Barack Obama

Screen grab from Hillary Clinton's new web site.

Screen grab from Hillary Clinton’s new web site.

There were two great national social movements of the 20th century, Civil Rights and the Women’s Movement. (Also known as the Feminist Movement, Women’s Liberation and Women’s Lib.) As these movements gained momentum they contributed to the social upheaval that helped define the decade of the 1960s.

Now, in the 21st century both movements are still evolving and their cultural and societal effects are part of our daily life, but the success of the Civil Rights movement shines slightly brighter, as witnessed by the second inauguration of the first African-American President of the United States

Through Barack Obama, one of these two great social movements has reached the pinnacle of power twice. But in next few years, will the Women’s Movement, led by its representative-in-chief Hillary Clinton, make an all out attempt to achieve that same goal?  And will the “dominant media” be 1000% behind Clinton as the leader of the movement to help elect the first female President of the United States?

The answer to both questions is “yes” and “yes, definitely.”

For the record I am not, nor have I never been, a Hillary supporter, but as a baby-boomer Republican woman having come of age during the peak of “woman’s liberation,” I can not ignore what I foresee as an extremely ripe political movement on the horizon, even though its leader will not receive my vote.

All my political sensibilities point to a majority of American women of all ages, races, education levels and from all parts of this nation banding together to fuel a “Hillary in 2016” super-sized rocket on a trajectory straight to the White House.

However, the rocket ship stays on the launch pad if Hillary decides not to run in 2016 due to declining health or other unknown factors. But if launch is a go, than woe to any Republican male whether he is white, Hispanic, plus-sized or lean, who dares to be her opponent in 2016.

Having this opinion puts me in direct disagreement with writer Matt Lewis, who concludes in a piece which appeared in The Week  entitled, In Four Years We’ll Be Inaugurating Marco Rubio; “Watch out, Hillary. Come January 2017, America won’t be inaugurating its first female president. We’ll be inaugurating our first Latino commander-in-chief. “

But my contrary belief is that the movement to elect the first female president of the United States already has tons of industrial strength momentum and its own sense of historic urgency now seen almost daily on display throughout the mainstream media. Whereas, the movement to elect a Latino commander-in-chief will not be nearly as strong in 2016 as it will be say a decade or two from now.

For the remainder of 2013 and probably well into 2014, the major theme of all the Hillary coverage will be focused on the question, “Will she run?” But once that is answered in the affirmative, and deals are made to eliminate any Democratic primary opposition, you can expect blatant mainstream media bias on par with what occurred during the 2008 presidential campaign fueling the historic movement that elected the first African-American president.

Let us not forget how much the dominant media loves the triumph of a social movement whose members were formerly discriminated against. Certainly electing the first woman president in 2016 totally fits that bill. (And now, unlike in 2008, they really like her Bill again too!)

Another advantage Hillary will have in 2016, that first played out in the 2008 presidential election (and only to a slightly lesser extent in 2012), was the notion that if you dared not to support Obama, first as a candidate and then as an incumbent, you risked being labeled a “racist.”

This means heading towards 2016, do not be surprised when an eerily familiar mantra starts to unfold, labeling anyone not supporting Hillary for President a chauvinist, sexist or “anti-woman.”

Just watch how Hillary’s candidacy will ignite a whole new “War on Women”… but with a unique twist. For once the movement is totally underway a battle of name calling will be waged against any man (especially) or woman (most likely) who is not a foot soldier in Hillary’s army, marching in lock step towards conquering the Oval Office in the name of “Girl Power.”

As one prominent Republican campaign strategist told me during the 2008 McCain campaign, it is nearly impossible for any presidential candidate to be victorious if he or she is running against a social movement and Hillary in 2016 will most definitely be a social movement.

Ironically in 2008, Hillary was burned when she ran up against an even stronger social movement (at the time) with its goal to nominate the first African-American Democrat candidate.

But in 2016 all the stars will be aligned in her favor. This is because for great movements to be successful they must be perfectly timed and fueled by a desire to achieve something once almost unachievable or to compensate for past treatment now considered to be unjust. And the movement of Hillary in 2016 has all of the above.

Additionally, successful movements like Obama’s quest for the presidency in 2008 must first have the full faith and backing of the dominant media and once that is achieved, all the “plain folks” usually just fall in line.

(See gay marriage and gay rights as the most recent example of such a movement).

Furthermore, Hillary Clinton in 2016 will have even more of an advantage than did Senator Obama at the beginning of his movement.

Her favorability is already extremely high at 67% and she does not have to be introduced to the American people, as was the case in 2008 with a little known newly minted Senator from Illinois.

Even if Hillary’s popularity somewhat diminishes (which it will), Republicans with an eye for 2016 must not be in denial that they will be up against a historic movement with the largest, most powerful voting block that abandoned them by a margin of more than 10% in 2012.  (Exit polls indicate 55% of women voted for Obama and 44% for Romney, with women comprising 53% of the entire electorate.)

However, the dominant media, in concert with the growing power of American women will form a tour de force that, in my opinion, no male Republican presidential candidates currently on the 2016 horizon can expect to overcome.

It is my sincere hope that the 2016 GOP candidate will find a way to win the White House anyway. But if Hillary is the Democrat nominee she will be more than a presidential candidate. Hillary Rodham Clinton will represent a “triumph” of the women’s movement similar to the “triumph” of the Civil Rights movement which twice helped elect Barack Obama.

And, as we have just seen in 2008 and 2012, running against a social movement is made even more difficult when the dominant media is totally supportive of the movement and will do everything in its power to forge a “happy ending.”

Re-posted from






Obviously since my last post in November much has changed!                                              (Yes, I know I need to re-post my pieces here more often.)                                             Governor Bob McDonnell ran into some problems with “women issues” legislation and his VP star has dramatically faded as a result. So now in late May here we are….

Breaking News May 30, 2012:                                                                                                  Senator Portman in Israel to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Is this a strong signal that Portman has been tapped to be Romney’s VP?

Re-posted from PJ Media

These days one of the favorite games among political junkies is prognosticating about who will be Romney’s Vice Presidential running mate. An important criterion for selection, the “incredibly boring white guy”  factor previously has been examined by this writer and others.

Now, there seems to be a consensus among inside GOP political operatives as to who will share the bumper sticker with Romney within that group of potential VP nominees who exemplify that distinguishing “boring” characteristic.

That person is Ohio Senator Rob Portman.

Sensing an opinion wave for Portman within the last month, I asked a prominent GOP Super Pac insider (name withheld by request) why Portman is the “chosen one” and this was the email response I received:

He could bring Ohio!!! And he is very experienced and he won’t spend $100,000 on clothes in two months!  The goal this cycle is “safe, not sorry. But win Ohio!”

Packed within that email are several discussion points alluding to the GOP’s 2008 VP candidate, (which are sure to be elaborated upon in the comment section of this post).

Notwithstanding a negative or positive opinion of the GOP’s 2008 VP candidate, Sarah Palin has significantly impacted the decision-making selection process of the GOP’s 2012 VP candidate and it now looks like Senator Rob Portman will be the ultimate beneficiary.

Another veteran insider of past GOP presidential campaigns responded to my email which posed the question “Why Portman?” with this list of reasons:

He’s fabulous.

Would actually be a great VP.  

Not an ideologue.


Understands jobs and global economy as U.S. Trade Representative not OMB.

“Not OMB” is worth discussing for this is a touchy Portman resume item that Team Obama is sure to exploit as a negative talking point after Portman is officially nominated.

From May, 2006 until June, 2007 Rob Portman served as President George W. Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (OMB)

When asked about the potential for President Obama and the Democrats to “denigrate” his OMB service, Portman was ready with an answer, as recently reported in a comprehensive piece in Real Clear Politics (RCP) entitled, “Does Portman Have the Edge in VP Sweepstakes?

He told the Cincinnati Enquirer last month: “I was there for just over a year and I put out one budget … [which] was actually a balanced budget. And not even over 10 years but over five years and I’m proud of that.” He conceded, “Frankly it was a battle within the White House to get the White House and everybody on board with that . . . but imagine that, a balanced budget.”

So Rob Portman’s defense of his one year as OMB Director includes a small salvo aimed at the Bush White House for rejecting his “pathway to balancing the budget in five years”. Now, by comparison, President Obama’s budget deficits are projected to be $977 billion in 2013 making President Bush’s $161 billion deficit in 2007 look like chump change.

This means Portman has plenty of cover when the Obama campaign unleashes their wild attack dogs in the last two months of the general election and there is no doubt that Portman will successfully defend himself and his record at OMB.

Portman’s first post in President Bush’s second term was as the United States Trade Representative. He worked in that position for one year before President Bush promoted him to OMB Director in mid- 2006.

To further understand the depth of experience that Senator Portman brings to the Romney ticket, it is important to note that before serving two years in the Bush Administration, Portman had a distinguished congressional career which spanned 12 years from May, 1993 until May, 2005.

Representing Ohio’s 2nd congressional district, Portman built a reputation for bi-partisanship, writing numerous pieces of legislation that were signed into law by President Clinton; but you can count on this part of his career to be completely ignored by Team Obama.

Instead, get ready to read how Portman was “Bush’s guy” who helped drive the economy into a ditch and you can almost hear Obama asking voters the question, “and this is the guy you want to let back into the White House?”

Well, the voters of Ohio had no problem sending Portman back to Washington after serving in Bush’s White House. In fact, when Portman ran for his current senate seat in 2010 he defeated his Democrat opponent, garnering 57% of the vote to Lee Fisher’s 39%.

Now in the midst of the 2012 election cycle when Romney is in search of a “boring white guy” how could any guy who won an important state’s senate race by 18% points possibly be that boring?

In response to the boring accusation which supposedly helps Portman’s chances, here is an entertaining piece to the contrary which appeared recently on Buzz Feed entitled  “15 Genuinely Interesting Things About Rob Portman.”

He’s hunts! He canoes! He bikes! He fishes! He speaks Spanish!  (The latter could be a big benefit to Romney with a voting block that he needs to attract.)

So, maybe he’s not that boring after all.

Consider Portman’s resume of 12 years as a Congressman with stints as International Trade Representative, OMB Director, a US Senator since January 2011 an Ohio political power player who is credited with helping Romney win the Ohio primary over Rick Santorum — and you have someone who is extremely well qualified to be the GOP vice-presidential candidate.

Now many signs are pointing in Portman’s direction except this one.

Currently Intrade has Senator Portman’s chances of being selected as Romney’s VP rated at only 22%. (But Portman’s chances are increasing by the minute.)

Portman’s closest Intrade competitor is Florida Senator Marco Rubio. At the moment Rubio’s chances that he will be Romney’s VP are rated at 24%.

This tight VP race raging at Intrade suggests that the general betting public is not yet up to speed on what many Washington GOP insiders and members of the media are saying about Portman’s real chances.

All politics aside, the primary job of the Vice-President is to step in and take over as President of the United States if called upon — and for that role Senator Portman is well suited.

In fact, Mark McKinnon, now a political media personality, who served as media strategist for President Bush in 2000 and 2004, wrote in an email responding to my question “Why Portman”, “The guy was truly made for the job.”

Compare that description to the now deceased Osama bin Laden’s stinging critique of Vice-President Joe Biden, calling him “utterly unprepared” to be President of the United States.

This description came to light on captured documents while bin Laden planned/dreamed of targeting planes carrying President Obama and General Petraeus so our nation would be plunged into crisis under Biden’s leadership.

In the end the contest between “the guy truly made for the job” vs. the one called “utterly unprepared” will not be the determining factor in whether Obama or Romney is victorious in November.

However, according to my sources Senator Rob Portman is the one most likely to be standing on stage at the Vice-Presidential debate this fall.

So reserve your seat now because a Biden vs. Portman match-up will be anything but boring.

Karl Rove recently wrote a widely circulated op-ed titled
                      “Why Obama Is Likely to Lose in 2012.”  Here is the opening paragraph:

President Barack Obama is likely to be defeated in 2012. The reason is that he faces four serious threats. The economy is very weak and unlikely to experience a robust recovery by Election Day. Key voter groups have soured on him. He’s defending unpopular policies. And he’s made bad strategic decisions.

Yes, it’s all true, and Rove backs up each reason with relevant data. However, he fails to emphasize the one overwhelming advantage President Obama has against his 2012 opponent: the power, glory, and respect that is accorded the person who holds the title “president of the United States.”

Historically, holders of this esteemed title have a 67.7% chance of re-election. As a co-writer and I noted earlier this year, and as was mentioned later by CBS News, “in the last 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 have involved incumbents; 21 of those candidates have won more than one term.”

Since Karl Rove knows well the reverence accorded the president, he does mention incumbency once in this context:

While he needs to raise money and organize, he decided to be a candidate this year rather than president. He has thus unnecessarily abandoned one of incumbency’s great strengths, which is the opportunity to govern and distance himself from partisan politics until next spring.

It is Rove’s belief that President Obama’s decision to act less presidential and more like a candidate, while governing as a partisan in 2011, will help thwart his re-election chances.

This is where I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rove.

In fact, I believe Obama’s carefully calculated partisan behavior will actually increase his chances of winning a second term.

Since he took office in January 2009, President Obama has never stopped campaigning. He derives his energy, his very life blood, from being out on the trail, speaking to crowds large or small, and “pressing the flesh.”

During his entire presidency thus far, Obama has wanted us to think all those visits to factories, schools, campuses, town halls, and military bases were 100% official. The truth is the backdrop and especially the choice of state were always political. This was Obama’s way of keeping the campaign going.

Having been a “spy” since 2008 on Obama’s infamous campaign e-mail list “Organizing for America,” I have seen firsthand, sometimes on a daily basis during key moments of his presidency, how the campaign truly never ended.

“Organizing for America,” supposedly 13 million strong, has officially re-tooled for the 2012 campaign and is now called Obama for America.

Like a good salesman, Obama can not stop selling his product — himself — long after the sale is finalized. It’s as if he knows his God-given talents are more suited to “campaigner in chief” than the expected chief executive/commander in chief.

As Rove suggests, Obama should, as an incumbent, distance himself from partisan politics.” But President Obama has never distanced himself from partisan politics. Obama has always been and continues to be a bitter partisan Democrat.

So why should he stop now with 2012 around the corner?

All Obama will continue to do up until November 6, 2012, is recite the same old red-meat rhetoric about how those scary Republicans messed things up so bad; thus, why on earth would you let them back into the White House?

Besides, if Republicans do manage to win, all they will do is cut your government benefits and throw granny off the cliff.

With Obama, it is always us vs. them.

Look for our non-stop campaigning president to repeat this mantra daily to his loyal base of African-Americans, Hispanics, under 30 voters, die-hard liberals, college educated women, public/ private sector union members, Hollywood, the LGBT community, teachers, and titans who run influential new media companies extremely important to his campaign like Google and Facebook.

(Remember how Mark Zuckerberg famously donned a tie to meet Obama?)

These century-old Democratic talking points, delivered with Obama’s charm, humor, and updated spin, are what his base wants and expects to hear.

So Obama, ever the crowd pleaser, will give them what they want, regardless of the fact that he was elected president of all the people in these United States.

After the aforementioned groups in key states, Obama will set his sights on his weakest link: independent voters. He desperately needs to make up for the possible drop-off in base voters, for all the reasons cited by Rove.

Thus, President Obama will woo independents by exaggerating his record and planting false fears about Republicans in the minds of just enough wishy-washy independents to successfully knit together a winning map of 270 electoral votes.

He will ask in various ways: How can you trust those Republicans?

Get ready to hear that message almost 24/7 closer to 2012.

Now, couple all that partisan fear strategy with the office of the presidency.

Obama will have the trappings of power, the White House and Air Force One, all harnessed to raise more money than any political campaign in the history of the world, while on “official business” by day and as “fundraiser in chief” at night — usually in the same town, of course.

Already eyebrows have been raised about how Obama has used the White House to court well-heeled 2008 donors. Remember, it is only mid- 2011 and he is in full campaign fundraising mode on the way to his realistic goal of $1 billion — beating his own record of $750 million in 2008.

It has been estimated that he is on track to raise $60 million this quarter ending June 30. So with fundraising in mind, here is a recent video I received from Obama for America about entering a raffle with the winning prize a dinner with the president at the White House. Does anyone else think this is disgraceful?

Money can’t buy elections per se, but it can buy months of television time; radio, print, and internet ads; “volunteers”; campaign offices; legions of bloggers; and truckloads of campaign paraphernalia. Money can also buy slick messages that will counter the newly formulated 2012 Republican message that Obama’s policies have made the economic downturn longer, deeper, and generally worse.

But Obama will have so much money that he and his message will continuously be in our faces, surrounding us in every medium. We will have no choice but to listen as he spins his tale about what he inherited, how much progress he has made, and how he just needs more time to make it all better.

Remember we are a partisan nation and we have a partisan president who has and will continue to use that partisanship to his full advantage.

Unfortunately for our nation’s future, this is Obama’s winning strategy and not a “strategic blunder” as Rove suggests.

Americans must recognize by the fall of 2012 that Obama is a partisan showman and then elect a leader who does not confuse campaigning with governing.

Currently Intrade, the respected online prediction market, gives Obama a 57% chance of re-election. That, coupled with the fact that 67.7% of incumbents wins re-election as mentioned earlier, means that President Obama will likely win a second term.

I pray Karl Rove is right and I am wrong.

Despite the jubilation over the death of Osama Bin Laden, our nation’s overstretched and under-appreciated military will continue to be actively engaged in three undeclared wars — Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya.

Perhaps Bin Laden’s demise will usher in new questions for President Obama about the present and future of our international entanglements.

In the meantime while casualties and costs continue to escalate, and public opinion is running against all three wars there is virtually no anti-war movement targeted at President Obama compared to what was waged against President Bush.

What are the reasons for this anti-war silence from the people and the press?

Here are three possible ones: the absence of a draft, George W. Bush is no longer in office, and the main stream media’s conscious decision to downplay the wars while Obama is president.

No Draft

Imagine if every able bodied 18 year old male (females are excluded from this imaginary draft) from all economic strata lived in fear of being yanked out of civilian life and sent to fight in the treacherous mountains of Afghanistan?

Or, sent to relieve the 50,000 troops still serving, fighting and dying in Iraq?

Or possibly sent to fight along side the rebels in Libya? (Not totally unlikely considering US Marines and warships are now deployed off Libya’s coast.)

Then when you consider the majority of Americans (49%) disapprove of how Obama is handling the Afghan war (47% approve) — and only 27% approve of Obama’s Libyan intervention — if a draft were in effect today there would likely be 1970’s style Vietnam era demonstrations on college campuses and frequent marches upon Washington.

(It will be interesting to note going forward if these poll numbers become more favorable toward Obama now that Bin Laden has been killed by our special forces.)

With a draft, wars would be front and center in the national consciousness especially if 20 year old “Justin” from an upper middle class family dropped out of Yale, lost his student deferment and was heading toward Kabul.

However, the absence of a draft allows for a major disconnect between the all volunteer military comprised of less than 1% of the US population.

It’s human nature that if your family is not threatened with joining the fight, you have the option of not paying attention to the wars or the politics behind them.

Then before you know it complacency sets in, nearly invisible wars are 10 years old and the same troops have done three, four, or five tours of duty.

“Hell no, we won’t go,” has been replaced with “Not my problem.”

A draft keeps wars closer to the pulse of ALL the people and tends to hold elected leaders more accountable.  Even the anti-war movement during President George W. Bush’s tenure was tame compared to what it would have been if there had been a draft after September 11, 2001.

No President George W. Bush to kick around any more 

Why has the steady anti-war drumbeat ever present under President Bush become virtually silent?  A strange phenomenon indeed considering President Obama has continued President Bush’s policies in Iraq, then tripled Bush’s troop levels in Afghanistan, ratcheted up predator drone attacks in Pakistan, and got us involved in Libya without congressional authorization; all this from a President who received the Nobel Peace Prize upon taking office in early 2009.

What could explain the silence of someone like Cindy Sheehan (remember her?) the grieving mother and poster child of the anti-war movement under President Bush?

It is now obvious that all or most of the anti-war sediment was a by-product of Bush Derangement Syndrome because like magic, once Bush was gone from the White House the anti-war movement virtually disappeared.

A case could easily be made that most of the anti-war movement from 2002 – 2008 was fueled by the media and then conveniently used by Bush haters everywhere to wage war against the presidency of George W. Bush.   Anti-War = Anti-Bush, which brings us around to the third and final reason:

The media’s downplaying of the wars under President Obama

There is a certain irony that in 2011 our three wars are being lead by Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama, who was the Iraq anti-war candidate, first in 2002 as an Illinois State Senator, and then as a US Senator in his 2007 presidential launch speech.

During the 2008 primary campaign Senator Obama said to Senator Hillary Clinton when speaking about Iraq, “I was opposed to this war in 2002…I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5,6,7,8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Well, perhaps Obama should be confused now and asked why April 2011 was the deadliest month in Iraq since 2009 with the loss of 11 American soldiers.

Richard Benedetto, writing on opined recently in a piece entitled “Why Is Obama So Silent On Afghanistan — And Why Are the Media Letting Him Get Away With It?” Benedetto observed that Obama avoids talking about Afghanistan publically as much as he can, letting others do the talking.

Obama’s strategy of avoiding speeches and discussion on wars that are not going well and that the American people are increasing against, seems to be working for him — otherwise the anti-war movement would spring back to life, whipped up in part by the media.

That said, with the death of Bin Laden, it will be interesting to see if Obama becomes more publicly engaged with the wars especially if he senses some political gain.

However, as long as the main stream media that helped elect Obama and has a vested interest in his success, is not hounding him for answers about the wars while running screaming negative headlines like what occurred almost daily during the Bush years – it is a safe bet that people will not be marching in the streets with anti-war signs reading “Obama lied — people died.”

Consider April 27th when 8 US service members were killed by an Afghan pilot, Obama was busy releasing his birth certificate, flying off for a taping of Oprah and then attending three fundraisers to help fill his re-election campaign coffers.

The media barely mentioned the tragic incident.

With no draft, no George W. Bush, and a main stream media that does not hold Obama accountable to the same standards as President Bush on any issue, is it any wonder these three wars have been largely out of sight and out of mind for 99% of Americans?

At least ABC’s This Week broadcasts the names, ages and hometowns of our brave service members who have made the ultimate sacrifice. For the record, there were 25 names on the Sunday, May 1st  morning show while 12 hours later the news broke about Bin Laden. Too bad those 25 will not be celebrating.

Now with Osama Bin Laden gone and if there are no major changes in any of our three wars will the anti-war movement be revived over mounting casualties and costs?

The answer is probably no because the media will most likely elevate Obama to hero status over Bin Laden’s death. And with his new status, the silence of the anti-war movement will continue as a by product of Barack Obama’s presidency with the media’s complicity.

Meanwhile next Sunday on This Week there will be more young soldiers in Memoriam.

– Pajamas Media –

A ‘Flawed’ GOP Field vs. A Flawed President

Posted By Myra Adams On March 6, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Elections 2012,Opinion,Politics | 119 Comments

It’s nearly impossible to hear or read about the prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidates without the nasty F word being mentioned. No — not that word. Flawed. All the 2012 GOP challengers are continuously dismissed in the media [1]. It’s like little laser beams are focused on each ostensibly fatal flaw, blinding voters to the totality of the candidate’s career and achievements:
In 2006, then-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed mandatory health care legislation — which, as the story goes, is the basis for Obamacare. POLICY: FLAWED!
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is on his third wife — and his two prior divorces were not family friendly. ETHICS: FLAWED!
Two-term Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is a former lobbyist — and, as a teenager, was more interested in watching girls than in remembering Martin Luther King’s speech in his home town. CHARACTER: FLAWED!
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels suggested to the party base that the next president would need to call a “truce” on social issues to focus on economic ones and he is several inches under 6 feet tall. SOCIALLY and PHYSICALLY FLAWED!
Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty is charisma challenged — allegedly way too boring and way too nice. PERSONALITY: FLAWED!
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s record raises red flags — he raised some taxes and commuted the sentence of a prisoner who years later murdered four policemen in Washington state. RECORD: FLAWED! And now with Huckabee’s latest “Obama was raised in Kenya controversy [2],” he is flawed by the prevailing media…. forever.
Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is — well, let’s say too polarizing for a general election. ELECTABILITY: FLAWED!

The mainstream media wants you all to believe all the potential Republican candidates are too flawed to defeat President Obama. As if President Obama is not too flawed to win!

Whether flaws are overlooked or accentuated greatly depends on the party from which the candidate hails. What the 2008 election proved — through the elevation of a man to the highest office in the land with the thinnest resume and least executive experience ever — is that anyone can get elected president, if the press chooses to overlook that candidate’s flaws.

Republican candidates will be judged in the media by vastly different standards than Barack Obama. Once one of them has at last secured the nomination, he or she will be pummeled while Obama will get a pass for his policies and how he comports himself as president. And the preparation for that howler of a pass is all happening now:

On Thursday, February 24th, Libya, along with the rest of the Arab world, was in turmoil. Hundreds of American diplomats, whose lives were in danger as potential hostages, had not yet been evacuated from Libya. The State Department was working 24/7, but the ferry they sent had not been able to leave shore for two long days with passengers aboard. What does our president do? He throws a party! Yes — a rockin’ Motown [3] celebration at the White House featuring Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, and other celebs, with Obama looking and sounding more like a modern day Emperor Nero fiddling while Libya burned, gas prices spiked, and the lives of American Embassy workers hung in the balance.

Was the White House concerned that images of Obama dancing and grooving on that tenuous evening would perhaps send the wrong signal to the nation and the world? Of course not! After all,  Obama was honoring Black History Month for a televised show on PBS.

Aside from numerous headlines on conservative blogs like “Obama dances while the Middle East burns, [4]” there was no criticism from the mainstream media — only glowing reports and footage [5] on the festivities themselves.

Now, in contrast, here is how a “flawed” Republican president reacted to a crisis when American lives were in danger:
In August 2003 [6] President Bush said he decided to stop playing golf to show his respect for the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families.

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” Bush said in an interview with Politico and Yahoo News on May 13, 2008. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

Here’s the signal [7] Obama was sending the loved ones of those Americans waiting to leave Libya: We party — you enjoy the ferry.

Imagine the media outrage if George W. Bush had thrown a similar party during a crisis of this type.

Example two:
What could be more flawed than the $821 billion stimulus [8] package, increased from the originally enacted $787 billion stimulus? Well, yes — ObamaCare may turn out to be even more economically disastrous. But one hopes the courts will intervene or Congress will defund it. The stimulus bill is so flawed, failed, and costly that our great grandchildren’s children will be still be paying for it. Filled to the brim with waste, fraud, and lies, it never pushed unemployment rates [9] below Obama’s stated goal of 8%.

While traveling recently on the Florida’s Turnpike, I stopped at one of those huge tourist-friendly service areas with food courts and gift shops. There was a very small work-in-progress road project of about 200 square feet between two curbs. It looked like the gravel was being readied for a garden. Although the purpose of the project was not exactly clear, the sign sure was. It boldly proclaimed The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act. I swelled up with national pride knowing our economy is being stimulated by a gas station shrub garden. Who knows — maybe it was a future plot for an electric car charger for Government Motors’ Chevy Volt.

And since the stimulus sign was stimulating itself [10], I had all the more reason to feel proud of my government’s ability to create jobs at turnpike rest stops.

Flawed? Super flawed? So unbelievably flawed that recently Obama was reduced to telling our nation’s governors at a White House meeting that, even though many of our states are flat broke, the Recovery Act helped manage every state’s budget “whether you admit it or not”? [11] Yes. But not if you ask a fawning press or a doting media.

Republicans must unite behind one of their “flawed” candidates and help that person triumph before we all collapse under the weight of our debt.

The alternative? A second-term president who throws more glamorous parties during more international crises while ordering up more stimulus project signs.

We must defeat this modern day Emperor Nero — or else we will follow the Roman Empire down the path to collapse and ruin.

Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] dismissed in the media:

[2] Obama was raised in Kenya controversy:

[3] Motown:

[4] Obama dances while the Middle East burns,:

[5] reports and footage:

[6] In August 2003:

[7] Here’s the signal:

[8] $821 billion stimulus:

[9] waste, fraud, and lies, it never pushed unemployment rates:

[10] stimulus sign was stimulating itself:

[11] “whether you admit it or not”?:
Copyright © 2011 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved.

– Pajamas Media –
How Obama Gets to 270 in 2012

Posted By Myra Adams On January 3, 2011 @ 12:06 am In Elections 2012,Health Care,Homeland Security,Immigration,Judiciary,Legal,Politics,US News,economy | 89 Comments

Collective wisdom (and wishful group-think) among Republicans is that Obama will be a one-term president. “One & Done” is a rallying cry with the merchandise to match [1].

Not so fast my friends — as Obama’s victorious lame duck session proves, never underestimate this president or the power of the presidency.

Obama does not take defeat easily and tends to recycle negative energy into fuel for his re-launch. Obama’s re-launch plans for 2011 include spending more time outside of Washington “engaging with the public,” [2] according to a top White House adviser. This is in reaction to criticism of him for being aloof and disconnected from the great unwashed masses.

So as the president re-engages the public, the media will be there to chronicle glowing accounts of every backyard summit. We can watch as Obama’s two-year road to re-election is paved with re-kindled love between the “lamestream” media and “The Anointed One” version 2.0.  And we on the opposing team will shake our heads in disgust as our GOP candidates get lambasted in the media for every small infraction from their past and present.

Meanwhile, President Obama will have the power of incumbency. Note that since the founding of our republic there have been 56 U.S. presidential elections, 31 of which have involved incumbents. Of those 31 presidents, 21 have won, which means that, based on the historical odds, Obama has a 67% chance of winning re-election.

Now if the power of incumbency, the media fawning, Obama’s remarkable ability to bounce back, and Obama’s extraordinary campaign and speaking skills weren’t enough to ensure his re-election, let’s examine what Obama really has in his favor: the 270 math of the almighty Electoral College.  (Never discuss this with Al Gore, by the way.)

But before Republicans get too depressed, here is some good news. The 2010 census has shifted 11 electoral votes to “traditional” red states. (Traditional red states as defined from the 2004 Bush victory. Texas, for example, gained 4 votes, and Florida gained 2, even though Florida turned Obama blue in 2008.) See all the electoral vote changes here on this interactive map [3].

However, even the gain of 11 electoral votes spread among “traditional” GOP red states matters little when examining the unfavorable odds the GOP will confront getting to 270 in 2012

We begin by using the 2004 Bush/Kerry [4] election as a baseline for the red vs. blue electoral map. In 2004, President George W. Bush won 286 electoral votes to Senator John Kerry’s 252.

Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote. [5]

But cynics warned there was trouble ahead, for if Ohio’s 20 electoral votes had gone to Kerry then he would have been elected and Obama might still be the junior senator from Illinois.

Although 2004 was a close election, GOP strategists would dream about the look of the 2004 map. If not for those pesky northeast, Great Lakes, and wacky left-coast states, the vast body of the USA was coated in ruby red.

Here is the Obama/McCain 2008 electoral map [6] with Obama winning 365 electoral votes to McCain’s paltry 173.

Question: How do Republicans make their way back from 173 to 270?

Answer: With much difficulty.

Assume for a moment (and this is a HUGE assumption) that what I call the “Red Rogue States” of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana that turned Obama blue in 2008 will shake off the magic fairy dust he sprinkled over them and return to the red Republican barn in 2012.  These five “must win” states total 86 electoral votes, bringing our generic un-named Republican presidential candidate up to 266.

(Note: the new 2012 electoral vote totals are being used to reach 266.)

So where does our generic presidential candidate find the remaining four votes?

Oh, how I wish that was the only major problem keeping the GOP from reaching 270.

The first potential problem is that Arizona is included in the 266 total.

In 2008, Arizona was McCain’s home state and easily added 10 electoral votes to his 173 total.

But in 2012 can Arizona be counted on as reliably red?

Or will Arizona follow Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada into Obama blue territory? There is a good chance it will, especially if the Hispanic Institute Five-State Voter Project [7] has its way.

The Hispanic Institute [8], a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt organization, has the following as its stated mission: to provide “an effective education forum for an informed and empowered Hispanic America.”

Certainly a worthwhile mission and one that I fully support. Especially when you consider Hispanics are our fastest growing minority, currently standing at 16% of the population.

Through its Five-State 2012 Voter Project, the Hispanic Institute seeks to promote and grow the participation of Hispanics in civic engagement and the electoral process.

Success has already been achieved for the Five-State Voter Project’s pilot program — Nevada’s 2010 midterm election. The project added 10,000 new registered voters and increased the percentage of Hispanics voting in Nevada to 16% for a midterm election. (By comparison, Hispanics comprised 15% of the state’s voter turnout in 2008.) So, to have increased the percentage of a minority voting block by even one point in an off year election was deemed a great victory and psyched up the leaders to implement their 2012 full plan of attack.

So what does this Nevada “victory” mean for the 2012 Electoral College map?

Consider the five targets of the Five-States Voter Project: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada — together they represent a new 2012 total of 60 electoral votes.

During the 2008 election the percentage of Hispanic voters in these five states was:

  • Arizona 16%
  • Colorado 13%
  • Florida 14%
  • New Mexico 41%
  • Nevada 15%

The Five-State Voter Project fully expects the percentages of Hispanic voters in these states to increase for the 2012 election. For example, Arizona’s 2008 Hispanic vote of 16% is now projected to be 18.3% in 2012.

Hispanic voter growth like Arizona’s is not good news for the un-named Republican presidential candidate, especially when the GOP is considered hostile (fairly or unfairly) to Hispanic issues.

Obama received 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008, and if that vote stays loyal, it could keep Florida blue and turn Arizona blue for the first time since 1996.

Even now, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada must be considered long shots to return to the red land of the 2004 electoral map.

So when you hear Obama bringing up the DREAM Act [9] over and over until it passes in the next two years, you know he is really dreaming of his re-election.

Now, let’s go back to our generic presidential candidate sitting at 266 electoral votes.

Remember my assumptions about the “Five Red Rogue” states that must return to red in 2012?

Florida is most problematic, especially with Florida’s Hispanic vote hovering around 15% and now targeted by the Voter Project for further increases. If only four of the five “Red Rogue States” return and Florida stays blue, our discussion ends right there and Obama is re-elected.

Too bad I don’t even get to discuss Iowa, which Obama won by 15.3% in 2008 but which could be the swing state which brings the GOP candidate up from 266 to 272 with its 6 electoral votes.

Any way you look at it, the 2012 electoral map is not user friendly for the GOP presidential nominee, even if national unemployment stays at 10% and the economy is sluggish.

The hope for Republicans in 2012 must lie in traditionally Democratic and  electoral rich blue states like NY, MI, NJ, and PA. But I would not want to bet the farm on those states, with their deep blue voting patterns and heavy union membership.

The new reality is the GOP has run out of reliable red states due to changing Hispanic demographics and Hispanics’ group loyalty to President Obama and the Democratic Party in general.

In 2012, the African-American vote combined with the Hispanic vote will comprise at least 30% of the electorate. If Obama wins these groups by the same percentages he did in 2008, 95% for African Americans and 67% for Hispanics, he easily wins re-election. Unless Republicans can make major inroads into those two minority groups, whatever Democrat follows Obama in 2016 will also start off with a huge electoral advantage.

Sorry about the 2012 reality check. But you can profit from this analysis by clicking on Intrade [10], the online prediction market. Here, you can gamble on whether the Democrats will keep the White House in 2012.  Today, players are betting there is a 57.5% chance of that happening, compared to a 41.7% chance the Republicans will take back the White House.

Article printed from Pajamas Media:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:

[1] merchandise to match:

[2] “engaging with the public,”:

[3] interactive map:

[4] 2004 Bush/Kerry:

[5] Bush carried 31 states and 50.7% of the popular vote.:,_2004

[6] Here is the Obama/McCain 2008 electoral map:

[7] the Hispanic Institute Five-State Voter Project:

[8] The Hispanic Institute:

[9] DREAM Act:

[10] Intrade:



Why Palin Should Run for Oprah’s Couch instead of Obama’s Chair in 2012

Posted By Myra Adams On November 9, 2010 @ 12:00 am In Culture, Elections 2012, Health Care, Homeland Security, Humor & Fun, Opinion, Politics, TV, US News, economy | 212 Comments

“If there’s nobody else to do it, then of course I would believe that we should do this,” Sarah Palin told Entertainment Tonight [1] last month, revealing her presidential thoughts.

Hey Sarah — speaking for a large number of Republicans, allow me to respond to your statement: Since there are many others left to do it, then of course we believe that you should not do this.

Instead, let me suggest a career move that better utilizes your talents and abundant charisma.

Why don’t you run for Oprah’s couch instead of Obama’s chair in 2012?

Since Oprah’s last show is September 9, 2011 [2], that leaves a famous empty couch with a power vacuum that only you can fill. Your new show should naturally be called Sarah!

Let’s look at the pros of taking over for Oprah and the cons of becoming the next president.

PRO:  Perfect hair, clothes, and makeup every day, with flattering lighting.

  • CON: Have you noticed how presidents age? Have you looked at Hillary lately (and she’s not even president)? Let’s face it, the presidency will be bad for your looks, and your looks are among your greatest assets. Stay younger longer off the campaign trail and out of the White House!

PRO: The only major war you will ever declare is a ratings war with Ellen.

  • CON: Messy foreign wars are bad for approval ratings.

PRO: Sarah! show ratings so high you will never see The View from your house.

  • CON: Endless debates with dismal ratings and a dreaded appearance on The View.

PRO: Your colorful family will be frequent guests and eventually land their own spinoffs.

  • Todd’s show can be called How Real Men Tame Powerful Women While Racing a Snow Machine.
  • Bristol’s will be (working title) Dancing on Melting Glaciers.

BIG PRO: You can all make oodles of money to influence future elections.

PRO: You will always be in control and able to invite whomever you want on Sarah!

  • CON: Running for president means events will spin out of control.

PRO: You can invite Katie Couric on your show and ask her embarrassing questions.

  • CON: On the campaign trail journalists will be asking you embarrassing questions every day.

PRO You love to talk which makes Sarah! your perfect platform.

  • CON: On the campaign trail you must develop a real platform and watch your every word.

PRO: You can discuss Christianity openly and not be “new-agey” like Oprah.

  • CON: On the campaign trail you must appeal to all Americans, even those who are going to hell.

PRO: You can continue Oprah’s book club and make unknown authors famous.

  • CON: You will be forced to read big boring briefing books by unknown policy wonks.

PRO Every day you can positively influence our nation and the world.

(Oprah’s show is currently in 145 countries.)

  • CON: If you run for president and lose, your influence diminishes.  If you run and win, only slightly half the country will like you. The other half that didn’t vote for you will continue to dislike you, but the half that voted for you will eventually disapprove of you anyway because being president means you ultimately have to tick off most of your supporters to get stuff done.

PRO: You will make news on Entertainment Tonight not Meet the Press.

  • CON: Sunday talk shows are so boring with bad lighting and way too many gaffe opportunities.

PRO: Your only economic stimulus will be boosting ad revenue on Sarah!

  • CON: Dealing with trillions of debt and a slumping dollar reminds you of that boring econ class.

PRO: On Sarah! you will have a friendly studio audience every day.

  • CON: As president, Congress will be your permanent studio audience with knives and fangs.

PRO: Invite Tina Fey on Sarah! so you can imitate her imitating you during ratings week.

  • CON: She might imitate you imitating her imitating you.

PRO:  You both end up jumping on the couch [3] and it’s the lead story on Entertainment Tonight during ratings week. Everyone wins!

Sarah, it’s obvious why Sarah! replacing Oprah is a no-brainer. Just imagine: by 2012 your ratings will be so high that President Obama will call and ask if he can be your guest the last week of the 2012 presidential campaign.

Then the biggest presidential decision you will ever have to make is whether to take his call.