The most popular national political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.
The finding in the latest Bloomberg National Poll shows a higher level of wishful thinking about a Hillary Clinton presidency than when a similar question was asked in July 2010. Then, a quarter of Americans held such a view.
“Looking back, I wonder if she would have been a stronger leader, knowing the games and the politics and all that goes on,” said Susan Dunlop, 50, a homemaker in New Port Richey, Florida. “I don’t think she would have bent as much.”
Clinton, 63, a former first lady and U.S. senator from New York, fought with Obama for the Democratic nomination until June 2008, in what was often a combative primary that included her questioning his presidential readiness.
I don’t know if she would have been any better than Obama or not. I doubt it. But you never know. Hillary is never getting back into politics again, ever. So, the Democrats need to move on and find someone with the name recognition to challenge him in the 2012 election. I doubt they will, because who would want to be the white person to challage him?
Either way, 2012 is going to be one very interesting year, to say the least.
The six-month election recount that turned former “Saturday Night Live” comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota’s Twin Cities.
That’s the finding of an 18-month study conducted by Minnesota Majority, a conservative watchdog group, which found that at least 341 convicted felons in largely Democratic Minneapolis-St. Paul voted illegally in the 2008 Senate race between Franken, a Democrat, and his Republican opponent, then-incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman.
The final recount vote in the race, determined six months after Election Day, showed Franken beat Coleman by 312 votes — fewer votes than the number of felons whose illegal ballots were counted, according to Minnesota Majority’s newly released study, which matched publicly available conviction lists with voting records.
Furthermore, the report charges that efforts to get state and federal authorities to act on its findings have been “stonewalled.”
This movie made by Gigi Gaston documents the voter fraud that took place during the election primaries in 2008.
The accusations in this video, if proven, could prove to be deadly for the Obama Administration. It is my personal hope, that if the Republicans take back both houses of Congress in 2010; that a full investigation is started by the Senate. Now, I highly doubt that this would happen; but I can hope.
What you are about to watch will most likely shock you.
Update: Ed Morrissey, as always, brings some perspective:
The allegations appear to be entirely confined to caucus states, which is one of the reasons I’m skeptical. Caucuses are bare-knuckled brawls where the parties make the rules and the campaigns routinely and viciously fight over them. I have no trouble believing that Team Obama played hardball and cut as many corners as they could without getting caught. What I have trouble believing is that Hillary Clinton wasn’t doing the exact same thing in these states. After all, Hillary was hardly a babe in the woods. The Clinton Machine had been fighting these battles since Obama was in high school. Now we’re suddenly to believe that they were manning the Good Ship Lollipop in 2008 and were shocked, shocked to find that caucuses aren’t played by Marquess de Queensbury rules?
This is one of the reasons that I believe primaries are usually a better way to select nominees, especially for higher offices. They’re not impervious to fraud and abuse, but it’s a more level ground, and the stakes for committing malfeasance are at least somewhat higher than in caucuses.
Since the first frivolous ethics charges were filed against Sarah Palin two years ago, legal bills for the Palin family have mounted into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Last year, friends of the family set up the Alaska Fund Trust to help pay legal fees. They used the words “official legal fund” so that supporters would know it was the fund trusted by the Palins.
But now — because Governor Palin used the word “official” — an independent counsel decided that Sarah Palin “violated” the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act when she served as governor of the state.
Funds donated to the Alaska Fund Trust were immediately frozen until the legal challenge was sorted out.
Governor Palin has now agreed to send the money back to the donors. This means that not a single dollar of the trust fund went to pay the Governor’s massive legal fees.
On June 24, 2010 a new legal defense fund — The Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund — was created to pay these urgent legal bills.
We set up the new fund to cover the Palin’s legal bills for past, present, and future attacks.
The fund has been set up by friends and trusted advisors of Governor Palin.
Let’s help Governor Palin with this incredible burden that no citizen should have to bear and free her to speak out on behalf of conservatives all across this great country.
Will you help us relieve Governor Palin of this burden?
645 G Street | Suite 100 # 711 | Anchorage, AK | 99501
Now, I will tell you this; I was never really a huge Palin fan. But I thought the gal got a raw deal with the liberal media and from idiots that put this Lady through the mill. I am asking those who actually read this blog to help Palin out. Further more, because of hateful bastards like these twits here, I am asking that you double your support for Palin.
They called it the Alaska Fund Trust, the “official legal fund” for Governor Palin.
In fact, they added the words “official legal fund” so that supporters would know it was not just approved by the family, but that it complied with disclosure requirements, had professional management, created limits on who could donate and how much could be donated, and a variety of other restrictions that made it a very conservative and limited trust.
Further, the word “official” was used to distinguish the Alaska Fund Trust from other legal defense funds that were starting to pop up and no one knew if these would comply with disclosure laws, lobbyist restrictions, etc.
But now – because she used the word “official” – an independent counsel decided that the Trust “violated” the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act and now requires the Trust to send back every single donation raised by the defense fund while she was governor.
The left-wing media wants you to think Gov. Palin is an “ethics violator.” But they ignore the actual findings that Gov. Palin acted in good faith and relied on a team of expert trust lawyers to set it up.
They ignore that Gov. Palin stated one overriding principle: if the trust fund could be lawfully set up, she would support it. That is hardly the action of a person bent on skirting the law, contrary to the hysterical commentaries. But they ignore the truth and prefer to propagate lies about Sarah Palin.
They DON’T want you to know:
The National Democratic Committee used its Alaska chapter, the Alaska Democratic Party (ADP), to create a website with one stated goal: “Keep Sarah Palin Out of Public Office.” To this day, the Democrats use this website to publicly seek donations for funding bogus “legal challenges involving issues related to Sarah Palin.”
The ADP’s “Keep Sarah Palin Out of Public Office” campaign used our own legal system to sponsor more than two dozen ethics complaints against Governor Palin. Out of the 27 complaints, 26 were dismissed!
The so-called “independent counsel” who started this investigation was an attorney from President Barack Obama’slaw firm.
The money in the Alaska Fund Trust has been frozen and bills gone unpaid.
You see the part up there, that I put in bold, underlined and colored red? That, my friends, is the reason why I even bothered to post this here. This crusade against Sarah Palin is nothing more than a 21 century lynching against a Conservative Christian Woman. Admittedly, John McCain’s campaign did do some stuff wrong; at least I feel anyway… — but the bulk of blame goes towards the Democrats, who relentlessly hounded this woman to death and still continues to do so.
Which is just one, in a litany of reasons why I will never vote for anyone representing the Democratic Party, ever again.
Now, I ask you; as a Christian, as someone who believes that the Republican Party does, in fact, embrace the Tea Party values and does want to see a strong, secure America. * I ask you to help Sarah Palin pay down these legal bills, so that she can be free to enjoy the rest of her political and personal career, as she sees fit. Please, do not allow these liberal bastards to bring someone like Palin down or allow them to win the battle. Fight back, with the best weapon possible — your pocketbook. I know times are hard; In fact, I am going through tough times myself. But, all donations, no matter how big or how small will help her out.
Thanks for reading. 🙂
-Patrick
* – Disclaimer: I have never, nor will I ever, be a member or affiliated with the actual Republican National Committee. I have never as much sent them a dime. So, before you call me a Republican, please note this.
Three explosions, two rocket attacks and subsequent gunfire have been reported in the near vicinity of the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar, Pakistan, on April 5. The attack occurred early afternoon local time when the consulate would have been full of both American and local employees. The death toll is reported at 36 but is expected to rise.
There are no assessments yet of the damage that the consulate building has sustained, but reports indicate that the explosions led to the collapse of other, adjacent buildings. Pakistani soldiers are also reported to be engaging militants in gunfire, indicating that militants are actively engaged in an attack near the area — possibly with the intention of breaching the U.S. Consulate.
[….]
UPDATE:
One attacker was able to blow up in the U.S. Consulate premises, AAJ TV reported April 5. The front side of the U.S. Consulate has been totally destroyed. Reports indicate that seven or eight security personnel in the consulate are dead. The consulate’s communication system is down.
Many people are wondering why this has happened. I think I know why. It could very well be because of this here:
KABUL — President Obama’s visit to Kabul last week, intended in part to forge a closer working relationship with President Hamid Karzai, has helped produce the opposite: an angry Afghan leader now attacking the West for what he perceives as an effort to manipulate him and weaken his rule.
Karzai’s relationship with his U.S. backers in the past week has taken a sharp turn for the worse after his two anti-Western speeches in three days, remarks that some officials see as a rehearsed, intentional move away from the United States.
In remarks to parliament members Saturday, Karzai said that if foreign interference in his government continues, the Taliban would become a legitimate resistance — one that he might even join, according to lawmakers present.
“When I heard Karzai’s remarks, it really shocked me. It scared me,” a senior Afghan official who works closely with Karzai said. “We should not take this lightly. This is a golden opportunity to have the West here; we can’t squander it.”
Karzai’s comments have angered U.S. officials and some of his prominent Afghan colleagues in the government, who fear he is jeopardizing international funding and military support because his pride has been injured.
“That guy’s erratic, he’s unpredictable. I don’t get him,” said a senior U.S. military official in Kabul.
However, if you read a little deeper, you will see this:
But the next day, Karzai told a gathering of lawmakers that foreign interference fuels the insurgency. One lawmaker said Karzai made the point that if he is compelled to obey foreigners, “I’ll join the Taliban.”
“I know he’s cooperating with the U.S., but he just wants to give us a wrong perception. He’s trying to prove himself as a hero, a nationalist,” the lawmaker said.
Some of the presidents’ supporters said that people overreacted to the statements, and that Karzai is well aware of how reliant he is on the United States and other countries fighting in Afghanistan. The United States pours billions of dollars monthly into Afghanistan, and 30,000 new troops are arriving to fight the Taliban.
Speaking at a meeting of about 1,200 tribal leaders and local officials in the southern city of Kandahar on Sunday, Karzai again suggested that U.S. pressure is counterproductive.
“Afghanistan will be fixed when its people trust that their president is independent and not a puppet,” he said. “We have to demonstrate our sovereignty. We have to demonstrate that we are standing up for our values.”
I think this guy needs to make up his mind. Trying to play to his people and be friends with the west is not going to work. The United States of America is NOT interested in owning that Country, no more than it is interested in owning Iraq. We are, or at least we were, there to get rid of Al-Qaeda terrorists who wanted to attack and destroy America. It seems that our focus is shifting and we are now trying to play “Paddy Cake” with Afgan Leaders who want to be friendly with the the U.S. and the Taliban. The President of the United States needs to firm with Karzai, and tell him either choose the Taliban and possibly being killed by the United States in military action or choose true freedom and democracy. You cannot have it both ways, terrorism and democracy cannot co-exist.
Just a personal aside, I had a sinking feeling that this sort of a thing would happen, if we elected a Democrat for a President. For all of his failings, for all of the stuff that I did not like about him; George W. Bush knew exactly how to deal with these sorts of things. He was seen by the Afghan people and the Iraqis as a firm strong leader, who was willing to risk it all to stand against terrorism, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. President Obama just does not have that same stance. President Obama and by default, the Democrats see terrorism as a juvenile criminal behavior; and it is not; it is a war against freedom and democracy in the name of a backward and dangerous religion.
I guess the only hope at this point is that Obama realizes what he is dealing with here and changes his focus. However, I just do not see that happening at all. Needless to say, the next year few years is going to be interesting, when it comes to the war on terror and this entire situation.
E-mail a guy and get your…ahem, cut off. (ouch!) 😯
I am referring to Donald Douglas. I e-mailed him, He is, like me, a Hendrix Fan.Which is an awesome thing, Hendrix was awesome player. He also inspired me to learn how to play guitar.
I guess he thought I was angry, which I wasn’t. He has in his sidebar over at America Power, a version of Jimi Hendrix’s “Purple Haze” done on a British TV show; Jimi’s all turned down, his Marshall sounds horrible. I begged Don to change the video. I guess he thought I was angry or something. I was not at all. I was teasing the guy. Guess I should have dropped in a smiley or two. 😀
Actually, I’m quite open to suggestions for music posts. But why Patrick’s “shock” at seeing a Hendrix video in the sidebar? It’s no big deal. The dude obviously should spend some time visiting AmPow before going off!
1. I was not going off, 2. I do come over there, when I see link from Memeorandum. I don’t have time to read everyone else’s blog. I’m usually too busy running my own. Sorry. 😀
I’ve been around the rock-and-roll block a few times, eh?
Which is another way of saying, “I’m old…” 😉 😛 😀 😆
Not only that, I can’t stand paleocons, actually. So, advance demerits for that.
Um, I guess I’ll have to clear that one up too. 🙄 I am not, any longer, calling myself a Paleo-Con or Paleo-Pat. Why? It become quite apparent to me that the whole Paleo-Con/Neo-Con thing is really about a bunch of sour pusses, who really just resented former Democrats coming over to the Conservative, not to mention monolithic hatred of Jews and other Minorities. While I have mad respect for the Paleo-Cons/Libertarians on fiscal issues; the good majority of which are just not grounded in reality. The Paleo-Cons and libertarians or Ron Paul people, if you wanna call them that; want to live in a Utopian society. Some of them a Non-Jewish, all white society. Having said all that, Yes, I disagree with Bush’s Wilsonian foreign policy. Something that is, admittedly, progressive in nature; as Glenn Beck rightly points out on his show. But, unlike the Paleo-Con’s and libertarians, I do believe that the war on terror is quite the reality. However, I highly dislike the idea of nation building. But I am not overly ideological about it. I believe pragmatism goes a long way in dealing with the issues of the World, than does being a stubborn ideologue. That’s the whole problem of the Paleo-Con and libertarian crowd. They’re just too damn rooted in a isolationist and protectionist ideology. So, to Donald, Richard Spencer I am not! 😀
That said, Patrick whines a lot about not getting FMJA links, so I’ll toss him a bone. Nice videos as well, although I quite dig that one at the sidebar — obviously an early rendition of “Purple Haze,” raw in its styling and percussion.
Whines Alot?!?! Why I oughta… 😉 😛 😀
Worry about your own blog circling the drain, buddy.
Ha! 😛 😀 😉 Lemmie tell you something there Neo-Con boy! When you get off that suck-ass Blogger, which is, by the way, owned by the very liberal GOOGLE ( 😮 ) and could shut you down at any moment’s notice, like they did Hillary people and some Conservatives, for criticizing “The One”; and get you some real hosting and a WordPress Blog —- then you can criticize me and my blog. 😉 😛 😀 😆
Otherwise, put a sock in it Podhartz lackey! 😮 😉 😛 😀 😆
Former President Bill Clinton was rushed to a Manhattan hospital late this afternoon, sources tell ABC News.
Clinton, 63, was transported to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in Manhattan for a condition related to his heart.
ABC News’ chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported that sources said he was taken to the hospital “likely for a stent procedure.”
Sources on Capitol Hill tell ABC News that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was seen leaving the Oval Office a short time ago and did not seem “too concerned” or “in a rush.
Politics is one thing, real life is another; My Thoughts and Prayers are with the President and his Family tonight.
A Statement from the Clinton circle: (H/T Politico)
Douglas Band, counselor to former President Bill Clinton, said in a statement:: “President Bill Clinton was admitted to the Columbia Campus of New York Presbyterian Hospital after feeling discomfort in his chest. Following a visit to his cardiologist, he underwent a procedure to place two stents in one of his coronary arteries. President Clinton is in good spirits, and will continue to focus on the work of his Foundation and Haiti’s relief and long-term recovery efforts.”
Again, my thoughts and best wishes to the Clinton Family tonight.
I have two stories, first this story via the U.K. Telegraph:
Video:
The Story:
The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to “clarify” the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts.
Alain Joyandet admitted he had been involved in a scuffle with a US commander in the airport’s control tower over the flight plan for a French evacuation flight.
“This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti,” Mr Joyandet said.
Geneva-based charity Medecins Sans Frontieres backed his calls saying hundreds of lives were being put at risk as planes carrying vital medical supplies were being turned away by American air traffic controllers.
But US commanders insisted their forces’ focus was on humanitarian work and last night agreed to prioritise aid arrivals to the airport over military flights, after the intervention of the UN.
The diplomatic row came amid heightened frustrations that hundreds of tons of aid was still not getting through. Charities reported violence was also worsening as desperate Haitians took matters into their own hands.
Let me get this straight —- The United States of America’s last two Presidents get together, put political differences aside and begin to raise all sorts of funds for people of Haiti and now we are the bad guys? Unreal. 🙄
The humanitarian catastrophe in Haiti is turning out to be a classic illustration of anti-Americanism in seven easy steps.
Calamitous events take place in a chaotic place (think Bosnia, think Somalia, think Iraq in 1991).
The U.N and the U.S intervene.
The civil government proves to be useless or malign, or both. The U.N isn’t up to the job. The only effective force in sight is the U.S. According to today’s Guardian, John O’Shea, the head of Goal, a medical charity, has called on the U.S to take charge of the whole operation. So has a major U.S aid agency (“which declined to be named for political reasons”).
There are only two possible outcomes.
The U.S takes over. If this happens, it will be accused of “creating a military occupation under the guise of humanitarian aid” and “occupying” the country outright. (Apologies, my memory’s failing me. These criticisms have been aired already. The first quote’s from President Chavez of Venezuela. The second’s from Alain Joyandet, France’s “Co-operation Minister”.)
The U.S doesn’t take over. If this happens, it will be criticised for “not doing enough” – and isolationism.
So either way, the U.S loses.
I’m not a fully signed-up member of the Stars-and-Stripes fan club. But there are times when I think: who’d be an American?
Sorry, I am just going to say this, and I know that some identity politics type of jackass or some minority serial complainer will bitch about it; fine, screw ’em, I just don’t give a damn anymore. What needs to happen right about now, is this — The United States of America needs to get all those supplies off of those ships and planes and get back on their ships and planes and get the hell out of Haiti now. I mean, we have ponied up for these people and other such people long enough, let them idiots deal with their problems themselves, why the hell should WE have to be the ones to go in and play captain? Not like they are going to appreciate what we do any damn way. If the U.N. does not like our forces being there, LET THE U.N. TAKE OVER THE MISSION AND LEAVE!
Yeah, I know, some liberal asshat is going to call me a racist bigot for saying it. I got two words for you: Screw You. The United States of America has wasted more money on Countries that do not like us, for whatever reason and we are doing it again; and again we are being fingered as the bad guys. Enough is Enough! It is time for the United States to say home and take care of its own problems and stop trying to help everyone who has a Earthquake or other kind of natural disaster.
It just so happens that the United States of America is going through its own sort of disaster, A man-made one, its called our Economy — and instead of us watching what we spend and keeping what we have, which is not much, when you figure that China is buying our debt, we are sending it off to a bunch of idiots, who really do not like us anyhow! No, this is not sarcasm, I am quite serious. What do we get for all this sort of charity? The above nonsense that I just quoted.
Bottom Line: I believe it is high time that the United States of America reevaluated its role abroad and got out of the rescue and charity business for Countries that really do not like us anyhow.
I saw this yesterday, But I really did not feel like writing about it:
A new book is out with a highly critical but unsourced portrait of Hillary Clinton. This familiar occurrence — it’s happened too many times to count over the years — has usually been greeted with an equally familiar response: A fast and furious counterattack from the Clinton inner circle.
What’s notable about the highly publicized release of “Game Change,” however, is the virtual silence from the Clinton camp. The lack of public outrage seems to mark the sputtering end of what was once known as the Clinton political machine and underlines a fact that onetime Clinton loyalists acknowledge: The book’s primary sources about the former candidate and current secretary of state are her own former staffers and intimates.
As a result, there is no campaign of veteran Clintonites spinning the press corps and trying to pre-emptively discredit the book’s scathing depiction of Hillary Clinton as a rudderless candidate and a cheerleader for vicious tactics against eventual winner Barack Obama. There is no team of Clinton proxies going on cable television to denounce authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann as scurrilous and unworthy of belief.
This time, Bill and Hillary Clinton are virtually alone.
If the things in this book are even remotely true; then you can kiss the Clinton dynasty goodbye. Much of what was said in this book has been already said; by the people that made “Hillary, The Movie.” Which the Clinton machine worked like hell to keep from being promoted, during the 2008 election. Although there are some very new juicy tidbits that have been brought up. Like Ben says in this piece, the Clinton’s and their inner circle have not tried to come out and defend Hillary or Bill. So, it does look like they are either guilty as charged or just do not feel like dealing with it.
Bottom Line: Hillary Clinton made a huge mistake in trying to run for President, her ego and elitism got the best of her. In the long run, she did more harm than good, to her and her husband’s reputation by running. This book also justifies Newt Gingridge and his Movie about Hillary.
If you thought 2010 was the future, think again. A phony new email chain letter — one of the antiquated viral sort leftover from the AOL era — is claiming that the case against President Barack Obama’s citizenship has reached the Supreme Court, based on a forged and typo-riddled Associated Press “report.”
The birther movement of angry citizens who believe President Obama was not born in the country and is thus ineligible to be president seemed to lose steam in the year since the 2008 election, but this new email spreading takes the accusations to a new level of ridiculousness based on fake news done poorly.
This is the main reason why I quit giving that birther crap any space on my blog. Because they know they are wrong. But that will not stop them. What they cannot prove; they make up. Which is horrible, but they are entitled to free speech, like everyone else — like me.
The problem is, there are well-meaning Conservatives, who actually believe this bunch of nonsense. The problem is, not many of them know this theory’s origins; which was on the White Nationalist website, Stormfront. It was then picked up operatives in the Hillary Clinton campaign, and then finally by political operatives within the Republican Party. It was quickly dumped by the Republicans and somewhat by the Hillary people. But it still festers out there. There are some, who are still angry at Obama from the Hillary camp, and some angry Republicans, who still, to this day, forward these e-mails around. It is, as Charles Johnson noted in the interview that I posted, a nuanced racial message, that basically says, “Go back to Africa, nigger!” I will be the first to admit it, there are some racists still in the ranks of Conservatives, especially in the south. Some of these people, at some point may have voted Democrat. Some not. It depends entirely on the person. This is not to say, that they all are, but there are some who hold that well-nuanced feeling towards blacks.
I think one of tragedies of the Conservative Blogosphere is that some of them, including me, got caught up into that birther nonsense. Especially when Orly Taitz started bringing out her “supposed” Birth Certificates. I was burned on that story once; it will never happen again, I can assure you of that. I went as far as to add a retraction to the story and went out of my way to slam that pathetic woman, for even trying to deceive the American people. I also slammed the owner of WorldNetDaily for giving Taitz the space to spout her nonsense too. Most of the rest that covered it, never bothered, and that to me, is a real issue. I mean, if you going to cover a story, at least have the common decency to say that it was a hoax.
We know absolutely no one in Bush family circles and have never met former President George W. Bush or his wife Laura.
If you have been reading us for any length of time, you know that we used to make fun of “Dubya” nearly every day…parroting the same comedic bits we heard in our Democrat circles, where Bush is still, to this day, lampooned as a chimp, a bumbling idiot, and a poor, clumsy public speaker.
Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.
We were convinced that ANYONE who was president would have done what Bush did, and would have set that right tone of leadership in the wake of that disaster. President Gore, President Perot, President Nader, you name it. ANYONE, we assumed, would have filled that role perfectly.
Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush. We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11. He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone. More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.
Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day. The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.
It is a very interesting read; It all sounds nice and pretty — that is until you hear the reality of it. If you think for one minute that the people that wrote the above and what is over at that link are really sincere about that; I have land to sell you for extremely cheap in Texas —- in a swamp. The only motivation for this idiotic bunch of Bovine Tripe that was written here is the following; their allegiance to Hillary Clinton. HillBuzz is simply a group of Homosexual Hillary Supporters; that are a still bitter because Barack Obama kicked Shillary’s fat ass in the 2008 Primary.
So, while it may sound nice, pretty and — dare I even say it? Patriotic. (Uh, Gag, Puke) It is simply a piece written to kick dirt in the face of Barack Obama for daring to defeat Hillary Clinton. So, please, do not buy the hype on this entry. Because if it would have been Hillary that won. These guys would be still trashing Bush. In other words; Nice try guys, but not all of us in the political blogging world are that dumb to believe that you actually now love Bush. 🙄
Man, it is pretty bad, when amateur idiots like me, have to correct the so-called “Professional Bloggers,” whatever that is. 🙄
Dude, she’s totally running — albeit certainly not in 2012 as an upstart challenger to The One. She’s too good of a soldier to do that, per her diving headfirst into the tank here to defend his Nobel win.
Dude, she was born in 1947, That makes her, unless my Math is totally off, 62 years old. There is no way that she will ever try another run at the Presidency. Here is why I think so: There is just no way that a Liberal Democrat is going to want to run that late in the stretch in their lives; at least not after what happened to “Grampy McSame” in the 2008 election. I mean, if you were a Liberal Democrat, much less a female Liberal Democrat; would you want your campaign being compared to an old Conservative Republican who thought he was entitled to be President, because of his age and Vietnam Service? Uh, I think the answer would be no.
AllahPundit and those who read his writings need to face facts; The Clinton dynasty is over, for good. The Feminist and Moderate Wing of the Democratic Party was soundly defeated by the Black Entitlement and Identity Politics of the Democratic Party. This was done by electing a President who is defined by elements of Neo-Liberalism, and by a HUGE dose of abject Socialism. While I do believe some hawkish Neo-Conservatives Conservatives would just love to see Hillary in the White House; I am afraid that era is simply over; and we are now staring down one of the most dangerous era of our times. The era of “Hope and Change” or as it known b the rest of us, the era of hyper-Socialism.
I figured I would see this out of maybe, The National Review or possibly, maybe, The New Republic and definitely The Weekly Standard ——– But, the Nation? I mean that magazine is about a leftist as it gets and they are criticizing “The One” that they were all waiting for? The One who they basically turned into the Democratic Party’s personal savior and lord? I mean, this is amazing.
I do believe the Honeymoon is over and over horribly it is.
John Nichols writes over at The Nation the Following:
The Obama administration really needs to get over itself.
First, the president and his aides go to war with Fox News because the network maintains a generally anti-Obama slant.
Then, an anonymous administration aide attacks bloggers for failing to maintain a sufficiently pro-Obama slant.
These are not disconnected developments.
An administration that won the White House with an almost always on-message campaign and generally friendly coverage from old and new media is now frustrated by its inability to control the debate and get the coverage it wants.
Nichols goes on to deliver a blistering smack down of the Obama Administration’s idea that they can try and control the media. Which is pretty shocking, considering which magazine that this is actually coming from. I guess that this should not be that great of a surprise, seeing that Barack Obama’s White House yesterday kicked the entire gay community and the Liberal Blogging community square in the jewels. Despite the best efforts to quell down the backlash, I do believe that the proverbialGenie is out of the bottle here. I do believe that President Obama is about to find out just how intolerant and hateful that the Progressive/liberal community is towards those who try and stiff them. Bill Clinton went through this; and now Obama is about to get the same treatment.
This should serve as a wake up call to anyone in the Democratic Party that is thinking of running in 2012 or in 2010 for that matter. Do not pander, do not overreach; or you will pay dearly. You would think that the Democratic Party would have learned all of this, as a whole, from the Clinton years. Sadly it seems that the Democratic Party is hellbent on making the same stupid mistakes that it made in the Clinton years. Clinton did that and the Democrats paid for it, for eight long years. George W. Bush did that to the Republican Party— and to America; and now the Republican Party is paying for that now, as we speak. Now the Obama White House is doing the same thing —— again. When will people ever learn, that you just do not make lofty promises that you do not intend to keep, that you just no not pander or overreach, because it will come back haunt you.
It is such a vicious cycle, that is repeated over and over and over… by both Political Parties. 🙄
Not a big surprise, considering the President’s middle name; I mean after all, The President does not even want the words “War on Terror” used anymore.
President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan‘s political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.
The sharpened focus by Obama’s team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.
Though aides stress that the president’s final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
McChrystal’s troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to — the general’s strong preference — as many as 40,000.
Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said.
[….]
There now are no more than 100 al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Instead, the U.S. fight in Afghanistan is against the Taliban, now increasingly being defined by the Obama team as distinct from al-Qaida. While still dangerous, the Taliban is seen as an indigenous movement with almost entirely local and territorial aims, less of a threat to the U.S. than the terrorist network.
Obama’s team believes some elements in the Taliban are aligned with al-Qaida, with its transnational reach and aims of attacking the West, but probably not the majority and mostly for tactical rather than ideological reasons, the official said.
“They’re not the same type of group,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said. “It’s certainly not backed up by any of the intelligence.”
That leaves the primary aim in Afghanistan to deny al-Qaida any ability to regroup there as it did when the Taliban was in power before the 2001 invasion that ousted them. And this points to a smaller military increase in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on surgical strikes against terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere — essentially the approach being advocated by Biden as an alternative to the McChrystal recommendation for a fuller counterinsurgency effort inside Afghanistan.
Biden has argued for keeping the American force there around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 extra troops Obama ordered earlier this year, but significantly increasing the use of unmanned Predator drones and special forces that have been successful in Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere.
[….]
Clinton has not tipped her hand as to how she is leaning in the sessions, according to aides. While she is broadly supportive of building up troop levels — although not necessarily in the numbers favored by McChrystal — she also believes the military cannot be the only focus, said the aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to detail her views.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, long wary of a large troop presence in Afghanistan, appears to have grown more comfortable with the prospect of a moderate, middle-path increase.
Many lawmakers from Obama’s own Democratic Party do not want to see additional U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.
Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders’ calls soon or risk failure. “Unnecessary delay could undermine our opportunity for success,” House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday.
So, while President Obama and Hillary Clinton are playing political chess and trying not to offend one another; our troops are dying on the battlefield. Terrific.
AllahPundit over at HotAir.com, who was in New York during the 9/11 attacks; is quite livid:
They’re looking for any way they can to avoid giving McChrystal the troops he says he needs to secure the country, so they’ve come up with a way out. If the people we’ve been fighting for eight years aren’t the enemy, then the country no longer needs to be secured from them, does it?
[…]
In other words, rather than eat crap by forthrightly admitting he’s prepared to abandon huge swaths of the country to Islamist fascists rather than invest another 40,000 troops, he’s going to create an artificial distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda to let him save face by claiming he’s focused on “the real enemy.” Much like how he was focused during the campaign on “the good war” in Afghanistan rather than “the bad war” in Iraq. I wonder how long it’ll be before he decides that not everyone who’s in Al Qaeda is an enemy either — or, better yet, that AQ’s been “substantially defeated” or something, which has been the unstated thrust of all those WH-leaked pieces in the press lately about how weak Bin Laden’s gang has become. Why, I’ll bet in a year or so we’ll be told that they’re so weak that we can start pulling out of Afghanistan altogether. Things sure have improved over there since Bush was president, huh?
I would not want to be in the United States Military right now for no amount of money in the world. Not with that idiot buffoon running the Military. The man has zero, and I do mean ZERO clue how to fight a war. I feel for our boys over there right now; because, quite frankly, they are trapped. Just like in Vietnam.
The real sick and sad part is; that the Republican and the Democrats both are taking this whole, “Whatever you decide to do boss! We’ll support you, all the way!” attitude; because none of them have the damn guts to stand up and tell this jack assed idiot to either damn lead or resign and let someone else lead for him. That is what makes me so damned angry.
Update: Video: (H/T to reader Stephanie)
As Stephanie said, this is going to be tough one. But he does need to stand up and lead and quit putting it off.
I notice in the Blogosphere today that the Liberals are accusing Conservatives of lying about the turn out in Washington D.C.
How ironic that the Socialists are crying foul about lying; seeing that their own dear leader is quite the liar himself.
Let’s review, shall we?
My that’s quite a bit of lying.
I think his nose should be growing…
Remember this little whopper of a big lie?
…and the Kool-Aid Drinkers bought it; hook, line and sinker.
So, perhaps…. Joe Wilson; was right?
Of course, the bill was changed, after Joe Wilson called the President on it. But still, are not these other lies legit? I think they are.
Exit Question: If a Republican lied like this man has, would not he be held to a higher scrutiny? But because he is a black liberal, he skates for free? Isn’t that the honest truth?
Synopsis: Jackie and Dunlap are worried that they’re not conservatives anymore and long for simpler times when they didn’t have to read Glenn Beck or go to tea parties.
It seems that the guys from the Washington Post decided to have a little fun with the whole beer porch thing.
Here’s the Video:
Well, because Dana Milbank used the phrase “Mad Bitch Beer” in a scant reference to Shillary. The Liberal Blogosphere is having a meltdown over it. So is one Conservative Blogger too. Sorry if I sound a bit crass and heartless over it. But just where the hell were these concern trolls; when the Liberal Media was tearing Sarah Palin apart? But, of course, most of them, if not all of them, where partaking in the slug fest against her. Do not misunderstand me here, I am not a Sarah Palin devotee; not by a long shot. But I find it most amusing that the same one’s who were slandering Sarah Palin are now getting their dander up over a rather funny video, that takes a slight poke at Hillary Clinton.
The Irony is amazing.
Update: The Video was pulled from the website. But thanks to the site Media Matters for America, we can still watch it and laugh! 😀
The White House has criticized the Congressional Budget Office’s findings that the Obama administration’s proposal to control Medicare costs would yield a moderate savings of $2 billion over the next decade.
White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said the CBO’s analysis — which it relayed to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday — could feed a perception of the office’s bias toward “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.”
“The point of the proposal … was never to generate savings over the next decade,” Orszag said in a letter posted on Saturday.
“Instead the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term.”
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s letter to Hoyer on Saturday was in response to the Senate Majority Leader’s request for analysis on “possible approaches for giving the President broad authority to make changes in the Medicare program,” Elmendorf wrote.
The Obama administration is touting a proposal to give a medical advisory council the power to help decide the scope of coverage that would be eligible for reimbursement under Medicare.
Administration officials say the proposed “Independent Medicare Advisory Council” would both improve health care quality and control costs. Some health care industry groups object to the proposal, saying such a council would not be qualified to make those judgments.
The CBO’s review of the proposal found that “the probability is high that no savings would be realized … but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized,” Elmendorf wrote.
“Looking beyond the 10-year-budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis.”
Orszag, a former director of the CBO, pointed out that “it is very rare for CBO to conclude that a specific legislative proposal would generate significant long-term savings so it is noteworthy that, with some modifications, CBO reached such a conclusion with regard to the IMAC (Independent Medicare Advisory Council concept.”
But he also criticized Elmendorf’s findings.
“As a former CBO director, I can attest that CBO is sometimes accused of a bias toward exaggerating costs and underestimating savings. Unfortunately, parts of today’s analysis from CBO could feed that perception,” Orszag said.
“In providing a quantitative estimate of long-term effects without any analytical basis for doing so, CBO seems to have overstepped.”
Just another attack from a worried White House, who wants their agenda passed, no matter the cost to the people or to our Nation.
With this letter CBO has killed the President’s IMAC proposal. It almost certainly would have died even without CBO’s letter. The proposal would have transferred an enormous amount of power from Congress to the Executive Branch. Turf-conscious Congressional committee chairmen would have fought it to protect their power base. Medicare provider interest groups (hospitals, doctors) were starting to lobby against it. They prefer Congress making these decisions because they’re easier to lobby and influence.
The only chance IMAC had was if CBO had said it would save gobs of money, allowing House leaders simultaneously to make Blue Dogs happy for being fiscally responsible, and to remove from their bill other, more politically painful, spending cuts or tax increases. IMAC was drafted so weakly that it became a budget gimmick.
[….]
Yes, the Administration could submit a fundamentally different proposal and call it a “tweak” of their existing one. To achieve the stated goals of bending the government health cost curve down and reducing future deficits, such a proposal would need to actually cut spending in an enforcable and unavoidable way. If they want to throw in a new council to shuffle money around within the mandated lower levels, that’s a separable question. The President’s advisors know, however, that a proposal like this with real teeth would never get off the ground in Congress. That’s too bad, because we desperately need the long-term deficit reduction.
The death of IMAC is a black eye for the Administration and another step backward for the pending health care reform bills. This result was both predictable and avoidable.
In a Hot Air exclusive, I contacted Chuck Blahous of the Hudson Institute, formerly the deputy director of George Bush’s National Economic Council about the open and aggressive attack on the CBO from Orszag and the White House. Blahous finds it unseemly:
“It’s routine for OMB and CBO to have scoring differences. It’s also routine for the two agencies to separately acknowledge, explain and quantify them. What’s not routine is for each to overtly criticize the other. This is a bad road to go down in any case, but even more so because OMB probably has the glass house here. Institutionally, they’re just different; CBO is purely a referee, while OMB is part referee, part player because they’re part of the President’s policy development team. Moreover, OMB’s February budget presentation attracted a lot of justified criticism for its economic assumptions and for moving various deficit-expanding policies into the budget baseline. Furthermore, most of the claims about long-term cost savings from health care reform have been purely speculative, with no data from the actuaries to back them up. Still, I don’t expect CBO to hit back and to criticize OMB scoring, nor should they. Hopefully folks will walk back and cooler heads will prevail.”
Orszag has been an embarrassment as OMB director, and now he’s becoming dangerous to the separation of powers between the branches of government. Either Obama should put Orszag on a leash, or get rid of him immediately — and find a real budget director, not just a liberal-agenda hack.
It’s hard to puzzle it out from this article, but this is an extension of Obama’s efforts to wrest control of Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements away from Congress so that he can call the shots.
And, despite what Mr. Orszag now claims, that was and is touted as a way to bring about tremendous savings.
Congress asked the CBO’s opinion, since they want to keep this power for themselves.
Needless to say, it should be nigh unto impossible for the CBO to predict whether the Obama people would raise or lower the reimbursement levels.
What a pathetic joke the Democratic legislative effort has become. Loss of freedom and no meaningful cost savings. The opposite of “you get what you pay for.”
As Rahm Emanuel and Henry Waxman push to have a vote next week, it is clear that neither the Congress nor the White House has any clue as to the consequences of what they are proposing (if they even have read it). All the more reason we need to see the bill, debate it, and let our representatives know how we feel before they vote.
So give double thanks this weekend. First, for the CBO not giving in to political pressure. And second, for the fact that the CBO works on Saturdays.
I cannot say that I honestly disagree with that. This whole thing is a page right out of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals. It also could be a page out of the old Clinton playbook as well. What you cannot change or control; you contain it by discrediting it. If you cannot do that, then kill it. Just ask Vice Foster‘s family about that. Come to think of it, there are quite a few families that could be asked about that. Conspiracy theories? You decide.
Hope! Change! Intimadation! Discrediting of your Enemies! All just another day in the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.
If you would have told me, a year ago, that I would be praising Hillary Clinton for something she said; I would have asked you what kind drugs you were on and to share some of it with me! (I kid about the drugs, but this still is a very good story.)
First the Video:
Quote:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Iran will never achieve its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon, declaring to Tehran: “Your pursuit is futile.”
“What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions, that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen,” Clinton said.
“First, we’re going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But your pursuit is futile, because we will never let Iran — nuclear-armed, not nuclear-armed — it is something that we view with great concern, and that’s why we’re doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. … We believe, as a matter of policy, it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.”
As a security summit in Thailand earlier this week, Clinton raised the possibility of a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East to protect other nations from a nuclear-armed Iran, marking the first time a senior administration official has publicly broached the prospect of the Persian nation succeeding in building a nuclear weapon.
Clinton said the Obama administration might still engage with Iran’s regime, even though she thinks the people there “deserve better than what they’re getting.”
The only question that I might have is this; Does President Obama agree with this position? Another concern that I have is that this could be a signal of War drums beating. I am sure that the Secretary knows, that our forces are still fighting in Afghanistan and that we do still have forces in Iraq and that the job there is still not entirely done yet.
However, I do commend Secretary Clinton for her tough stance towards Iran’s terrible President and Islamic Oligarchy.
I just hope that President Obama agrees with Secretary Clinton and does not try and back-peddle that stance and play the role of terrorist appeaser. If he does, it would mean the total discrediting of Secretary Clinton and further more of America’s leadership role in the World.
Update: No Quarter, who is a Pro-Hillary liberal Blogger; links in. Hey, we might not agree on politics. But I’ll any kind of linkie love that I can get! 😛 😀
In other words, negotiating with Iran at this time would indeed betray the protesters, but we’ve done this before and want to do it again now.
Fair enough, perhaps. Our experiences with the Soviet Union and China do establish that we have at times negotiated with repressive regimes. But it doesn’t follow that we should negotiate with Iran at this time.
In any event, this much is certain: our negotiations with the Soviet Union and China did not cause either power to eschew nuclear weapons. Indeed, to my knowledge negotiations have never induced any nation that was aggressively pursuing nukes to change its mind. That kind of persuasion takes a massive show of force (Libya and arguably Iraq) or regime change.
Thus, while the administration may have its own motives for negotiating with Iran, there is no reason for Israel to believe that such negotiations will protect Israel’s interest (potentially a life-and-death one) in preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Clinton’s case that Israel should rely on U.S. attempts to pursuade Iran not to go nuclear, rather than taking matters into its own hands by attacking Iran, is not a powerful one.
