Update: Why did Barack Obama stage a briefing just now? There were no questions. The little news provided could have been transmitted in a Twitter tweet. So why did Obama make an on-camera announcement? Is it just the usual Barack Obama publicity stunt staged for his daily fix of celebrity? More likely this announcement means: V-A-C-A-T-I-O-N. As usual before he goes on vacation Barack Obama does some very public pretend work at the departure point and the destination point then it is snooze, snooze, snooze. This will be the third Obama vacation this year. It’s early March. One vacation a month. The message is sent to all the world about what Obama considers important. Strong leader Vladimir Putin is busy at work.
Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. We began writing that in 2007. In 2009, in an article that should be read in its entirety because it is especially relevant these days, we summarized the many reasons and focused on an especially important one to demonstrate why Barack Obama is not qualified to be president:
“ Barack Obama is not qualified to be President because he does not have a world-view which is congruent with reality.
Winston Churchill was in the political wilderness for many years. Churchill’s world view was not viewed positively and few wanted to have much to do with the cigar chomping Winny. Churchill thought that Germany, at the heart of Europe and with many resources and people was a threat to Great Britain, and the peace of Europe. Many labeled Churchill a warmonger and shunned him. Churchill however stood firm. His knowledge of history and geography informed him that Germany was indeed a threat and he held fast to that understanding even though many ostracized him for it. The appeasement of other British leaders and the military actions of Germany eventually forced the world to acknowledge that Winston Churchill’s world view was the one most consistent with reality. Churchill became Prime Minister, then led the Western democracies and Christian civilization itself, from the abyss of despair into victory.
To be an American president means having a world view. Hillary Clinton has a world-view. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama in her insightful “celestial choirs” speech. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama about his foolish “no preconditions, in the first year, anywhere, anytime” meetings with America’s enemies. Hillary Clinton mocked Obama as “naive”. Hillary Clinton was saying that Obama did not know or understand how the world works. Hillary Clinton was saying that Obama’s world view was not congruent with reality. Hillary Clinton has been proved right.
Today, Leslie Gelb begins a very polite and gentle narrative, saying pretty much that Obama better get a reality based world-view, quickly or we all face continued disaster with a boob in charge.”
[As to our Hillary references in that 2009 article, we'll explain and we'll address Hillary Clinton's opening moves to distance herself from Obama foreign policy and ObamaCare very very soon but for now we will only state that she is saying what Barack Obama won't say which is what we think needs to be said about Ukraine. Yes, she mentioned "Hitler". It would be powerful and help Hillary Clinton 2016 if she would do as we suggest and travel to Europe and rally the West against totalitarianism. But for now we will have to content ourselves with her comments placing Putin's actions in historical context. ]
It’s taken years but more and more voices are now joining in agreement with what we wrote in 2009. One person who won’t learn is Bill O’Reilly who blames everyone (in this case NATO) but Obama and shifts the blame away from Obama almost as adroitly as Obama himself. Bill O’Reilly has persisted in his defense of Obama as a good man with good intentions despite all evidence to the contrary. Fortunately Charles Krauthammer has been aware of the malevolence of Barack Obama’s actions. On Tuesday night, O’Reilly discussed Obama Boobery in Ukraine with Krauthammer and Krauthammer schooled O”Reilly on Obama:
“Putin knows the west is weak and that Obama likely will not be able to rally Europe against Russia. O’Reilly said that NATO — which is supposed to be the bulwark against Russian oppression — is powerless because Europe does not confront illegal international behavior.
“I hate to use the cliché, but the Ukraine situation – same old, same old. And Putin knows it,” he said.
Charles Krauthammer was on “The Factor” to respond to O’Reilly’s Talking Points Memo.
“Obama’s a little bit late at rallying anybody against anybody,” Krauthammer said. He explained that the first thing Obama did when he took office was that he announced the “reset,” reversing sanctions against Russia for its 2008 invasion of Georgia. Then, Krauthammer said Obama canceled a missile defense agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic.
“Putin looks at this guy and says, ‘I’m dealing with an adolescent,’” Krauthammer said of Obama.”
“Each step to the present Ukrainian predicament was in and of itself hardly earth-shattering and was sort of framed by Obama’s open-mic assurance to Medvedev to tell Vladimir that he would more flexible after the election.
Indeed, Obama, as is his wont, always had mellifluous and sophistic arguments for why we had to take every soldier out of Iraq after the successful surge; why we needed to drop missile defense with the Poles and Czechs; why we needed both a surge and simultaneous deadline to end the surge in Afghanistan; why we first issued serial deadlines to Iran to ask them to please stop proliferation, then just quit the sanctions altogether just as they started to work; why we needed to “lead from behind” in Libya; why the Muslim Brotherhood was largely secular and legitimate and then later not so much so; why we issued redlines and bragged about Putin’s “help” to eliminate WMD in Syria, and were going to bomb and then not bomb and then maybe bomb; why we kept pressuring Israel; why we cozied up to an increasingly dictatorial Turkey; why we reached out to Cuba and Venezuela; and why we sometimes embarrassed old allies like Britain, Canada, and Israel.
Amid such a landscape of deadlines begetting redlines begetting step-over lines always came the unfortunate pontificating — the Cairo mytho-history speech, the adolescent so-called apology tour, the sermon about “exceptionalism” — and also the dressing down delivered to a mute Obama by a pompous Daniel Ortega, the bows and hugs, and Obama’s constant apologies for past American sins. Again all this was trivial — and yet in aggregate not so trivial for the lidless eye of a Putin.
Amid both the deeds and the facts came the serial $1 trillion annual deficits, the surge in borrowing for redistributionist payouts, the monetary expansion and zero-interest rates, and finally the vast cuts in the military budget, all of which fleshed out the caricature of a newly isolationist and self-indulgent America, eager to talk, bluster, or threaten its way out of its traditional postwar leadership role.”
In short: when you act like a doormat, don’t be surprised when people walk all over you. When you re-elect a boob, expect more boobery.
The West and its values are in peril. From Obama and our foreign policy elites there is distilled, pure, stupidity. After Vladimir Putin spoke from a chair as if it was a throne Barack Obama “brains” proved how brain-dead they are. These dolts thought Putin had “blinked”. Yup, they thought Putin had blinked. That is how stupid Barack Obama and his sycophants are:
“CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is astonishing. On the one hand they’re unable to — our people, our leaders — to muster anything that the Europeans will join that will hurt Putin. And on the other hand, you’re telling us that they are thinking that Putin thinks he made a mistake, did make a mistake and is looking for an off-ramp. And our real job is not to slap on sanctions or to push him out of Crimea, but to allow him some kind of diplomatic exit that will save face.
It’s in tandem with what he said about it being a sign of weakness on the part of the Russians.
BRET BAIER: But are they interpreting his news conference as some kind of blink, as something like saying, I didn’t send forces, and he’s sending the signal that he’s stepping back?
KRAUTHAMMER: That’s not a blink; that’s a KGB agent lying through his teeth, which is what they train to do for all of their lives. I mean, when Hitler went into Sudetenland, he claimed it was in response to a desire on the part of the population. This is what all dictators do. The idea that somehow it’s a blink because he’s waiting to see if he wants to take the rest of Ukraine, and that’s a sign of weakness, I think is delusional.”
Delusional? Weak? Or Malevolent? It all adds up to the same thing: Barack Obama is not qualified to be president.
We’ve made the Sudetenland argument previously. Today Hillary Clinton doubled down on her critique from yesterday. It seems we are all in agreement.
“Enough With the Cliches Already
The Obama administration’s rhetoric on Russia is accomplishing nothing
Everyone’s giving President Obama advice about how to handle Vladimir Putin’s adventure into the Crimea. But I want to issue a broader critique, because there’s something that he and his people will need to do to be more effective in this case and in future foreign policy crises: They’ll need to change their rhetoric.
In talking about Putin, as when trying to express disapproval towards other world leaders in the past, administration officials have resorted to language that comes across as either patronizing or out of touch. Let’s examine a couple of the administration’s favorite rhetorical tropes.
1. They are not acting in their own interest. They are only harming themselves.
Secretary of State John Kerry was all over the airwaves this weekend with versions of this line. “He is not going to gain by this,” Kerry told David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” “Russia is going to lose. The Russian people are going to lose.”
Over the years, Obama and his aides have offered similar versions of this line in talking about other foreign leaders who had done or were about to do something of which the administration disapproved: in Syria, for example, or Egypt or Qaddafi’s Libya. And guess what? It’s a useless line of attack. Putin makes his own calculations of what is in his interest. [snip]
2. They’re displaying nineteenth century behavior. They need to join the twenty-first century.
The administration loves to brand actions it doesn’t like as relics of the past. “It’s really nineteenth century behavior in the twenty-first century,” Kerry said of Putin’s Crimean gambit. A senior administration official who sounded like either National Security Advisor Susan Rice or Ben Rhodes told reporters on background, “What we see here are distinctly nineteenth- and twenty-first century decisions made by President Putin to address problems.”
Well, to start with, by definition Putin’s decisions are taking place in the twenty-first century. The administration here seems to be using the centuries like a teacher handing out a grade: twenty-first century is an A, twentieth century is a C, nineteenth century is an F. More importantly, talking this way raises an uncomfortable question: Does the reality of the twenty-first century conform to what Obama administration officials think it is? [snip]
3. They need to understand ideas like interdependence and win-win solutions. This is not a zero-sum game.
The same senior official told reporters that Putin “needs to understand that, in terms of his economy, he lives in … an interdependent world.” This is one of the core concepts in the worldview of the Obamians, dating back to the earliest days of the 2008 presidential campaign, when Rice and Rhodes were trying to put words on what Obama believed as opposed to, say, Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush or John McCain. Then and ever since, the Obama team has repeatedly invoked the concept of interdependence – and, in a related fashion, has claimed that it is outmoded to believe that in modern-day foreign policy conflicts, there can be winners and losers.
The main problem is that “interdependence” is just a buzzword, not a prescription for policy. Putin understands the concept of interdependence as well as anyone in Washington—he’s just applying the facts in a different way. He knows, for example, that Ukraine and much of Western Europe are dependent on natural gas from Russia, and that this fact impinges on their calculations.
It would much be so much better for the Obama administration to leave the grand rhetoric aside. Instead, it should invoke democratic ideals, condemn what Putin has done, then shut up. Silence has its own strategic power, and the actions of America and its allies can speak for themselves.
To summarize James Mann: Obama’s world view is not congruent with reality.
“As Russian President Vladimir Putin deploys his military forces to Ukraine, the Obama administration continues to wonder just what the benighted dictator is thinking. Understanding that the best strategy for countering military action is undoubtedly faculty lounge-style condescension, the Obama administration has responded with its full array of resources: scorn, sneering, and bemusement.
On Monday, President Obama announced that Russia was “on the wrong side of history,” adding that the actions of the Kremlin violate international law. His Secretary of State, John Kerry, stated on Sunday, “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country.” National Security Advisor Susan Rice stated, “It’s in nobody’s interest to see violence return and the situation escalate.” When questioned by NBC’s David Gregory whether Putin might in fact see the global situation in a “Cold War context,” Rice shot back, “He may, but if he does, that’s a pretty dated perspective.” To prove just how dated that perspective was, the United States announced on Monday that it would not be sending a presidential delegation to the Paralympics in Sochi, a move that will undoubtedly give Putin the chills.
Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign promises of “no preconditions” have come home to roost. Barack Obama followed his “no preconditions” naivete with apology tours and surrender to the Russians on a Czech Republica and Poland missile shield. Then came weak bended knee kow-tows to North Korea, any and all Muslim radical regime, and any rogue who rattled a sabre. After reelection, while in of all places Berlin, Barack Obama chose to UNILATERALLY, with NO PRECONDITIONS, no negotiations cut American nuclear weapons:
President Barack Obama this week ordered new limits on the use of U.S. nuclear weapons and called for sharp warhead cuts in a speech in Berlin aimed at what he called achieving “peace with justice.”
“Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons, no matter how distant that dream may be,” Obama said on the eastern Berlin side of the Brandenburg Gate.
“And so as president, I’ve strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and reduce the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.”
Obama announced that, after reviewing U.S. nuclear doctrine, “I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.”
The Ukraine can see Barack Obama’s “peace with justice” at work. UN envoys can see Obama’s “peace with justice” at work.
Putin did not even need to ask Obama. Obama surrendered, without any negotiations, without getting anything in return, exactly what Putin wanted. In that same rainy day Berlin speech Barack Obama proclaimed climate change as “the global threat of our time”. Putin, a strong Russian leader who will fight for his nation’s interests, fully aware of Russian cheating on nuclear agreements, must have laughed and laughed. Putin saw Obama did not give a damn about America. Putin saw Obama is only interested in his own cruddy “brand”.
On that rainy Berlin day, Vladimir Putin knew Obama was not qualified to be president. We knew that a long time ago.
Update: Obama took a few minutes off from threatening Israel today to lazily fling platitudes from his comfy chair. Obama to Putin: You’re on the wrong side of history, buddy. Wow, that’s telling them. Nothing at all like what we recommend should be done if we had an American president with strong belief in American and Western values. As we ask at the end will any 2016 wannabee president take up the real world challenge?
If we had an American president with belief in American values and willing to fight for those values, instead of a president only concerned with his stinking “brand”, the Ukraine crisis could be easily turned into a Churchillian moment in Western history. The occupant of the White House is at best a man-child naïf or, as we increasingly believe, a malevolent subversive whose every action is designed to weaken the west and destroy American leadership. This vulgar instrument of destruction is protected by a Big Media establishment and deluded “liberal” elites that seek to rationalize as wise every stupidity or malevolent act inflicted by Barack Obama.
When American allies are in trouble Barack Obama will scream and shout for their removal such as in Egypt with Mubarak. Barack Obama deposed of American ally Mubarak in order to birth the Muslim Brotherhood control of Egypt. When the Muslim Brotherhood proved to be worse than Mubarak Obama remained silent and protected the Morsi Muslim Brotherhood. In Venezuela, the people rise up against an American enemy – Barack Obama remains silent. In Ukraine the Evil Empire blueprints for return are put into action and from Obama the usual usual.
What can be done in Ukraine? The United States has a mighty nuclear arsenal, a still powerful armed force, an economy that dwarfs the former Soviets. Military action? No, Ukraine is not an American vital national interest so no military action is warranted. But the attack on Ukraine by the former Evil Empire must be beaten back. Barack Obama sycophants at the New York Times, Big Media, wan foreign policy elites, and DailyKook hangouts would have us all believe that nothing can be done because we should not use military force and that is the end of that. We disagree.
What would an American president with deep belief in American values do?
For those who are so cynical as to believe that listing the actions that should be taken by an American president who believes in American values are a waste of time we reply that because such an American president does not at this moment exist there is still the opportunity for someone else to rise up and place on her shoulders the mantle of leadership.Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, someone who wants to lead America and the free world can and should do as we suggest. It’s the challenge of leadership.
An American president at this time who believes in American values and the values of the Christian West would leap to action. The first symbolic action of such a president would be to recall the ejected bust of Winston Churchill and place it back in a place of honor on the desk in the Oval Office.
Next, such an American president would, alongside Mitt Romney fly to the German capital of Berlin and with Lech Walensa at his side address the peoples of Europe, the West, and the world. To a candid world, in words of brutal truth, such a president would place the attack on Ukraine in historic context. “Ich bin ein Ukrainer” would echo from JFK. “Mr. Putin we forced Mr. Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall’” and Reagan could for a second be remembered. But more than that, an American president with American values would place the crisis in Ukraine in the context of the West and the long fight for freedom and self-determination of nations.
An American president with granite belief in American values would remind the world that people and nations run TO the west and FROM totalitarian regimes.
An American president with American values would remind the world that the crime of the Ukraine in the eyes of the Evil Empire redux is the preference for the values and freedom and economic hope provided by the West. An American president with American values would remind the world that there was a time when half a continent was called the “captive nations”. An American president with American values would remind the world that evil will not live forever and that even though the Hungarian revolution was crushed by the Evil Empire, tens of thousands killed, freedom came to Hungary and it is free today after a long twilight struggle between the West and the totalitarians.
An American president with American values would, with Lech Walensa at his side, remind the world that the workers of Poland defied the totalitarian ideology that hid behind slogans such as “workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.” An American president with American values would rejoice in public that the workers of Poland united and did lose their chains. The Evil Empire threatened to snuff Walensa and his Solidarity movement but instead it was the solidarity of the West that snuffed out the Evil Empire.
An American president with American values would, with Lech Walensa, Mitt Romney, and freedom fighters who united to defeat the Evil Empire, go from European capital to European capital to denounce totalitarianism and defend the values of the West. An American president with American values would not only denounce the totalitarian evil of the former Soviet being reborn in the new Russia but such a president would also denounce the totalitarian theocracies of the Muslim world. An American president with American values would defend the West and the value of the West in Spain, England, France, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and yes even in Lithuania and the other Baltic states.
At the Academy Awards on Sunday, it was Jared Leto, an actor, who took on his shoulders the responsibilities of what ordinarily would be the job of an American president if such president treasured American values. Leto expressed solidarity with the people of Venezuela and Ukraine:
“To all of the dreamers out there around the world watching this tonight, in places like the Ukraine and Venezuela, I want to say, ‘we are here,’” he said. “As you struggle to make your dreams happen, to live the impossible, we’re thinking of you tonight.”
There are many who believe that America should say nothing or do nothing about the attack on Ukraine by the revanchist Russian imperialists. But that is uneducated foolishness. It was the United States that led Ukraine to surrender in good faith its nuclear weapons in exchange for promises of American/British protection in the Budapest Accords signed by President Bill Clinton. If Ukraine is allowed to be slaughtered by the West this will send a message to totalitarians in Tehran and elsewhere to get nuclear weapons and not surrender them under any circumstance. Indeed this would lead to a real domino effect as Gulf oil regimes will also go nuclear in response to Tehran’s atomic achievements – which would lead to more and more proliferation of nuclear weaponry. Eventually, like a schoolhouse of children given matches, a nuclear fire would eventually ignite. Add an American president who rejects American values and the West in preference to attacks on Israel and the danger ratchets up.
Additional consideration for those that want no strong American/Western response to the Russian attack on Ukraine is the historical fact that appeasement and in Bob Dylan’s “blowing in the wind” phraseology, pretending not to see, only leads to further acts of evil. The Russian bear will not stop at devouring Crimea as it already has. The Russian bear will extend it’s claws against all of Ukraine. The Baltic states will later be swallowed whole or intimidated into a latter day Soviet style union. Europe, with its great reliance on Russian fossil fuels will be blackmailed into subservience. The bear won’t stop eating after taking a small bite of a toe. Bears and totalitarians want it all.
FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which“the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.” [snip]
Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power. [snip]
The White House often responds by accusing critics of being warmongers who want American “boots on the ground” all over the world and have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq. So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea. A great power can become overextended, and if its economy falters, so will its ability to lead. None of this is simple.
But it’s also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.
As Mr. Putin ponders whether to advance further — into eastern Ukraine, say — he will measure the seriousness of U.S. and allied actions, not their statements. China, pondering its next steps in the East China Sea, will do the same. Sadly, that’s the nature of the century we’re living in.”
An American president with belief in American values would thunder Churchillian rage against the rape of Ukraine. After reminding the West of its values and the need to be resolute there are other steps to be taken:
“Kick Russia out of the G-8″; isolate Russia from “Western banking and finance networks”; and:
“3) Void the visas
As Putin looks inward, the country’s elite is looking outward. They have become significant players on the world stage, making high-profile investments, including in professional sports franchises in the United States and England. Their children attend U.S. and European universities.
Unlike being evicted from the G-8, a travel ban would impact Putin’s wealthiest supporters who have grown used to open access to the West.
“A lot of Russians are used to traveling in the West, having investments in the West, sending their kids to school in the West,” Talbott said. “Insofar as Putin is creating not just the impression, but the fact, that he’s taking Russian behavior back to the pattern of the Soviet Union, that is going to make a lot of Russians very, very uneasy,” Talbott said.”
First, President Obama should speak unequivocally and call this what it is: a military invasion. The Obama administration must publicly acknowledge that its “reset” with Russia is dead. The president must now accept that the only way to deal with tyrants like Vladimir Putin is with a clear understanding that they can’t be trusted and that only decisive action will deter their provocative moves.
Second, President Obama should dispatch Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Kiev to show U.S. support for Ukraine’s transitional government, and urge our allies in the European Union and NATO to send representatives there as well. [snip]
Third, the United States should rally our allies to boycott this June’s G-8 summit in Sochi, Russia. And if Russian troops do not leave Ukraine immediately, Russia should be expelled from this group altogether.
Fourth, any and all discussions and negotiations with Moscow on any issue unrelated to this crisis, including trade and other matters, should be immediately suspended.
Fifth, the U.S. and our allies should put forward a condemnatory resolution in the United Nations Security Council. A Russian or Chinese veto would make clear to the world the hypocrisy of these governments, since they say they oppose foreign intervention into the affairs of sovereign countries—unless of course they are the ones intervening.
Sixth, we should renew a push for eventual membership in NATO by the Republic of Georgia and aim to provide the country with some of the defensive capabilities the Georgians have requested ever since they were invaded by Russia in 2008.
Seventh, the Obama administration should immediately add more Russian officials to the Magnitsky list, which places travel bans and other sanctions on them – something President Obama failed to do in December. [snip]
Finally, in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid should immediately halt his effort to force a Senate vote on Rose Gottemoeller next week to be under secretary of state for arms control and international security. As I, Sens. John Cornyn and Jim Risch said yesterday, we shouldn’t even be thinking about arms-control negotiations with Russia anytime soon. And especially not negotiations led by a State Department official, such as Ms. Gottemoeller, who has tried to play down and potentially kept information from Congress and our allies about Russian violations of arms-control agreements.
This is a critical moment in world history. The credibility of the alliances and security assurances that have preserved the international order is at stake. If Putin’s illegal actions are allowed to stand unpunished, it will usher in a dark and dangerous era in world affairs.
We strongly urge Senator Rubio to do all the above that an American president with American values would do. Senator Rubio won’t get as much attention as an American president but it would demonstrate leadership and presidential potential. Likewise, we urge Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul to do the same. We urge Mitt Romney, whom we praised when he met with Lech Walensa, to do the same. Governor Christie and Governor Walker can bolster their foreign policy credentials by do the same. Former Governor Jeb Bush should do likewise. Hillary Clinton could demonstrate her greater than Obama influence by doing the same.
It is time for all of these wannabee presidents to demonstrate that they are up to the job with more than resumes and words. Maybe someday one of them can enter the White House and be an American president with strong belief in American values.
It was Obama weakness and his policy of managed decline of America that inspired the Russian bear to come out of hibernation. The Russian Putin bear is back and all we bereft Americans have is a babe in the woods full of malevolence.
“Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
The highbrow mockers didn’t see what was obvious. As we noted in our first update “U.S. intelligence” up to Thursday night had not a clue. Mama Grizzly knew exactly what the Russian Grizzly Bear was up to.
We wrote in our penultimate paragraph below, “Expect Barack Obama, via Kerry, to draw a red line which will induce gut busting laughter from Vladimir Putin.” That prediction came true today in the form of new terminology. As Russia takes over Crimea, Kerry, Carney warn Putin not to cross the “line”. The line is not Syrian red but Obama-Kerry-Carney call it an “intervention” line. Putin must literally be be rolling on the floor laughing his ass off.
The “intervention” line for clowns must surely involve thirteen Russian aircraft loaded with thousands of Russian troops. Putin might just go for the Ukrainian throat and simply invade just to make sure everyone understands his very credible red line. Or will Putin be like the arrogant boyfriend who first brings in a backpack, then slowly some shopping bags full of clothes, then his electronics, and before you know it he has moved in, invasion accomplished.
Whatever. Obama weakness and his policy of managed decline of the United States is now in full flower. Many are reviewing this video:
The roads to the airports are blockaded, helicopters fly in and out, as Russian flags fly overhead. The original invaders have been replaced by men in camouflage uniforms.
This is the type of instability and militarism that rises when the world knows the White House occupant is a boob.
This 2013 Superbowl commercial by Hyundai should inform American policy makers:
The skinny kid determined to get back his football, without a whine, understands fearless executive authority and the value of teamwork. The chubby kid grappling the bear should be in the Pentagon or State Department in charge of our response to the Russian grizzly and assorted nogoodniks. The black kid carries at least five times his own weight and is a hero to be valued in any effort. The hefty redhead isn’t hoisting donuts to his mouth – he’s getting ready to fight.
Here’s a variation of the commercial we like so much:
Barack Obama does not understand that Hyundai commercial. Obama prefers the delusional world of Panglossian HOPE to be embraced by children but not adults embroiled as leaders in a hostile world.
Earlier this week, via Chuck Hagel, Barack Obama announced to Russia that the United States won’t stand in his way. The United States, or rather Barack Obama – let’s not confuse the two – declared the American army will be reduced in size to pre World War II levels. It was brilliant timing if the intent was to signal weakness to Russia at a critical tipping point in the Ukraine and world-wide.
That intelligent Pentagon cuts and costly programs designed only to keep congressional backers bringing bacon to their districts should and must be cut is not the issue. The issue is Barack Obama’s attack on America in the form of “managed decline”. Those two words are missing in the post Hagel surrender speech analysis.
Back in 2011 when we thought Republicans would mount a serious presidential challenge in 2012 we thought for sure that Marco Rubio would be on the ticket. One of the reasons, among many, for having the Tea Party Marco Rubio (not the immigration amnesty Rubio) on the Republican ticket we wrote was because a debate was sorely needed about Barack Obama’s policy of “managed decline”.
“The weathervanes of conventional wisdom are engaged in another round of angst about America in decline. New theories, old slogans: Imperial overstretch. The Asian awakening. The post-American world. Inexorable forces beyond our control bringing the inevitable humbling of the world hegemon. [snip]
The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands.“
We wrote then that Krauthammer’s article “is essential reading” to understand the road to ruin Barack Obama wants to force march the nation onto. It wasn’t conservative Krauthammer however that prompted our ruminations on managed decline years ago. The unintentional never-the-less acid critique came from a fortress of liberal politics, The New Yorker. Yes, The New Yorker.
“One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”
What to Liberal Lizza is “balance” to world leaders is surrender. Grinning Barack Obama is leading America down the garden path to decline like sheep to the slaughter.
Back in 2011, or was it 2009, many Obama critics believed that the American “shining city on a hill” would wave the flag of surrender to the Forbidden City. But we were all of us deceived. The surrender is to the successors of those we vanquished in the Cold War.
Liberal Richard Cohen at the Washington Post misses a great deal in his discussion of Susan Rice and her recent performance of scripted lies. But it appears, optimistically speaking, that Cohen is a few years away from understanding that what he is describing is part of a greater arc that we call “managed decline with lies”:
“Susan Rice and the retreat of American power [snip]
Rice’s was a splendid performance, characteristic of an administration that values the sound of policy over its implementation. But it bore directly on another urgent foreign policy problem confronting Washington and the world: Ukraine. Of course the revolution in that country was discussed, and Rice warned Russia not to resort to force, saying that would be “a grave mistake.” She declared the United States on the side of the Ukrainian people, an airy but prudent generalization. This will have to do for the moment.
But matters may soon get out of hand. Russia may not permit the major nation on its southwestern border to align itself with Europe. It’s not likely that tanks will roll, but it is not all that unlikely that the Russian-speaking east of the country may turn to Moscow for support.
Ukraine on its own would be a formidable challenge. But it is not alone. [snip]
In the Middle East, Syria is flying apart, a Kurdistan is gestating, Iraq will never be the same. And in the Far East, Japan and China, feeling their nationalistic oats, bicker over a collection of rocks.
An increasingly messy world is looking for guidance. But not only does the United States refuse to be its policeman, it won’t even be its hall monitor. The utterly false choice in Syria articulated by Rice — America can do nothing because it won’t do everything — is noticed by the rest of the world. Obama threatened “consequences” if someone stepped “over the line” in Ukraine. Ah, another line. Is it red?
Economically the world grows closer together. Simultaneously, the world fragments and empires crumble. Believe it or not, these were the conditions that preceded World War I when nationalism burst all constraints. Four empires — the Russian, the German, the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman — collapsed and the world hurtled toward an Armageddon that ended only with Hitler putting a pistol to his head and the Enola Gay obliterating Hiroshima.”
“One of my favorite speeches is one that talks about our role in the world. It was the speech President Kennedy was set to give, had he lived just one more day. It would have closed with these words:
“We in this country, in this generation, are- by destiny rather than by choice- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of ‘peace on earth, good will toward men.’ That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago “except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”
Almost half a century later America is still the only watchman on that wall of world freedom. And there is still no one else to take our place.
What will the world look like if America declines? Well, today all over the world, people are being forced to accept a familiar lie, that the price for their security is their liberty.
If America declines, who will serve as living proof that liberty, security and prosperity are all possible together? Today, radical political Islam abuses and oppresses women, has no tolerance for other faiths and seeks to impose its views on the whole world. If America declines, who will lead the fight to confront and defeat them?
Today, children are used as soldiers and trafficked as slaves. Dissidents are routinely imprisoned without trial, and subjected to torture, forced confessions and forced labor.
If America declines, who will take these causes as their own? What will the world look like if America declines? Well, who will create the innovations of the 21st century? Who will stretch the limits of human potential and explore the new frontiers?
If America declines, who will do all this, and ask for nothing in return?
Motivated solely by the desire to make the world a better place?
The answer is no one will. There is still no nation or institution in the world willing or able to do what we have done.
Ronald Reagan described America as a shining city on a hill. Now, some say that we can no longer afford the price we must pay to keep America’s light shining. Others say that there are new shining cities that will soon replace us. I say they are both wrong. Yes, the price we will pay to keep America’s light shining is high, but the price we will pay if it stops shining will be even higher.
Yes, there are new nations now emerging with prosperity and influence. And that is what we always wanted. America never wanted to be the only shining city. We wanted our example to inspire the people of the world to build one of their own. You see, these nations, these new shining cities, they can join us, but they can never replace us. Because the light coming from them is but a reflection of our own. It is the light of an American century that now spreads throughout the world. A world that still needs America. A world that still needs our light. A world that still needs another American century.”
Russia, China, tin pot dictators, rogue regimes, Islamic theocracy thugs are all on the move and ready to rise. Barack Obama is forcing America on a death march of managed decline – which leaves him all that time to golf and make celebrity appearances on TV.
Former New York governor Eliot Spitzer campaigned for and passed laws targeting the clients of street walkers as well as the prostitutes themselves. It turned out Eliot Spitzer was “Client 9″ at a whorehouse emporium and was eventually snared by his own curse in a drama as old as the Oedipus Rex drama from ancient Greece. Spitzer is not the only fool that runs for office on purity of purpose and hope and change and transparency but all along they are screwing the public.
Enter New York Mayor Bill De Blasio – the new King of the DailyKooks. We have warned before about getting too close to this one and our warnings will only get louder. De Blasio is supposed to be the new everyman taking care of the everyman. De Blasio is supposed to be the opposite of plutocrat billionaire ex-mayor Bloomberg but it was Bloomberg that at least for show occasionally took the subway partially to work.
The story begins with Bill De Blasio taking a tactic from Barack Obama and blaming others for his inadequacies and blunders. De Blasio blamed the weather service instead of taking responsibility for his decision to keep schools open during a recent snowstorm. Obama blames the staff or someone else. De Blasio chose to blame the weather service. Former jolly ex-fat man Al Roker blasted DeBlasio for lying:
“Following criticism from even the teachers union, De Blasio accused the National Weather Service of underestimating the amount of snowfall there would be overnight on Thursday. [snip]
“Long range DiBlasio forecast: 1 term” [snip]
“How dare @NYCMayorsOffice @NYCSchools throw NWS under the school bus. Forecast was on time and on the money”
De Blasio blamed the weather service for a bad/late forecast. When Roker noted that the forecast was correct and on time DeBlasio attacked Roker. How Obama is that?
Mayor de Blasio, who has been lecturing about pedestrian safety since he stepped foot in City Hall, strolled across a Brooklyn street against the light Friday in a blatant jaywalking violation.
Hizzoner was gabbing on his old-school flip-phone as he slowly made his way across 11th Street on Sixth Avenue in Park Slope — and his NYPD detail faithfully jaywalked with him.
A Post reporter caught the foot faux pas on video a day after de Blasio’s SUV was filmed blowing through two stop signs in Queens and twice going 15 mph over the speed limit.“
Jay-walking is a time honored tradition in New York City. Rudy Giuliani tried to stop the practice but even the police turned their heads rather than take on pedestrians exercising their jay-walking prerogatives. But if you are going to be preaching about traffic safety and other humbug shouldn’t you be most observant of the law? For De Blasio it is an Obama style “Do as I dictate, not as I do.”
Speeding through streets after lecturing citizens of the need to drive slower under the heel of lower speed limits was not the end of the De Blasio hypocrisy. Jay walking with the phone at his ear like a teenager or happy go lucky young person (or as Michelle Obama calls them “knuckleheads”) after preaching traffic safety to the masses did not end the lies nor the hypocrisy. De Blasio tried the transparently mendacious “security protocols” excuse. De Blasio claimed to be helpless about the speeding violations because the decisions are made by his security people and not himself. It must have been the security detail that forced him to jaywalk too.
Speeding through streets, disregarding signs, disdainful of speed limits, jaywalking while talking on the phone – all while dictating to others about following lower speed limits and traffic safety – was just the set-up. The plutocrat is dead, long live the plutocrat:
“De Blasio’s predecessor, Michael Bloomberg, reminded his drivers to follow the rules of the road and made a vow not to speed through the streets with lights and sirens unless he was rushing to an “enormous emergency.”
The new mayor has made pedestrian safety a key objective of his administration. On Tuesday, he laid out a sweeping “Vision Zero” initiative to end traffic deaths that includes lowering the city speed limit to 25 mph.
“Bill de Blasio Refuses to Take ‘Speedgate’ Questions Despite Vow
Despite repeatedly promising this morning that he’d take questions about the controversy surrounding his caravan breaking multiple traffic laws, Mayor Bill de Blasio shut down questions on the topic at an unrelated press conference this evening.
Before walking away as reporters shouted questions at him, Mr. de Blasio read a brief statement referring to NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton’s earlier comments defending the conduct of the mayor’s security detail. [snip]
His aides further declined to take questions on the issue.
This morning outside his home, Mr. de Blasio also refused to answer questions about the controversy, which involved his caravan running multiple stop signs and going up to 15 miles per hour over the speed limit just days after announcing a new push to lower traffic speeds across the five boroughs. At the time, however, he vowed to take off-topic questions at this evening’s event.
“We’ll have a press conference later on and we’ll have a chance later on to talk to you about a variety of issues including … anything else you want to ask about,” he assured.
“You can ask all the questions you want,” he added as he was pressed. “You can ask any other questions you like … You can ask any and all questions.”
Eliot Spitzer hypocrisy alert!: New “progressive” mayor replaces billionaire mayor – acts more like a plutocrat than the billionaire – issues calls for new laws he won’t follow – refuses to answer questions about the hypocrisy and inconsistencies – promises to answer “any and all” questions – refuses to answer questions.
New York Big Media might be a bunch of snoozers protective of Barack Obama and ready-willing-able-happy to attack Republican Chris Christie on a regular basis but the De Blasio imperiousness got to even these knuckleheads-chuckleheads-numbskulls. They took to twitter to react to his imperial high lord mayor of the new York:
“As @BilldeBlasio left Blue Room without taking questions, disbelieving reporters shouted after him. Press aides refusing to talk further.
Michael Howard Saul: Reporters pushed out of West Wing of City Hall. Angry mob. Reporters saying they have never seen something like this.
Andrew J. Hawkins: Did anyone clock de Blasio’s speed as he dashed out of the Blue Room?
Colby Hamilton: Wow. De Blasio just bolted out of the presser, refusing to answer qs about his security details traffic scandal.
Azi: Yes, mayor who vowed transparency & was credited with having a grt campaign communication strategy is ducking reporters & refusing to talk
Danielle Tcholakian: The speeding itself may be a non-story, but not taking questions makes the issue about transparency and access, two things he promised.
Michael Powell: Man up time for new mayor? Mayor de Blasio looking not ready for prime time in response to relatively easy stuff
Gloria Pazmino: Bill de Blasio has thrown gasoline into this fire.. The City Hall press corps won’t take finger off the dial now.
Clyde Haberman: BdB’s press strategy seems to be to go out of his way, not even 2 mos. into his term, to smugly alienate those covering him.
Chester Jesus Soria: @BilldeBlasio’s campaign page on transparency and reform is a great read: http://bit.ly/1eeFHm6
Casey Seiler: Someone needs to take away @BilldeBlasio’s apparently well-read copy of “Mismanaging Bad Press for Dummies.”
Grace Rauh: Reporters are shocked de Blasio just walked out of here without taking questions. This just means the story will linger.
Dana Rubinstein: I don’t get the press strategy. Does he think reporters won’t have the same questions on Monday? Isn’t it better to bury it on a Friday eve?
Bob Hardy: A great moment in City Hall transparency: Why bother holding press conferences if you only take questions that you want to hear?
Michael Barbaro: Not taking off-topic question is not really an option with the NYC press corp, as de Blasio is about to discover
Celeste Katz: Quite seriously, who concluded it was a good idea for the mayor to literally walk away from that Q&A?
In short: Give De Blasio an Ex-Lax cupcake ’cause he’s full of sh*t.
When we read the comment “Yes, mayor who vowed transparency & was credited with having a grt campaign communication strategy is ducking reporters & refusing to talk” we thought of someone else who promised transparency, ran a tight campaign communications shop and now imperiously refuses to answer questions. Now who could that be?
#Speedgate and questions about hypocrisy, transparency and lies won’t go away because New York City Big Media won’t let them go away. When we read the comments about how the press corps is now challenged and won’t take this sitting down and shutting up we wondered “Where is this attitude by Big Media when it comes to Barack Obama???”
For now a Big Media relentlessly seeking the truth from liar Barack Obama remains to the imagination not in the real American nation.
Mayor Bill De Blasio deserves a dozen Ex-law cupcakes because he is full of sh*t. Treacherous Boob Barack Obama and Big Media deserve at least a twelve tier Ex-lax cake because they all full of sh*t. It’s time for a purge.
Update: Is it time for Charlie Cook to retire because he is too old and too stupid and can’t use Google? Cook writes he has not come across anyone who thinks Hillary will not run in 2016. His collegue at National Journal has written exactly that and the wackadoodle Rand Paul has said he doesn’t think Hillary will run - which makes his recent attacks on the Clenis even more bizzare and clearly self-serving because they further harm the Republican Party brand as panty sniffers. There are many of us who think Hillary just might tell the Obama Dimocrat party to fu*k off after she makes a bundle giving speeches and writing books but Charlie Cook is clueless.
Is Hillary Clinton Too Old to Run?
Entering a presidential race is effectively a nine-year commitment: one year to run, another eight if she runs for reelection and wins. [snip]
Clinton turns 67 this October. At that age, she will likely be making her candidacy decision, and if nominated Clinton would turn 69 two weeks before the 2016 general election, notably the same age Ronald Reagan was when he was first elected in 1980. [snip]
A law school friend of the Clintons’ put it to me this way to me last year: “If Bill and Hillary are healthy, she will run,” a subtle reminder to me that her husband will be 70 by Election Day 2016, having already gone through quadruple cardiac bypass surgery and two heart stents. [snip]
There would absolutely be many challenges along the road for Hillary. For one, the challenge of a 68-going-on-69-year-old going after a considerably younger electorate, particularly in the primaries, and how to make herself more relevant to the future, rather than to the past. Running on how great the economy was in the mid-to-late ’90s, when her husband was president, would be tantamount to a sequel of Back to the Future. Clinton needs to lay out a rationale for her relevance to the future electorate of a rapidly changing country. Not that she can’t do it, but it would be a different battle than that of 2008.
Finally, don’t expect that Hillary would have a free ride for the nomination. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo presumably wouldn’t run if she does. Similarly, it would seem unlikely that another major woman like Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren would make the race either. But there’s Vice President Joe Biden, and one could easily see former Govs. Howard Dean of Vermont and/or Brian Schweitzer of Montana decide to take a stab at it.
Unmentioned by the doddering can’t-use-Google-can’t-relate-to-the-present-electorate Cook is that Joe Biden is older than Hillary and goofier than Uncle Si, yet Biden is touted as the backup nominee by Cook without age being mentioned. The same “too old” argument against McCain was made by goofballs like Matt Damon in 2008. Damon argued that McCain was too old and actuarial tables showed he would die in office and Palin would become president and that Palin was beyond the pale. McCain is still aliive and Damon’s career is dying. Cook also raises the specter of Howard Dean as president but fails to mention Dean will be the same age as Hillary by the end of this year.
This “too old” argument is only used against those that are opposed by Big Media and/or Kooks. Likewise, the “dynasty” argument is never used when it is a Kennedy, Rockefeller, Cuomo, Gore, Salazar, or Udall. It’s time for Cook to reture and make way for someone who can use Google – he’s too old.
Just in time for Valentine’s Day, Hillary Clinton 2016 has finally had a really good week. Credit goes to attempted attacks on Hillary Clinton that fizzled – or flowered into full love bouquets for Hillary.
Finally, the full-time Kooks began to fulfill our prophecy that they will go all Kook all the time against Hillary Clinton 2016. Kracked Krystal flung her ball from MSNBC against Hillary Clinton 2016 pins:
“MSNBC host Krystal Ball told her audience on Tuesday that she admires former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and she would support her over any Republican and most Democrats to replace President Barack Obama. However, she said that America’s present “existential crisis” requires a candidate that is not as “anti-union” and friendly to Wall Street as Clinton. For that reason, Ball urged Clinton not to run and for freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) to get in the race.”
“In a time when corporations have hijacked our politics,” she continued, “is someone who sat on the rabidly anti-union board of Walmart the right person to restore workers’ rights?”
“In a time when we’re still reeling from global financial disaster brought on by foolhardy bank deregulation, is someone who took $400,000 to give two speeches at Goldman Sachs the person we need to wrest control of the asylum back from the banking inmates?” Ball asked. The MSNBC host further assailed Clinton for reassuring the “masters of the universe” that “banker-bashing” on the left was “unproductive.”
Ball swiped at Bill Clinton as well for signing into law much of the deregulation she was decrying. Ball said that she would back Warren to replace Obama as an example of a politician who felt “in their bones the plight of the worker.”
“Is Hillary Clinton Blocking a New Generation of Democratic Leaders?
The former secretary of State’s inevitability is good for Democrats in the short-term. But it masks the party’s longer-term challenges. [snip]
But her inevitability masks a potential weakness within the Democratic Party: the lack of a deep bench of future national leaders. For a coalition that prides itself on diversity, the list of presidential hopefuls is filled with white men: Vice President Joe Biden, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. With Clinton, the party that nominated Barack Obama in 2008 is now looking to the past for their presidential hopeful.
Furthermore, the Democratic dependence on Hillary Clinton hampers the development of a Democratic farm team. With Clinton expected to take up so much room in the post-Obama party, is there much room for anyone else?“
There’s a lot of rubbish and hogwash at the National Journal “analysis”. For instance did you know that if Hillary does not run “there are a lot of substantive potential candidates” such as Biden? Once you stop laughing you can appreciate how funny and desperate the full tilt Kook wing of the Kook Party is.
To the rescue came… Republicans? Conservatives? Hide the salami Howard, the world is upside down!
“If Hillary wants the nomination, nothing’s going to stop her. And the worse Obama’s second term gets, the fewer Democrats there’ll be who are willing to forfeit her electoral advantages in order to roll the dice on a purer liberal like Elizabeth Warren with one-tenth the name recognition of the Clintons and one-thousandth the fundraising potential. There’s a cold calculation coming, just as there was for Romney: At the end of the day, who’s most likely to help us win power? Lay aside what he or she might do with that power. At a bare minimum, no matter how bad it gets, at least we’ll be keeping the ball away from the other team. [snip]
Democrats are deathly afraid that increased turnout among minority voters for Obama’s two elections will dissipate once he’s out of politics. If the “Obama coalition” falls apart, they’re in trouble — although Hillary, probably uniquely among Dems, might be able to make up the shortfall with increased support from women. [snip]
Exit question: How soon will it be before lefties seize on Hillary’s ruthlessness as a new reason to block her? Bridgegate is an easy peg for a pretext like that. E.g., “How can we criticize Chris Christie for bullying when we’re poised to re-nominate a couple who keep an enemies’ list?”
The Obama coalition led what was once the Democratic Party into a cul-de-sac Cult. It was no way to build a party based on the coalition built up and expanded by FDR-JFK-Bill Clinton.
Some may think “revenge” or “ruthlessness” will hurt Hillary Clinton 2016, but after flabby boob Barack Obama’s weakness and cowardice it’s time to throw out the ruth. Watch and weep as Don Imus, notorious anti-Clintonite Imus (who is in the interview brutally analytical on Benghazi, women who hate Hillary because of her marriage decisions, and Bill Clinton) applauds along with us.
“Blair was ill then, suffering from cancer, but she was vehement about two things: that Hillary was a dynamite friend–smart, funny, thoughtful and loyal–and that the Clintons had a real marriage. She told me a story about the two of them getting into a wild, screaming fight over some obscure policy issue, a fight so intense that she was beginning to get embarrassed and thought about making for the door…when Bill took Hillary’s face in his hands, looked over to Blair and said, “Isn’t she amazing?”
And so I wasn’t expecting much dirt from the Diane Blair papers, even though they were splashed internationally on Drudge on Sunday, with a big SCANDAL headline. And I wasn’t disappointed: not much there, except Hillary’s stiletto discription of Lewinsky as a “narcissistic loony tune.” Indeed, the “editor” of the “publication” that “broke” this story described the then-First Lady as “surprisingly human.”
To which I can only ask: Why surprisingly? I’ve known Hillary Clinton for nearly 30 years now. I wouldn’t say I know her particularly well, but well enough to describe her in an entirely different way–as relentlessly human. She has been willing to get really angry in my presence (I didn’t like her health plan). She has been willing to have open, questioning discussions about policy. She has, at times, displayed a wicked sense of irony; she has, at other times, admitted to having been badly hurt by the public reaction–the spitting, the invective–that splattered her 1994 health plan speaking tour. She has a profoundly goofy okey-dokey-artichokey personal manner; she is an extremely hard worker and clear thinker. She really cares about people, including the people on her staff, all of whom would stop a bullet for her. I’m not nearly cynical enough to attribute these qualities to pretense. She is obviously ambitious and can, at times, be ruthless–but so what? She is one of the finest people I’ve known in public life. (Which is not to say that I don’t think she may have some real problems running for President, problems of insufficient boldness and sometimes being just plain wrong–but that’s a different story.)
Oh, and one other thing: She loves her husband. The marriage is not a “partnership.” She loves the guy. Indeed, one of the saddest intimacies of the Blair papers was the implication the Clinton blamed herself, in a way, for the Lewinsky disaster.
My overwhelming reaction to the release of the Blair papers was sadness–sadness because I remember Diane Blair fondly, the sort of smart, level-headed person I’d want as a friend. But also because it brought back the disgraceful bilge volcano of the Clinton years–the non-stop garbage peddled and sleazed by Drudge and Rush and the then frisky young Fox Network, the fact that the Clintons were accused of drug-trafficking, murder, financial scandals and all sorts of vile craziness–none of which proved to be true. And no apologies have ever been forthcoming from the greasy perps.
In the end, Bill Clinton‘s behavior toward women was primitive and embarrassing. He defiled the Oval Office…but looking back, he wasn’t a half-bad President, was he?“
And hey, after all that there’s Bill O’Reilly. Unfortunately O’Reilly video is behind a pay wall so we can’t access a video of this week’s Wednesday night show wherein O’Reilly repeatedly said, what we have written, that Hillary Clinton 2016 must get away from Barack Obama. Like us, O’Reilly insists that Obama is toxic and Hillary Clinton 2016 cannot be seen as in any way a continuation of Barack Obama and his Kook Kingdom. The only video we can produce of Wednesday night’s O’Reilly show is this one of O’Reilly taking on the Kooks:
“With President Obama’s job approval numbers falling, and the Democratic Party having trouble in an election year. You would think that committed liberal Americans would low key it a bit. You would think.
But no, they are upping the rhetoric especially the anti-capitalism stuff. Hillary Clinton is widely seen to be the Democratic nominee in 2016 for president but she portrays herself as a moderate. That’s not good enough for some on the far left.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BALL: Does Hillary Clinton sound to you like the right person for this moment? In a time when corporations have hijacked our politics enabling them to reap all the profit without feeling any compunction to do right by their workers?
As someone who has sat on the rabidly anti-union board of Wal-Mart for six years, the right person to restore worker’s rights. At a time when we’re still reeling from a global financial disaster brought on by foolhardy bank deregulation, as someone who recently took $400,000 to give two speeches at Goldman Sachs, the person we need to wrest control of the asylum (ph) back from the banking inmates.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O’REILLY: Now that anti-capitalistic commentary is the far left’s signature issue. “Talking Points” believes there must be oversight on banks and big business to trust them to do the right thing is foolish and naive. If you don’t believe me, read a little Teddy Roosevelt.
But many on the left want to dismantle the entire corporate system and we are seeing the consequences of that in the Obama administration. Now entering his sixth year in office the President has not been a friend to corporate America. He advocates high taxes to pay for an entitlement culture.
Business knows that and has not expanded, preferring to hoard profits or keep them overseas where they cannot be taxed. That’s why the job situation and income for working Americans is stagnant. For every good job available, there are plenty of applicants therefore salaries are suppressed.
It’s hard to believe but the far left does believe that the government can provide well-paying jobs on a mass scale. It cannot. And every country that has tried that has failed. 90 miles off the coast of Florida take a look what happen in Cuba; that should be an affluent country but communism has killed the economy.
So Hillary Clinton must fight zealotry on her left. She will defeat it she will get the nomination and Mrs. Clinton will run as a moderate Democrat promising to reform some of President Obama’s anti-business policies. That’s what she’ll do.
O’Reilly guests political scientist Dr. Jeanne Zaino and former Obama campaign aide Ellen Qualls agreed that Hillary Clinton 2016 has to differentiate Hillary from Obama. But the Obama Kook wants Hillary to move closer to the left too:
“There is an enormous and increasing division in the Democratic Party,” Zaino declared. “You see the attacks that Hillary is getting from her left and many people predict Wall Street will be her Achilles Heel in 2016 the same way the Iraq war was in 2008. People on the ‘progressive’ left fear that she’ll be too close to Wall Street and will continue her husband’s moderate policies.” But Qualls dismissed the notion that there is a great rift in among Democrats. “I see a rhetorical concern about whether Hillary Clinton is talking to the right people and hearing the right ideas. People on the left want to have Elizabeth Warren’s voice represented in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. But there is a great unanimity among Democrats that Hillary Clinton will be a great candidate and we’d love to have her.”
As in 2008 the Kooks want to force the party further and further into the totalitarian left. The opening gambit is to have “Elizabeth Warren’s voice represented in Hillary Clinton’s campaign” but it won’t stop there. These Kooks somehow think that Hillary Clinton will foolishly accept their poisoned chocolates and paper hearts as well as surrender to them. Instead it is their hearts that will be stomped on once plucked from their chests later to be fed to dogs.
David Bossie, former chief investigator for the House Oversight Committee during the Clinton administration, told Megyn Kelly he wished had spent more time investigating then-first lady Hillary Clinton. “We got off track from our investigations with all of the sex stuff,” said Bossie, now the head of the conservative group Citizen United.
As to the “wackadoodle dentist” he wants attention and he must be upset Bill Clinton is set to campaign against McConnell in Kentucky, but as we wrote below, the deficits of Clenis envy are beginning to harden. After Bossie today it is Karl Rove: Why is Rand Paul beating up on Bill Clinton for old sins? Again, as we wrote below, short term this gets Rand Paul attention and maybe some love from E/I Republicans/conservatives but it does make Republicans look like Ken Starr-like panty sniffers. Rove is talking about the Republican brand as fuddy-duddy tut-tutting pearl clutchers:
“Frankly, Rand Paul spending a lot of time talking about the mistakes of Bill Clinton does not look like a big agenda for the future of the country,” Rove said on Fox’s “America’s Newsroom.”
To counter the “war on women” strategy Republicans should focus on women getting paid less than men in the Barack Obama White House of horror and forego the temptations of below the belt Clenis attacks.
Kudos to Matt Drudge of DrudgeReport. His headline today: PAPERS SHOW ‘RUTHLESS’ HILLARY. We’ve been beating up on Hillary Clinton 2016 quite a bit lately in order to get them to shape up and it has not been pretty. Hillary Clinton 2016 is a muddled message mess and there is no useful purpose to an eyes tight shut, mouth shut tighter strategy. But today, thanks to the Hillary addicted Matt, Hillary Clinton and Hillary Clinton 2016 got a much needed break.
After 500 years, with the abyss of 300 more years staring at us, of driftwood Barack Obama at the helm the country is more than ready for leadership and kickass motivation. Watching “ruthless” Vladimir Putin out-think and out-strategize flabby man-child Barack has been painful for the entire nation and the world. Putin got what he wanted on Syria and even managed to finagle the Olympics. Obama drew a red line on Syria which quickly betrayed his yellow streak and could not, even at the height of his popularity and power in 2009, get the Olympics to Chicago. The nation is ready for a little “ruthless” along with direction, a coherent world-view, and ovarian fortitude.
Some experienced “ruthless” could help the nation. Iran will know not to mess with “obliteration” and the hired hands will if necessary be sent to the basement cages when they screw up. When Hillary was in the White House she knew to smash faces that needed smashing and to break fingers that needed breaking. Barack Obama thought if he hired the same hired hands that Hillary kept on a leash his White House would at least run smoothly while he vacationed. But as we wrote it didn’t work out that way:
“Rahm really hated Hillary. She’s the one that used to call him names because of that ballet thing of his and him thinking he was so tough. Hillary smacked him down. Hell, she even had him demoted and the guy lost his office and had to work from a cubicle in the White House basement. Damn, that boy really hates Hillary. Hillary kept the leash on that boy and kept him in line.
I made a mistake with Rahm. I fell for his tough boy act and I fell for the idea that he was the one that knew how Washington worked so I wouldn’t have to do any work. That was a bi-iii-ggg mistake. Rahm talks tough but it’s a bull in a China shop. All you wind up with is damage and a big bill to pay. That Bi#ch Hillary and her sicko friends didn’t warn me about Rahm.
I should have kept a leash on that Bi#ch Rahm but supervising him would have been a lot of work. But it’s too late now.”
It’s too late now to grow a pair of testicles and exercise some testicular fortitude. It’s also too late to get “ruthless”. Whining, race-baiting, petulant foot stomps, to get what you want for your personal advancement and comfort are not the same as “ruthless” pursuit of goals to help the nation. Kudos to Hillary addict Matt Drudge for giving “ruthless” a name to vote for.
* * * * * *
Last week, two of what William S. Burroughs called Junkies made headlines much bigger than the Hillary headline at DrudgeReport of today. Junkie #1 was a short, fat, talented Hollywood actor found dead in a $10,000 a month apartment with a needle in his arm. He turned blue and birthed a bundle of stories about tortured artists and the heroin pushers who love them.
Junkie #2, well, Junkie #2 was another godsend warning for Hillary Clinton 2016 about Big Media. Junkie #2 was Tom Sizemore and this heroin addict was caught on tape alleging that Bill Clinton and an actress cavorted in an extra-marital affair. It was Big Media fun while it lasted:
“As Hillary Clinton prepares to run for President in 2016, RadarOnline.com has uncovered bombshell new information that could torpedo her White House dreams: The philandering husband of the former United States Secretary of State, ex-President Bill Clinton, carried on a torrid year-long love affair with British supermodel Elizabeth Hurley behind White House walls.
That’s the explosive revelation dropped by the man who says he arranged the secret tryst, actor Tom Sizemore.
In a blockbuster exclusive, Radar has unearthed a secret audio recording during which the Hollywood actor, who had his own three-year sexual liaison with Hurley, recounts how the famously-frisky ex-President once sent a plane to fly Hurley to Washington D.C., where he bedded her in the White House — while First Lady Hillary was in the very next room!
On the tape, recorded in January of this year and provided to Radar and GLOBE in a joint investigation, 52-year-old Sizemore boasts to two pals about how he arranged the pair’s first rendezvous.”
The fun for the entertainment starved unfortunately did not last. Not that it should have begun. The alleged Bill Clinton drooling was more Ed Wood sci-fi porn dialog than anything resembling how humans communicate. That was the first sure clue.
That Sizemore (what a name for a Clenis worshiper!) had never been to the White House was another clue. But the Clinton penis (the Clenis), like heroin, is a hard substance to go cold turkey on. Sadly, no matter how much the story was massaged or inflated it eventually went limp:
“I was never at the White House and I never met Bill Clinton. I went to a screening of Black Hawk Down but it wasn’t in the White House. It was in a theater near the White House. But I’ve never been to the White House and met our president, any president.” [snip]
Rand Paul spitting on the Clenis might bring back talk about Buddha Boy, er, Aqua Buddha Boy. A tied up woman at a fraternity party forced to worship Aqua Buddha might seem like old news but 2016 won’t be as easy as 2010 for wackadoodle dentists. And if fourteen year old activities make for headlines today why can’t we go back to college for our 2016 news? See the problem Aqua Boy?
Also a danger when trash talking the Clenis is that other men in public office, especially Republican men with um, histories, might get caught up in the vortex of suckitude. Senator David Vitter running for governor is one Republican that knows what we mean. For years Republicans have started off pumping up the Clenis story for their benefit only to find that at the end of the day they have just been f*cked again by the mighty Clenis.
He is black. He is smart. He is a fry cook. He fried the boob.
Darnell Summmers, a fry cook, understands that because of ObamaCare his job and his life are being destroyed. Summers told Boob Obama during a Google hangout that because of ObamaCare he and many of his co-workers lost the opportunity to work full time.“We were broken down to part time to avoid paying health insurance,” he said. Fry cook Summers and his co-workers once worked full time but because of ObamaCare they now are part time workers with reduced wages and reduced hopes for a better life. Boob Obama prattled on and on and on and on in his reply about stuff that is not germane to what Darnell Summers cares about. Obama did not address the central issue raised by fry cook Darnell Summers: ObamaCare is a job killer.
“I’m probably not the only one whose had really a panicked experience lately trying to figure out if my 10-year-old son can continue with his specialist or not,” the woman, Rebecca, said. “I know that I can’t keep my plan — which I liked — but as I’m trying to figure out what to do going forward, I’ve spent weeks with days on the phone getting confidently delivered wrong answers, conflicting information.”
“It’s becoming quite obvious to me that a lot of agencies, almost everyone I’ve talked to, is having a lot of trouble figuring out the new rules,” the mother continued.
Boob Barack ignored her intelligent point that she and other Americans are victimized by ObamaCare and that those put in charge by Obama don’t know what they are doing. Obama passed her problem on to an aide with promises of deliverance for her but not the millions more attacked by ObamaCare.
Barack Obama’s “la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you” responses will likely be the same to the CBO report that confirmed fry cook Darnell Summers’ critique of ObamaCare. Summers might not be the most educated or articulate man in town but he is smart enough to see clearly what many of the most educated continue to deny: ObamaCare is a job killer:
“The Republicans just got a big gift from the Congressional Budget Office: It’s going to be a lot easier for them to call Obamacare a “job killer.”
That’s because the budget office’s new economic report says the health care law will cause Americans to work fewer hours – enough to be the equivalent of 2 million fewer jobs in 2017.
The latest number is nearly three times as high as the budget office’s previous prediction, and it’s supposed to rise in later years to the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs in 2024.”
Obama Dimorats up for reelection this year might get to experience the bliss of Obama and soon be jobless. They deserve to be jobless. These are truly stupid people. Some of these ObamaDolts think the worse is over for them on ObamaCare. They don’t seem to realize that Americans, even fry cooks, realize ObamaCare is a job killer.
Ignoring the fact that ObamaCare is unaffordable and a job killer, the ObamaDolts at Enroll America are spending millions of dollars on singing cats, dogs and goldfish to lure women to their doom:
“They’ll fix the bad Healthcare.gov website. They’ll fix the fact that you can’t get basic errors on your applications corrected. They’ll fix the website’s inability to calculate subsidies. They’ll fix all the uncertainty that Obamacare has brought to part-time and full-time workers. They’ll fix the fact that several state exchanges are on the verge of collapse.”
Throw Obama Dimocrats into a tank of pirahana, pumas, and pit bulls. These “pets” will save the day.
Canadian Justin Bieber is growing up in public and living a life of future regrets and embarrassments. Madonna’s spotlight tropism leads to dubious haberdashery choices for which she must be embarrassed – but the calculated publicity benefits outweigh her regrets. Jennifer Lawrence might feel a twinge of “yikes” when she recalls her slip at the Oscars. Anne Hathaway’s visit to Occupy Wall Street and her panty-less display getting out of her car, Fergie’s on stage “leak”, the Biebs on stage puke, all are moments that when remembered will likely cause even the Hollyweird embarrassment when they are sober. We all have embarrassing moments we rather forget. But last night… last night! We can’t imagine the social suicide embarrassment that Obama voters and the more fervent Obama supporters must feel.
We can only imagine that of those remaining few boosters watching Barack Obama last night they must have said to themselves “I used to like THAT!?????” “What was I thinking?????” “What drugs was I on?????”
They really loved Obama once. Once upon a time the Obama theme song we featured, after “The Pretender” became harder to find on YouTube, was “Razzle Dazzle” from the musical Chicago. That song features a sleazy Chicago community organizer lawyer teaching a master class on manipulation. First you had to get them to like you. Then, lie. Manipulate. Razzle. Dazzle. Razzle Dazzle ‘em.
And it worked. They loved Barack Obama. They thought his speeches grand. They thought him intelligent. He was a Messiah to them.
We were stupefied. How could any sensible person think the string of platitudes, the cheap sentiments, the artifice layered on artifice to cover artifice was anything more than grade school level theatrics? When recently Obama mentor Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright noted that Dr. King’s “I have a dream” has been supplanted by Obama’s “I have a drone” we thought that the line should be Obama saying “I am a drone… a deadly dull suffocatingly tedious drone.”
We’re not alone now. Even his supporters must agree in private when they are sober that the song which now best describes inconsequential lame duck Barack Obama is Mr. Cellophane, also from Chicago.
You can look right through him, walk right by him, and never know he’s there. Does anyone care, or even know, that pajama boy Obama is going on a post State of the Union road trip to… whatever… drone on? Few people watched the drone drone on. Few gave a flying puck about Obama’s word vomit before and even fewer after. It was as if Obama was a commercial interruption to the greater American drama.
We know there is a football game that is going on sometime this weekend. You can’t miss it. The picture box was all about that game as the Obama drone approached. The picture box was all about the football game and a toboggan on a New York City street somehow related to the football game, immediately after the Obama drone. It’s been all about football and the cold. Who cares about cellophane Obama?
“His personal standing has taken a … hit that makes trying to restore your job approval very difficult.”
In more tough numbers for the president, only a combined 40 percent say they are “optimistic and confident” or “satisfied and hopeful” about the president’s remaining time in office. By contrast, a combined 59 percent say they are “uncertain and wondering” or “pessimistic and worried.”
And by a 39 percent to 31 percent margin, Americans believe the country is currently worse off compared with where it was when Obama first took office; 29 percent say it’s in the same place.
Are there any left who still think that 2016 candidates should get attached to that? He can’t even help himself. All Obama cares about is himself but even on this Obama is failing. That’s right, Obama is not doing a good job on his strong suit – self-advancement – lately and if he can’t help the only person that he cares about why does anyone think Obama will help them in any way? Obama only cares about himself and this “year of action” is deadly for those up for election attached to Barack Obama.
As to the content of last night’s drone attack live from the U.S. Capitol we thought of Marshall McLuhan who wrote the following in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man:
“In a Chinese work–The Way and Its Power (A. Waley translation)–there is a series of instances of the overheated medium, the overextended man or culture, and the peripety or reversal that inevitably follows:
He who stands on tiptoe does not stand firm;
He who takes the longest strides does not walk the fastest . . . He who boasts of what he will do succeeds in nothing;
He who is proud of his work achieves nothing that endures.”
Proud and boastful are descriptions of the pajama boy president that so many thought so wonderful so long ago. Now they are embarrassed at their stupidity. But we have to live with the consequences of their dastard work for the pajama boy raised by wolves. It’s the American Horror Story for real.
Jim David Messina, Donna Brazile, Claire McCaskill, have decided to save themselves by ostentatiously endorsing Hillary Clinton 2016 contra what they did in 2008. Messina’s PAC, Brazile, and McCaskill also think this is a smart way to imprison Hillary Clinton into support of the flaccid and droopier by the day Barack Obama even though this hurts Hillary Clinton 2016.
Messina, Brazile, McCaskill and the assorted DailyKooks that termed Hillary Clinton 2008 a ‘racist corporatist dynastic has been’ have Barack Obama’s interests, not Hillary Clinton 2016, as their concern. Messina, Brazile, McCaskill and the DailyKooks do not want Hillary Clinton to denounce Barack Obama and all his works and thereby turn lame duck Barack Obama into dead duck Barack Obama.
Wayne Gretzky, the greatest hockey player ever once said I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been. Where is that lousy puck, Barack Obama, going to be in 2015 and 2016 when the next presidential election cycle is in full play? Brian Schweitzer, ready to run in 2016, thinks Obama will be a dead weight in 2016 and that’s why he is running away from that puck Obama:
“This Democrat thinks he can win in 2016 as the anti-Obama
The question was simple enough: Is there a single thing President Obama has done that you consider a positive achievement?
Finally, he spoke.
“My mother, God rest her soul, told me ‘Brian, if you can’t think of something nice to say about something change the subject,’” he said.
But he couldn’t help himself, slamming Obama’s record on civil liberties (the NSA revelations were “un-effing-believable”), his competency (“They just haven’t been very good at running things”), and above all, Obamacare (“It will collapse on its own weight”).
Schweitzer is not a serious candidate and poses no threat to Hillary Clinton 2016 but Schweitzer see Barack Obama as the little puck he is and knows that Barack Obama is poison and by 2016 Barack Obama will be radioactive – dangerous to even approach lest you glow unnaturally.
“When you choose your next national leader, ask them how they’re going to be different than Bush,” Schweitzer told msnbc. “Ask them how they’re going to be different than Obama.”
On the eve of Martin Luther King’s birthday, Barack Obama’s long time mentor, friend, and pastor, Jeremiah Wright, quoted King saying “I have a dream” and mocked Barack by attributing “I have a drone” to him. Michael Moore in a widely discussed article called ObamaCare “awful“. And Cher, even Cher says “Obama let us down.” Cher has lost hope and has gotten back to her counter-cultural roots by declaring she does not trust the government. These accurate assessments of Barack Obama come from the left yet some think Hillary Clinton 2016 should um, cling, to Obama.
Republicans/conservatives are especially confused about Hillary Clinton 2016 and instead of looking for where the hockey puck will be, prefer to listen to Obama propagandists. They think it is insane to run from Obama. “It’s insane” they say, what Schweitzer saysThe former governor is gambling that Democrats won’t just want an alternative to Clinton in 2016–they’ll want a complete and total rejection of the Obama presidency. “That’s insane” they say:
“Which is insane. Specifically, as Jamelle Bouie says, it’s insane because black Democrats continue to support O with stratospheric job approval numbers after turning out for him to an unprecedented degree in 2012. If they had turned out at the same rate that year as they did in 2004, Romney would have won the election — and Democratic leaders are, of course, keenly aware of it. Their great fear in 2016 is that black and Latino turnout rates will revert to pre-Obama levels, leaving the party in deep trouble against a strong GOP nominee. (That’s why Christie worked hard to pad his margins with Latinos in his gubernatorial run last year. Ninety percent of his own primary pitch will be aimed at convincing righties that he can pick off more votes from those more or less ungettable groups than anyone else can.) The point is, as natural as it is for ideologues to try to reorient a party their way after eight years of an incumbent president making compromises to stay viable in the center, liberal Democrats have a special challenge in running away from O. They need to reject disfavored parts of his legacy while taking care not to reject them too harshly lest minority voters in the Obama coalition take offense.”
That’s sensible but only if you believe that the Obama coalition is an enduring coalition. If you believe that young voters burned by ObamaCare and the NSA will not vote for someone who tells the truth about Obama then Schweitzer is insane. If you believe that the black unemployed and a destroyed black middle class must be kept from the truth about Barack lest they turn on you then Schweitzer is insane. If you think that the Latino jobless will reject truth for love of Barack then Schweitzer is insane. If you think that Hillary cannot get white working class voters to make up for the loss of Obama coalition voters offended by the truth then perhaps fictions must be maintained and truths not be spoken. But Hillary Clinton 2016 can get back to the winning FDR coalition and bring the armies of Obama unemployed along to the voting booths.
Reaching way back to 2004 numbers to suggest the Obama coalition is stable is too much of a stretch. Even the article cited to support such flimsy analysis raises questions:
“Even with demographics seeming to favor Democrats in the long term, it’s unclear whether Obama’s coalition will hold if blacks or younger voters become less motivated to vote or decide to switch parties.
Minority turnout tends to drop in midterm congressional elections, contributing to larger GOP victories as happened in 2010, when House control flipped to Republicans.
The economy and policy matter. [snip]
Whether the economy continues its slow recovery also will shape voter opinion, including among blacks, who have the highest rate of unemployment. [snip]
William Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, says that in previous elections where an enduring majority of voters came to support one party, the president winning re-election – William McKinley in 1900, Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984 – attracted a larger turnout over his original election and also received a higher vote total and a higher share of the popular vote. None of those occurred for Obama in 2012.
Only once in the last 60 years has a political party been successful in holding the presidency more than eight years – Republicans from 1980-1992.
“This doesn’t prove that Obama’s presidency won’t turn out to be the harbinger of a new political order,” Galston says. “But it does warrant some analytical caution.”
Early polling suggests that Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton could come close in 2016 to generating the level of support among nonwhites as Obama did in November, when he won 80 percent of their vote. In a Fox News poll in February, 75 percent of nonwhites said they thought Clinton would make a good president, outpacing the 58 percent who said that about Vice President Joe Biden. [snip]
Jealous says the 2014 midterm election will be the real bellwether for black turnout.
That “bell” is going to sound rather tinny if 2010 election results and current polling is any guide to the future. As we wrote:
“Hillary Clinton can win by bringing back senior voters and the white working class voters that have dumped the Democratic Party they once gave allegiance to. This will enrage the DailyKooks and Obama apparatchiks. But it is the only way for Hillary Clinton to win.”
“Much of it is out of her hands. Low job approval numbers for President Obama, should they persist, will make it difficult for any Democrat to win, even with the party’s seeming Electoral College edge and growing demographic advantages among minorities and the young. Just ask John McCain how President George W. Bush’s unpopularity affected his 2008 White House bid.”
The trendlines and the straws in the wind all indicate which way the the prevailing forces are going. What about ObamaCare and 2016? Where will the ObamaCare puck be? Megan McArdle warns that 2015 will not be a good year for ObamaCare and candidates running in 2016 are forewarned:
“The law is unpopular, not only with voters, but also apparently with the consumers who are supposed to buy insurance. The political forces that were supposed to guarantee its survival look weaker by the day. The Barack Obama administration is in emergency mode, pasting over political problems with administrative fixes of dubious legality, just to ensure the law’s bare survival — which is now their incredibly low bar for “success.”
Although the fixes may solve the short-term political problems, however, they destabilize the markets, which also need to work to ensure the law’s survival. The president is destroying his own law in order to save it. [snip]
Many of the commentators I’ve read seem to think that the worst is over, as far as unpopular surprises. In fact, the worst is yet to come. Here’s what’s ahead:
· 2014: Small-business policy cancellations. This year, the small-business market is going to get hit with the policy cancellations that roiled the individual market last year. Some firms will get better deals, but others will find that their coverage is being canceled in favor of more expensive policies that don’t cover as many of the doctors or procedures that they want. This is going to be a rolling problem throughout the year.
· Summer 2014: Insurers get a sizable chunk of money from the government to cover any excess losses. When the costs are published, this is going to be wildly unpopular: The administration has spent three years saying that Obamacare was the antidote to abuses by Big, Bad Insurance Companies, and suddenly it’s a mechanism to funnel taxpayer money to them?
· Fall 2014: New premiums are announced.
· 2014 and onward: Medicare reimbursement cuts eat into hospital margins, triggering a lot of lobbying and sad ads about how Beloved Local Hospital may have to close.
· Spring 2015: The Internal Revenue Service starts collecting individual mandate penalties: 1 percent of income in the first year. That’s going to be a nasty shock to folks who thought the penalty was just $95. I, like many other analysts, expect the administration to announce a temporary delay sometime after April 1, 2014.
· Spring 2015: The IRS demands that people whose income was higher than they projected pay back their excess subsidies. This could be thousands of dollars.
· Spring 2015: Cuts to Medicare Advantage, which the administration punted on in 2013, are scheduled to go into effect. This will reduce benefits currently enjoyed by millions of seniors, which is why they didn’t let them go into effect this year.
· Fall 2015: This is when expert Bob Laszewski says insurers will begin exiting the market if the exchange policies aren’t profitable.
Puck Obama and his ObaminationCare scam will break the back of any candidate who supports him and/or it. 2014 will be bad. 2015 will be worse. Hillary Clinton 2016 needs to say “the puck stops here.”
Those who want to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016 will seek to tie Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama in order to keep Barack Obama afloat in 2014. For Obama supporters it is still all about Obama. For Obama supporters Hillary Clinton is a sacrificial lamb on the alter of Obama worship.
Hillary Clinton should, as quickly as possible, tell Barack Obama, Obama strategists, and ObamaCare, “Puck You”.
Sex-pot Gennifer Flowers, “bimbo eruptions,” pot smoking, draft-dodging, “cocaine airports,” a ‘two bit governor from a two bit state,” failed investments, corruption, sleazy associates, soviet stooge, black bastard baby father, communist state agent, student revolutionary. These were some of the sure to destroy him allegations at Bill Clinton in 1992. Bill Clinton won. Later, panty sniffer Kenny Starr added murder suicide Vinny, trailer park Paula, perjury, rape, DNA stained dresses, travel office firings, and more to the list of sure fire weapons of victory. Bill Clinton became more popular than ever and left the White House with 65% approval. Then we got more about a power hungry evil wife, stolen furniture, corrupt pardons, typewriters with a missing “w”, loans from friends, big houses, and huge speaking fees. The result was a popular Bill Clinton and a popular Senator Hillary Clinton. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Rational opposition party partisan thinkers would by now begin to realize that perhaps the tactics need to change if they finally want to achieve the aim of bringing down Bill and/or Hillary Clinton. Boob Barack Obama figured out how to get the job done (by shouts of “racist” from his minions and back room deals with Ted Kennedy, Kerry, DailyKooks and others) because he is a genius at self-advancement devoid of decency. But even Barack Obama was forced to bow to Bill Clinton for reelection salvation. Now Barack finds himself in the lose/lose position of trying to stop Hillary from replacing him in more ways than one while at the same time realizing that it will be worse for his “legacy” if he destroys his party completely and Republicans take the White House, Senate, House, governorships and state legislatures in 2014 and 2016.
It’s now 2014, Republicans are poised to begin their further takeover of political offices from coast to coast, but they still don’t have a clue about how to stop Hillary Clinton 2016. Time magazine next week will on its cover ask the question “Can anyone stop Hillary?” The answer is “yes”. But can the same old same old get the job done? The answer is “no”. Consider the latest sure fire can’t miss partisan weapons deployed to once and for all stop Hillary Clinton 2016.
The tightly wound Gretchen Carlson and Sean Hannity this week both highlighted what will surely destroy Hillary Clinton 2016. Their weapon of sass destruction? The Bob Gates book anecdote of Hillary and Barack Obama confessing to each other that their opposition to the Iraq war surge was political theater and positioning necessary because of the 2008 Iowa caucuses. Treason! Horror! This is a fascinating anecdote from the very credible Bob Gates – but not for the reasons that Hillary opponents want.
Why is this a fascinating anecdote worthy of lots of attention and examination? Well, first of all Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton were allies (“I found her smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world.”) in the Obama White House of Horror. Second, who is damaged by this story? Carlson and Hannity think it is Hillary 2016 that is most hurt. Their reasoning is that Hillary Clinton in 2016 will be the one with a future to stop while Barack Obama is a lame duck with no future elections to compete in.
Carlson and Hannity think they can tar and destroy Hillary with the shocking allegation of “being political”. But isn’t Hillary Clinton already viewed as “political”? That shocking allegation has about as much resonance as Bill Clinton smoking pot in college. Whose credibility gets hurt by that anecdote? It is Barack Obama that has tried to posture himself as the non-political non-politicians ruling as a philosopher-king. If we were conspiracy minded we would say that Hillary getting Barack Obama to confess that his opposition to the Iraq surge was for base political motives was a Hillary Clinton/Bob Gates trap that Obama fell into.
Carlson and Hannity want this anecdote to be a Clinton killer but there is a problem. The problem with this “political” treason story of evil Hillary Clinton making life and death military decisions for corrupt political reasons related to 2008 elections in Iowa and confessing this in front of her ally Bob Gates is a certain video unearthed by the ever vigilant, ever faithful, ever ready Still4Hill:
That anti-surge statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was made in January 2007 well before the Iowa caucuses of 2008 and well before the Kennedy/Kerry treacheries made coffee carrier Barack Obama into a candidate with a chance that Hillary had to be wary of. So who is hurt by the Gates anecdote?
“Midway through Barack Obama’s first term as president, U.S. officials grew alarmed that Israel might launch a unilateral air strike against Iran’s nuclear program. Iran had snubbed Obama’s outreach after the 2008 election, and rejected an October 2009 international proposal to ship most of its enriched uranium out of the country—stirring pessimism about prospects for a future breakthrough.
“Militarily, I thought we needed to prepare for a possible Israeli attack and Iranian retaliation,” former Defense Secretary Robert Gates writes in his new memoir, Duty. At a January 2010 Oval Office meeting, Gates told Obama “he needed to consider the ramifications of a no-warning Israeli attack,” including whether the U.S. would assist Israel and how it would respond to Iranian retaliation.
Around the same time, senior officials met to discuss ways the U.S. might dissuade Israeli Prime Minister from taking unilateral action. In one such meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raised a bracing question, two former Obama administration officials tell TIME: Was it possible that, instead of trying to restrain Israel, the U.S. should instead provide what one of those official described as “a tacit green light to the Israelis to take care of the problem for us”? In other words, instead of begging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to give diplomacy more time, perhaps it was worth telling him to go proceed with airstrikes.“
Veto-proof majorities in the Senate are about to challenge the Barack Obama/John Kerry appeasement of Iran on the same week Barack Obama bores the nation with a “State of the Union” snoozefest. Don’t expect Hillary Clinton’s realistic approach to Iran and strong support of Israel to cause her any political trouble with anyone but the wackadoodle DailyKooks and the totalitarian left.
The Bob Gates book is not going to hurt Hillary Clinton 2016 but instead will be a help. Then there’s Benghazi. If anything coulda shoulda woulda hurt Hillary Clinton 2016 it might have been Benghazi. But at this point, what difference will it make? Republicans investigating Benghazi have been so hapless on this that it won’t make much difference at all.
The Senate geniuses concluded that the Benghazi attack was “likely preventable“. In a shocking cherry on top the Senate MENSA squad declared that Benghazi… well Benghazi was something or other but they are not quite sure and that the CIA was something or other and in either case this and that or that and this blah blah blah yada yada yada.
We used to take Benghazi seriously. We called for a select committee to investigate what happened and who was responsible for what. We called for special prosecutors to get at the truth. We thought it was obvious that an attack on an American facility on September 11 was a terrorist attack. What we got was no select committee, no credible investigation, no prosecutors, and only years after a Senate report that appears to somehow imply that yeah, kinda sorta it is fer shur kinda like weird or something that a bunch of Americans were killed on like this totally weirdo coincidental date of like, um, September 11, ya know.
Taken together with previous investigations, the report leaves no doubt that four Americans died as a result of negligence and bad judgment at the highest levels of the State Department as well as a determination to avoid doing anything that might alter the public perception that the Obama administration had vanquished al-Qaeda. It’s a sorry record and one for which no one, especially those at the top of the food chain, have been held accountable. But conservatives who have been frustrated by the way Clinton has evaded criticism over Benghazi shouldn’t get their hopes up about this report. No one should labor under the delusion that it will hinder Clinton’s efforts to secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016. [snip]
While Republicans are right to complain about this and should pursue further inquiries, they need to lower their expectations about this controversy.”
The advice from the Republican/conservative is that Benghazi is no “silver bullet” but that Hillary Clinton 2016 will be hurt at some point in the future, somehow. Keep dreaming. We expect that by 2020 there will be a select committee and special prosecutor appointed that by 2030 will find that Benghazi is in Libya.
“Years later, they would joke among themselves in harsh terms about the fates of folks they felt had betrayed them. “Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down,” one said to another. “Ted Kennedy,” the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, “dead.”
The Hopium-laced blood will flow in rivers down the corridors of the DNC if and when Hillary Clinton gets the nomination in 2016. Donna Brazille, the DailyKooks, Judas Richardson, certain Kennedys, and everyone else who sided with Barack Obama over Hillary in 2008 will be disemboweled.
Before the 2008 election cycle began Hillary Clinton was completely unaware of what treachery was being concocted by the person we had defended for so long, Ted Kennedy. We then began to call him the “Chappaquiddick Chauffeur”:
“Add Pelosi, McCaskill, Dean, Kerry, and the Democratic organizations to the anti-Hillary mob. Bamboozlement! A clan of corrupt and coopted establishment figures knew Obama could beMARKETED as a candidate of “transformation”. Bamboozlement! Inexperience became an asset. Not voting became a defense.A stooge was marketed as a leader.
The real Game Changer of course was Hillary Clinton who could unite African-Americans and the White Working Class Men and Women and Latinos and Women Independents and Republicans and truly transform the Democratic Party into a majority party for a long time. Hillary Clinton who won in Southern States with the enthusiastic support of men and who, according to exit polls, would have gotten more Republican votes in the general election and a bigger margin against John McCain than Obama was blocked BY THE DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT for their own power purposes.
Ted Kennedy, the Chappaquiddick Chauffeur, who had backed Obama for years and was a secret power (mocking Bill Clinton in secret with “hick” imitations and laughed because few knew that he, Ted Kennedy was no “neutral” but instead the power behind the stooge), gifted Obama the nomination and as part of the strategy smeared Bill Clinton as a racist. The establishment did their sleazy job well and the “creative class” dupes and dimwitted stooges went right along. How dumb is that?
These creeps, at least the ones still alive and viable politically, pretend that they are “ready for Hillary” and now endorse Hillary Clinton 2016. They are liars.
These treacherous pigs that must be politically slaughtered are fooling no one in HillaryLand.
What drives these treacherous pigs, what these treacherous pigs fear is that they will pay the price Carlo paid.
What these treacherous pigs that must be slaughtered plot is “How to destroy Hillary Clinton 2016″.
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.
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."