-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
The Obama Watch
Listening to Obama
When the perils of presidential oratory cannot be avoided.
President Obama gave a speech Monday, which isn’t particularly newsworthy in itself, as part of the president’s job is to be Speechgiver-in-Chief. But this speech was different, at least for me, simply because I listened to part of it.
Not listening to presidential speeches is a habit I developed during the Clinton administration in an effort to preserve my sanity. It was my wife who suggested this non-listening policy after she watched me seething with fury and muttering curses throughout Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union address.
Presidential historians will recall that as Clinton’s “era of big government is over” speech. For me, it was the “lying two-faced bastard” speech. To list and refute every falsehood in that speech would require more words than I’m willing to expend on the effort. It would be easier to say, as Mary McCarthy said of Lillian Hellman, that every word is a lie, including “and” and “the.”
Just one example: “I challenge this Congress,” Clinton proclaimed on Jan. 23, 1996, “to send me a bipartisan welfare reform bill that will really move people from welfare to work and do the right thing by our children. I will sign it immediately.” Clinton vetoed welfare-reform twice and did not sign it until August, when Congress sent it to him for the third time, and the only reason Clinton signed it was to keep it from being used against him as an issue in his fall re-election campaign.
And, of course, after declaring the end of big government, Clinton’s speech then went on to call for, inter alia, raising the minimum wage, increasing funding for education, and imposing various mandates on health insurance companies. The 1996 speech established a pattern for all subsequent Clinton State of the Union speeches — he would begin with rhetorical salutes to fiscal restraint, bipartisanship and moderation, then finish with a grocery-list of new programs and liberal policies he wanted Congress to enact, regardless of whatever taxpayer expense they would require or regulatory burdens they would impose.
Actually listening to Clinton’s speeches was an infuriating experience that, alas, became an occupational hazard after November 1997, when I joined the staff of the Washington Times. It became part of my job to edit the transcripts of Clinton’s major speeches for publication, and colleagues got used to hearing me grumble and curse throughout those ordeals. And, in some ways, the problem became even worse after George W. Bush became president.
Bush had a way of proposing transparently un-conservative policies while insisting that these were, in fact, logical expressions of America’s founding ideals. The No Child Left Behind Act — crafted with the pre-approval of that eminent Burkean, Ted Kennedy — was the first of many such Bush-era sellouts of conservative principle. Republicans nowadays scoff at Obama’s “green” rhetoric, but it was Bush who said the following in his 2007 State of the Union address:
For too long, our nation has been dependent on foreign oil.… It’s in our vital interest to diversify America’s energy supply, and the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power by even greater use of clean-coal technology; solar and wind energy; and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles and expand the use of clean-diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel.… At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.… [New] technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
The only real difference between Bush and Obama on this score is that, in 2007, there was no recession to provide a Keynesian rationale for billions of dollars in deficit-funded stimulus spending on “green” technology. But if Bush was right in 2007 about the urgent need “to confront the serious challenge of global climate change,” why had it been so important to defeat Al Gore in 2000? What’s the point of voting Republican, if the Republican you’re electing gets into office and demands implementation of the Democrats’ policy agenda?
That painful shoe is now firmly on the other foot, and it is Democrats who are questioning their partisan loyalty after President Obama’s speech Monday, announcing a two-year freeze on federal civilian employees. For several months, Republicans had been advocating a federal pay freeze — and being denounced by Democrats for doing so. The freeze was certain to be one of the first legislative proposals pushed by John Boehner’s new GOP majority as soon as they took office in January, and so Obama cleverly decided to push the outgoing Democrat majority to enact it as a lame-duck measure, thus depriving Republicans of credit for it.
Furthermore, since the federal pay freeze is popular with voters — as White House pollsters surely told the president — Obama now positions himself to claim that he took the first step toward a new era of bipartisan cooperation, and to cast Republicans as irresponsible obstructionists for not reciprocating in some way by supporting any of his agenda items. That this is utterly phony can be demonstrated by imagining what would have happened had Boehner and the House GOP been allowed to bring forward the pay-freeze legislation early next year: Once passed by the House, the bill would have forced Senate Democrats facing re-election in 2012 to either vote “yes” (to avoid being on the unpopular side of the issue) or vote “no” (to placate their liberal base). Assuming that several Democrats would be forced to support the pay-freeze, Obama then would be presented with a nominally bipartisan bill. If he vetoed it, he’d be accused of ignoring the will of the American people, but if he signed it, he’d be portrayed as a weakling who knuckled under to Republicans.
All of this Obama avoids by calling on the lame-duck Congress to enact the pay-freeze. Many of the Democrats who vote “yes” on this bill will be those who have already been defeated in the mid-terms, so they’ll suffer no political consequence for voting in favor of the same legislation they denounced and opposed just a few months earlier. And as to other Democrats with an eye on 2012 re-election for whom a “yes” vote may be politically convenient, they can explain it to their liberal supporters by saying that they were, after all, only doing what the Democratic president asked.
So the pay-freeze gesture clearly a product of a cynical political calculation, and some of his liberal supporters were honest enough to say so. (“Obama Flunks Economics with Pointless Federal Wage Freeze” was the headline on one liberal blog.) The speech in which Obama announced this policy shift was, if possible, even more cynical than the political calculations behind it.
He talked about a Tuesday meeting with Republican leaders and his hope — what is it with this guy and “hope”? — that the meeting would “mark a first step towards a new and productive working relationship.” Twenty-two months into his presidency, Obama has suddenly developed a desire for a “working relationship” with Republicans. These are the same Republicans that the president spent the entire fall campaign season describing as idle Slurpee-sippers unwilling to help get the nation’s economy out of the ditch into which they had driven it.
Now evidently willing to forgive and forget the recklessness of these Republican drivers, Obama spoke Monday of “a shared responsibility,” of acting in a “cooperative and serious way” to meet the “fundamental challenges” confronting the nation. Among those challenges is ensuring that “we’re not dragged down by long-term debt,” the president said: “This is a challenge that both parties have a responsibility to address — to get federal spending under control and bring down the deficits that have been growing for most of the last decade.”
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/30/listening-to-obama
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Harry Flashman| 11.30.10 @ 6:56AM
Any consideration of the current president should begin with an awareness of the fact that he continues to conceal virtually the entire paper of his existence from birth to the White House in a tight shroud of secrecy.
American voters clearly remember the Obama 2008 campaign repeatedly promising that their administration would uphold the highest ethical standards with a particular emphasis on transparency.
A vast majority of these voters believe that the process of running for the office of President of the United States should be the toughest job interview on the planet.
The sad fact remains that the current president could not be hired as a janitor in a federal building with the amount of verifiable background information that he has provided.
Barack Obama's original typewritten long form birth certificate, school records, SAT and LSAT scores, college and law school admission records and grade transcripts and thesis papers, medical records, passport history, Illinois state senate tenure records, presidential campaign foreign donor lists, complete White House visitor logs and other relevant records and documents have all never been released or allowed to be subjected to any sort of scrutiny, despite several years of repeated requests for disclosure by numerous individuals and non-traditional media organizations.
The Obama 2008 campaign and subsequent administration have to date spent a considerable sum on legal fees, estimated in the millions of dollars, to fight Freedom of Information Act filings and other requests to examine this material.
A computer generated laser printed short form version of a birth certificate that a child could have forged was posted on the Obama 2008 campaign website, but it only served to intensify the filings and requests to see the original typewritten long form document, which has never been released or allowed to be scrutinized.
They also produced a one page letter from a physician attesting that Barack Obama was in excellent health for a man of his age.
This constitutes the complete extent of any release or disclosure of any records or documents from Obama's past. Virtually the entire paper trail of his existence continues to remain deeply hidden away.
The mainstream media and various other Obamapologists are quick to selectively focus on the so-called "birthers" whenever any mention is made of Obama's hidden paper trail. By portraying the birthers as irrational or deranged individuals obsessed with the belief that the current president was born in Kenya or elsewhere outside of the United States, they seek to both ridicule that possibility and to avoid any emphasis on the astounding unprecedented totality of secrecy that guards practically every original record and document from his past.
Some people believe that Obama's place of birth and parentage are much less relevant to the future of the United States than the truth about what makes him tick and who is pulling his strings, so to speak.
Whether the current president's biological father was the late Kenyan bigamist Barack Obama "Sr." or the late CPUSA member and radical activist Frank Marshall Davis or the late "grandfather" Stanley Dunham (arguably the likeliest candidate - see cashill.com among other sources) or some other man is less important than the truth about his past associations and ideological convictions and behavioral influences and ongoing relationships.
This is the sort of information about their presidential candidates that postwar era American voters had become accustomed to having the mainstream media provide for them, until 2008 when Barack Obama received a remarkable free pass on the traditional practice of releasing his personal records and credentials.
This is the sort of information that Obama and his handlers clearly do not want you to have.
This is exactly the message that should be spread and the issue which should be used to confront the current president and his supporters and apologists whenever possible.
They got away with hiding Obama's past and explaining away and minimizing his associations with controversial individuals and groups during their 2008 campaign.
Will they be able to effectively repeat this deception between now and 6 November 2012?
Only if you let them.
Louis Jenkins| 11.30.10 @ 8:17AM
Dear Harry:
Some of us are with you. Couldn't have said it near as well as you have. Until we realize that there is a rotten potatoe in the soup Obama will continue his play. Obama's entire administration is built on a house of straws, yet we, the people, are not allowed the truth.
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 8:42AM
Mr. Flashman,
I have a compliment and a request. First, the compliment: This post is very well written, very informative, and even a Liberal Democrat might be able to understand it since you avoided really large words. Second, may I have permission to shamelessly steal it to use in other posts; with attribution if you like, or without, if you prefer. I'd also suggest that you move it verbatim to the chain of replies to the article on Sarah Palin to compare and contrast to the postings from such Liberal malcontents as the one who calls himself "TREV". Thanks again for your post. Very well done!
brash| 11.30.10 @ 9:25AM
My compliments as well on an excellent and insightful post. You have brilliantly added critical layers of context to the "birther" issue. The public needs to be reminded -- nay, bashed over the head with the notion -- that it isn't just Obama's birth certificate that has gone missing, but also virtually any record documenting his life's progression. An asteroid hitting the earth is a scary proposition; a president about whom we know absolutely nothing is a sheer terror that should have every citizen pounding on the gates of DC demanding resolution.
Occam's Tool| 11.30.10 @ 1:07PM
Mr. Flashman:
There is a wonderful song in the Passover Seder in which the refrain is "it would have been sufficient" (to doom the Jewish people anyway).
I am going to avoid the issue of the Birther controversy, because I view it as unwinnable. Let's talk about the things we should have known before this guy was elected, that should have been widely discussed by the MSM and weren't:
1) Why don't we know his SATs?
2) Why don't we have his college grades, or law school grades?
3) Why wasn't Bill Ayers hounded by the mainstream press to review his EXACT relationship with Obama: Obama STARTED his political career at a meeting in Ayer's home.
4) Why weren't Obama's non-theological possible similarities in views with his pastor reviewed in detail? ("The AIDS plot views of his pastor. His Pastor's views on Israel and whites, for example.)
5) Why weren't Obama's mentors' ties reviewed in more detail? (They were socialists, or worse)
6) Why weren't his views on American power and influence reviewed? Why weren't his class transcripts from Columbia released, so we could see who taught him history and economics? (Of course, my sociology prof in college was a left wing radical and I was a rampaging Conservative (VEEP of YAF), so this doesn't necessarily mean much, but his PATTERN is overwhelming, and missed. Bill Ayers friendship is the left wing equivalent of palling around with a Grand Kleagle of the KKK on the Right.
Quite frankly, the reporting was appalling.
squalis| 11.30.10 @ 10:11AM
Wonderful post. Thankfully, these issues will be less important in 2012. The media can hide Obama's past all they want. They can't hide what has transpired these past 2 years.
catherineinpvb| 11.30.10 @ 12:25PM
Obama's 'magic act' key to his 'rest of story' and ours. Great synopsis and yes, we must keep our eyes, front and center, on what is thus far, perhaps, the greatest con job against our Country, ever. . .
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 7:55PM
But thank God the Bush dynasty is (hopefully) finished. It is all worth it if the Bush dynasty is to be sent back to the political junk-factory in Hell from which it was shoddily manufactured.
John| 11.30.10 @ 7:59PM
Harry, i enjoyed all the novels in which you starred. well written
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 9:49PM
Yeah, the Bushes did a swell job of following up the Cold War. That's why Jeb has a chance at being POTUS, huh?
The GOP isn't meanspirited-- it is masochistic.
beebop| 12.1.10 @ 5:50AM
Are you ADD/HD? Can you follow a train of thought and respond appropriately? You are like an insane parrot who periodically erupts in "but Bush" in response to any and all subjects. Your derangement syndrom is showing.
John Carnal| 11.30.10 @ 10:41PM
This is THE topic that should take precedent over all others. Every one of the authors in the commentary community should write at least one piece a month on this subject. Harp, harp, harp. Drown out "tax cuts for the rich" with "show us your papers."
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 11:27PM
No, they want low cost labor.
beebop| 12.1.10 @ 5:51AM
No. You don't get it, do you?
Laborers want JOBS verus Dem handouts.
Tomas| 11.30.10 @ 7:08AM
The Bible says "The devil can quote scripture for his own purpose."
We need to remember this when we hear Obama talk about moving to the political center.
-
Dennis Bergendorf| 11.30.10 @ 8:02AM
Okay, this is nitpicking about style and not substance... but why do so many learned people misuse "cynical?" The more accurate word, above, would be "hypocritical." But then again, we live in the age of transposing/misuse of words: issue for problem; distraction for disruption; discrepancy for disparity. Maybe an AS writer should do a piece on this latter day phenomenon.
Grzmlyk| 11.30.10 @ 4:12PM
Actually, this is not a misuse of the word. One of the definitions is, "Of or related to the belief that human actions are motivated only or primarily by base desires or selfishness; skeptical of the integrity, sincerity, or motives of others."
A cynical action would be one that you'd undertake because you were counting on people reacting in a way consistent with the worst of human nature. In this case, the people's credulity, selfishness or capacity to be duped/bought off by empty or counter-productive gestures or actions.
Therefore, the success of the tactic requires that people be as stupid/gullible/lazy/selfish/shortsighted as the worst of their critics charge; it is the reliance on the fact that the better angels of people's natures rarely inform their actions.
Just as Marc Antony's speech in Julius Caesar is cynical because he pretends to be only giving a funeral oration mourning the loss of his friend - when in fact, he knows his increasingly rabblerousing words will ignite the fickle populace - who only moments before approved of Caesar's assassination - into rebelling against his murderers.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 9:50PM
Too pedantic, Grzmlyk.
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 11:28PM
...this isn't 'Intro to Shakespeare', professor Grzmlyk.
SC Mike| 11.30.10 @ 8:14AM
The pay freeze is a good idea and a good first step. Don’t tell anyone that federal employees still qualify for step (within grade) increases and bonuses. This just shortens House Republicans’ to-do list.
Who was it that said something like “You can get a lot done in Washington as long as you don’t mind who gets the credit"?
Brian Mc| 11.30.10 @ 10:39AM
Was it Truman?
terrie| 11.30.10 @ 7:01PM
I believe that was the great Ronald Reagan
Doctor Right| 11.30.10 @ 8:46AM
This pay freeze is a joke. There's no freeze on promotions. To keep his government stooges happy, all Obama has to do is give them all promotions, thus substantially increasing their pay.
More smoke and mirrors from the Kenyan-in-Chief.
Rick V.| 11.30.10 @ 10:33AM
Dear Doctor,
As a "government stooge," I suppose I'm a little sensitive. I've worked for the federal government for nearly 30 years, always in service to the Dept. of Defense in some way. I've done a lot of different things, most of which I've enjoyed and all of which I am proud of. I like to think I've earned my pay although, granted, I never set the pay scale. This pay freeze business is political theater, but I accept it without objection.
I'm still waiting for Boehner, Cantor, Reid, Pelosi or any of our Blessed Leaders to volunteer for a pay cut of their own, or at least to disavow their next scheduled pay increase. Now, that I would call leadership.
Harry Flashman| 11.30.10 @ 9:12AM
MikeD
Thank you for your vote of confidence. I invite any individual or group to post or otherwise use any of my comments in any forum or on any website, with no attribution being necessary, if it will further the cause of freedom.
MikeD| 11.30.10 @ 9:24AM
Mr. Flashman,
Thank you so much. Keep it up!
ncatty| 11.30.10 @ 5:30PM
Its the Flash cove! The 'ero of Jallalabad!
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.30.10 @ 9:43AM
Harry,
I must also congratulate you. That post went into my permanent document file.
Stacy McCain,
Coffee thru the nose time. I simply cannot listen to the man. First, I know he is lying, and it embarrases me that he would think for a moment that I would accept his lies.
Second, his posing like a not to be named dictator, just gives me chills.
I will read his speeches for content to try to pierce the lies.
Occam's Tool| 11.30.10 @ 1:13PM
My wife and I had a game (still have) that make listening to Obama's speeches much more tolerable. It's called "find the semantic content." After you eliminate the shout outs and the call outs, and the ritual comments about the greatness of the "He" and the need to confiscate your money, what's left? Is there an actual argument of connected statements to be found that deal with a particular? The answer is "no." Try this game yourself on any 5 minutes of any speech he does. Eliminate self-references, ritualistic phrases ("I don't want them to do a lot of talking" is an example of a semantic null argument), self-congratulatory statements and shout outs. Damn, he couldn't even avoid references to himself when giving Sal his MOH!
wbheff| 11.30.10 @ 9:54AM
That the "pay freeze" is only a political ruse is best illustrated by the fact that it would not apply to members of Congress and their staffs. These people, the preeminent parasites, would continue to receive rises in salary, automatically in the cases of Congressleeches.
skedaddle| 11.30.10 @ 9:58AM
I can't watch or listen to obama. The stiff delivery, the nose in the air and the lies that come out of his mouth are just too much for me. Excellent post Harry Flashman. Whenever I stumble upon a birther-bashing conversation, I always bring up the hidden school records, passport, etc. It's very effective and I've yet to hear anyone support obama's extreme secretiveness.
Brian Mc| 11.30.10 @ 10:42AM
I know that I should not be, but it still astounds me that a "free" press would allow the alien to happen.
Pete| 11.30.10 @ 11:27AM
The blatant lies that come from his purple pie hole are deeply insulting and the manner in which they are delivered (cocked head, air of superiority) makes him unwatchable. My kids can pick up my swearwords in the car instead, I won't watch that clown.
David| 11.30.10 @ 12:36PM
Yep, I quick listening to Clinton whenever he talked, and I quit listening during the general election campaign against McCain.
These clever little tricks by Bam Bam such as taking credit for freezing federal workers' pay will continue. A couple more of these shenanigans that virtually everyone agrees with will give him a good chance of being re-elected in 2012.
I still believe he is going to make Hilly his running mate; he will have the three big networks, all big newspapers, PBS, and CNN on his side; and it will very hard for many people to turn out the first black prez after one term.
Those things coupled with the few popular things he will do between now and election day will give him a great chance at re-election.
wbheff| 11.30.10 @ 2:25PM
"Those things coupled with the few popular things he will do between now and election day will give him a great chance at re-election." And that, if he and the rest of the traitors he has surrounded himself with in this mis-administration have not done it before 2012, will utterly destroy America as a free country.
Marc Jeric| 11.30.10 @ 2:40PM
Do not believe a word of what Abu Hussein al-Mombassa says - or wherever in Kenya that marxist Muslim, our Community Organizer-in-Chief, says.
matthew s harrison| 11.30.10 @ 3:04PM
When the impostor in the WH speaks, not even his own party listens. His lips move, but what comes out is gibberish and lies. Never has he spoken an ounce of truth-not in his adult life. We watched him lie to Illinois for nearly a decade-and it was grisly. So to give him the time of day now, given his intent to destroy our country, given his propensity to buy favor from everyone on the street, and given the staff of miscreants and sociopaths he employs as his "advisers" .
Stacy-you are losing it if you are actually listening to him. What he says and what he does are two different things. Always have been, always will be. One needn't look past his EO which forbade federal tax dollars to pay for abortions, which was promptly ignored by all who use federal money to murder children.
I would say that listening to the Kenyan is a sign that you have lost your mind Stace! Promise me you will see a doctor about this right away!?
Intelligent Design| 11.30.10 @ 3:27PM
I wish Intel or somebody would invent a programmable device for the TV, so it could be programmed to shut off or mute anytime it hears certain words, or "sees" certain faces. This would be a real time-saver. The TV, of course, would be off or muted very frequently. It might be cheaper to axe it. :)
Alan Brooks| 11.30.10 @ 8:04PM
Obama's speeches are better than both Bush's (plus Ford and Nixon's) speeches combined.
Then again, that isn't saying a whole lot.
Ydnar| 11.30.10 @ 8:21PM
I've always thought that Obummer's speeches were akin to those of that once great orator - Jimmy Carter. Lot's of interesting words with absolutely no substance. "His lips move but I can't hear what he's sayin."
matthew s harrison| 11.30.10 @ 9:03PM
Ydnar-for me to sit and listen to more than 1 sentence of his blithering, I would need to first become comfortably numb!
matthew s harrison| 11.30.10 @ 9:00PM
AB-you must be smoking some great shit if it makes you think that obama's speeches are better than any previous LEGAL occupant of the White House. The man is not even a decent orator. There is no interesting trait whatsoever that can be attributed to him or his speaking style-and if you watch him when he is speaking overseas, he speaks like he is speaking to a gymnasium of his fellow high school juniors-it is really embarrassing, disturbing, and frankly laughable.
I don't know what speeches you are watching, but as one who has made a living for 30+ years speaking publicly, I can tell you that he is not only bad-but horrible-and without TOTUS-he is worse than horrible-he is borderline illiterate and dumbfounded-which I would expect out of a harry reid or nancy pelosi-but the president, the supposed greatest oratory president in history? Wow, I think the whole left is on crack or something!
beebop| 12.1.10 @ 6:01AM
Whether you have liked, say, Bill Clinton or George HW Bush, or Bush Jr., there was something that always emerged and that was humanity. And by that, I mean being a part of it. The coldness and arrogance of 0bama is apparent from the first word to the last. I think that this is a result of never having to work for anything. (and by this I am including schooling, the U of C "professorship," the two novels he semi penned and his non-existent "record" in Illinois.
I think back to the woman who said she was "exhausted" from defending him. Where was the sense that he HEARD what she was saying? He's like a member of the media ... he has already moved on to the next question with no ability to focus on the one at hand.
He's insulting and so above his pay grade, that I intellectually vomit when I consider how superior a candidate -- and president -- Mrs. Clinton would have been had the Soros money not poured in.
Led Display | 11.30.10 @ 9:10PM
As much as I believe the country is ready, and would benefit from a femal president, I think there are too many folks out there that will point to her last outing with the press and say she is not presidential material. Personally, I think she'd be a great leader but it remains to be seen if she is firmly embraced and totally backed by the very folks that would have to vote to put her in office. Got my fingers crossed, the last thing we need is Mitt Romney in those hallowed halls.Solenoid Valve
Mike| 12.1.10 @ 12:13AM
Well, Obama is a f***ing ***hole and a liar.
led screen | 12.1.10 @ 3:47AM
Actually listening to Clinton's speeches was an infuriating experience that,
inge| 12.1.10 @ 7:08AM
Obama has a mental deficit. How else to explain the alternate reality this guy is living in; there is only so much one can deny reality, eventually one must ask why the continuation of lies?