Blog Archives

New explanation of Obama-fail: it’s Bill Clinton’s fault

slickBill Clinton, who was to the 1990s U.S. economy as Jud Buechler was to the Chicago Bulls in the same era (that is, he knew his role was to sit on the bench and stay out of the way), is now being accused by the New York Times of hurting President Obama’s re-election efforts.

The best way to go after Mr. Romney, the former president said, was to publicly grant that he was the “severe conservative” he claimed to be, and then hang that unpopular ideology around his neck.

Indeed, that plan may have been a stupid idea (and one that ought to decrease lib’s Clinton nostalgia as well as their undying—and inexplicable—notions of his political brilliance). Why? First, because the plan depended on unending attack ads to depict Romney as someone he isn’t and second, because it’s self-evident that Mitt Romney is not a severe conservative.

Similarly, it was also inept on Weak Willy’s part because after one term of Obama, most of America seems capable of realizing a “severe conservative,” that is, the ideological and policy opposite of the President, might better serve the nation than the whirlwind brought by Barry and crew: unemployment, the unsustainable explosion of the welfare state, an unpayable debt bomb, foreign policy fails, etc.

So maybe there are two lessons here: 1) Bill Clinton isn’t all that and 2) Obama can do bad all by himself.

In the meantime, the left is already starting to explain away the President’s impending defeat. Next, it’ll be the hurricane depressed turnout by liberal voters. Finally, it’ll be that Americans don’t know what’s good for them.

Why is Bill Clinton the face of Obama’s re-election effort?

Why has Bill Clinton become the face of President Obama’s re-election efforts?

It’s a simple case of distraction. Economic distraction. Barry’s surrogates are needed stat.

Next, in an attempt to mitigate the non-success of the Arab Spring, expect Hillary Clinton to become the face of Obama’s foreign policy efforts and for Barry to distance himself from his own Administration.

The first lesson: speeches (and policies) have consequences.

The second lesson: desperate acts for desperate presidents.

Finally, maybe Chelsea Clinton is available as a temporary Administration/campaign overhire?

Recycling Clinton

slick

Democrat Operative: Man, if we could only get Bill Clinton to shill for Barry at the convention maybe people will forget Obama’s actual record. And if they’d forget what Obama’s done, we’d be in like Slick Willie at a sorority sleepover with a big box of roofies… and Viagra!

Second Democrat Operative: You think people have forgotten Clinton’s basically an immoral glad hander whose main contribution was to get out of the American economy’s way?

Democrat Operative: Yeah.

Since Bill Clinton will be the featured speaker tonight, I think it’s worth recycling this column which offers that Bill Clinton was to the U.S. economy as Jud Buechler was to the Chicago Bulls of the same era.

Remember, oh slick one, the truth is out there.

Who woulda thought Dems would long for Bill Clinton?

Absence makes the disgust grow lower. That’s the phrase, isn’t it?

Wait. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

And Bill Clinton has been absent quite a while. Long enough to make many forget he was to the U.S. economy as Jud Buechler was to the championship Chicago Bulls of the same era; that is, he stayed out of the way and let the heavy lifters do their thing.

But not all is well with the pols in donkey land.

“There are not a lot of moderates left in the Democratic Party, and Cory [Booker] is one of the few of them left,” said former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama, an early Obama ally who has become increasingly estranged from the party. “I would like to think Cory speaks for a lot of voters in the Democratic Party, but sadly he doesn’t speak for a lot of Democratic operatives within the party. This isn’t Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party anymore.”

Recall that Clinton won 42% of the vote in 1992 and 49.2% in 1996.

I’m not really sure there are any moderates left in the Democrat party and recall hearing within the last few months that the most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate is less liberal than the most conservative Democrat. But isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be? In general the Democrats are the party of liberalism and Republicans are the party of conservatism?

Like Jud Buechler when Michael Jordan is on the team, there’s plenty to be said about staying out of the way. However the hubris and massive blind spot of the current crop of politicos, the never let a good crisis go to waste types, has given us failure instead of success. We have an Administration of not-even-close-to-being Jud Buechler-types who think they’re Michael Jordan.

As a result of this hubris, inexperience, ineptness, and being wrong on literally every policy, we now have the least successful President since Jimmy Carter.

But come November, we also have a chance to make things better. Barry Oh’s! term can be perhaps viewed as a learning experience—a painful, across the board disaster—for our country.

Clinton and Obama: America’s first black and gay presidents

Chloe Ardelia Wofford (AKA Toni Morrision) declared Bill Clinton to be America’s first black president. From The New Yorker:

Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime.

So it would seem either 1) Morrison’s crystal ball was broken, 2) her assertion was ridiculous, or 3) President Obama isn’t black.

gayNow, Newsweak’s Andrew Sullivan says Barry Oh! is the first gay president. I’m not sure what his homosexual qualifications (Obama’s; for Sullivan I have no need-to-know) are, as Morrison might say, his apparent non-homosexuality notwithstanding.

Will Sullivan’s prediction be as far off as Morrison’s? Or is it instead more likely that Obama’s hand was forced by GaffeMaster Flash; that Barry needed the homosexual community’s money to fund his re-election effort; that once you parse his statements out, you can see he’s hedging; that his knowledge as a Christian theologian and Biblical expert are just as good as his presidential skills; that he’s “evolving” on who knows what else.

I heard someone today say they feel the President is a radical Marxist. I’m sure the President doesn’t view himself in such a manner, but it really all comes down to how you define things: black, gay, radical , and/or Marxist.

The lessons? 1) Definitions matter and 2) actions speak louder than words.

If you don’t think definitions matter, then check out America’s unemployment numbers which are said to be falling.

Moral Failure = Failure

Maureen Dowd is not high on John Edwards:

[Former Edwards campaign team member Andrew] Young testified that Edwards’s rationale for not hearing details about the checks used for the “cover-up” — $1 million solicited from two wealthy donors, the late Fred Baron and the 101-year-old Bunny Mellon, who sent “Bunny money” through an interior designer with red herring notations about antique furniture — was that he didn’t want to have to lie in case he was ever sworn in as attorney general. (Another hallucination, since Barack Obama never had any intention of giving that post to a man he considered a pretty boy.)

It was a pathetic measure of his vertiginous fall that he once thought he could be the boss of the very prosecutor pushing for him to go to jail for up to 30 years and pay up to $1.5 million in fines.

Sitting behind Edwards, as Young described the fortune lavished on Rielle, was his family, who once thought he would be in White House: his 30-year-old daughter, Cate, a lawyer who is strategizing with her dad on the case; his elderly father, the former textile millworker; and his mother. His parents, disdained by Elizabeth as “hicks,” brought their own seat cushions.

Everyone’s arguing whether Edwards is a swindler or merely a swine.

While Dowd goes on to offer that Edwards is certainly a swine, it’s more interesting—well, to me—that she dishes that Obama viewed Edwards as a pretty boy. What an insult to pretty boys everywhere (plus that whole takes one to know one thing comes to mind as well).

Assuming Dowd’s guess is correct (and going Freud here), I’d speculate Obama didn’t want the media competition from Edwards. He instead went the “safe” route and picked a more traditional moral failure, Eric Holder.

Eric Stratton would have brought more forthrightness, morality, and honesty to the Administration (even if he is an ob/gyn type).

eric stratton

Once Upon a Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy and Its Aftermath

This New York Post article on Mimi Alford’s new book which addresses her “relationship” with President John F. Kennedy is sure to have the Kennedy legacy management/boot lickers in full damage control.

The article highlights Alford’s year-and-a-half-long sexual servicing of Kennedy which began when she was a 19-year-old intern. Kennedy also provided Alford to the staff for sex and was useful when he needed “consoling.” However, Alford drew the line at being loaned out to Ted Kennedy (who may have also offered her a ride home).

Although unmentioned in the Post article, Alford’s memoir helps us understand why Bill Clinton admired JFK so much and perhaps why he chose to follow him into politics.

Should Alford’s memoir be categorized into the ‘Best and Brightest’ Kennedy bin, ‘Stopped World War III,’ ‘American Martyr,’ or instead, ‘Camelot’?

Obama’s Re-election Goes Tango Uniform

What do Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have in common? Very little.

By MORONICA DOWD (if you must, read the original here)

WHETHER Bill Clinton is being helpful or trolling for jailbait is never entirely clear. But the former president often manages to show the current president just how to get things done.

In July, when Barack Obama was languishing by the phone, yearning to hear from John Boehner on the elusive Grand Bargain, the Big Id advised blowing off the Constitution and unilaterally raising the debt ceiling.

Clinton will often forcefully — and feelingly (I ought to know) — frame the argument for Obama that would help his re-election efforts in a way that Obama himself, once hailed as Dear Reader, can’t seem to handle.

On Sunday talk shows, Bill adroitly defended Barry Oh against Dick Cheney’s sly, but on-target jab that Hillary would make a less-bad Democratic nominee in 2012.

And, on Tuesday in New York, as the talking heads talked about whether President Obama provoked a “women” problem by letting the West Wing become a frat house, Clinton pulled out a large bag of roofies and showed how easy it is to get a roomful of women purring.

While Obama tried to get the credit for Libya at the U.N. and make nice with Turkey, Bill kicked off his Clinton Love Initiative with a visit to Rachael Ray’s cooking show.

Looking sharp in a two-piece velvet track suit and matching bling, Bill charmed the women in the audience with tales of his new pagan diet, his fantasy to be ‘band-aide’ for the “Glee Unchained” tour, and his painful recollection of being a chubby 63-year-old.

“The world we live in glorifies people who are skinnier and longer-legged than most of us could ever be,” he empathetically told his thick and short-legged listeners.

Asked what he would be doing if he were president again for one day, he replied to cheers: “I would add federal holidays recognizing the contributions of homosexuals, Hollywood, and Hispanics towards American culture, dissolve the blue dress in hydrochloric acid, and try and remain out of the way of economic process.” When Ray wondered what superpower Clinton would want, he replied with a wink: “I think you know the answer to that, Rachael.”

When a woman in the audience asked if he’d do “Dancing With The Porn Stars,” he said they had petitioned him but that he was not yet camera ready. “Still, I would like to master my domain,” he said, adding: “Last night, Hillary said to me, ‘You know, when I’m not secretary of state anymore, we should take pole-dancing lessons.’ ”

While the audience swooned, Obama has more serious female problems.

The suggestion in Ron Suskind’s new book, “How’d We Have Any Confidence In These Men?,” that the president focused so much on the guys in his West Wing that it created problems with some top women, is not a new one.

Everyone thought Obama would crack open the cloistered club of officials and columnists that forms with a new White House, but it was soon obvious he couldn’t manage his own staff. Especially with Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers and the dropped-on-his-head-as-an-infant Robert Gibbs around, the atmosphere often played to a “Rocky Horror Picture Show” culture. Here, even Rahm was not a completely comfy fit, given that he struggled to sustain a high falsetto, Summers preferred sequined denim to the more-needed glittered latex, and Gibbs turned out to be allergic to fishnet stockings.

Still, it’s beyond strange that a man whose father ran away, who was raised in large part by his grandmother, who has been told he has two daughters, and who married Chewbacca’s younger sister could create an Oval man-cave where some women felt uncomfortable.

Or maybe after being surrounded by women, he just wanted to escape. This president in particular, has to be careful to make sure he doesn’t lose his own feminine side, even if takes help from men who have a full complement of it, like Joe ”Snooky” Biden and David “The Dominatrix” Axelrod.

Obama now concedes that he made up the narrative that brought him to the White House. Suskind’s book suggests he went astray in the traditional Chicago way: following Wall Street suck-up Tim Geithner; getting in bed with the gluttonous green jobs industry; having no idea of how the economy works.

Now the president is trapped in two damaging story lines. Is he too weak and stupid to do the job? Or is he too immature and inexperienced?

Obama’s major problem is to now convince voters that he’s competent when they have all sorts of evidence to the contrary. In a way, his relationship with Americans is like a dysfunctional sitcom marriage: we’re the practical, smart, good-looking ones that can only roll our eyes at the inept suggestions of bumbling spouse/clown-in-chief.

So will our national sitcom be cancelled after a short four-year experiment or will it instead make a successful “Three’s Company”-like run?