[*JR*]

Originally Posted by Paneru

He makes a great point about offering better and not delivering, being even worse than Bush.

No, even the 40-60 McChrystal might have really wanted (making a peak total of 108-128 instead of 98) wouldn't have worked, as the Soviets learned with their 121K or whatever in the 80s.

And even if it did, though keeping them there @ our expense of 1M a year per soldier in the short run, it would have just pushed them deeper into nuclear Pakistan. If we're serious, the first thing we do is make Karzai boot his druglord brother (or kill that SOB ourselves).

No wonder you supported J-Mac last fall; and on this issue Hillree is even worse than Barry-O. She might even have already gave Israel a green light to start an air war vs. Iran if she were the POTUS.

And while I dearly hope that the ASAP an oil production "holiday" by them and their buddy Chavez wouldn't matter as the world is weaned off of oil in favor of other fuels, that's still years away.

[Paneru]

Originally Posted by *JR*

No, even the 40-60 McChrystal might have really wanted (making a peak total of 108-128 instead of 98) wouldn't have worked, as the Soviets learned with their 121K or whatever in the 80s.

And even if it did, though keeping them there @ our expense of 1M a year per soldier in the short run, it would have just pushed them deeper into nuclear Pakistan. If we're serious, the first thing we do is make Karzai boot his druglord brother (or kill that SOB ourselves).

No wonder you supported J-Mac last fall; and on this issue Hillree is even worse than Barry-O. She might even have already gave Israel a green light to start an air war vs. Iran if she were the POTUS.

And while I dearly hope that the ASAP an oil production "holiday" by them and their buddy Chavez wouldn't matter as the world is weaned off of oil in favor of other fuels, that's still years away.

Thanks for your pov.
So this is un-winnable.

We aren't fighting a "country".

And I see what you're saying with Hillary because had that move been made as you
suggested could have especially at this point could have had made things even worse.

So, as some are saying, would it have shown "true" leadership for Obama to have
gotten out of Afghanistan rather than sending more troops? Was this escalation
about saving a political(face) in what could have been a perception of "weakness"
in withdrawing?

And the ominous thing as well is that despite what it will cost us, we are headind
for Pakistan and the potus has been mentioning Pakistan.

[Expat]

Win or lose, Hillary Clinton just goes from strength to strength

Defeat by Barack Obama was supposed to signal a return to the Senate: instead, Hillary Clinton has become a high-profile secretary of state, and is being tipped for the vice-presidency in 2012 and the White House in 2016

* Buzz up!
* Digg it

* Paul Harris
* The Observer, Sunday 13 December 2009
* Article history

The rumour was compelling, even by the high-octane standards of Washington DC. Vice-president Joe Biden would step down in two years' time, allowing Hillary Clinton to join the Democrats' presidential ticket in 2012. Then, after serving with Barack Obama through his second term, Clinton would be all set to win the White House in 2016.

The gossip spread like wildfire through the cocktail parties of Washington, into the blogosphere and then into the mainstream press, where New York magazine, National Public Radio and the cable news channels all picked up on it. The dream of Clinton becoming America's first woman president was suddenly alive again.

But the true importance of the rumour lay not in its details, but in its very existence. Eighteen months ago, smarting from defeat by Obama's upstart campaign, such a political rebirth would have been unthinkable. There had been undeniable bitterness between the two camps. The Democratic party had been divided. Two such colossal figures could never work together, let alone prosper. Clinton, in short, would return to the Senate and continue the loyal, dogged work of drawing up legislation and ease into history as an elder stateswoman.

But the past year has seen a remarkable rejuvenation of Clinton as secretary of state. She has reinvented herself as a highly visible public figure representing the US abroad. At the same time – to the surprise of many critics – she has earned a reputation for loyalty within the Obama administration. "The critics who said she would undermine Obama have been shown to be wrong," said Robin Gerber, author of Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way.

Indeed, the only place where Clinton has perhaps trodden on her boss's toes is in the popularity stakes. While Obama has become the focus of domestic discontent that has seen his approval ratings slump to below 50% in some polls, Clinton has gone from strength to strength. In October, one Gallup survey had Clinton's approval rating at 62%. She graced the cover of Time magazine last month under the headline "The State of Hillary". One pundit approvingly dubbed her "America's Iron Lady".

Some might say that Clinton's first year as secretary of state has gone some way towards soothing the wounds left by her thwarted ambition to take the White House. Though she is not president, Clinton has nonetheless achieved what she has always wanted: influence and power. In fact, many would argue that, against all the odds, she continues to go from strength to strength.

In an era of celebrity politics Clinton certainly holds her own with Obama. Her name and her face are among the most recognisable in the world. Her presence at an event, or her visit to a foreign county, guarantees a slew of media coverage. "Obama is a celebrity president. She is a celebrity secretary of state," said Isobel Coleman, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

That fame has allowed both Obama and Clinton to bask in some of the successes of American foreign policy over the past year. The commitment to closing the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay was hailed around the world, as was a vow to cease torturing detainees.

American diplomats, after eight years of more muscular Republican unilateralism, were suddenly talking up the strengths of negotiating and forging international alliances. America even scrapped a proposed missile shield that had been a darling of the Bush years, though it outraged Russia and appeared to have serious technical problems.

Clinton has been able to soak up the benefit of a global sense that America has fundamentally changed the direction of its politics. She has embarked on trips to Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East that have differed substantially in tone from those of the Bush years.

In Pakistan, she eschewed the usual private audiences with generals and politicians and held a series of often raucous public meetings. "The tone is different now and don't ever underestimate the importance of tone in diplomacy," said Larry Haas, a political commentator and former aide in the Clinton White House.

But there is also a powerful critique building up of the Obama administration's foreign policy. Clinton is attacked for not making any single issue – say, women's rights – her diplomatic centre-piece. She is also accused of excessive travelling, and of giving flowery speeches without actually taking any difficult stands. Her critics point out that on some tough issues, such as human rights in China or Tibet, America has pursued similar policies to the Bush administration. The Obama administration looks prettier to its foreign admirers, but the substance remains the same: projection and protection of American power. Realpolitik, it seems, has won out as usual.

That argument is especially strong when it comes to Afghanistan. Obama was elected on a promise of winding down the war in Iraq and committing extra resources to Afghanistan. But few of those who supported him imagined that he would follow through on that promise to the point where tens of thousands of extra troops would be dispatched. Likewise, with America's stance on Iran. Relations with Iran are as testy as ever and many believe that a potentially devastating face-off over Iran's nuclear ambitions remains every bit as likely as it as when Bush was in power.

"On Iran you are ending up with a policy that is not dissimilar to the Bush one," said Coleman.

But Clinton is savvy enough to know that her main audience does not lie abroad, but at home. She has taken her deserved reputation for toughness and translated it into her position in the administration, posing firmly as a hawk. That has won her some unexpected new admirers. Retired four-star general Jack Keane told one interviewer: "I'm a Republican. I disagree with her about practically everything, but she'd make a hell of a commander-in-chief."

Indeed, Clinton is known to be reliably hawkish on all the top national security issues, from North Korea to Iran, to Israel and the Middle East. She has given the administration a tough edge on the day-to-day running of diplomacy even as Obama has been more dovish on the big picture version of events.

But she also shown her canny streak in securing her own position within Obama's team. Foreign policy is a crowded field in Washington, attracting attention from Obama himself, Pentagon chief Robert Gates and Biden. But a skilful Clinton has gracefully forged alliances and played the game to emerge as a winner. She plays a team game for Obama, maintains an excellent relationship with Gates and has helped see off Biden's dovish instincts on Afghanistan. She has used her strong personal relationship with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, to prove her usefulness in the Afghan theatre. She has thrived in a post she never thought she would hold.

"Clinton is both a passionate and a practical person. She has shown an ability to be both an effective team player and to step out on her own. She walks that line very well," said Haas.

Certainly she has stepped out from the shadow of her husband, Bill. One of her few public flaps as secretary of state came on a trip to the Congo, when a student made the mistake of asking her what her spouse thought of a certain issue. Clinton snapped back that she was "not going to be channelling her husband". Never were truer words spoken.

After being first lady, a New York senator, battling against Obama in 2008, and now secretary of state, Clinton has defiantly emerged as a major American figure in her own right. Nor has her story ended.

So what of the rumour that she may replace Biden in 2012 and run in 2016? Away from the chattering television pundits, few of the experts gave the story much credence, least of all those who have studied Clinton closely. "It's not impossible. But it would be very hard to see that happening," said Gerber. But she raised another intriguing possibility. Clinton is a highly trained and accomplished lawyer. After her stint at state, Obama could one day appoint her to the supreme court. Then her ability to wield power would go on for as long as she lived. "That could definitely happen one day," Gerber said.

One way or another, and defying all predictions, Clinton's star is likely to be in the ascendant for years to come.

[Paneru]

O’Connor: King Obama v. Queen Clinton — Check or Checkmate?

By Colleen O'Connor, SDNN

Chess is a war game.

You win by playing your opponent, not the game.

The patient, wily, and deft player often triumphs more frequently than the flashy, lightening quick one.

A grand master will pick off the pawns as they cross into enemy territory and then concentrate on checking the King.

The Queen has the greatest maneuverability of all the chess pieces. She can be the most lethal.

The King, by contrast, is often barricaded behind a wall of defenders, with little room to escape-save in a bold and risky fashion.

The King is dying. Long live the Queen.

Quietly, and under almost everyone’s radar, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been vanquishing her foes, while President Barack Obama has been multiplying his.

Furthermore, she has been paying off her debts, while Obama has been multiplying his (and the country’s) I.O.U.s.

Obama is down in the polls. Clinton is up. He is losing his liberal base and taking heat on health care, the wars, broken promises, gate crashers, the bailouts, and a grand design that leaves his base behind.

As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Sunday, “The Obama White House is morphing into the Bush White House with frightening speed. Its transparency is already fogged up.”

Watch Tuesday night in Massachusetts

On Tuesday night, Clinton may win promotion of another pawn to a valuable seat in the U.S. Senate-and enhance her position on the political chess board.

A non-Kennedy, non-Obama candidate may win the special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and become the first woman ever elected to the U.S. Senate from that ultra liberal state.

If Clinton supporter and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley wins that will make the ninth score that Clinton has settled. And it will have happened in the state that the Kennedy family once ruled.

Monday, in a surprise announcement, former President Bill Clinton just endorsed Coakley and has recorded a message to be sent to 500,000 Massachusetts voters to get out and vote for Coakley.

Ironically, it was Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama in the Iowa caucus that ended the Clintons’ dreams of reclaiming the White House, and started the vendettas.

For the Kennedy family’s efforts, Caroline Kennedy came to believe that she earned appointment to the U.S. Senate seat, eventually vacated by Clinton.

Instead, the Governor of New York appointed Kirstin Gillibrand — a Clinton, not an Obama ally — and it is no secret that the Clintons made it happen.

Less well known was that Obama did not “lift a finger to help Caroline Kennedy.”

Perhaps Caroline, too, hopes for revenge Tuesday night in Massachusetts.

Appearing at a weekend fundraiser for the non-Clinton candidate, Caroline opined how “amazing” it would be if Alan Khazei won. This, may have added impetus to Bill Clinton’s late breaking endorsement.

Clinton’s political obituary

Remember not long ago, Clinton, once seen as becoming the first woman ever elected President of the U.S., was just another spectator at the swearing in of America’s first black President.

Clamors of “get out” were blogged from the Obama team after her early, and unexpected, primary defeat in the Iowa caucus.

Indeed, many pundits openly cheered and penned her political obituary, but she trudged onto the snows in New Hampshire.

As did I.

Watching Bill Clinton sit two blocks away from the main polling spot in Exeter (at the chocolate shop) where every local news outlet sat down and interviewed the former President, and almost every poll showed Obama with a nine-point lead, it became obvious that the Clintons were their own best “ground game.”

They sensed a change in that frigid New England air. They were right. Clinton turned the tables and won by 3 percent, a 12 percent swing that rocked the polling industry’s credibility.

Next, came the caucus/primary in Nevada, and again I witnessed the Clinton ground game when two Edwards delegates came out of the closed doors almost in tears saying, “They couldn’t even speak English. It was awful.” Clinton’s union supporters bagged Nevada.

And I will be in Boston for Tuesday night’s election, to watch another Grand Master chess move. No historian can resist.

King Obama’s weakness

Obama’s lifelong habit of being cautious, voting “present” and splitting everything down the middle, may not get him re-elected.

If as the Clintons might already sense, that Obama is in trouble, his biggest threat remains Clinton.

Understanding this, and intent on keeping his enemies close, Obama appointed Clinton as Secretary of State, hoping, undoubtedly to woo her ardent supporters and to smother her with irrelevance.

Just to be certain that Clinton couldn’t upstage him, Obama appointed several “special envoys” to take over negotiations on the high-profile hot spots of the international stage.

The King’s chess move, thought to be “brilliant,” underestimated the patience of the Queen.

Ironically, Obama sacrificed another pawn to check the Queen.

Just last week, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) –also an Obama supporter in a state that Hillary won large — admitted that he coveted her current post of Secretary of State.

That makes Clinton 2; Obama 0. [Caroline Kennedy and John Kerry].

The remaining six pawns

Here are the former foes from the Democratic primary who took on Clinton — as Obama surrogates-hoping to be elevated to Knights, Rooks, or Bishops, but lost it all.

3. John Edwards: 2004 vice presidential candidate, 2008 presidential candidate of the “two Americas” theme, former North Carolina senator, and wannabe Attorney General in the Obama Administration.

Currently, the disgraced philanderer, less than dutiful husband of Elizabeth Edwards, and (after repeated denials of his infidelity) the only prominent national Democrat lower in public approval ratings than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

4. Bill Richardson: the New Mexico governor, friend and political appointee of the Clintons (watched Super Bowl with Bill before publically turning on the Clintons and endorsing Obama) and wannabe Secretary of State, Commerce-or anything else-under Obama.

Currently, Richardson remains in political purgatory, caused by the taint of “scandals” due to a grand jury investigation into several questionable campaign contributions in multiple alleged “pay-to-play” schemes; (involving local contactors, bond houses and a pension scheme with a Chicago investment firm that dealt with Richardson’s Chief of Staff).

Richardson’s political career cratered into jibes on the late night comedy shows of David Letterman and Jay Leno.

5. Chris Dodd: senator of Connecticut.

Currently, in serious political trouble for re-election. Dodd’s approval ratings are on life support and he is saddled with financial scandals galore-involving all those marquee companies that all Americans have come to hate-Countrywide Financial, AIG-as well as sweetheart real estate deals, with convicted inside-traders; the very people and firms Dodd was supposed to regulate.

6. Joe Biden: vice president of the U.S.

Currently, on the losing side of the debate over sending additional troops to Afghanistan. He publicly opposed the escalation in soldiers, preferring instead the option of drones and remote, recessed firepower.

Unflattering pieces about his gaffes and his “standing in the Administration” have begun to circulate in the liberal press — like in a recent column by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post.

Add to this his less than competent role on overseeing the stimulus package and detailing its success (with exaggerated numbers and made up Congressional Districts) and you see where his “standing” is headed. The latest poll showed Biden’s approval rating lower than Dick Cheney’s in the same period!

7. However, the most stealth-like, damaging, and perhaps satisfactory capture, came from the inelegant dismissal of former Clinton White House counsel, turned Obama-supporter and Clinton basher, Greg Craig.

Craig, who turned on Clinton during the primaries, did so in a rather nasty, but effective email arguing that she failed the test as commander-in-chief, that her claims of involvement in foreign affairs were bogus, and that she “never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue-not at 3 a.m. or at any other time of day.”

Currently, Craig is out of the White House-dismissed in a manner that brought howls, from the liberal activists, and have accelerated the disbelief, doubt, and defections among the Obama “believers”.

As Elizabeth Drew wrote in Politico, the firing was “the shabbiest episode of his presidency.”

8. And finally, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mon.): head of the Senate Finance Committee overseeing the health care bills.

Baucus has admitted — after repeatedly denying — that he was intimately involved with his state director, when he nominated her for the position of U.S. Attorney from Montana on “her merits.”

Currently under possible ethics violation for the nomination — not the lying, or the tryst, as both parties were separated at the time — Baucus’ political capital has eroded. He, too, competes with Tiger Woods for late night comedy jibes. Baucus’ year is ending badly.

Good year for the queen

Not so the Clintons. Besides vanquishing the eight pawns on the chess board, here are few more victories for the Clintons.

• The last minute save of the Turkish-Armenian accords opening the borders between these two longtime enemies.

• Bill Clinton’s dramatic feel-good rescue of the two female reporters held hostage in North Korea

• Clinton being named No. 4 of the 25 “smartest people” of the decade by the political blog The Daily Beast: “If anyone has a more intellectually rigorous resume for the decade, we have yet to see it.” High praise.

• A flattering article about Clinton in the December issue of Vogue magazine, complete with photos by the legendary Annie Liebowitz.

• Clinton’s approval rating in the high 60-percentile while Obama’s flirts under 50.

• The near “irrelevance” of those special envoys Mitchell and Holbrooke. They have been sidelined or mired in diplomatic quicksand.

• The success in adoption of her preferred Afghan strategy — and in securing NATO troop support over the expected 5,000 offered. (Something Clinton lectured Obama about in a primary debate: never get on the plane unless the deal has already been done.)

Whether the more agile Queen has been successfully “checked” by the King or he “checkmated” by her; only history will tell.

In the meantime, looking towards a possible transfer of power, some are rephrasing the medieval shout, “The King is dying. Long live the Queen.”

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-12...k-or-checkmate

[Gnaceon]

Queen Hillary I love the sound of it.

[Paneru]

Hillary Clinton says worldwide same-sex rights key to U.S. values, rips Uganda anti-gay law bid

BY Richard Sisk

WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Clinton on Monday called gay rights the "new frontier" in the U.S. push for worldwide democracy and human rights.

"It is at the top of our list," Clinton said in a major human rights address at Georgetown University.

Clinton also called on the African nation of Uganda to drop a proposal that would criminalize same-sex relationships - possibly imposing life imprisonment or the death penalty. "We have expressed our concerns directly, indirectly, and we will continue to do so," Clinton said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli..._law_push.html

[In The Zone]

Wow! Great news.

[Paneru]

Poll: Clinton approval soars

A new poll of avid news watchers shows that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating than the man she once campaigned against and now works for, President Barack Obama.

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified “news watchers,” Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.

The Secretary of State has conducted several well-received foreign trips in recent months and has not been as closely identified with the more contentious elements of the Administration’s agenda, including the health care fight, the federal deficit and the Wall Street bailouts. And she has not been subjected to nearly the same media and partisan scrutiny as the president. Obama, meanwhile, has been on national television on a daily basis tackling a wide range of difficult issues.

The poll was conducted by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group from December 7th to the 12th, and it asked for opinions of the top Cabinet secretaries and White House officials. Its finding on Obama and Clinton mirrors that of earlier polls – in October, for example, a Gallup poll found that Clinton had become more popular than the president.

Clarus president Ron Faucheux said one reason for Clinton’s high poll numbers is her high approval among Republicans – numbers he said position her well to run for president again in the future, if she chooses. Clinton had 96 percent approval among Democrats, a healthy 57 percent approval among Republicans, and 65 percent approval among Independents. Obama was nearly as popular among Democrats – 93 percent – but his numbers among Republicans and Independents fell off dramatically, at 19 percent and 33 percent respectively.

Clinton’s Republican numbers are striking, given how intensely disliked she has been in the past among GOP voters. In fact, part of Obama’s appeal to Democratic primary voters in 2008 was that he was more likely to be able to bridge the partisan divide than Clinton, who was by then a well-known figure dating to her time as first lady in the 1990s.

“Republicans may see her as being more hawkish than other Democrats on foreign policy issues,” said Faucheux. “It may be a way for them to bolster that position within the administration.” Asked about any future Clinton presidential bid, he said, “She’s in good shape now.”

The next highest-rated cabinet secretary in the survey was Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who notched a 69 percent overall approval rate with a 78 percent approval among Democrats and 63 percent among both Republicans and independents.

“Both Clinton and Gates did well across the partisan board,” said Faucheux. “Everybody else did well among Democrats but fell off among Republicans.”

Another trend spotted by the pollsters: Approval ratings inside the Beltway were higher than in the rest of the country. “These results show that the ‘Beltway echo chamber’ does not reflect the rest of the country, even among news watchers,” said Faucheux.

Among White House staffers and advisors, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs – who is often seen on television – had the highest overall rating at 50 percent. Economic advisor Larry Summers had the lowest approval, at 25 percent.

Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner – who are both closely associated with the economy – both posted higher disapproval numbers than approval. Summers’ disapproval rating was 41 percent. Geithner’s disapproval rating was 45 percent, one point higher than his approval rating.

The poll also found that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is often viewed as having sharp partisan elbows, scored much higher among Democrats, at 72 percent, than Republicans, at 13 percent.

Among other major administration officials, Vice President Joe Biden had a 50 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval rating; Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius both posted 41 percent approval and 35 percent disapproval; Presidential Adviser David Axelrod scored 38 percent approval and 36 percent disapproval; and National Security Adviser James Jones had a 30 percent approval and 23 percent disapproval rating.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30679.html

Rather striking, yet unsurprising!
She continues to prove herself.

She is were the country is doing a better job of what she termed as "Smart Power".
Being diplomatic, but never having it mistaken for weakness.

I think those in her party that abandoned her as well as the many Republicans
that lambasted her are seeing that yes not all agree on all fronts(rightfully)
but as she did in the senate is proving as SOS that she is willing to and can
walk that tight balance.

She's human. She makes mistakes. Yet, she is willing to work with all comer's.
I believe her experiences in politics before Bill, during Bill's Presidency,
and her Senate work has shown her the need to work and listen to make things
happen for the positive.

If she so chooses to run for president again, she has so much to draw upon
from her past success and mistakes as well as what the dems are doing now.

Hopefully, we'll be able to support her in more policies than we may oppose,
as 08'-09' has opened my eyes so so so much more than they had ever been.

[Paneru]

Are Hillary Clinton supporters murmuring I told you so?



With a new NBC/Wall Street journal poll showing Obama hitting his lowest rating in that poll, and the poll showing that people are getting fed up with Obama, the Democrats and how both have handled health care, ( how they handled it, not rejecting things like the public option) those who supported Hillary Clinton for president in the Democratic primaries are starting to say "I told you so".
Obama's had the biggest approval ratings drop of any first year president in history. He has disappointed most of his supporters on the left. And he has accomplished little to nothing in his first year that has showed any concrete results in spite of him giving himself a B+.

What he has done is make more speeches and had more prime time press conferences in his first year than any president has had in their first term.

On healthcare reform most of his supportes are complaining that he sold out and was two faced in his capitulation. Which he was. But these are traits he exhibited not only during his entire 12 years of elected office, but were on glaring display during the Democratic primaries.

Now everyone is angry with him for showing a lack of principle, commitment, experience and expertise and a willingness to sacrifice a principle on a dime but that's who Obama has always been and he showed it repeatedly during the primaries, whether he was willing to sell out the voters of Florida and Michigan to help himself get elected, or reversing himself on a pledge to use public financing.

Now as Obama's approval ratings continue to hit record lows for a first term president, and he is bringing the Democratic party down with him, as people are getting fed up with his handling of a propositon -- the public option and health care reform -- that 72% supported back in June, many Hillary Clinton supporters are starting to say "we told you so".

More and more of Obama's staunchest supporters, the same people who turned a blind eye to Obama's deep character flaws, lack of experience, and brazen political dishonesty, and deceit, are now complaining that he's not what they thought he was, that this isnt change they can believe in. But it never was in the first place. It was clear to anyone who paid attention that was nothing but a slogan.

Ed Schultz, Arianna Huffington, the people at The Nation, Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone, are just a few of Obama flag wavers now wavering in their support and scratching their heads saying "what happened"?

The answer is nothing happened. Obama is just being the same Obama he always was, the same Obama that was apparent during the Democratic primaries, the same Obama that a 18 months ago after listening to a couple of speeches, write that he was a snake oil salesman and the most underhanded, deceitful politician since Richard Nixon. But the press. who was in Obama's pocket, refused to see it.

For those who saw through the phoniness, Obama has been exactly what the majority of Democratic primary voters thought he was. Remember that Hillary Clinton actually received more votes than he did and went into the Democratic convention having won the popular vote.

During the primaries Clinton supporters mocked Obama supporters and their beliefs as people who were "drinking the Kool-Aid". Obama supporters accused Clinton supporters, and anyone who opposed Obama's candidacy of being racist. This, from the candidate who ran on the fiction that he had the ability to unite people and bring people together. He ran on the fiction that he had some great ability to unite Democrats and Republicans. Which is why every Republican is voting against the health care bill and hasnt been able to unite any disparate group on anything.

In a recent article in Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi writes, "Obama pulled a bait-and-switch on us. If it were any other politician, we wouldn't be surprised. Maybe it's our fault, for thinking he was different."

Yes it was your fault for not seeing what was right in front of everyone, and the fact that he pulled a bait and switch shouldnt leave anyone surprised. That was the snake oil Obama was selling during the primaries and a lot of people bought and are now finding out it was all just sugar water.

Why people are feeling more stung by Obama is that he did hold himself up to be a different kind of politician, someone above the petty politics and back room deals. And people bought it. What also makes it particularly insidious is when a snake oil salesman goes into a community that is hurting from disease and tells everyone he has the cure and its right in this here bottle when all along he knows its nothing but sugar water. That's called a con. And now a lot of people who should have known better are realizing it.

It was clear during the primaries when Obama constantly reneged on promises and pledges and resorted to serial lying both when it came to Jeremiah Wright, and the incident in Ohio when a document was leaked that caught Obama red handed, lying to the people of Ohio about his position on NAFTA. He told the people in Ohio who were hurting economically precisely because of things in NAFTA that if they elected him he;d get rid of NAFTA. At the same time he caught telling the Candians to ignore what he said in Ohio, that he had no intention of getting rid of NAFTA that it was just for politics. If a politician is willing to get that low, nothing should surprise anyone. But at the time it was exposed, the same people who are complaining now about Obama betraying them didn't care and turned a blind eye. If Clinton had been caught doing the same thing the press would have demanded she drop out and would have called her unworthy of being president, that she couldnt be trusted.

The fact that Obama was clearly the least qualified candidate for the Democratic nomination, didnt seem to matter to his supporters either. And while he claimed he was the person who knew how to bring people together the Democratic presidential primaries were the most divisive in the history of the party. He campaigned saying "voices must be heard" but he did everything in is power to keep the voices of voters in Florida and Michigan from being heard because he was landslided there by Clinton. Instead of fighting for the right to have their votes count on principle, he was quite content to have them silenced in favor of his own ambitions. So why are people surprised now, feeling that he sold them out on healthcare reform?

The other big issue that seemed to matter to Obama's supporters was that he was black. So they took everything Martin Luther King stood for and threw out the window, which was that a person should be judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin and decided the color of his skin mattered more.

But while this will come as a shock to them, Obama is not the first black president. He is the first mixed race president, half black and half white. He is no more the country's first black president than Derek Jeter was the Yankees first black shortstop. In all of Jeter's hall of fame career no one ever referred to him that way. But his genetic make up is the same as Obama's. The difference is the random shuffling of genetic material which resulted in Jeter having more Caucasian features and a caramel complexion while Obama's features and complexion were more black. Maybe now that they feel betrayed by Obama,those who supported him because they wanted a black president will admit Martin Luther King was right the first time.

During the primaries,Obama's selling out his promises were rampant. He promised to use public financing if he was the nominee then reneged as soon as became the nominee. He promised to filibuster and vote against the FISA bill if it gave telecoms retroactive immunity then reneged, didnt filibuster and voted for it. And lied, until he couldn't lie any longer about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and on sending on his economic advisors to the Canadian embassy to tell them to ignore everything he was saying publicly about NAFTA.

This is the person that liberals and Democrats who supported him are now surprised has sold them out when it was apparent that Obama was probably the most underhanded politician since Richard Nixon. The difference between the two is that Nixon used deceit to get even. Obama used it to get ahead. It all goes to character and how that influences decisions. As well as having a vision and sticking up for a principle, something he has thrown overboard on healthcare.

So perhaps Hillary Clinton supporters can be excused if they are now saying " We told you so". Because they did.

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Ob...-I-told-you-so

[delicatecutter]

[*JR*]

Originally Posted by Paneru

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Ob...-I-told-you-so

If she won't resign after the midterm election (saying that she didn't want to become a distraction by doing it before then) and challenge a now revealed for the phony he is Obama in 2012, Hillary will have betrayed those "I told you so" supporters. (Especially as she accepted a DNC decision regarding the nomination that omitted new "primaries that counted" in FL and MI)

[Paneru]

Originally Posted by *JR*

If she won't resign after the midterm election (saying that she didn't want to become a distraction by doing it before then) and challenge a now revealed for the phony he is Obama in 2012, Hillary will have betrayed those "I told you so" supporters. (Especially as she accepted a DNC decision regarding the nomination that omitted new "primaries that counted" in FL and MI)

Many of us were already pissed off at her for caving to them. We understood she was
preserving her place with her party(despite how the leadership turned on her to go
the the far left), but we were not about it. She did what she had to do and many
of us did as well.

Oh, believe me, I think it's 2012 or never.

[*JR*]

Originally Posted by Paneru

Many of us were already pissed off at her for caving to them. We understood she was preserving her place with her party(despite how the leadership turned on her to go the the far left)...

Please don't phrase this in left-right terms. Hill-ree was to Barry-O's right on foreign policy, and to his left (when you pour out the Koolaid the Obots were drunk on) as an economic populist.

[Paneru]

Originally Posted by *JR*

Please don't phrase this in left-right terms. Hill-ree was to Barry-O's right on foreign policy, and to his left (when you pour out the Koolaid the Obots were drunk on) as an economic populist.

What should I label it as? It is the truth.

And yes, Hillary is to his right. I understand she is a politican and watching her own backside.
She is gonna take her lumps for backing this guy. And it may/has very well cost her the Presidency.
She in part will be labeled by his failures. And as I said a few posts ago, if she should run again, "Hopefully, we'll be able to support her in more policies than we may oppose".

Based on what ranks best to any of us individually we'll hold to.

Having learned so much over the past two years,
my view and vote would not be a given to Hillary.

[Paneru]

Government Welfare vs. Private Charity
by Jacob G. Hornberger

With Christmas approaching, perhaps this would be a good time to remind ourselves of the moral difference between government welfare and private charity.

Government welfare is based on the force of government. The IRS forces people to send in a portion of their income. If they refuse, the IRS goes after them. It files liens on their house, garnishes their bank account, and attaches their personal property. If people oppose the enforcement of such actions, they are met with an overwhelming amount of force by well-armed and well-trained federal agents.

Once the IRS gets its hands on people’s money, it is made available to the various federal bureaucracies, which then distribute the money to people named by Congress to receive them.

Most everyone involved in this process is supposed to be considered a good person because he’s helped the poor and needy. IRS agents are considered akin to Salvation Army personnel for their fine efforts collecting money for the poor. The members of Congress are praised for allocating the money to the truly needy. The welfare agencies are considered good for making sure the money gets to the right people. American taxpayers are considered saintly for tithing a portion of their income to help the poor. America, as a nation, is considered good because it set up the entire welfare-state system.

But the fundamental flaw in all this is simple to see: The entire process is based on force, which is employed to seize people’s money, which is then distributed to recipients designated by people’s political representatives..

Yet, how can the concept of force be reconciled with genuine charity?

It cannot be. Genuine charity entails voluntarily pulling out your wallet or checkbook and donating the money to a worthy cause.

Does it make any difference when money that has been taken by force is used to fund a worthy cause? Of course not. If I hold you up and take your money but end up donating it to my church, or to a 75-year-old impoverished couple, or to a student that cannot afford to pay for college, or to pay for a poor person’s life-saving heart operation, I remain a thief.

After all, your money belongs to you. It is your right to decide what to do with it. I have the right to ask you to make a donation to help with all those worthy causes. But you have the right to say no. If you say no, I have no right to take the money away from you by force, no how I plan to use the money.

What if a vote is taken in the community or the city council authorizing me to take your money and donate it to a worthy cause? That means I’m no longer considered a thief in the eyes of the law, but has anything changed from a moral perspective? Of course not. A fundamentally immoral act, whether robbery, murder, rape, theft, or whatever, cannot be converted into a moral act simply by majority vote.

Recall the story of when the young rich man approached Jesus, told Him that he was complying with God’s commandments, and asked Christ what else he could do to serve God. Jesus advised the man to sell everything he had and give it away and then to follow Jesus.

The young man couldn’t let go of his wealth and walked away.

Did Jesus and his followers forcibly take the money from the man and donate it to the poor? Did they summon Roman centurions to do the same?

No. Since free will entails the right to say no, Jesus let the man go his way, without initiating any force against him.

As we reflect on Christmas during the holiday season, let us also reflect on how the socialistic welfare state, with its process of forcible taking and redistributing people’s money constitutes a grave violation of the laws of God. Let us also reflect on how the concepts of freedom of choice and free will entail, by necessity, the right the reject one’s neighbor and even to reject God. Finally, let us reflect on the fact that genuine charity toward others is only when the donation comes from the willing heart of the individual, not because of a gun pointed at a person by some government official.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-12-18.asp

I posted this article here instead of TPF because I
wanted genuine feedback opposed to what it has become.

It raises an interesting thought I had always wondered about, how is it charity if it is forced?

I genuinely feel at the heart of the majority their is a good heart in wanting to help and support
the poor, elderly, and all those who fall in the line of medical issues where they are either not able to work or live in good condition.

With Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and those not unlike Hillary fighting for
Universal Health Care, I ask would the people helped in their times of need be better
of with private charity or government "charity"?

With government bureaucracies, corruption, and inefficiencies money is wasted(costing even more), these programs are running into the ground, and abuse of the system is rampant.

One of the reasons that I've come to see the problem with the government with such power and control is the lack of accountability, despite all the rhetoric. And the politicians have made it clear that power can and often does go to their heads. And this in relation to those citizens that would abuse the system to get "free money" feel less inclined not to do so for the fact that the face of the money they are taking is from a faceless irresponsible government and from say a family of four with both parents working whom of their own charity give to those less fortunate to either support or give a helping hand in many getting back on their feet.

I could go on and on but I would just like some thoughts and even ideas.