the poll numbers and divines mostly agita for Mr. Schumer.

“It’s not the usual fluctuations, but neither do I think it puts him in electoral jeopardy,” he said. “It’s more that it speaks to a lack of enthusiasm in his electoral base.”

Still, for a man who might be the next Senate majority leader, and who is credited with masterminding the strategy that oh so briefly put 60 Democrats in the Senate, to see bubbles of discontent in his own state is a strange business. His Web site features a map of New York with green thumbtacks on towns he has visited in the last year, a virtual forest of green from Ogdensburg to Niagara Falls to Utica. In New York City he has appeared at 10 City Council installations, 5 firehouses, 7 schools, and so on and on.

Chuck Schumer has all the strengths listed above. However, those strengths can be turned against him. When the same Democratic voters he has talked to in all those New York cities and towns discover Chuck Schumer’s treacheries, they will realize they have been had. All the voters he has met and all the visits he has met will turn against Chuck – it will be like when John Edwards’ voters discovered who that slimy lump of protoplasm really is.

The Tea Party brigades in New York and Democratic voters need to be informed of Chuck’s 2×4ing of Hillary Clinton. Voters also have to learn this (which thanks to Big Pink and the New York Times, they will):

Wall Street’s current disaffection is intriguing, as Mr. Schumer served for 30 years as Horatio at the bridge, guarding against too many incursions against the financial industry. He artfully sidetracked an effort to tax hedge funds and pushed for repeal of legislation that prohibited commercial banks from engaging in risky investments like trading stocks or mortgage-backed securities. And he helped craft a bank-friendly bailout. In return, he has taken in more money from the securities and finance industry over the course of his career than any Democrat other than Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

That history, not the latest Chuck distractions from that history, is the story that must be told. What Chuck Schumer says in public and what he does in private are two different things. Maybe that is why Chuck likes Barack so much. What they say and what they do are two different things. It’s time for both to go.

Mr. Schumer, by this account, took umbrage at their umbrage. Do you, he asked, really think it’s better to be rhetorically pro-Wall Street or anti-Wall Street? Be realistic. Financial institutions did much wrong, he suggested, but cautioned against getting vindictive.

“Chuck has been a champion for our financial industry and for our state,” said Kathryn S. Wylde, the partnership’s president. “But it’s a quarrel in the family with unrealizable expectations of unconditional love.”

A few, including that fellow who rumbled about desertion, talked privately of funding a challenger to Mr. Schumer. As Mr. Schumer could become Senate majority leader, and therefore the third most powerful Democrat in the nation, such militancy struck others as daft. “What are you going to do for a new king?” asked one.

A woman can do the job.

On a side note, we wrote a while back that we are still analyzing what is going on in New York regarding the Kirsten Gillibrand senate race. We said that race reminds us of Borgia Italy. Here is a taste, from the New York Times article, of what we mean:

Some have seized on a passive-aggressive way of torturing the senior senator. They want to finance a Democratic primary challenge by Harold E. Ford Jr., whom they happen to admire, to Senator Gillibrand, whose patron is Mr. Schumer. Mayor Bloomberg, who was not pleased that Ms. Gillibrand edged out his choice, Caroline Kennedy, appears not unopposed to this turn, as his former pollster and campaign manager are advising Mr. Ford.

Chuck Schumer is as impossible to take down as a Kennedy in the North East. But a woman can do the job. Like Dodd, Richardson, Teddy, Dean, Reid, Daschle, Caroline, Corzine, Deval, and many others – Clinton Karma will come to traitor Chuck Schumer.

Speaking of Kennedys safe in New England, our commentor MoonOnPluto noted this article:

The Kennedy political dynasty is shaking in the aftershock of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s earth-shattering election, with a new poll showing U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy losing ground as he faces a well-financed GOP foe backed by Brown’s top strategists.

The WPRI-12 poll showed the Rhode Island Democrat with a 56 percent unfavorability rating in his district – a negative that grows to 62 percent statewide.

Only 35 percent of voters in Kennedy’s district said they would vote to re-elect him. Another 31 percent said they’d consider a different candidate and 28 percent said they would vote to replace him, according to the poll.

Patrick Kennedy followed in the limo behind the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur to endorse Barack Obama. Now Patrick is not feeling the luck of the Irish – Patrick is feeling Clinton Karma:

Republican John J. Loughlin II, a veteran state lawmaker, formally announced his campaign yesterday against Kennedy, saying the son of liberal icon Edward M. Kennedy is out of touch with Rhode Island voters as he seeks a ninth two-year term.

“We’ve got a congressman who’s not connecting with voters or the people. He’s pushing policies that are diametrically opposed with needs of people – to get the economy going and create jobs,” said Loughlin, of Tiverton. “We can’t afford it anymore.”

WPRI-12 pollster Joe Fleming said, “This is the best-financed challenger he’s faced since the first time he ran, and his favorability numbers are way down. “Congressman Kennedy could have a very competitive race.”

Clinton Karma’s gonna get you.

Loughlin, a 50-year-old National Guardsman, is hoping to ride the same wave that swept Brown to victory. He got a head start by hiring Eric Fehrnstrom and Peter Flaherty, two of Brown’s top consultants.

The National Republican Congressional Committee has already begun lining up behind Loughlin, who says he plans to spend at least $1 million in the race.

“Independents are running from the Democratic Party, and that benefits candidates across the northeast,” said Tory Mazzola, spokesman for the NRCC.

Other potential Kennedy challengers include Democratic State Rep. Jon D. Brien and even former Providence Mayor Vincent “Buddy” Cianci.

Clinton Karma’s gonna get you… hit you right in the face – with a 2×4.

* * * * *

A victorious Scott Brown should [...]]]> [*** SCOTT BROWN WINS! READ OUR NEW ARTICLE HERE] Note: Today we will post updates at the bottom of this article. We expect many updates throughout the day (some from our Massachusetts friends). Our comments section will be update heavy as well.]

* * * * *

A victorious Scott Brown should ask his supporters tonight, at his victory speech, to march to the nation’s capital, along with him, this very week. Together, Scott Brown and the people, can demand Scott Brown take elective office despite plots and schemes to circumvent democratic process.

Scott Brown’s battle cry from the cradle of liberty: “No Taxation Without Representation”

A call for citizens to take one final step, one final march, to enforce the will of the people would be an historic step directly in line with the liberation night called “The Boston Tea Party”. In one fell swoop Scott Brown would solidify his leadership role and turn the inchoate Tea Party movement into a mature, distinctive, force.

* * * * *

A march on Washington to enforce civil rights from nullification by corrupt forces will be appropriate if Scott Brown wins. All the public opinion polls are meaningless compared to election day poll results at the ballot box.

The public opinion poll are full of grace notes for Scott Brown these days. But Hillary supporters know that between the public and the polls there is corruption and corruption is a powerful wind which blows from Chicago.

Blowhard Obama thugs already are in election theft mode. “MSNBC’s [Chris] Matthews Misses Days Of Vote Buying” and is not ashamed to say so on a television show seen by tens of people. Fellow MSNBC thug Ed Schultz openly calls for election fraud by voters:

In 1773 King George III found out the citizens of Massachusetts are capable of defense of their liberties and the fundamental rights of man (and woman). The Boston Tea Party is long gone but not forgotten. A new Tea Party is steaming in 2010. What it will produce remains to be seen. We do know that it is brewing. Tonight’s The Night.

* * * * *

Update I: Five things to watch:

To get a sense of whether Brown is winning the working-class vote, look no further than early returns from the heavily Democratic Irish Catholic South Shore, where Obama suffered significant drop-offs from John Kerry’s vote in 2004. Brown needs to carry the towns of Braintree and Weymouth, two Democratic strongholds that Obama barely held in 2008.

If Brown wins 55 percent in neighboring Quincy, which Obama carried by 18 points (58 percent to 40 percent), it would be devastating to the Coakley campaign. [snip]

Coakley also needs proportionally higher turnout in the Democratic-leaning cities of Springfield and Worcester, where party get-out-the-vote efforts have also been concentrated. In 2008, Obama won 77 percent of the vote in Springfield and 68 percent of the vote in Worcester.[snip]

Rack up big margins of victory in the outer Boston suburban towns, particularly those along the I-495 ring. [snip]

Brown needs to win at least 55 percent of the vote in this area, particularly in high-growth places like Marlborough, Taunton and Haverhill — three towns that Romney carried by double digits in 2002 but Obama won in 2008. He’ll also need to rack up double-digit margins of victory in his home base around Wrentham and Foxborough. [snip]

If women make up a clear majority, according to exit polls, Coakley may have an edge. [snip]

Endorsements don’t always have an impact in high-stakes races, but Democrats say Vicki Kennedy’s late endorsement of Coakley could prove pivotal in her last-minute push to win the Cape and the southeastern part of the state — where the Kennedy family name still rings strong. [snip]

In a sign that voters in the state might not be looking for a candidate to carry on the Kennedy legacy, Kennedy last week called her late husband’s seat “the people’s seat,” not the “Kennedy seat,” in a closing Coakley ad.

Update II: The Daily Show:

Update III: From AllahPundit more Obama boobery:

A follow-up to last week’s video clip of The One promising to make the midterms a referendum on ObamaCare, which is working like gangbusters right now for Marcia or Marla or whatever her name is. Not sure if there’s actual strategy at work here or if it’s just their “do the opposite of what Clinton did” instincts at work. Clinton didn’t pass health care and got wiped out in the midterms, ergo we must pass health care regardless of how many people hate it. Clinton tacked towards the center after he was repudiated by voters, ergo…

Update IV: Lil Ole Grape reports the Pink is spreading.

Update V: Massachusett’s HWC on where to get the “local take” via Big Media.

Update VI: “Tubby Lesbians from Provincetown for Brown“.

Update VII: JBStonesFan is pessimistic.

Update VIII: Lil Ole Grape is hearing things – like cars tooting.

Update IX: TurnDownObama makes the case for Coakley.

Update X: Michelle Malkin spots a potential Senate GOP traitor vote for health scam.

Update XI: National Review has a Youtube of potential fraud.

Update XII: Puma P.A.C. sticks with the honorable “elect women” strategy. Other voting groups, ethnic, racial, gender, follow this strategy and it certainly is an honorable and possibly very smart strategy. Woman power rules at Puma P.A.C.

Update XIII Strata-Sphere has the rundown on Democrats voting for Brown. DailyKooks and assorted Nutroots will soon call Massachusetts Democrats “low information voters”. That is what they do to anyone who disagrees with the “creative class” (we call them the “clueless class”).

Update XIV: The Pink is spreading – “We lost independents in Virginia, we lost independents in New Jersey and we’re losing independents in Massachusetts,” said one Democratic campaign strategist. “The only thing those three states have in common is Obama.” Obama is poison.

Update XV: The Ed Shultz way in Massachusetts. Shultzie does not apologize for incitement to felony – like Obama Mr. Ed doubles down. Mr. Ed likes fraud, Greta likes Scott Brown.

Update XVI: Legal Insurrection boos “Big Media” in those exact words (told you the Pink is spreading ). The Insurrection also has pictures of the Scott Brown hometown rally tonight as well as an all day Scott Brown-a-thon.

Update XVII: Hillbuzz joins in and is buzzing about the Mr. Ed inspired potential voter fraud in Massachusetts.

Update XVIII: The Hopium is strong with this one. He does not understand the problem is the “situation comedy” demographics we have so often discussed.

Update XVIX: Coakley campaign finally realizes OBAMA IS POISON.

Update XX: Via Strata-Sphere, disaster strikes! A Big Media video the White House will not like. We even hear “poison”.

Update XXI: New NBC poll: “the health care debate — has increasingly become a liability for the Obama White House and the Democratic Party, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. In the survey, only 33 percent say President Obama’s health-reform effort is a good idea, versus 46 percent who consider it a bad idea.”

Update XXII: No exit polls to document OBAMA IS POISON.

Update XXIII: Scott Brown headquarters live:
Free TV : Ustream