The political situation is so dire, Obama is pretending to have financial concerns about paying for his daughters’ college bills (don’t worry Barack, you’ll find another Rezko). Obama has so angered the electorate he doubling up on publicity stunts to pretend he too is sacrificing, that he is “not that far removed from what most Americans are going through.” Ha! So worried about the loss of voters, particularly voters Hillary Clinton appeals to, that Obama is going on an afternoon chat show.
“Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell advised President Barack Obama against appearing later this week on “The View,” encouraging the president instead to only do “serious shows.”
“I think the president should be accessible, should answer questions that aren’t pre-screened, but I think there should be a little bit of dignity to the presidency,” Rendell said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”
“Here’s one thing Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Pennsylvania) and Pat Buchanan (R-everywhere) agree on: Pres. Obama should not go on ‘The View.’
Rendell: I think there’s got to be a little bit of dignity to the presidency.
Mika Brzezinski: What are you saying, Ed?
Willie Geist: What a horrible insult to “The View.”
Rendell: I think there are some shows. I wouldn’t put him on “Jerry Springer,” too, right? … I think the president of the United States has to go on serious shows. And “The View” is, you can make a case that it’s a serious show, but it also rocks and rolls a little bit. I’m not sure he has to go on “The View” to be open to questions.”
Dignity? It’s like expecting Michelle Obama to wear something sensible, not cocktail dresses, at every opportunity.
Obama has no dignity. Obama is not ready. Hillary was right.
Black people are dumb. They are really, really, dumb. They are as dumb as White People, Yellow People, Green People, Red People, etc., etc. We wrote “Dumb White Peoplel” in March 2008, so now with race and race-baiting so much in the news, it’s time for equal opportunity laughter at Dumb Black People.
In “Dumb White People” we singled out as examples Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry. Oh, how stupid they are and how we have laughed at them through the years. Andrew Sullivan and John Kerry thought the world would change because an African-American, a Black man, a half-Black, half-White guy took George W. Bush’s third term. We warned those lunkheads that naivete in world affairs would not work (“an administration of lies” says Ahmadinejad of “no preconditions” Obama boobery) and that:
“Osama Bin Laden does not care at all if you are African-American, Jewish-American, Irish-American, White-American, Chinese-American, Indian-American, etc. All Osama Bin Laden cares about is that you are American. Then Osama will kill you. Or try to kill you. Osama Bin Laden is post-racial. Kill Americans. It’s that simple. Osama, does not care if you are black or white, ebony or ivory.”
We confess, in moments of undiluted misanthropy we wish Black People would disappear from the entire planet – along with White People, Yellow People, Green People, Red People, etc., etc. Let’s turn the place over to dogs, and cats, and birds, and roaches. Down with people – up with our furry and feathered friends. But we digress.
Mind, not all Black People are dumb, just as not all White People are dumb (ditto the rest of the list). But for Barack Obama the dumb came out of the woodwork, the lemmings ran away from the smart.
Let’s laugh at dumb Princeton professor Cornel West. He has a master’s degree, rather, a doctorate in dumb. Try reading this and not laugh at our dumb black brother:
“Princeton professor (and spoken-word artist) Cornel West has never been shy about publicly sharing his views, whether about race in America, Obama’s Nobel Prize or animal rights. He talks to Playboy for its August issue and is typically candid about what’s going on today with the tea party movement, Barack Obama, FLOTUS and more. [snip]
On what President Obama is doing wrong: “While he’s made some good, positive changes, I don’t think he’s a messiah or even a very progressive politician. It turns out when you talk about hope, you have to be a long-distance runner.”
On Michelle Obama: “I think she’s got a lot of Malcolm X in her, a lot of Ella Baker. [snip]
On “whitewashing within [the Obama] administration”: “What happened to the black elites inside Obama’s campaign, Valerie Jarrett, John Rogers and Eric Whitaker? They’re practically invisible or gone. Instead Obama has a savvy political team — brother [David] Axelrod, Bbrother David Plouffe, brother Robert Gibbs, brother [Rahm] Emanuel — who are eperts at PR. … Black folk can’t be blindsided by Obama’s pigmentation and historical symbolism. What I’m saying is I wish he could be more Martin Luther King-like. … But by necessity, Obama has had to downplay his blackness to appease the white moderates and independents and speak to their anxieties.”
Poor dumb ol’ Cornel. Now he realizes Obama is not “a messiah” nor “a very progressive politician.” These facts did not stop the dumb ol’ progressive from Princeton from endorsing Barack Obama.
As to Michelle “got a lot of Malcolm X in her”, Michelle has all the ugly anger of Malcolm but none of his commitment to community, none of his (often misplaced) strength, none of his history of hard work and intellectual curiosity, none of his ability to question others and himself, none of his ability to learn and grow. Michelle does however have the friendship of Malcolm’s likely killer “the Honorable Louis Farrakhan”. Michelle Obama is more “Malcolm In The Middle” than Michelle X (if you ignore the scowl of her anger). And Ella Baker she surely is not unless we revise Ella Baker into a self-interested, self-obsessed, self-promoting, arugula eating Chicago thug.
Now, the above is Grade A “dumb” but it is this following sentence which catapults Cornel West into “Dumb Black People” status:
“On his current relationship with Obama:
“He doesn’t return my calls. … I did 65 events for my dear brother Barack on the campaign trail but have not seen him since Martin Luther King Day 2008. … I couldn’t even get a ticket to the Inauguration for my mother. … I think he has the kind of disposition where he just moves on.”
Grade AAA dumb. West, the great intellectual from Princeton only now realizes Obama “has the kind of disposition where he just moves on.” That has to go down as one of the funniest/dumbest statements ever. Alice Palmer learnedObama can’t be trusted – he just moves on – and you find yourself under the bus.The Obama stabs in the back are many.
Dumb and Black Cornel West, along with other Dumb Black People (aided and abetted by Dumb White People), fooled themselves into beating themselves. They voted skin color and the skin is now burned by Barack Obama. We wrote it repeatedly: Obama will hurt his supporters the most.
“No, we are not talking about losers like Daschle, Richardson, Kerry. Nor do we refer to the those writhing under the Obama bus like Chris Dodd or Jeremiah Wright.
We are talking about young people and African-American supporters who were ever so fervent in their religious worship of Obama.”
The garbage scow that writes for the New York Times found a ‘Dumb Black People’ to state what we at Big Pink indeed did know – although the ‘Dumb Black People’ of the Dowd article appears surprised by what was ever so obvious:
“Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official.”
“What use was Obama’s “community organizer” experience to those shivering tenants?
What use was Obama the state senator to those shivering tenants?
What relationships did Obama build during his “community organizer” days that proved useless when he became state senator, and failed to keep him in touch with the community?
What was Obama doing in his plush state senator office that kept him too busy to know that these “struggling families” were without heat “For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997″?
If Obama with all his “community organizer” experience did not know what was happening in his small district office in Chicago, how in blazes does anyone think he will respond to the needs of an American electorate that numbers in the hundreds of millions?[snip]
When it came time to defend the defenseless or protect and enrich the powerful. Obama made a decision. He protected his powerful friends and provided them with even more government money. Same old Chicago politics. The poor shivered in cold tenements. Obama bought a new house. Now he wants a bigger White House to entertain his Chicago friends.”
It is no mystery why we knew Obama would hurt African-Americans and the young – it’s what he has always done. Obama “moves on” after he has used you.
The garbage scow at the Times and the professor from Princeton are nothing in their dumbness compared to – James Clyburn of South Carolina. Dear old race-baiting James Clyburn. What is the race-baiting Clyburn saying now? Is Clyburn still race-baiting Bill Clinton? No. Clyburn sees White People.
Clyburn takes the Dumb Black People magisterial magisterium award for this profundity:
“The president’s getting hurt real bad,” Clyburn told me. “He needs some black people around him.”
Damn those Uncle Toms who didn’t drink the Hopium. Damn those Uncle Toms who voted character not skin color. Damn those Uncle Toms who are proud to be Americans. Damn those Uncle Toms who proved to be so smart they never did and never will vote for the flim-flam man from Chicago. Damn those Uncle Toms who turn out to be so smart. Damn those Smart Black People. Get rid of them all.
The last thing Michelle X and Barack Obama want to see is Smart Black People.
The usually secret warfare by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton has become open war and direct attacks against Hillary – straight from the Obama campaign apparatus. Yesterday the attacks from the Obama campaign against Hillary (shades of 2008!) became blatant, not disguised, attacks.
“The increasingly wounded animal which is Barack Obama and his Dimocrats are waging a secret war on Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is more popular that Barack Obama and his sleeve yanking wife. Dimocrats are terrified of what the voters will do in November 2010.
The fear of Hillary Clinton is growing. Hillary Clinton is increasingly viewed as a threat because she can be the 44th person to take the oath of office (Grover Cleveland had two non-consecutive terms, so Hillary can be the 44th person to take the oath of office and be 44 still). The secret war has begun.”
In earlier articles we have noted just how open the open wounds from the Democratic Primary of 2008 are and most importantly, how the anti-Hillary sub rosa Obama attacks are carried out:
Republicans and Conservatives should take a clue from Ms Tantaros – utilize the history of the 2008 primaries and what was done to Hillary Clinton to expose the intolerant bullies who pose as progressives.[snip]
Hannity would make a stronger case against Barack Obama if he would invoke the nastiness of the Obama campaign against Hillary and stop the nastiness against Hillary himself.[snip]
Sean Hannity began with a tedious recitation of a Washington Post story published that very day. The Washington Post story was a hit piece against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hannity saw the article as another opportunity to bash and beat the Clintons. Andrew Breitbart was not a fool however. Breitbart saw the hit for what it was.
HANNITY: All right, Breitbart, Hillary knew nothing. A conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, you get back in, no problem.
BREITBART: Well, I find it strange that this is coming out after the — what happened with the plane bomber over Christmas. I think what you have here is a case of finger-pointing within the administration. And perhaps some — some turmoil going on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. This is a huge piece. It’s written very negatively against Hillary Clinton, and there’s innuendo and implications in there that somehow she knew something when it looks like it was the Department of Homeland security that issued this waiver.[snip]
This is a guy who treated a surf board accident with his kid more seriously than he treated the underwear bomber. He went out to play golf once he found out about, you know, what had occurred. But when he found out that a friend’s kid’s chin got a cut on it, he quit his golf outing.[snip]
I think that, quite frankly, Hillary Clinton, if she were in charge, would actually be a hell of a lot tougher than Barack Obama is. And perhaps that’s what this entire article in The Washington Post is about, is that she’s been standing off to the side and allowing for these people to hang themselves with their inept behavior.”
As we wrote then, and Andrew Brietbart understands, this is a secret war waged by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton. “There is a secret war of attacks by Barack Obama against Hillary Clinton but Hannity is too busy hating to see it. The more Obama attacks, the more coy Hillary Clinton becomes. Her laughter can be heard throughout Washington.”
The Obama people are very much aware that during the health care debacle “Bill and Hillary say as little as possible and issue bland emails. Barack Obama would like a massive publicity tour of support but Bill and Hillary only say the obvious – a defeat on healthcare will bring the White House columns down on Obama’s already scarred head. When disaster strikes, Hillary dances away to work her magic. She keeps her distance while doing her job and saving the world from the Obama boobery. When Obama has a publicity stunt to unveil, Hillary dances to work in Europe or Asia or anywhere but near the ground zero which is the big zero at 1600 Pennsylvania. Obama and other Hillary haters are beginning to take notice”
The Obama campaign is aware of how distanced Hillary keeps herself. The Obama campaign is aware of the contempt many Hillary voters still harbor against Barack Obama. Today as Fox & Friends continued to keep its promise with a new segment into what happened in 2008 during the Democratic primaries the Barack Obama campaign chortled. Today’s segment was in response to yesterday’s Fox & Friends interview with Steve Hildebrand the deputy campaign manager of the Barack Obama campaign when he attacked Hillary Clinton directly.
Hildebrand lied repeatedly about the control and influence Harold Ickes exercised in the Rules and By-laws Committee and did not mention the cabal of Obama operatives (secret and not so secret) that worked against democracy in the process. Hildebrand also refused to acknowledge the legitimate scams and flaws detailed by Hillary supporters and voters. Hildebrand apparently is not aware that elections are about voters, not candidates. Elections are about voters choosing candidates and elected officials – not about candidates. It’s about the voters.
Hildebrand sought to make elections about candidates. In his most direct attack on Hillary Clinton, Hildebrand demanded that Hillary Clinton herself either refute or confirm the statements of the voters and campaign workers who make a strong case against Obama’s thugs and intimidation and other abuses of the process.
Hildebrand also tried to pretend there were no complaints filed with officials (who did nothing for fear of race-baiting and the DNC) at the time. For Hildebrand the fact that Obama JournoListers said nothing about the abuses means the abuses did not occur. For Hildebrand the fact that secret Obama supporters, like Howard Dean and Donna Brazile did nothing about the abuses but pretend to be neutral officials from the Democratic Party, means the abuses did not occur. But those in charge pretended to be neutral but we know they were in Obama’s circus tent – race-baiting:
Hildebrand wants to “smoke out” Hillary Clinton into open warfare with Barack Obama or into a dispute with her own most loyal supporters. As if. Hillary is not that stupid and neither are we. We know the process is fixed. We know that Obama thugs are ostensibly in control at the DNC and the local party organizations. We also all understand we have different roles to engage. Obama shills like Al Sharpton, Howard Dean and Donna Brazile (she kept her job at CNN, Hillary Supporters like Carville were fired) played their “neutral” roles during 2008, but we know what they really were.
(Sharpton, secretly to Obama: “I’m gonna do whatever I gotta do to help you… I won’t endorse you or not endorse you.”). The JournoListers, including some supposed Hillary supporters, played their phony roles. Some are exposed now. But… We are still uncovering, still investigating, still finding out who was who and who was doing what. Eventually we will have a list of all the 2×4 Schumers and the secret supporters and the back-stabbers and those who worked with Ted Kennedy/Daschle/Pelosi/Kerry, in secret, with the JournoListers, to thwart the will of the Democratic rank and file voter. Then we’ll all make our move.
Here’s thug Hildebrand baiting Hillary in yesterday’s cablecast:
Hildebrand and the JournoListers and the PINOs and the rest will attempt to rewrite history and declare that Hillary was in control or influential in the Rules and By-laws Committee. But Youtube documents how delegates elected by voters were stolen by Democratic Party officials to gift the nomination to a man who was not even on the ballot, not even a candidate (and the “rules” respecting votes for those voting in favor of “not committed” were debased and violated as well). The theft was done in the open with JournoListers applauding and secret Obama DNC officials squealing with delight. The voters were robbed. The candidate of the voters was robbed.
Hildebrand pretends, against the evidence, that there was silence. We didn’t hear silence, we saw injustice and a stolen election.
Hildebrand suggests there was surrender. We didn’t hear surrender, we heard “fight on”:
“If you hear the dogs, keep going.If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.
If they’re shouting after you, keep going.
Don’t ever stop. Keep going.
If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.
Even in the darkest of moments, ordinary Americans have found the faith to keep going.”
The Obama thugs can play their masquerade on the Titanic all they want. We won’t fall for their games and cheap diversions. Hillary supporters will continue to investigate. Hillary supporters will continue to speak out. Hillary supporters will continue to prepare. Then we’ll make our move – when we are ready to do so.
We’ll “keep going” until Obama is going… going… gone.
This July has been very hot – politically. Fox & Friends began to broadcast the hitherto uncovered story of Hillary voters intimidated by the Obama campaign in the 2008 primaries. This past week, Tucker Carlson’s DailyCaller began to expose the JournoList JournoGate. The information, and most importantlyproof, Tucker Carlson uncovered is that the most trusted news and opinion writers for Democrats did everything they could to protect Barack Obama from examination, and smear all Obama opponents as “racists”.
That the most trusted news and opinion writers, for Democrats, protected Obama – during the Democratic primaries – very much hurt the Hillary Clinton campaign (and eventually McCain/Palin). It was a multiplier effect – the most trusted sources of news for Democrats in the tank for Obama led to protection of Obama and no news about how dirty Obama is. This multiplier effect isolated Democratic voters from the news and questions they needed to hear and therefore they believed the worse about Obama opponents such as Hillary Clinton. More importantly, Obama was not vetted and we now have a destructive force in the White House – destructive to core Democratic values, destructive to government, and destructive to the United States.
But this story goes much much deeper. It’s Friday so we will postpone a longer discussion of these issues (including what it means for a primary challenge to Obama in 2012) until next week. What we will discuss today is that the race-baiting and “call them racist” strategy began with Barack Obama, the Obama campaign, and that JournoList shills only followed in the race-baiting footsteps of Barack Obama.The JournoList fish began to rot from the Obama top.
“In suing Arizona over immigration reform, he takes a step that alienates the three-quarters of Anglo voters who back the law. In refusing to prosecute the Black Panthers for their blatant intimidation of white voters in 2008, he alienates fair thinking people of both races. But in firing Shirley Sherrod, he showed African-Americans that he was caving in to pressure from FOX News and the conservatives. Then, by reversing field and reinstating her, the president and his Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack show whites and Republicans-Independent voters that he is caving in to pressure from the African-American community.
There are two common denominators to this equation: race and weakness. Any involvement in racial politics has to hurt Obama at his core. It goes to his fundamental selling point: That he is post racial.”
But that post-racial future was all part of the con job Chicago’s Barack Obama engaged in. Obama posed as a “uniter not divider” but Obama has always been ‘all racial, all the time’. Which brings us to Tucker Carlson.
In 2009, after the election, Tucker Carlson told a truth. The truth should have been told back when it mattered – when voters were voting. Carlson kept quiet during the elections, just like the JournoList participants. But to his credit, Carlson came clean in 2009 – when it was too late. In a two part series called The Obama Race-Baiting History – And Other Truths Emerge we transcribed what Tucker Carlson said to Greta Van Susteren.
Almost no one (other than Hillary Supporter web sites) noted the remarkable exchange and what Carlson said. Now, those chickens are coming home to the stinking Obama roost. We wrote:
“Yesterday Tucker Carlson finally broke down and confirmed that yes indeed, the duo he hates – Bill and Hillary Clinton were purposefully smeared by race-baiting Obama and his campaign operatives. Obama thugs continue to race-bait.
Here’s Tucker Carlson on Obama race-baiting and the smearing of Bill and Hillary Clinton:
Our transcript of Tucker Carlson’s remarks:
Tucker Carlson: “For Barack Obama to say that the media has taken the low road when many of his allies have accused his opponents of racism… and where was he when they did? When Clyburn of South Carolina accused opponents of racism… when Charlie Rangel did the same… when Governor Paterson of New York… you heard not a word from Barack Obama.
So, you know, it’s a little much for him to claim that the media is stoking this race talk.
[snip - discussion of Joe Wilson and the definition of "news".]
But let me just say, very clearly, it was the Obama campaign that first bought up the race question. It was the Obama people who smeared the Clintons as racists, Bill and Hillary Clinton. They made the case to reporters off-the-record, including me, that the Clintons were racists. They started this.
So for him to get up with a straight face and say the media is bringing this race issue up… No, it was your campaign that started this.
Greta Van Susteren: How did they bring it up?
Tucker Carlson: By this whisper campaign. That Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were somehow opposing Barack Obama because they did not like the fact he was black. And that various statements they made, remember Hillary Clinton famously said that of course it was Lyndon Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act, you know. Martin Luther King might have advocated for it but it was the president who signed it.
Somehow that became a racist statement according to allies of Barack Obama. He didn’t tell them to be quiet then. He allowed that to happen. Allowed, I think, the slur against the Clintons to fester. That they were somehow animated by bigotry was outrageous. And he did nothing to clear the air.
So, I don’t know… I don’t want to be lectured by him, at this stage, as a member of the media, in a sanctimonious way. That somehow we’re perpetuating unhealthy race talk. That’s nonsense.”
We don’t need any more “teachable moments” from race-baiter Barack Obama. What we need from him is a confession of what he has done and a resignation.
We don’t need any more opinions or words of any kind from the JournoList shills. What we need is a mass firing of these shills for not providing the information Democratic voters needed in the primary elections and the information all American voters needed in the general elections.
The JournoListers who protected Barack Obama also protected spiteful clowns like Keith Olbermann and MSNBC. In private JournoList participants knew that Keith Olbermann was a sexist and a misogynist. In a political year in which a woman ran during the primary elections and a woman ran during the general election season the fact that a main source of information for center and left of center Democrats is a misogynistshould have been disclosed. But the JournoList shills protected Barack Obama and NBC and MSNBC.
“Julian Zelizer, a Princeton professor and CNN contributor, said Olbermann’s root problem is his misogyny. “I can’t take him anytime. I think to write off his mysogyny (sic) as limited to Musto is just not accurate. That very much defined much of how he talked about Clinton as well as others.”
Zelizer was referring to a series of instances during the primary campaign between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when critics from both sides of the aisle criticized Olbermann for allegedly sexist treatment towards Hillary. Olbermann was forced to apologize.”
Yes, there was some slight discussion of Olbermann’s misogyny. Olbermann after all at one point suggested Hillary needed to be taken to a back room and physically assaulted and his playmate, the balding David Shuster declared Hillary was a pimp and Chelsea was a whore (this because Chelsea was a surrogate speaker for her mom). There was no “call them sexists” campaign of exposure in this case against a batch of genuine sexists and misogynists which almost held a monopoly on Democratic discourse.
“Or, as then Harper’s editor Luke Mitchell put it, “Olberman is irritating and his obvious sexism is reprehensible. But yes, someone going on TV and saying that torture is bad is a net positive.”
“It is very easy to see race as the greater oppression when you remove 90% of violence against woman from the equation. The daily beatings and denigrations against women, even unto today, are not considered “oppressions of gender” by Hertzberg and his ilk. Slave rape is considered a “race” crime not a gender crime. Wife battering is considered a “personal mistake” not part of the “oppressions of gender”. Verbal abuse of women in the vilest forms is tolerated as long as the “N” word is not invoked.
We were all JournoListed. It was Hillary Clinton who was the first target, Hillary Supporters the secondary target, Republicans and conservatives were tertiary targets. We can also picture the discussions of Big Pink (Tucker Carlson, pretty please, can we see those?) by the JournoListers.
November is coming. The subpoenas will follow. Only then will we get the answers we have not gotten in the Chicago trials of Rezko and Blagojevich. Only with subpoenas will we get the answers JournoList sought to conceal.
No longer is racism confined to Eliza slavery narratives and segregation horror of dogs, water cannon, lynchings and rape. Now “racism” is shouted when a 25 year old African-American multi-multi-millionaire basketball player leaves the team and the team owner is upset thereby opening himself to the charge of being a “slave master” and the super rich player a “runaway slave”. The “New Racism” is a parody which dilutes actual racism.
The JournoList JournoGate scandal is also a worry to Superstar race-baiter Barack Obama. The loss of “good will” (to borrow from trademark law) associated with the negative term “racist”, the tarnishment and dilution of his weapon of choice for 2012 – the race card – makes it that much more likely that a challenge in 2012 will occur. If the race card loses its value entirely, a possible challenge from within the Democratic Party can emerge (we’ll have much more of this soon). No longer will African-American supporters be labeled “racists” or “self haters” or “racist enablers” for their courageous support of Hillary Clinton. White Hillary Supporters likewise can engage in political activity without the smear “racist” hurled. The race card wall is the only defense left for Barack Obama and his army of JouroList Hopium Guzzlers and the dreams of 2012.
The JournoList JournoGate is an indisputable fact about the Pro-Obama, Anti-Hillary, Anti-McCain/Palin Big Media bias during the primaries and the general election.
Some of the less than functioning are saying “so what” about the Dailycaller story. Their defense is that the JournoListers were known progressive op-ed people. But these dolts are clearly not reading the story with any precision. This sentence from the DailyCaller article should silence them if they have any honesty left or any brain cells functioning:
“Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal.”
The Big Media cartel is in coordinated defense mode even as the various Hopium Guzzling members employ the Sergeant Schultz defense “I know nothing!” When the JournoList JournoGate scandal began to unravel Ben Smith pretended as if it was all new to him even though he was a long time participant in JournoList. It was just like the W. Bush days when Tim Russert and other Big Media obfuscaters pretended they where not privy to secret facts about Scooter Libby. Tim Russert was “central to the CIA leak case” which involved Scooter Libby but Russert pretended he was Sergeant Schultz (Russert also pretended he was Sergeant Schultz during the Don Imus “ho” scandal).
“Weigel first had to apologize for a tweet expressing incomprehension of “bigots” who oppose same-sex marriage. He’s now apologized for intemperate, leaked emails sent to a large, private listserv started by his Washington Post colleage, Ezra Klein. [snip]
I quoted him in 2008 as the leading expert on strange Obama smears. He also comes from the Washington tradition of responsible, ideological reporting at places from Reason to The American Prospect that don’t require the sort of formal, careful neutrality that traditional newspaper reporters (like me) grew up with.[snip]
There’s a broader debate in journalism right now over whether reporters should strive for neutrality at all, or whether they should bring their own views and experiences into their writing. The Post’s Klein, Weigel, and Greg Sargent (along with the fired Dan Froomkin) are the latter model, along with those at newer outlets from TPM to the Breitbart empire. Most of the rest of the Post’s political reporters, and most of us at POLITICO, are the former. My personal view is that ideological and neutral journalism can flourish side by side, each going places the other is unwelcome, and each correcting for the other’s weaknesses. (And neutral reporters don’t have to be allergic to ideology: I’m on Journolist, Klein’s off-record listserv; I also get in on private conservative conversations when they’ll have me.)[snip]
One thing nobody argues is that publications should misrepresent and misidentify their own reporters.”
Ben Smith thinks he is objective? He has guzzled so much Hopium he can be classified by the DEA as a drug mule. Ben Smith did not report about JournoList until this week and did not tell his readers what they needed to know - facts he knew about back in 2008 and which he did not report in 2008. Ben Smith was on JournoList as were many of Politico’s supposedly “straight news” reporters but not one wrote in 2008 or ever about the strategy of JournoList participants to label as “racist” those who discussed Jeremiah Wright and were not duped by Obama’s “race speech” which did not answer any of the questions raised about Obama’s 20 years plus relationship with the toxic reverend.
I was surprised to read on The Daily Caller yesterday that a POLITICO colleague of mine was among those “participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.” [snip]
So I asked Zenilman, my former assistant on this blog, who left POLITICO in November 2008, what he’d written. He dredged up the e-mails, which came in response to others’ angry comments about ABC’s moderation of a presidential primary debate. (Carlson also sent them to VandeHei.) [snip]
The sloppy line in The Daily Caller, though, gets at a real, and reasonable, concern that I’ve heard from readers and commentators: A handful of POLITICO reporters, myself included, were members of the now-defunct listserv, which has been portrayed at times as a kind of cabal aimed at, among other goals, doing physical harm to Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh and destroying Fox News. (POLITICO was also the first publication to report on the list, much to the dismay of some of its participants, and that piece remains a useful explanation of what Journolist was.)
As I’ve written before, my view is that I’ll listen in on any conversation that I’m allowed to listen in on. [snip]
But I’m also sensitive to the perception from readers that, in particular, admission to a conversation itself reflects some kind of tacit stamp of ideological approval, though participating in that list certainly didn’t require any overt test. I asked POLITICO editor-in-chief John Harris for his thoughts on the question.
“I understand why people are troubled. The very fact that you’re let on suggests that they’re accepting you into a club,” he said, adding that he had not “seen anything on Journolist that compromises POLITICO.”
“I knew you were on it, I knew Mike Allen was on it,” he said. “It seemed appropriate to me to have you following a conversation where you might learn something germane,” he said, adding, that he understood, accurately, that we were there “more as observers than as participants in an ideological conversation.”
But Harris also said he agrees with Andrew Sullivan’s criticism of the list, which is more intellectual than ethical.
“[S]ocialized groupthink is not the answer to what’s wrong with the media. It’s what’s already wrong with the media,” Sullivan wrote.
Harris said he worried about “cliquishness” and “groupthink.”
“This is true for reporters and even for ideological commentators: You don’t play on one team or another — you play on your own team,” he said.
I don’t have particularly strong feelings on where and how ideologues should have conversations with one another, and it doesn’t seem like a terribly pressing issue. The list was free of the sort of effective coordination some critics allege, and many of its participants disagreed with one another bitterly, while others on the list mostly lurked silently. I can’t recall any substantive difference between what people wrote privately and publicly. Like many private e-mail conversations, it had no shortage of stray inflammatory and ill-advised comments, and many, many more mundane ones.
I’d add only one thing: I never found out any good secrets on Journolist. It wasn’t that kind of list. But to get the flavor of it, you can read conversation that mirrors it on Twitter. That platform — although it’s in principle open and democratic — in fact reflects more or less the same virtues of hashing out ideas and the dangers of the herd mentality.
Ben Smith is either delusional or a liar. He says he never found any “good secrets” at JournoList nor was he troubled by the “groupthink”. He apparently found nothing “germane”. But the fact remains that a coordinated campaign to label Hillary Supporters and any opponent of Barack Obama as “racists” – by the Left wing of the journalism establishment! – is one hellava story – if Ben Smith had reported it at the time of the “bitter and clingy” Pennsylvania primary!
Ben Smith pretends JournoList was a silly collection of Drudge and Limbaugh haters and killers but the story is much more nefarious than the strawman Smith builds then knocks down. We corrected the not functioning link in the Ben Smith article which he claims as some sort of badge of honor for Politico because they were “the first publication to report on the list”. What Ben Smith fails to mention is that that “report on the list” came in 2009 well after the information would have been useful to the Hillary Campaign and the McCain/Palin campaign.
The article from 2009, (written by Michael Calderone, who’s beat was the Media) which Ben Smith lauds is quite comic as a defense:
“For the past two years, several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics have talked stories and compared notes in an off-the-record online meeting space called JournoList.
Proof of a vast liberal media conspiracy?
Not at all, says Ezra Klein, the 24-year-old American Prospect blogging wunderkind who formed JournoList in February 2007. “Basically,” he says, “it’s just a list where journalists and policy wonks can discuss issues freely.” [snip]
But some of the journalists who participate in the online discussion say — off the record, of course — that it has been a great help in their work. On the record, The New Yorker’s Jeffrey Toobin acknowledged that a Talk of the Town piece — he won’t say which one — got its start in part via a conversation on JournoList. And JLister Eric Alterman, The Nation writer and CUNY professor, said he’s seen discussions that start on the list seep into the world beyond. [snip]
Last April, criticism of ABC’s handling of a Democratic presidential debate took shape on JList before morphing into an open letter to the network, signed by more than 40 journalists and academics — many of whom are JList members.
But beyond these specific examples, it’s hard to trace JList’s influence in the media, because so few JListers are willing to talk on the record about it.
POLITICO contacted nearly three dozen current JList members for this story. The majority either declined to comment or didn’t respond to interview requests — and then returned to JList to post items on why they wouldn’t be talking to POLITICO about what goes on there.”
Calderone should have talked to Ben Smith, or Mike Allen, or Laura Rozen. To his credit, Calderone did disclose some of the JournoList members such as Allen and Smith. But Mike Allen who has been lauded repeatedly as the “most influential journalist in DC” never confessed the secrets of JournoList when it mattered. Indeed Calderone mostly focuses on the opinion writers of JournoList but downplays that “straight news reporters” were members of JournoList.These many “straight news reporters” failed to mention the “call them racists” strategy but neither Calderone, nor Smith, nor Allen thought that race-baiting was news.
“One byproduct of that secrecy: For all its high-profile membership — which includes Nobel Prize-winning columnist Paul Krugman; staffers from Newsweek, POLITICO, Huffington Post, The New Republic, The Nation and The New Yorker; policy wonks, academics and bloggers such as Klein and Matthew Yglesias — JList itself has received almost no attention from the media.
A LexisNexis search for JournoList reveals exactly nothing.“
As we noted in our previous article, the Head Kook of DailyKooks killed a newsworthy story about his friend and business partner Jerome Armstrong (both were involved in the politically equivalent variant of a “pump and dump” scheme which mimicked the real life stock “pump and dump” scam Armstrong was prosecuted over) using a listserve called Townhouse. The difference between Townhouse and JournoList is denied but the denial is an obvious lie:
“Several members volunteered that JList is unlike listservs such as Townhouse, the private, activist-oriented group formed by liberal blogger Matt Stoller.
“No one’s pushing an agenda,” said Toobin. [snip]
John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, described JList in an e-mail as “a virtual coffeehouse” where participants get a chance to talk and argue.[snip]
“It’s sort of a chance to float ideas and kind of toss them around, back and forth, and determine if they have any value,” said New Republic associate editor Eve Fairbanks, “and get people’s input on them before you put them on a blog.”
Indeed, the advantage of JList, members say, is that it provides a unique forum for getting in touch with historians and policy people who provide journalists with a knowledge base for articles and blog posts. [snip]
Alterman said it’s important that there are “people with genuine expertise” on the list.”
“But what if all the private exchanges got leaked?
That’s been the subject of some JList conversation, too, as members discuss the Weekly Standard’s publication of a 2006 e-mail posted to the private China Security Listserv by diplomat Charles Freeman, who last week withdrew his name from consideration for a top intelligence job.
Michael Goldfarb, a former McCain staffer and conservative blogger who published the e-mail, was not part of the China list and therefore hadn’t agreed to any off-the-record rules.
Asked about the existence of conservative listservs, Goldfarb said they’re much less prevalent.
“There is nothing comparable on the right. E-mail conversations among bloggers, journalists and experts on our side tend to be ad hoc,” Goldfarb said. “The JournoList thing always struck me as a little creepy.”
Kaus, too, has seemed put off by the whole idea, once talking on BloggingHeads about how the list “seems contrary to the spirit of the Web.”
“You don’t want to create a whole separate, like, private blog that only the elite bloggers can go into, and then what you present to the public is sort of the propaganda you’ve decided to go public with,” Kaus argued.”
It’s creepy because it’s a CARTEL. A cartel, which like Townhouse, suppresses news. It’s a cartel which produces propaganda and suppresses news and information.
The members of the Big Media Cartel that did not inform readers of the race-baiting JournoList should be fired. There is no excuse for those who failed to live up to the First Amendment responsibilities while enjoying First Amendment protection when they failed to report about the “call them racists” strategy.
“Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal.”
“ALLEGED JOURNALISTS WORKING BEHIND THE SCENES, UNKNOWN TO THEIR READERS AND LISTENERS, TO ADVANCE ONE CANDIDATE, TO SUPPRESS NEWS WHEN IT REFLECTED POORLY ON BARACK AND TO LAUNCH ATTACKS TO DISTRACT?
THAT’S NOT JOURNALISM. WE’VE SEEN THAT BEHAVIOR BEFORE — IN THE FILM “THE HUNTING OF THE PRESIDENT.”
WE PROPOSE AN IMMEDIATE STEP TO TAKE, MAKE A LIST.”
“Excerpts published Tuesday by a conservative online news site suggest that a group of journalists from the mainstream media discussed ways to shield Barack Obama from criticism during the 2008 presidential election.
Among the strategies put forward: call conservative critics racists.”
“Now, conservative commentators are pointing to the JournoList excerpts as proof that the mainstream media collude to promote a liberal agenda, play the race card, and discredit conservative movements like the tea party.
“The [JournoList] is troubling,” says Jim Campbell, a political science professor at the State University of New York (SUNY) in Buffalo. “At one level it could be thought of as just colleagues throwing ideas out to one another, but from another standpoint it almost looks like collusion … where virtual talking points are shared and solidified in a group.”
“That can’t be healthy for the country – or for the media, for that matter,” he says.
JournoList: What is it?
The list was created by the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein and, and several hundred self-described liberals joined before it was shut down recently.[snip]
When conservatives were criticizing Mr. Obama for his connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in 2008, some JournoList members discussed a counterstrategy.
The Daily Caller writes that Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, “urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Mr. Ackerman wrote, ‘Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists.’ “
The JournoList story is a great scoop for the Daily Caller, but doesn’t necessarily indicate a broader media conspiracy, says Mike Hoyt, editor of the Columbia Journalism Review. [snip]
To conservatives, a smoking gun
To some conservatives, however, the Daily Caller excerpts are a smoking gun, showing that the media is not a neutral arbiter in refereeing racial spitball fights like the one that has broken out between the NAACP and the tea party.
“What the Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is JournoList, or are guilty of sitting back and watching...,” writes conservative firebrand Andrew Breitbart.
Such criticisms are fair, says Professor Campbell at SUNY Buffalo.
“To some extent [some] media have been successful in [playing the race card],” he says. “You have people now talking about the tea party and others in terms of this race issue, and that in itself deflects from what the tea party people are really concerned about, which is out-of-control federal spending and excessive intrusion of government. To the extent that the press, even by suggesting that race is an issue, if it gets everybody talking about the tea party in those terms, they have been successful.”
At the same time, Campbell says, the race card may have been so overplayed that it no longer has much of an effect on how Americans think or act.
“I think a lot of people don’t take it very seriously anymore,” he says.”
Real racism is diluted and real racism victims are hurt by the race-baiting in defense of Chicago’s Barack Obama. The question which remains to be answered is whether indeed the race card has been so diluted that Obama cannot use it in 2012 or in a possible primary challenge.
“Ed Kilgore, managing editor of the Democratic Strategist blog, argued that journalists and others trying to help the Obama campaign should focus on Palin’s beliefs. “The criticism of her really, really needs to be ideological, not just about experience. If we concede she’s a ‘maverick,’ we will have done John McCain an enormous service. And let’s don’t concede the claim that [Hillary Clinton] supporters are likely to be very attracted to her,” Kilgore said.”
“Zenilman of Politico, a purportedly nonpartisan journalist, weighed in with tactical advice: “The experience attack is a stupid one. It’s absolutely the wrong tack — the tack that McCain took when he was losing, and that Hillary and Biden took all primaries.” Zenilman said Wednesday he was offering “typical offhand political analysis.”
This left wing cartel was even more effective than the right wing imagines because these were the writers most Democrats voting in the Democratic primary read for their “news”. But it was not news. It was pro-Obama propaganda which hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign and smeared Hillary Supporters all.
The right wing probably does not care about the smears against Hillary Supporters. But if we all don’t learn from the race-baiting of 2008, we’ll never get the leaders we need.
We don’t intend to forget, nor shut up about JournoGate and the race-baiting of 2008.
DailyCaller does the nation a great service today. DailyCaller posts some hidden history from the Democratic primaries of 2008 via the private emails of “JournoList” – which confirms and expands on our analysis of the 2008 elections. The secret history is of a kind with an earlier, no-longer-secret history, of the DailyKooks and the suppression of another scandal.
On November 12, 2007, we published “Big Media Party”. We noted that Big Media was in form and function more a political party than a news dissemination enterprise. As the primaries developed Tim Russert took the lead along with the rest of Big Media blowhards in taking down Hillary Clinton (then McCain, now Palin). Barack Obama was so incompetent and not up to the job of defeating Hillary Clinton that Tim Russert was repeatedly called Hillary’s “toughest opponent” on the debate stage. On the day after the November election we wrote “Big Media Elects Its Stooge” because the election was a triumph of the Big Media Party not the boob candidate and boob occupant of the White House known as Barack Obama.
With the now uncovered JournoList postings and the earlier DailyKooks postings it is also clear that the Big Media Party is also a Big Media/Big Blog CARTEL.Suppression of the news is their business. These “journalists” and Big Blog Boys should be prosecuted for their behavior and news suppression. We explain below.
“It is the pervading law of all things organic and inorganic,
Of all things physical and metaphysical,
Of all things human and all things super-human,
Of all true manifestations of the head,
Of the heart, of the soul,
That the life is recognizable in its expression,
That form ever follows function. This is the law.”
“Cartels are agreements between most or all of the major producers of a good to either limit their production and/or fix prices. Cartels are generally illegal in the United States.”
The Big Blog Boys and the participants in JournoList are members of a cartel engaged in suppression of the news. The Big Blog Boys and the participants in JournoList come from many Big Media business enterprises, many publications, many broadcast outlets, many different companies, many different corporations, many different conglomerates – and they all conspired to suppress the news at their various business outlets. If a group of grocery stores owned by different people conspired to fix prices they would be liable to prosecution and trial and punishment. In this case “journalists” from many organizations conspired to fix the news. They likewise should be liable to prosecution and trial and punishment.
DailyCaller does not mention that the JournaList scandal is the same as an earlier scandal that has been forgotten by many. We have not forgotten. We have not forgotten the suppression of news engaged in by the Head Kook of DailyKooks concerning the illegal activities of his business Partner Jerome Armstrong. When the illegal and unethical frauds against the weak and powerless “pump and dump” schemes became public the Head Kook engaged in a successful suppression of the news.
“TNR’s Jason Zengerle has published an e-mail in which Markos Moulitsas urged his fellow liberal bloggers not to write about the burgeoning scandal involving his Crashing the Gate co-author Jerome Armstrong:
Why the strange silence in the face of such damning allegations? Well, I think we now know the answer. It’s a deliberate strategy orchestrated by Kos. TNR obtained a missive Kos sent earlier this week to “Townhouse,” a private email list comprising elite liberal bloggers, including Jane Hamsher, Matt Stoller, and Christy Hardin Smith. And what was Kos’s message to this group that secretly plots strategy in the digital equivalent of a smoke-filled backroom? Stay mum! He wrote (emphasis added below):
[...]My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story. Then, once Jerome can speak and defend himself, then I’ll go on the offensive (which is when I would file any lawsuits) and anyone can pile on. If any of us blog on this right now, we fuel the story. Let’s starve it of oxygen. And without the “he said, she said” element to the story, you know political journalists are paralyzed into inaction.
He also has a theory about why the liberal bloggers on the listserv are complying. If you need to get caught up on the scandal, check out Jim Geraghty’s post on the subject.
“I wonder how much this sort of thing goes on. I’m not on any private email lists like that and have never seen any behind-the-scenes plotting about what should or should not be blogged about. And I wonder who’s the leaker among the elite bloggers.”
“After someone torpedoed Dave Weigel’s Washington Post gig by breaking the code of silence on the Journolist listserv, the race has been on to see who would sell the entire contents of the e-mail messages between the liberal members of the group — and who would get to buy them. We may never know who sold it, but Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller wound up with the data, and they found a big story to lead off their exposés. In the first of a series on Journolist, Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong lays out a strategy plotted by Journolist members to kill the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 primaries — and to smear Barack Obama’s critics as racists:“
“It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign. [snip]
Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.”
“In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”
“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”
Tomasky puts a high-minded spin on the suppression of the news and his “throw chairs” strategy and Ackerman’s “call them racists”. Tomasky must be fired along with all the others on JournoList who knew what was going on in their listserve but suppressed that news too.
“Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.
“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.
Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.”
The news suppression occurred with the assistance of Jared Bernstein who now, no surprise, works for Joe Biden. The members of JournoList who knew all this was going on must provide full disclosure and/or be fired by their respective “news” operations. The list is long – Holly Yeager, Joe Conason, David Greenberg, David Roberts, Todd Gitlin are just few of the names. That we know several of these people and like them is difficult but necessary – fire them all. Investigate what happened and who did what.
“It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.
Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.
The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”
A whore calling a whore a whore is Chris Hayes. What Hayes and his fellow news suppression agents did was an attempt to “maintain control of the country” while decrying others for trying to “maintain control of the country”. LeftTalkers and others endorsed Barack Obama because he was the Big Media “darling” and thereby surrendered the country to the Big Media Party and the cartel.
“Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”
“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.
Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.”
“What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
What the DailyCaller and the thugs on JournoList do not acknowledge however is that even though Ackerman named Barnes and Rove as examples of whom to call RACISTS – the inescapable truth is that this occurred during the Democratic primaries and THE ONES CALLED RACISTS WERE HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTERS – US.
The “call them racists” strategy was not supported by Kevin Drum in what surely is a fitting testament to the stupidity of these Big Media/Big Blog boobs:
“Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”
“American journalism died today. What The Daily Caller has unearthed proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that most media organizations are either complicit by participation in the treachery that is Journolist, or are guilty of sitting back and watching Alinsky warfare being waged against all that challenged the progressive orthodoxy. The scandal predictably involves journalists posing as professors posing as experts. But dressed down they are nothing but street thugs. They deserve the deepest levels of public consternation. Will they get it?
The only way that the media will recover from the horrifying discoveries found in the Journolist is to investigate and investigate until every guilty reporter, professor and institution is laid bare begging America for forgiveness. Will they do it?”
After the loss of his father, Germanicus, little Caligula grew up to be an odder boy and an even more bizarre man. As Emperor, Caligula appointed his horse to be a Senator in the Roman Senate. So is it any wonder that a boy raised by wolves appoints his handsome cook to a senior policy position?
In Obama besotted Washington such an insular appointment does not trigger the revulsion it should. Want to advance in life? Get a job for a rich and powerful family and you too can go from cook to policy adviser. With all the many unemployed nutritional experts and short order cooks in the nation few bat an eyelash that Obama’s cook gets to be a policy maker too. But such is the disconnect from America and bitter and clingy Americans, that this daft disconnected executive displays at every turn.
Now that the cook is raised to tribune status, it is the dog who flies on his own jet, the eponymous BO, we expect to soon be named a Senator or perhaps Canine Excelsior in charge of recreational activities.
“A new poll by Politico shows that Beltway denizens are much happier with the state of the nation than those whom they supposedly serve, and for good reason:
America is struggling with a sputtering economy and high unemployment — but times are booming for Washington’s governing class.
The massive expansion of government under President Barack Obama has basically guaranteed a robust job market for policy professionals, regulators and contractors for years to come. The housing market, boosted by the large number of high-income earners in the area, many working in politics and government, is easily outpacing the markets in most of the country. And there are few signs of economic distress in hotels, restaurants or stores in the D.C. metro area.
As a result, there is a yawning gap between the American people and D.C.’s powerful when it comes to their economic reality — and their economic perceptions.
A new POLITICO poll, conducted by market research and consulting firm Penn Schoen Berland, underscores the big divide: Roughly 45 percent of “Washington elites” said the country and the economy are headed in the right direction, while roughly 25 percent of the general population said they felt that way.“
The disconnect is highlighted by the fact that the poll itself is skewed away from present day reality:
“The poll sample consists of 38% Democrats and 31% Republicans, with 22% claiming to be independent and the remaining 9% unclear on the concept. The seven-point margin is the same size as the popular vote gap by which Obama won office, which is hardly a good indication of accuracy after almost two years of Tea Party organizing and serious damage to Obama’s support. This sample overemphasizes Democratic input while shortchanging Republicans and especially independents.”
In this vertiginous world of unreality, major news personalities are not aware of the news. The latest news on the news is that Bob Schieffer did not ask Attorney General Eric Holder about the Black Panther intimidation scandal because Schieffer did not know about the story. The news personalities who purport to tell us the news do not know what their readers and viewers know. It’s the blind leading the sighted.
In March of this year, we wrote “It’s Not A Mandate – It’s A Tax!” about Obama’s health scam. Big Media refused to take notice of that obvious fact. Big Media refused to see, or to report what it saw.
It was obvious all along that it was a tax. Obama of course promised “no new taxes”.
It’s taken a while, but yesterday the New York Times informed its readers what we informed our readers about months ago. It’s a tax:
“When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.”
Obama lied with his big Joker grin. Obama cannot be trusted. Obama is a liar:
“While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.”
The courts will doubtless note that the Obama scam does not cite the tax power as a source of authority. Even Obama supporters acknowledge Obama’s dishonesty on the issue:
“Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.
Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”
He’s a liar, pure and simple.
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.
That’s not the only Obama health scam the New York Times and Big Media are finally informing their readers of. All the promises of keeping your own doctor are defunct too:
“As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.
The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.
But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.
The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.”
“If Massachusetts is the laboratory for ObamaCare, consider this an explosion. The Boston Globe reports that employers have begun doing precisely what everyone knew they would do when insurance prices spiked: dump health plans. Companies that used to offer health-care coverage are paying the fines and saving money by dumping their employees into state-run coverage (via Newsalert):
The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget.“
This is all not news. These are facts we reported on when they were relevant to the debate. The only relevance at this point is to note Obama’s continuing lies and Big Media irrelevance when it matters.
The Boston Globe report on health care in Massachusetts must be augmented with this Samuelson report:
“If you want a preview of President Obama’s health-care “reform,” take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a “reform” that became a model for Obama. What’s happened since isn’t encouraging. The state did the easy part: expanding state-subsidized insurance coverage. It evaded the hard part: controlling costs and ensuring that spending improves people’s health. Unfortunately, Obama has done the same. [snip]
Emergency rooms remain as crowded as ever…. Finally — and most important — health costs continue to soar.
Aside from squeezing take-home pay (employers provide almost 70 percent of insurance), higher costs have automatically shifted government priorities toward health care and away from everything else — schools, police, roads, prisons, lower taxes. In 1990, health spending represented about 16 percent of the state budget, says the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation. By 2000, health’s share was 22 percent. In 2010, it’s 35 percent. About 90 percent of the health spending is Medicaid.
State leaders have proved powerless to control these costs. Facing a tough reelection campaign, Gov. Deval Patrick effectively ordered his insurance commissioner to reject premium increases for small employers (50 workers or fewer) and individuals — an unprecedented step. Commissioner Joseph Murphy then disallowed premium increases ranging from 7 percent to 34 percent. The insurers appealed; hearing examiners ruled Murphy’s action illegal.”
There has been no health care reform. The only reform has been more money for Big Insurance and Big PhaRma.
“Similar forces will define Obamacare. Even if its modest measures to restrain costs succeed — which seems unlikely — the effect on overall spending would be slight. The system’s fundamental incentives won’t change. The lesson from Massachusetts is that genuine cost control is avoided because it’s so politically difficult. [snip]
Obama dodged the tough issues in favor of grandstanding. Imitating Patrick, he’s already denouncing insurers’ rates, as if that would solve the spending problem. What’s occurring in Massachusetts is the plausible future: Unchecked health spending shapes government priorities and inflates budget deficits and taxes, with small health gains. And they call this “reform”?”
No it was not reform. Universal health care died when Ted Kennedy race-baited for Barack Obama. Obama’s “heath reform” has always been a scam, as we reported long ago. The junk reform which transfers massive wealth to Big Insurance and Big PhaRma is the junk reform Hillary Clinton refused to accept in the 1990s.
“The secretary of education [Arne Duncan] is whining about the fact he only got 85 percent of the money he wanted .… [W]hen we needed money, we committed the cardinal sin of treating him like any other mere mortal. We were giving them over $10 billion in money to help keep teachers on the job, plus another $5 billion for Pell, so he was getting $15 billion for the programs he says he cares about, and it was costing him $500 million [in reductions to the Race to the Top program]. Now that’s a pretty damn good deal. So as far as I’m concerned, the secretary of education should have been happy as hell. He should have taken that deal and smiled like a Cheshire cat. He’s got more walking around money than every other cabinet secretary put together.
It blows my mind that the White House would even notice the fight [over Race to the Top]. I would have expected the president to say to the secretary, “Look, you’re getting a good deal, for God’s sake, what this really does is guarantee that the rest of the money isn’t going to be touched.” We gave [Duncan] $4.3 billion in the stimulus package, no questions asked. He could spend it any way he wants. … I trusted the secretary, so I gave him a hell of a lot more money than I should have.
My point is that I have been working for school reform long before I ever heard of the secretary of education, and long before I ever heard of Obama. And I’m happy to welcome them on the reform road, but I’ll be damned if I think the only road to reform lies in the head of the secretary of education.”
Good riddance to David Obey. Only now does Obey mention that Obama was never around for any fight. In 2007 we repeatedly asked “who is this guy?” No one knew the answer. Obama never participated in any national debate and never fought for anything other than for himself. But Kennedy/Kerry/Daschle anointed him for the Democratic nomination years before public declarations of support. Now Obey complains that he never heard of Obama. Obey has more to say about Obama’s schemes behind the scenes:
“We were told we have to offset every damn dime of [new teacher spending]. Well, it ain’t easy to find offsets, and with all due respect to the administration their first suggestion for offsets was to cut food stamps. Now they were careful not to make an official budget request, because they didn’t want to take the political heat for it, but that was the first trial balloon they sent down here. … Their line of argument was, well, the cost of food relative to what we thought it would be has come down, so people on food stamps are getting a pretty good deal in comparison to what we thought they were going to get. Well isn’t that nice. Some poor bastard is going to get a break for a change.”
Where are the great fake liberals of the “creative class” with their great fake outrage? Where are the Big Blog Boys denouncing Obama and his money grab from food stamps – all in secret?
David Obey’s revelations of behind the scenes Obama scams and grabs are shocking only to the somnambulant Hopium Guzzlers. While these are battles between the teacher unions and budgetary conflicts, the overall fact to notice is the duplicity and hidden from public view ugliness of Barack Obama’s cowardly refusal to acknowledge and defend his own policy proposals.
Like Caligula at the end, Obama will meet his fate at the hands of those closest to him. After November, when the election results roll in, the Obama Praetorian Guard will unsheathe their political swords and cut him loose. It will be ugly, but it will be necessary for their own survival.
It’s time for the airing of grievances, It’s time for feats of strength, Let others celebrate Christmas in July. It’s Festivus for the rest of us.
The origins of Festivus are not shrouded in the mists of time. We know exactly and with precision the origins of the effulgent holiday. We know the traditions. We honor the short lived traditions.
So throw away the distracting tinsel, grab the aluminum pole – it’s time for airing of the grievances and amazing feats of strength. Festivus is here.
Last week, Nancy Pelousy and Obama congressional Dimocrats, the very people who cheated and lied to drag Obama’s limp body accross the finish line in the 2008 primaries, began the airing of the grievances: “House Democrats will air grievances to Obama” blared the Politico headline. It seems that the congressional Dimocrats are now aware that Obama only cares about himself and does not care about their reelection.
That was a rather tepid and late grievance. For a full fleged festive Festivus grievance we turned to scandal sheetGlobe magazine:
“President Barack Obama is tangled in the mystery surrounding the murder of the gay choir director of his controversial Chicago church – and the slain man’s mother is demanding answers NOW! This week’s GLOBE blows the lid off the shocking scandal America can’t afford to ignore.”
Now that is surely a Festivus grievance. A mother of a dead gay son clamoring for answers to the murder. The Globe has aluminum pole popping Festivus grievances to air:
“Norma Jean Young speaks out about the murder of her son, Donald Young, former Choir director of Obama’s Church Trinity United in Chicago. Mrs. Young “What was the cause of my son’s death? I’m very suspicious that it may have been related to Obama.” “Donald and Obama were close friends.”
Asked who benefited from a cover-up, Norma says, “it could be anyone, including Obama.”
That is certainly a shocking airing of grievances. But Festivus should have some heart-warming stories of cheer. And what could be more heartwarming than a job promotion in these tough times? The uppity people at Uppity Woman warm our hearts with this lovely story:
In a comical move even for a czar-happy president who has rewarded dozens of cronies with distinguished titles, the White House has named the Obama’s personal Chicago cook as “Senior Policy Adviser for Healthy Food Initiatives.”
It’s no joke, even though is sounds like a bad one. The Chicago chef’s rapid ascension, reported this week by a conservative Washington D.C. newspaper, has been kept under the radar for the last month. Sam Kass went from being a 20-something, Windy City gourmet cook—privately paid by the Obama’s to feed them—to big-time White House adviser in a matter of months.
At first we thought the promotion was for “Obama’s personal Chicago crook” but we realized that it was a cook who was in this particular mix. Indeed, the cook in question, Sam Kass is quite a beauty (picture HERE). But he is a cook, not a chef as the uppity women seize the distinction and enlighten us all on this spontaneous Festivus. This particular cook is also named as one of “Barack’s Beauties” in a People magazine list.
But the news of the promotion for the lucky cook, was not the main news for those uppity people. The real story was about a dead woman and her living children (in contrast to the Globe story about the live woman with her dead son). It turns out that Charlotte McCourt proves that Festivus is also for the dead.
“Charlotte M. Tidwell McCourt, 84, of Pahrump, passed away July 8, 2010, after a long illness. She was born Dec. 25, 1925, in Wellington, Utah, and was a 40-year resident of Nevada. Charlotte held a zest for life and loved serving her family of five children; 20 grandchildren; and 65 great-grandchildren. She had been the wife of Patrick L. McCourt for 67 happy years. Active in her community, she assisted in many political figures’ campaign efforts. As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Charlotte served as a leader in the Relief Society for over 20 years. She and her beloved husband also served a full-time mission in the Cabanatuan Mission in the Phillipines. Charlotte is survived by her husband, Patrick; children, Pat and Nellie McCourt, Dan and Lanny Shea, Bill and Marsha Sortor, David and Sherry d’Hulst, and Tom and Ann McMullin; and many grandchildren. A memorial service was held Saturday, July 10, at the LDS Chapel, 921 E. Wilson, in Pahrump. We believe that Mom would say she was mortified to have taken a large role in the election of Harry Reid to U.S. Congress. Let the record show Charlotte was displeased with his work. Please, in lieu of flowers, vote for another more worthy candidate.”
May we intrude with some Big Pink grievances? Well, perhaps not full fledged Festivus approved grievances, more like addenda to the record. This past May we wrote “Racist Americans Attack Mess-iah Obama”. We amused ourselves by making the case that if those who criticize Obama are racist, then those who called Hillary supporters “racists” during the primaries are racists themselves because they too are finally criticizing Obama. Now, without placing a feather in our cap, the scamps at the Dallas Tea Party have put our concept into a clever video:
Well, guess what. Obama boob and overall oily Gulf incompetent Ken Salazar is still on the job when he should not be. But… without a word of thanks to Big Pink and at least 80 days late, James Lee Witt is now on the job. And apparently he is doing a wonderful job. That’s what they’re saying in the Gulf – oh and Jim Carville is celebrating Festivus (along with grievance airing Anderson Cooper) too and airing grievances:
Oh, we get no appreciation. Sigh. Grievance. Festivus.
“Now, Obama is letting his supporters strip away his image of a post-racial president by their increasingly racial rhetoric and his support for radical black activists.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers so obviously guilty of racial intimidation at the Philadelphia polling places in 2008 is of a piece with the NAACP’s loud denunciation of the Tea Party movement as racists, likening it to the White Citizens Councils of the segregationist past. And the Obama Administration’s decision to sue to overturn the Arizona immigration law — despite the fact that Americans approve of the statute, and disapprove of the lawsuit to void it, by 59-28 — is an attempt to foundation his appeal to Latino voters in racial terms.
In a bid to increase enthusiasm and, therefore, turnout among minority voters, Barack Obama is sacrificing his white support and his non-racial image.”
Morris is wrong. Obama was stripped of the fake “post racial” fairy tale during the Henry Louis Gates race-baiting episode.
As we wrote in “Is Barack Obama A Racist?“:
“The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn’t matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: “He made everything out like it was all racial.” On one occasion, Obama thought he’d gotten a bad break on the school basketball team because he was black. But Kakugawa recalls his father’s telling the teenager, “No, Barry, it’s not because you’re black. It’s because you missed two shots in a row.”
Now Obama Hopium Guzzlers describe anyone who opposes their Mess-iah as “racists”. But people criticize Obama not because he is black, but because he “missed two shots in a row.” Obama is a boob who race-baits to advance himself and when we point out he is a boob, the response is “racist”. Obama and his supporters make “everything out like it was all racial” but it is not. A boob is a boob, a thief is a thief, a jerk is a jerk, and color is irrelevant.
“According to the FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll, Obama’s job approval among Democrats has dropped from 84% two weeks ago (June 29-30) to 76% on July 13-14. At 76%, this level of job approval is below any the Fox News poll has ever recorded.
Why the collapse? Most likely it is due to liberal disappointment with the continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued use of Guantanamo, Obama’s inability to cope with the oil spill, and his refusal to push immigration reform when he could have passed it before he lost his 60 vote majority. Undoubtedly, the renewed sluggishness in the economy is also playing its part.[snip]
But Obama is making his troubles worse by his insistence on focusing on his minority voters to the exclusion of even the white liberal electorate. Consider Obama’s decision to sue Arizona over its immigration law. The general electorate backs the Arizona statute by 59-29 according to the FOX News poll. But 38% of Democrats support it as well (50% oppose it). Obama’s refusal to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation after they stationed themselves outside a Philadelphia polling place in military uniforms with clubs also underscores the growing exclusion of whites of all stripes — including liberals — from the Obama base.”
“Thursday’s Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department’s decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?
For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn’t been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.
“The Post should never base coverage decisions on ideology, nor should it feel obligated to order stories simply because of blogosphere chatter from the right or the left.
But in this case, coverage is justified because it’s a controversy that screams for clarity that The Post should provide. If Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his department are not colorblind in enforcing civil rights laws, they should be nailed. If the Commission on Civil Rights’ investigation is purely partisan, that should be revealed. If Adams is pursuing a right-wing agenda, he should be exposed.
National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy “significant,” said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.
Better late than never. There’s plenty left to explore.”
There sure is plenty left to explore. Grievances should be investigated and fairly debunked or fairly confirmed. Maybe someday The Washington Post will discuss the 2008 primaries.
And there is this latest installment into the investigation:
What about that dress??? Were those oil stains or perspiration from all that alleged gardening? Oh, Festivus. The airing of the grievances is better than Dreidels or glittery ornaments on trees. As to gifts, this one is ready made for Festivus celebrants:
Air the grievances Obama lovin’ Charles Blow. Keep making excuses and keep deluding yourself that things will get better for the boob and that he will be reelected. Air the grievances you idiot blowhard:
“A CBS News poll released on Tuesday found that “a majority of Americans have a negative impression of the economy and expect the effects of the recession to linger for years.”
One of the most stinging findings: “Only 13 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s economic programs, among them the stimulus package, have helped them personally. Twenty-three percent say they have hurt, while 63 percent say they have had no effect.” Ouch. That’s an abysmal favorability return on an enormous financial investment.
A Gallup poll released on Friday found that satisfaction with the direction of the country among members of the president’s own party has dropped by a fourth since last month.
The BP disaster poisoned the waters of the gulf and sent saddening waves of tar balls and dead animals washing up onto its beaches. One of the president’s responses was to call for a moratorium on new deep-water drilling. Not cool, say gulf residents. An ABC News/Washington Post poll released on Wednesday found that 3 in 5 residents from the areas most affected disapproved of the moratorium and 7 in 10 disapproved of the government’s overall response to the disaster.
Polls continue to find that more people disapprove than approve of the Justice Department’s decision to sue over Arizona’s immigration law, a move that Hillary Clinton let slip was being made under Obama’s direction.
And, the N.A.A.C.P. scratched an old wound this week when it called on the Tea Party to expel racists from its ranks. The Tea Partiers protested — too much methinks — because the racism is a rap they can’t seem to beat.”
Continue to race-bait Charles Blow. Continue to think that Obama is sure to win in 2012. Continue to notice that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not friends. Air your grievances. You will however not be invited to the wedding.
All those people who wrote silly stories about how Obama now controlled the Clintons and now Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were part of the Obama Team, now have grievances to air. They were wrong. They will not be invited to the wedding. A lot of people will not be invited to the wedding. No Oprah, no Barack, no Doris. Air your grievances – it’s Festivus.
“Aaron Sorkin — best known for creating “The West Wing” — will make his feature directorial debut with a John Edwards biopic.
Sorkin’s adapting and producing Andrew Young’s “The Politician: An Insider’s Account of John Edwards’s Pursuit of the Presidency and the Scandal That Brought Him Down.” Project’s not yet set up at a studio.
Young, a longtime Edwards aide, gained notoriety during the 2008 presidential primary when he admitted — then later recanted — an affair with Edwards’ mistress Rielle Hunter and claimed Edwards’ child from that relationship as his own.”
Ah, the grievances of Festivus. But something is missing. Something is missing. Where are the feats of strength?
Nearly half of voters (49 percent) would be less likely to vote for a candidate if President Obama campaigns for them. That’s 10 points higher than the number that would be more likely to vote for that candidate (39 percent).
It’s about the same for former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin: 51 percent would be less likely to vote for a candidate she backs and 37 percent more likely.
Former Republican presidential candidate and Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney also risks doing more harm than good: 31 percent of voters would be more likely and 39 percent less likely to vote for a candidate if Romney campaigns for them.
Only former President Bill Clinton receives an overall positive response. By 45-41 percent, voters would be more likely to vote for a Clinton-backed candidate, rather than less likely.
By 16 percentage points, independents are more inclined to vote for a candidate supported by Clinton (47 percent) than Obama (31 percent). Clinton also outperforms Palin among independents by 24 points.”
Whoa! Can you imagine what a Hillary Clinton endorsement is worth these days? Talk about feats of strength.
They need to shut up. No one should read or listen to their opinions.
The same people who called Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton “racists” now call the Tea Party (they use the anti-Gay “teabaggers” terminology) “racists”. The same people who said the more than qualified Hillary Clinton was “not the right woman” to be president now say that Sarah Palin is “not the right woman” to be president because she is not qualified enough even though Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama ever was. If you are a woman you are either too qualified or not qualified enough. The same people who screamed in outrage when Hillary called Obama “irresponsible and frankly naive” now yelp in pain as they realize he is a boob.
Barack Obama and his nest of cheap hoodlums and thugs called Bill Clinton a “racist” but now Barack Obama and his Dimocrats want Bill Clinton to presumably go to South Carolina and other scenes of Bill Clinton’s “racist” truth telling and tell “black folk and white folk’ something like this: “Please vote for Obama and his Dimocrats this November because I am a white racist cracker.” Barack Obama is now trying to attach himself to “racist” Bill Clinton for survival. And anyone who does not realize that all the talk of a Hillary challenge to Obama in 2012 does not have Obama desperate to forestall such an eventuality, and that is why Obama is so attentive to Bill Clinton lately, is not paying attention.
“Racist” is as “racist” does. When we look for “racists” let’s look at who has helped black people, or white people, or yellow people, or red people, or green people, or beige people. How are black people and the rest doing under Barack Obama’s boot, and how did black people and everyone else do during Bill Clinton’s administration? But even the idiots who “have never been a huge admirer of the Bill Clinton administration” have to admit that “Bill Clinton’s still got it” and that he is better than Obama.
Let’s quickly look at some of the above. Remember the “naive” charge and outrage? Remember when European idiots or the too far removed from the U.S. thought Obama was something other than a naive boob? Remember when Obama was celebrated in Europe as a celebrity? Remember when John Kerry and Andrew Sullivan and other dumb white people hailed Obama as a messiah because of “his face” and because America’s enemies would say “Gee, Obama’s black so now we can stop hating and killing Americans and learn to love America and all those gay people and liberated women and those Jews and those refugees from strife ridden lands and stop plotting to blow them up.” Well, it turns out that Hillary Clinton is a big hit all over the world and everything she touches turns to gold, but that everything Obama touches turns to something else.
“Europe’s disappointment with President Barack Obama’s presidency was laid bare Thursday as the EU’s most senior figure called for a dramatic effort to revive transatlantic relations.
The President of the European Commission said the new era at the White House was in danger of becoming a “missed opportunity” for Europe.
José Manuel Barroso said the EU-U.S. relationship was not living up to its potential. The criticism follows a series of fundamental disagreements on how to deal with the economic crisis, climate change and trade reform.
The feelings of a deepening rift are mutual. Senior U.S. figures said Obama could never live up to Europe’s sky-high expectations.”
Blame the victim. Obama and his Hopium addled Big Blog Boys raised “sky-high expectations” with those easiest to please and now that they have failed utterly to produce “change” it’s blame the victim for believing your lies. The Europeans should have been the easiest to please and Obama has failed utterly with them. Time to yank that Nobel prize the same way Michelle yanks those sleeves. It’s even worse in regions of the world, like the Muslim world, that Obama promised to heal.
“Obama’s open-hand policy now becoming clenched fist? Or, in other words, welcome to 2007, Mr. President. Joe Klein reports that Barack Obama has decided after eighteen months of his ineffective outreach to Iran that the mullahs really do want a nuclear weapon more than they want peace, love, and understanding. Suddenly the military-strike option has returned to the table:”
Hillary was correct when she said Obama was “irresponsible and frankly naive”. For that Hillary was attacked. Hillary Clinton was also attacked on an illiterate and utterly bogus charge of “dynasty”. We responded with a definitive refutation of that silliness. We noted how real dynasties are celebrated by Dimocrats. Think of the dynast Chappaquiddick Chauffeur and Bobby both of whom ran for president to Democratic cheers, (don’t forget Caroline’s bungled display of entitlement), the Udall family, the Rockefellers, the Gores, the Cuomos, and the Salazars (Interior Secretary Salazar has proved he is an utter boob). Mitt Romney, a true dynast, never had the “dynasty” charge flung his way either and he is still running for president. But none of these men were slapped with the “dynasty” charge.
Hillary Clinton was also recognized as eminently qualified to be president, but she was either too “polarizing” or just not the “right woman” to be president “at this time”. A nincompoop raised by wolves who voted “present” and ignored his constituents as they froze in winter and associated with criminals as well as took credit for the work of others and both he and his wife profited handsomely remained unvetted and protected by political hacks in Chicago and Big Media nationally. Now it is Sarah Palin’s turn to be called “too polarizing” and to undergo the vetting that Obama has never been subjected to.
“No, this is not coming from Rasmussen or an internal GOP poll, but from the normally Democrat-sympathetic Public Policy Polling. PPP pitted Barack Obama against five potential Republican challengers for the 2012 presidential campaign, and the only one Obama beat was … Jan Brewer. Even that, PPP admitted, resulted from Brewer’s lack of name recognition. The headline, though, is Sarah Palin’s dead heat with the President:
With his approval numbers hitting new lows it’s no surprise that Barack Obama’s numbers in our monthly look ahead to the 2012 Presidential race are their worst ever this month. He trails Mitt Romney 46-43, Mike Huckabee 47-45, Newt Gingrich 46-45, and is even tied with Sarah Palin at 46.”
Mitt Romney’s thugs immediately replied with “She’s not a serious human being.” Perhaps dynast Romney can argue that Palin is not a serious candidate, but human being? Women are no longer human beings? Or is it just Sarah Palin that somehow lacks the DNA or the somatic organization which denotes human-ness?
Remember when Hillary Clinton choked up in New Hampshire and it was a shock to so many that “she’s human” (see our coverage HERE, which also includes another instance of us, not Bartle Bull, calling Obama a “Hustler”)? Only when she faced certain defeat in New Hampshire were Hillary haters able to suggest that she was “human”.Sarah Palin, prepare for the same.
Right after she defeated Obama in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton was again stripped of her humanity and history and labeled a “racist” by Obama thugs. It proved once and for all that the sexism and misogyny were political manifestations and manipulations. Not that sexism and misogyny are not triumphant in America. But what the episode demonstrated was that Democrats would indeed exploit sexism and misogyny in the same way we used to accuse Republicans as willing and able to exploit sexism and misogyny. Sarah Palin, prepare for the same.
If you are a woman you are going to be attacked. It does not matter if you have a limited amount of experience (as Sarah Palin does) or if you have tons of experience (as Hillary Clinton does) – you will be attacked. PUMA P.A.C. today cited a not so amusing but accurate observation by Tennessee Guerrilla Women:
“It’s just too damn bad that the Dems don’t have a liberal woman, with the star power of Sarah Palin, doing for women on the left what Sarah Palin does for women on the right.“
Damned if you are too qualified, damned if you are qualified, damned if you are not qualified – but only if you are a woman. Which brings us to “Shut Up!”
Today Mark Halperin has a Sarah Palin in 2012article published in Time magazine. The entire article is written in hindsight and even though it is fair to Sarah Palin it demonstrates how unoriginal and unimaginative Mark Halperin is. Only now does Halperin think Palin is not stupid. Our point is that no one should listen to people like Mark Halperin because they have been repeatedly wrong and lacked judgment to see the obvious – such as Obama being a hustler and a race-baiter.
But what triggered us to write this today was Mark Mckinnon’s article in The Daily Beast today, which Halperin also cites in his tedious piece. Recall, that Mark McKinnon would not work for John McCain because he loved Obama so. Now McKinnon thinks Sarah Palin should listen to his advice. McKinnon was a good advisor to George W. Bush. But McKinnon’s lack of judgment about Obama impels us to say “Shut Up!”.
This one is different than the others. Sounds different, looks different. This one inspires deep loyalty, and deep fear. Short on experience but untainted by Washington, this one is in touch with the people.
Two years out from the 2008 presidential election, these words described Barack Obama. But that was then.
This is now. And it just as accurately describes Sarah Palin.”
Why should anyone listen to these fools who Obama duped so easily? McKinnon rightly lauds the financial powerhouse which is Sarah Palin and the dedication of her supporters as well as the wisdom of cultivating the “Mama Grizzly” vote. But when he writes “Palin isn’t ready to run. And the country isn’t ready for her to run” why should Sarah Palin listen to him?
Why should anyone listen to any of the boobs who Obama fooled with such ease? No one should listen to the Obama gulled Hopium Guzzlers.
The entire planet Earth demands that those whom Obama fooled with such ease, those who attacked Sarah Palin with gusto, those who slimed and smeared Hillary Clinton, those who call everyone they disagree with such as Tea Party activists “racists” to Shut up! Go away! Join another cult and leave us alone.
As the NObama Coalition grows in numbers and strength, Obama’s treacheries surge to high tide. More and Americans abandon the Hopium dens and move to a posture of questioning Obama’s competence, character, and qualifications to be president. Those Americans who already questioned Obama’s competence, character and qualifications to be president move to our side of the equation and take our mantra to heart:
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.
Today we survey the current disasters swamping the Obama dingy and analyze how Obama will respond. So imperiled are Obama and his Hopium Guzzler Thugs that race-baiting, personal destruction, and Latino duping are on the table. Abandon all Hope – we’re going into Obama-land “mentality”.
* * * * * *
Lately, even the most Hopium guzzling Dimocratic elected officials realize that Obama is a treacherous thug from Chicago only interested in his own self-advancement. The Boy Raised By Wolves does not care about anyone but himself.
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey recently said, “There are so many members of our caucus who think that this administration is willing to use members of Congress as cannon fodder.”
After Robert Gibbs declared the House to be up for grabs this November, Hopium Guzzlers in Congress spoke up:
“The broadest impact of Gibbs’ comments is to make public the long simmering tensions between House Democrats and the White House. Some of this tension is, of course, inevitable since Obama is, ultimately, on a 2012 electoral calendar while House Democrats have only this November in mind.”
Obama only cares about his self-advancement and no one else. The most dim-witted in the House begin to realize this fact:
“Yet, at times, House Democrats have expressed concern that the White House is playing fast-and-loose with their majority in order to help Obama’s re-election efforts in 2012. Those fears were expressed at a meeting with White House political guru David Axelrod in April and have only grown more acute since that time.”
“Sixty percent favor repeal of ObamaCare, as do 56% of independents. Fifty-nine percent favor passage of an immigration-enforcement law in Indiana modeled on Arizona’s, and half of independents agree (while only 31% disagree).”
As elected Dimocratic officials wake up to the knives coming at their backs at the hand of Obama, the most obsequious of servants, Greg Sargent, raises a crucial question for Obama Dimocrats – “How do you make Dems care about the midterms?“:
“The thinking among Dem strategists appears to be that once Dems realize the midterms are a “choice” election, rather than merely a referendum on Dems, they’ll go out and vote. But what if Dems do see this as a referendum on their party’s rule, and base their enthusiasm solely on whether they are energized by the Dem performance?
The thing about Gibbs’s “shocking” declaration is that the White House and Democrats have been engaged in a full-blown effort for weeks now to persuade voters that the midterm elections could represent a return to GOP rule.
The White House and Dems have made this case every which way: They’ve charged that Republicans will again rule as stooges of Big Oil and Wall Street. They’ve claimed that Republicans will rain a blizzard of subpoenas on the White House if they take control of Congress. They’ve framed the elections as a choice between the policies that got us into this mess and those that are getting us out of it. And so forth.
Yet rank and file Dems don’t appear to care that much. The latest polling shows that the “enthusiasm gap” remains the same, with Republicans far more excited about voting than Dems are. In other words, Dem scaremongering about the GOP takeover doesn’t yet appear to be revving up Dems to turn out this fall. [snip]
How do you make rank and file Dems care about the midterms? It’s unclear that yelling about how mean and nasty Republicans are is going to cut it.”
Obama Dimocrats are in for a deserved beating due to their arrogance and stupidity. These fools actually believed Obama when he declared himself lovable and a savior unto them in 2010 such that 1994 would not repeat itself. But Obama always was a clownish figure. Big Media coverage which praised his bad campaign as “brilliant” and savaged Hillary Clinton and John McCain’s campaign as evil and incompetent is unable to hide the turd any longer.
“Candidate Obama used to joke about rays of sunshine coming in when he started to speak. Now he brings the clouds. He’s spent a great deal of time talking about the Recovery Act and health care reform, but the political fortunes of those programs are dismal, which suggests his ability to persuade and change minds is seriously damaged.”
Why the great awakening among the most avid Obama acolytes? It’s called reality. Reality is starting to bite and even the most Obama smitten see the irresponsibility at the core of the boy raised by wolves:
“President Barack Obama has long boasted about the transformative change he’s bringing to the country.
But by the time those reforms finally arrive, he could be long gone from the White House.
Some of Obama’s biggest promises won’t go into effect until long after his first term — and in some cases, well past a second. In fact, buried deep within some of the Democrats’ most significant reform bills are dozens of policy time bombs set to blow at more politically convenient times.
The Democratic reform triumvirate — health care, Wall Street and energy — is filled with provisions designed to front-load policy benefits and delay political pain.
Health care reform cracks down on insurers right away but won’t force people to buy insurance until 2014. A new consumer financial protection agency kicks in almost immediately under the Wall Street reform bill, but banks won’t feel its full force for more than 10 years. And even Democrats’ nascent immigration reforms include at least an eight-year wait before illegal immigrants can apply for permanent residency — after Obama leaves office.
The delicate balance aims to gradually get a skittish public accustomed to the enormous changes, while insulating lawmakers from potential backlash.”
The myriad Obama scams help Americans to realize more than ever that Obama cannot be trusted. Even his own aides know Obama has a “credibility crisis”:
“Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama’s chief spokesman, got into hot water this week for daring to speak the truth – that the Democrats could lose control of the House of Representatives in November. But it could be even worse than that.
Contrary to pretty much every projection until now, Democratic control of the Senate is also starting to coming into question. While Mr Obama’s approval ratings have continued to fall, and now hover at dangerously close to 40 per cent according an ABC-Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, the fate of his former colleagues in the Senate looks even worse.[snip]
“If you ask me where the silver lining is for President Obama, I have to say I cannot see one,” says Bill Galston, a former Clinton official, who has been predicting for months the Democrats could lose the House. “Just as BP’s failure to cap the well has been so damaging, Obama’s failure to cap unemployment will be his undoing. There is nothing he can do to affect the jobless rate before November.” [snip]
“The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership,” says Rob Shapiro, another former Clinton official and a supporter of Mr Obama. [snip]
In private, informal advisors to Mr Obama are almost as negative. According to one, the US public’s loss of confidence in Mr Obama’s leadership is a factor above and beyond their dissatisfaction over the state of the real economy, which continues to slow as last year’s $787bn stimulus starts to run dry. The adviser, who asked to remain anonymous, said the public did not know what Mr Obama really believed. [snip]
“I never thought I would say this, but even I’m unsure what President Obama really believes,” says the adviser.”
“Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy.”
“Economists have declared the economic recession over largely over, but most Americans don’t share their optimism, and they are increasingly blaming President Obama for their money woes.
Mr. Obama’s approval rating on the economy has tumbled five percentage points from last month, according to a new CBS News poll, with just 40 percent of those polled expressing full confidence in his actions.
More than half of those questioned (54 percent) said they disapproved of Mr. Obama’s handling of the economy. Last month, 45 percent approved. The drop in approval has been seen mostly among independents, just 35 percent of whom now say they approve.”
Obama now owns the bad economy, or rather, the bad economy now owns Obama. Everywhere you look it’s bad news, bad economy, bad results for the boy raised by wolves:
“He has been trying to sell the success of his stimulus legislation for months in speeches, interviews, and events all over the country. In the CBS poll, only 23 percent think it has helped the economy. Only 13 percent think it has helped them personally. Despite all of his efforts, people are either ignoring him or tuning him out—or they can’t hear him over the bad economic news. Whatever the reason, the best argument Obama has for how he and Democrats have addressed the issue people care the most about is one that people aren’t buying.
The situation on health care is worse. There have been some signs that public opinion about health care was improving a little, but the Pew and CBS polls offer a darker outlook. Forty-nine percent disapprove of the new legislation, according to the CBS poll, and only 36 percent approve. Pew has nearly identical numbers.
This is not the way the president said things would turn out last March….”
“Let’s also take a look at the latest poll from Democratic polling firm Democracy Corps. They allowed people who disapproved of the President (50%, in their poll) to give an open-ended response as to why they disapproved of the President, and created a word cloud for the responses:[snip]
As you can see, health care overwhelms the economy in these responses, and policy-driven answers such as “spending,” “oil spill,” and “everything” are about as salient as “economy.” Indeed, on page 22 of the survey, the top reasons given for disapproving of the President were fiscal irresponsibility, health care, and the oil spill. More respondents expressed concern that the President was a socialist/communist (8%) than were upset about jobs and unemployment (6%).”
“I believe that the NAACP is making a grave mistake in stereotyping a diverse group of Americans who care deeply about their country and who contribute their time, energy and resources to make a difference. [snip]
The only purpose of such an unfair accusation of racism is to dissuade good Americans from joining the Tea Party movement or listening to the common sense message of Tea Party Americans who simply want government to abide by our Constitution, live within its means, and not borrow and spend away our children’s futures. Red and yellow, black and white, this message is precious in all our sights. All decent Americans abhor racism. No one wants to be associated with any organization that is in any way racist in sentiment or origin. I certainly don’t want to be. Thankfully, the Tea Party movement is not racist or motivated by racism. It is motivated by love of country and all that is good and honest about our proud and diverse nation.”
The only new twist to the race-baiting is that Latinos are being added to the mix. Barack Obama will try to use Latinos and the Arizona law on illegal immigrants to dupe white liberal Hopium Guzzlers, the mostly easier to dupe young, and assorted Big Blog Idiot Boys. But the “screw then re-use Latinos” strategy will not work:
“Obama was elected into office on the promise that he would tackle immigration in 2009. He decided, however, to give priority to health care reform, financial regulatory reform and energy legislation. As recently as two months ago, on Air Force One, just as Senate leaders were announcing a new push on immigration reform, the President was caught in a moment of candor. “We’ve gone through a very tough year and I’ve been working Congress very hard, so I know there may not be an appetite immediately to dive into another controversial issue,” he said of immigration reform.
“That pretty much killed chances of reform [this year],” says Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of America’s Voice, a group that supports comprehensive reform. “Unless there is some miracle, we are talking about early next year.”
Around the same time as Obama’s Air Force One comment, the Gallup poll noted a significant drop in Hispanic support for the President, a major concern for White House political advisers who need Hispanic votes in 2010 and ‘12 in swing states like Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Gallup measured a 6-point drop in Hispanic job approval, from 63% to 57% between April and May. The drop was 11 points among Hispanics who were interviewed by Gallup in Spanish. During the same period, Gallup noted no change in the job approval for Obama among non-Hispanic black or white voters.”
Latinos are not stupid. They know Obama promised to “tackle immigration in 2009″ and it was just a lie. Now in 2010 Obama is trying to bamboozle Latinos. But Latinos are not stupid. Latinos know they are being played by a master flim-flam man from Chicago. And in either case there is a mistaken assumption that Latinos will base their votes on illegal immigration:
“First, there’s an assumption underlying much of the Arizona analysis that Hispanics will base their votes on the immigration issue as uniformly as African American voters have historically based their votes with regard to civil rights. This seems unlikely. The exit polls suggest that as many as one-in-three Hispanic voters have voted directly contrary to their supposed interests on questions of ethnicity and immigration.
The second takeaway is on a touchier subject, but it is nevertheless important. Analysts assume that a Democratic coalition of Asians, African Americans, Hispanics and liberal whites would be a stable governing coalition supporting a liberal/progressive agenda. But building a political coalition is like pushing on a water balloon – you press in one area, and another area bulges. Sometimes the whole thing will explode.
The history of multi-ethnic coalitions is replete with examples of such explosions. [snip]
In the case of California in the 1990s, note that Asians and African Americans supported Prop 187 at substantially higher rates than did Hispanics, and that Asians were more supportive of Prop 209.”
The main lesson to draw from the Obama race-baiting tactics using Latinos as his cats paw is that this is a strategy designed to help Obama in 2012 by testing themes and tactics in 2010. Obama helps himself but hurts Dimocrats in 2010:
“The Obama administration’s lawsuit over the stringent Arizona border law might have just made the incline a little steeper for many Western Democrats, providing instant fodder to Republicans who are already optimistic about regaining ground lost over the last two election cycles.
The dust from the Department of Justice lawsuit filed Tuesday is just starting to settle, but the reflexive sense among strategists on both sides is that it will be a net negative for Democrats this fall.
The suit could, of course, help boost turnout among Hispanic voters in key areas across the West. And stridently anti-immigrant rhetoric could turn off independent voters. Yet many foresee a midterm electorate featuring an energized Republican base—for whom the immigration issue has emerged as a priority—prompting moderate white Western voters who are concerned about jobs to decamp to the GOP at least in the short term, political observers said.
“This is a tough issue for Democrats,” said former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm, a Democrat who is co-director of the Institute for Public Policy Studies at the University of Denver. “Politically, I just can’t think of any place in the West where this is going to play well.”
“If you look like you’re siding with illegal immigration, you’re in trouble,” said one national Republican strategist, adding that when it comes to the discussion of secured borders, “people think that’s what should happen.”
“While the suit could prove helpful to President Barack Obama by revving up his own base in 2012 – and, by extension, prove harmful to Republicans that year because they risk offending a key and growing segment of the electorate—the near-term impact is a different matter.[snip]
Wes Gullett, an Arizona political strategist and a former long-time aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), said the lawsuit was “manna from heaven” for Republicans.
“Obviously, the White House is tone deaf on Western politics,” said Gullett, who noted he personally opposes the law. “While a lot of people wish that our law wouldn’t go into effect, for the administration to sue on this is crazy. It is just a complete political loser.”
Republicans have failed in recent years to turn the anger towards illegal immigration into a winning election issue, Lamm said, but this year could be different.
“This is an issue that is boiling and it is not one that is going to be a happy outcome for Democrats,” said Lamm, who favors tougher immigration and border enforcement policies.”
“Both sides of the issue are well-aware that, in every survey since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the bill into law, voters have shown support for the measure, which greatly complicates the situation for Democrats. Now, at a minimum, they’ll spend what should be a relatively sleepy stretch of summer months defending themselves on a wedge issue.
A May national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found 73 percent of Americans support requiring people to produce papers verifying their legal status if police ask for them.
In Colorado, home to a competitive Senate and gubernatorial race this fall and several vulnerable House Democrats, a Denver Post/9News Poll conducted last month showed even 62 percent of Colorado Hispanic voters – roughly the same percentage as white voters (61 percent) — would favor their state implementing a law similar to the one in Arizona.”
Latinos are not stupid. Latinos do not necessarily support illegal immigration just because it is supposed to be, according to Big Media, what Latinos are supposed to do. It is soft bigotry which presupposes Latinos support illegal immigration from Mexico or anywhere else.
The Dimocratic governors are aware that Obama only cares about his 2012 worries and not about them:
“In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.
While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.
At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.
“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”
He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”
Independent voters are sick and tired of Obama and his dim-witted Dimocrats. The Obama race-baiting on Tea Parties and Latinos is a tactic to red-flag Dimocratic voters to vote.
Latinos are not going to be fooled. Recently another Obama Big Media ally race-baited over the possibility that in the next U.S. Senate there will be zero African-Americans.
“In modern times, four African Americans – Edward Brooke (1967-79) of Massachusetts, Carol Mosley Braun of Illinois (1993-99), Barack Obama (2005-08) of Illinois, and Roland Burris (2009-10) of Illinois – have served, and each has been the lone African-American Senator serving at that point. Braun, Obama and Burris all held the same seat, with Braun winning it during the “Year of the Woman” in 1992, Obama winning it in 2004 before winning the Presidency in 2008, and Burris now holding it as an appointed Senator who will not run for re-election.[snip]
Will the Senate return to its usual lily-white state (it has been segregated longer than it has had an African-American presence) after the 2010 election? That depends on whether Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.) is able to prevail in his Florida primary on August 24. While former President Bill Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden have held fundraisers for Meek, Meek is not the frontrunner in his primary. [snip]
If Meek can’t pull this one off, the United States Senate will become, again, a segregated body. So much for post-racial America.“
The Obama loving, Hopium Guzzling, African-American writer (Julianne Malveaux) of the above article clearly does not believe that Latino Marco Rubio winning the Senate seat would NOT be a plus for “post-racial America”.According to the race-baiters unless your African-American candidate wins then racism has triumphed. Latinos need not apply for these race-baiters. And isn’t it ironic that “racist” Bill Clinton is one of the few doing anything to help the hapless Meeks?
With 74% support for the Arizona law on illegal immigration Obama’s Latino rehearsal for 2012 will not go well. Obama Dimocrats will pay for Obama’s self-centered rehearsals in the here and now elections of 2010. Obama Dimocrats are learning that Obama cannot be trusted by friend nor foe. He simply cannot be trusted.
As the NObama Coalition flourishes with additional millions of bitter, clingy, Americans, Obama’s treacheries are also surging.
On this Bastille Day, we celebrate Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. But we look forward to November when the guillotine will rend it’s justice at the polls.
Born into slavery as one of the youngest of thirteen children of James and Elizabeth in Ulster County, New York, in 1797, Sojourner Truth’s given name was Isabella Baumfree. As almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners, some of her earliest memories were of her parents’ stories of the cruel loss of their other children. [snip]
In 1843, she changed her name to Sojourner Truth – her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth – and left New York. She traveled throughout New England, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglass. Her life story, The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave, written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850.
While traveling and speaking in states across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women’s rights.
In 1851, she addressed the Women’s Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The applause she received that day has been described as “deafening.” From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. She became one of the nineteenth century’s most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women’s rights.
Because we want to share our ideas and experiences, our common goals, and nonpartisan solutions to the challenges that we face - and there are no limits to what we can achieve when we do.
And because we want to keep working for a better future for every child, from every family – a world in which no limits is not just our goal, but a reality!
NoLimits.org will "keep you up to date with news about issues on which Hillary took a lead and we know you care so much about," group President Ann Lewis said in an e-mail to as many as 2 million people culled from the Clinton campaign database.
Because No Limits is a registered nonprofit, "it cannot do anything political. It has to be nonpartisan," said Lewis, a longtime senior adviser to Clinton.
In Clinton's job as secretary of state for President Obama, her political dealings are highly restricted.
For example, she shut down her political action committee.
Some, like Democratic consultant and former Bill Clinton aide Chris Lehane, dismiss talk that the group could be a springboard for Clinton to try again for the White House in, say, 2016.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Lehane said. "I think this is just [a] group of folks who developed relationships in an intense [electoral] environment and want to stay together."
But the University of Virginia's Larry Sabato countered: "Whenever a group like this says it's not a political organization, you just know it is."
"Maybe [this] is Hillary's answer to Obama's new 'change' group that controls his golden mailing list. Maybe it's a way for Secretary of State Clinton to mobilize backing for her objectives at the State Department," he said. "And maybe [it's] a standby committee of supporters in case Hillary decides to get back into elective politics."
Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf said NoLimits.org is "one way to make sure that she - and/or the former President - still have political leverage."
Hillary World-Wide January 26, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers. Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton met today at the State Department with fourteen prominent Afghan women judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. These jurists were in Washington to participate in a training program arranged by the Department’s Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan. Secretary Clinton told them: "Your American friends greatly admire your bravery and courage. It is your work in the tough environment of Afghanistan for women lawyers that will bring real reform and the rule of law to the Afghan people. As President Obama made clear yesterday in his first foreign policy announcement, we are committed to supporting your efforts to bring security and stability to your country."
