Election Central Morning Roundup
Obama Raised Nearly $750 Million, With Over $100 Million In Home Stretch
Barack Obama's fundraising for the 2008 campaign has now come to a record-breaking $750 million, a demonstration of just how successful his fundraising model of seeking small donors and getting them to come back again and again really was. In addition, over $100 million of that came simply during the final weeks of the race, as the campaign was stepping up its ads and outspending John McCain.
No Obama Or Biden Public Events Today
Barack Obama is holding private meetings in Chicago, while Joe Biden is holding private meetings in Delaware. Neither have public events scheduled for today.
Dems Complain Of Obama Inaction During Interregnum
The Associated Press reports that many Democrats are growing impatient with a lack of action from Barack Obama during the lame-duck period. The sentiment was best expressed by Barney Frank: "At a time of great crisis with mortgage foreclosures and autos, he says we only have one president at a time. I'm afraid that overstates the number of presidents we have. He's got to remedy that situation."
NYT: Obama Actually Putting Together Administration At Record Speed
In contrast to people criticizing Obama for inaction, the New York Times points out that Obama has actually been assembling his cabinet at the fastest clip of any president-elect in modern history. Obama has now filled 13 of 24 top posts, compared to only one from Bill Clinton at this point in the transition, two each for Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, and eight from George H. W. Bush.
RNC Spent $111K On Palin's Stylists
Obama might have been outspending John McCain on the campaign trail, but it sure looks like the GOP was able to outspend the Dems in one crucial area: Cosmetics for the VP candidate. Sarah Palin's makeup artist was paid a total of $68,400 over the two-month period, and her hair stylist was paid $42,000.
Today: The Final Day (Of The First Phase) Of The Minnesota Recount
Today is the last day of the first stage of the Minnesota recount -- that is, when (nearly) all of the ballots shall have been reviewed by hand. But many stages remain: The canvassing board will be reviewing all the challenged ballots the week after next, there could be continuing litigation about wrongly-rejected absentee ballots -- and if those missing ballots in Minneapolis aren't found, the whole race could be thrown even further into limbo.















Dems/Libs/Progressives or whatever need to get their shit together when it comes to standing behind their leader. I don't suggest blindly following him, but these complaints from "many Democrats" is unfair. There is a backlash to all this handwringing. It sends the wrong message about who you are and what you stand for. When I watch the news the MSM only mentions Obama's supporters when they are "angry" or turning against him. Just this morning I read a blog on The Daily Beast by John Avlon titled "Hard Core Obama Haters." Guess who he named as hard core haters or "the self-appointed ideological enforcers"? : http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-05/hunting-the-obama-haters/
December 5, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree, I'm sick of this shit.
December 5, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for your link, anyone who refers to the "far left" supposedly "grumbling about insufficient radicalism" isn't trying to present an honest picture. The writer is the author of a book about how great centrists are, and the blog post is a dishonest attempt to portray anyone who isn't a "centrist" as some kind of extremist.
When I watch the news the MSM only mentions Obama's supporters when they are "angry" or turning against him.
The problem there is not the supporters, it's our political media. Their eternal storyline is "Democrats in disarray," and they're going to tell it no matter how hard they have to look to find dissenting Democrats. (Remember PUMA?) We're never going to escape news stories that "some Democrats" have a problem with the Democrats in charge by asking people to tone down their criticism, any more than our candidates could avoid Republican attacks by being sufficiently careful about what they said.
There's a lot in the criticism that I don't agree with, but I'd much rather have the healthy debate that has made the netroots strong than the kind of falling in line that they have on the other side. The fact is that the time period before policy is implemented is one of the best times to influence its direction, and I don't begrudge my fellow bloggers their attempts to do that.
December 5, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um -
NYT: Obama Actually Putting Together Administration At Record Speed
Anyone notice anything here? Like the contradiction between the bitching and reality?
December 5, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I saw that too. Nice little dig by Eric, there.
December 5, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eric is subtle - so much so that he went right over my head for months until I got it.
I really liked this one. That was well done.
December 5, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't going for a dig so much as a point and counter-point.
I agree that the lame-duck period is harming our country, and I honestly think we should abolish it. But it's not Obama's fault that we're in this situation.
Obama has political capital but no Constitutional power. Bush has Constitutional power, but no political capital. This is a serious problem that people ought to be talking about.
December 5, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
O I agree, Eric. There is a power vacuum right now and this is one of the worst times I've ever lived through for a power vacuum to exist.
It is something that needs discussed - who is running the damn country? Right now - nobody except perhaps Nancy Pelosi. As much as anyone else, anyway.
December 5, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Couldn't agree more. GM could go down by the end of the month, yet nothing can/will be done because we're dealing with a lame duck president and a lame duck congress. It's ridiculous and, quite frankly, a little scary.
December 5, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
...the Congress isn't that much of a lame duck...most of majorities of both houses are returning. They could act if they had the cajones.
December 5, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, of course: they don't have the cajones....I didn't mean to imply that under normal circumstances they're full of boldness and bravery. They're looking for leadership and political cover and they're just not going to get it from the outgoing administration.
The only one who probably has the capability to twist enough arms to get anything done right now is Obama....and he just doesn't have the authority.
December 5, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sandy Levinson, both at Balkinization and in his book Our Undemocratic Constitution, has been beating this drum for a long time. He (and I) agree with you on the potential and actual harm that can ensue as a result of an extended lame-duck period.
December 5, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, as the local champion of privacy rights, I was wondering what you think of this:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/12/05/copy/vanessa.ART_ART_12-05-08_A1_NQC4TEM.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101
December 5, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, what do you think I'll say about that? Or anyone else here?
What she did was improper - end of story.
December 5, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot believe this - did I really just write: unproper?
Good god, who is in my brain this morning? Improper.
December 5, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were just imprepared for the question...
December 5, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm obviously not all here this morning. I've made one error after another.
LOL!
December 5, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which raises a grammatical question I have always had. You see people who are overwhelmed. You see people who are underwhelmed. Have you ever seen someone simply whelmed?
Well, I'm whelmed. I'm whelmed by Eric's suggestion that there be no interregnum between election day and swearing in.
December 5, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
Very nice.
December 5, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFCWallace's trolling doesn't deserve correct grammar in response.
God, these Republicans are whiny little bitches.
JTP eagerly held himself out as an example of Mr. Main Street Small Businessman. Turns out he's an uninformed dittohead, who's semi-emloyed by someone else, and a congenital liar and tax cheat to boot.
And I'm certain that SFCWallace would be defending whatever means were used to dig up dirt on a Democrat in similar circumstances.
December 5, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I knew the agreement streak would be snapped quickly.
December 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Sam-the-unlicensed-tax-dodger is a complete numbnut. That doesn't in any way, however, justify invading his privacy.
Searching public records is one thing; having people in positions of authority search private records is something entirely different and WRONG. I don't care who does it. It pissed me off when Clinton's passport records were breached in '92, it pissed me off when everyone's passport records were looked at this spring, and this pisses me off.
December 5, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well d'uh. No offense, but that was a rather lame attempt there, Wallace.
You really expected me or anyone else to be outraged because the clerk got in trouble for doing what she shouldn't have done? I work at not being hypocritical, Wallace. I don't like hypocrisy and I try to recognize it in myself when I see it. Most liberals don't like hypocrisy. Republicans, on the other hand, thrive on it.
December 5, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was that meant as a reply to me?
December 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes and no.
I'm sorry - it started out that way and evolved into a statement to Wallace.
Don't mind me - my brains are all scrambled this morning. I can't get my shit together. LOL
December 5, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nevertheless, Tena, your response was considerably less Limbaughviate than SFCWallace probably expected. After all, for years he's been conditioned to overlook Repub malfeasance by clinging to a simple response: "B-b-b-but Clinton...!" followed by a totally irrelevant and usually fact-impaired corrollary.
SFCWallace can be forgiven for expecting the same kinda' response from you.
For me, I'm just happy it's a new day, let limbaughviates be damned.
-----------
LIMBAUGHVIATE - (n.) (new); see "dittohead"; a portmanteau word used to describe followers/fans of overweight and overwrought radio entertainers. Limbaughviate suggests bloviate in connection with stinky cheese, deviates (n), and other socially challenged aspects of the whole. "My next caller is a limbaughviate who is ignorant and willing to fight for the right to remain ignorant. Welcome aboard, Dittohead."
(v.) refers to the act of talking loudly with one's head shoved squarely up one's ass. See diagram under "asshat"; "Rather than answer the question, Ignacius J. Reilly instead chose to limbaughviate."
December 5, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not trying to justify it. I'm just trying to shut down Wallace's attempted thread-hijacking, and I don't have alot of outrage or sympathy for a publicity-hound like JTP after his party has used the Constitution as toilet paper for most of my adult life.
December 5, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, didn't realize that discussing a subject with one particular member was considered "high-jacking." I'll do my best to keep from offending your senses from here on.
December 5, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I want to confuse things, but I think the clerk was "just following orders" and that her bosses should be blamed. Typical elitist repsonse is to blame her in the name of not being hypocritical. What I really want to know is this: did JTULP owe any damn child support or not?
Do I need to go over to Huffington's to find out?
December 5, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where, in the original post or in any of the comments, was JTP mentioned? Your bringing it up is the very essence of thread hijacking.
If you want to dialogue with someone directly, send them an e-mail. This is a public discussion thread, and we have to scroll through enough of your bullshit without having to deal with your petty grievances that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
December 5, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Forget the Oval Office power vacuum for a moment -- I think all this Obama whining comes directly out of the post-election Media Vacuum. Still trying to play the angles, stir the pot, and make a constitutionally mandated transition period into a personal failing or lack of party direction.
Let's pretend that McCain had pulled out a win on Nov. 4 (*shudder*), and we were now watching the impending handover -- he'd probably be nominating Kelsey Grammer as HHS Secretary or something, auctioning off Yosemite to Chevron, etc. Would "many Democrats" be urging PrezElect McCain to take over the reins and show more "leadership"? I think even ol' McRage himself would be wisely reluctant to step up in that situation -- what's the upside? He technically has no authority, and all the bad things that happen that really should hang around W's neck would be blamed on him. I'd rather have Obama thoughtfully working behind the scenes to prepare for January than having a daily presser spewing bromides to calm the markets and the masses.
People want to get fired up about a lack of leadership, fine -- complain to the lame ducks directly...complain to *Senator* Obama instead!
December 5, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first is a slightly misleading headline. The full context is that House and Senate Dems don't believe Obama is sufficiently engaged in charting a course out of the current economic crisis.
Personally, I think he's doing the right thing, as getting his administration set up and ready to take over on January 20 SHOULD be his main focus. I'm sure he's staying informed about maneuvering on the Hill but as he has repeated, we only have one president at a time.
December 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love that Barney Frank line, but seriously, these people need to stop asking Obama to be the President. The Constitution says he isn't, and that's that.
Also, if Greg gets to ban all mentions of Bill Richardson's beard, then Eric needs to ban all mentions of Sarah Palin. As interesting as it is to hear about her stylist, I've really had enough of seeing her and her name on my screen. At this point she's even ruining my love for A Fish Called Wanda because Michael Palin is in it.
December 5, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point, but ~$300,000 for 2 months of clothes, makeup, and hair for the "she's-just-like-you hockeymom" idolized by the "fiscal" conservatives? That's just too good to let go by unmentioned.
December 5, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have the wrong attitude. I felt like you until I finally realized what a fucking gift she is to us.
I hope they just keep on talking about her. You betchqa!
December 5, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This crap is just the same old same old, i.e. the Democratic Congressional leadership casting about for somebody else to blame for the fact that THEY are so pathetic. After his Fannie / Freddie hijinks followed by his bailout hijinks, Barney- whom I used to like- needs to just STFU.
December 5, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
...Seconded...I can't believe how much I'm agreeing with y'all lately.
December 5, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's that change thing. . .
8->
December 5, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's unusual about a wingnut agreeing with someone who attacks a Democrat? Nothing.
December 5, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I always like how I'm a wingnut and y'all are learned scholars on the finer points of democracy and our representative republic.
December 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. It'd be nice if the Dems acted like they, you know, have majorities in both houses of Congress or something.
Congress right now are the only ones that can act. And it reinforces a politically unhealthy notion that the President sets policy. The President is supposed to provide an up-or-down vote on legislation passed by Congress.
Fuck Barney Frank anyway. He's as compromised as any other Beltway whore.
December 5, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, don' be hatin' on Michael Palin. It's not his fault that someone with the same last name would take Monty Python's bizarre and and surreal style of humor to a whole new level.
December 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh no! It's Eric Kuh-kuh-kuh-kuh-Kleeland, and he's ku-hkuh-kuh-coming to kuh-kuh-kuh-kuh-kill my mood!
December 5, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
er, -feld.
Damn these eyes!
December 5, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO!
December 5, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess it takes an awful lot of lipstick to cover up a pig!
December 5, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need very much to know that the woman had a make-up artist who was paid that much.
Miss "Sittin around the kitchen table, you betcha!" was professionally clothed, made-up and accessorized.
And she kept every bit of it. How could she ask Piper for all the high heels back? And the Louis Vuitton bag Piper has been dragging around the country?
December 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Mrs. All-American HockeyMom was wearing some of those designer duds when she came to stump for Chambliss down here.
She's as much of a RNC-created fraud as W. is.
December 5, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has been wearing the one piece that was publicly tagged as a designer piece that was bought for her - that Valentino jacket = the beige one = that jacket cost a cool $2500+.
December 5, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to admit it's a sweet jacket though...
December 5, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shit yes and it looks great on her. Wish I could wear that color -
All the couture they bought her looks great on her. So do the very expensive designer jewelry they bought her and the shoes.
December 5, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vogue model eye candy.
December 5, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is truly amazing! And only Clinton, Carter and Reagan are relevant comparisons since Poppy's succession did not switch party control -- he could (and I believe in a couple of cases did) keep the existing Cabinet.
December 5, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
O.T., but I just got an email from Joe Biden asking me to help retire Hillary's campaign debt.
Much as I'm fine with her being SoS, I'm afraid Obama and Act Blue completely depleted my political $ for a while.
If she has to retire her debt before going to Foggy Bottom, my suggestion is she stiff Mark Penn. Either that or have Obama pay him off since Penn did so much to ensure his nomination.
December 5, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit I'm a bit torn about this.
Part of me feels like sliding her a little cash because she did such a great job campaigning for Obama during the GE; however, another part of me keeps thinking that the Clintons are worth a hell of a lot more money than I am and if she'd have quit when it became a mathematical improbability for her to win, then she wouldn't be in so much debt.
In addition, you're right: Penn shouldn't get a single dime.
December 5, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like the auto execs: $1
December 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word.
I got the same email and as much as I'd love to help, I wanted to yell - hey! We sent you almost $5000 in the fall to get you elected. It's Christmas and the economy has tanked - you can't possibly expect me to send you more money -
December 5, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I keep getting this too. Well, if I'm gonna fork over some money, god help me, it's going to a soup kitchen!
December 5, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm actually quite annoyed at the obama campaign for putting this forward to their regular donor list. i don't encourage ordinary citizens to accumulate excessive debt and i'm not about to reward hillary clinton's campaign for doing the same; she shouldn't have thrown around money she didn't have on what amounts to a giant voluntary expense rather than a necessity. it seems everybody's looking for a bailout these days, but frankly she has more than enough money to bail herself out, i think i'll pay my bills instead.
December 5, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want you to sit back and consider how staggering it is that Obama raised $745 million dollars. That is more than the DNC and the RNC combined.
Plus, according to the books, he has $30 million left over from the campaign. Left over. That's the amount people who are considering the Presidency need to secure just to even start thinking about mounting a challenge to Obama in 20212. and for the Obama campaign, that's like pocket change.
If this man isn't free from the influence of rich lobbyists willing to spread money around to garner access and action, then, sugar, no one is.
Note also: Compare to Hillary Clinton. She has substantial debts, and what's more, she just took a pay cut in her future SOS pay just so she could take the job.
December 5, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
er, 2012. Although, he may have enough in the coffers to allow him to run every four years right through 20212.
December 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes you just can't win:
I guess I wound up a "big donor", even though I never gave more than $200 at a time. First they praise him for getting repeat small donations, but then they lump them and classify them as big donations.
December 5, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're stretching to find things to complain about!
December 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Barney, you might want to borrow Kucinich's pocket Constitution, because there is actually only one president right now, and it sadly isn't Obama. Go to hell and focus on your own job...aren't you the chair of something...?
December 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of this even after she was outed for the $150k clothes binge. Palin claims the clothes werenโt hers and she gave them to charity after the election. Riddle me this how do you give back $111k in hair and makeup? I think after all is said and done the most hysterical, hypocritical and ironic meme to come out this election was that Obama was the one that was the celebrity.
December 5, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
He still is...Live from the Office of the President Elect.
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D1kTYJMvX6QM
December 5, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe there's a good reason for that. A lot of people--myself included--hope he can at least be a catalyst for some long-overdue changes in the way this country does things. I don't believe he's going to do it alone or quickly--since he's not the Messiah, right?--but his election adds the potential for much that is positive to the mix.
As far as being a "celebrity" goes, people become celebrities for many reasons. There are those who are "famous for being famous," and there are those who have accomplished something. JFK was a celebrity, though not in the modern sense; Einstein, McCartney, Picasso, Buckminster Fuller, Pierre Trudeau--all are or were celebrities. It's not always a bad thing. It's what you do with it that matters.
Obama has already changed this country for the better in the way he shattered preconceived notions about who Americans are willing to look toward for leadership and in the way he ran his successful campaign. I'd say calling him a celebrity isn't altogether incorrect, and I'd add that, in his case, it's a compliment.
Palin: not so much.
December 5, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, Barney Frank has his head up his sizable ass. How could Obama be *more* visible and active than he's been WITHOUT having yet been inaugurated?
Frank needs to read the freaking Constitution.
And maybe turn on his damn teevee set. He'll see Obama on it every day.
December 5, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'll say this - Obama has already given more pressers in the interregnum than I think Bush has given in 8 years.
December 5, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
This criticism just feels like Barney Frank wanting to be on teevee.
December 5, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, it was a great line. Barney gets off some real great lines.
The fact that they may be a bit exaggerated is just beside the point.
;)
December 5, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barney needs to look in the mirror. Obama has called on CONGRESS to give him an economic recovery bill to sign on his first day in office. It would be up to CONGRESS to make that happen. If Barney weren't too busy throwing stones to actually work on putting a plan together he might give Pelosi or Barack a call and ask where he should start.
December 5, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I was Obama I'd be pissed that Frank went public (I'm assuming) w criticism of him before he talked to him about it (again I assume they didnt talk). I dont understand why Frank would want to even give a HINT of Democratic division before we even get off the fucking ground.
December 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone answer what might be a dumb question. If Obama, with my help BTW, raised 750 mil, why am I getting requests to help retire Hillary's debt? Why can't that be done out of his considerable money pot?
December 5, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there are restrictions on the amount he can give her campaign.
December 5, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's limited to giving $2,300, just like the rest of us. (And he already has.)
December 5, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional Dems should be looking at themselves rather blaming Obama when he isn't even president yet.
December 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Other Dems need to grow a pair.. PE Obama is not President or a Senator................. Frank Challenge Bush not Obama...... Idiots
December 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama might have been outspending John McCain on the campaign trail, but it sure looks like the GOP was able to outspend the Dems in one crucial area: Cosmetics for the VP candidate."
I appreciate the transition you are trying to make here, Eric, but the sexism is really snarky. There is no comparison, of course, between cosmetics for Biden and cosmetics for Palin. You might as well compare the cosmetics expenditures for Palin and General Petraeus.
You're going for a cheap laugh that is meant to underline Palin's frivolousness, but your comparison is wrong-headed.
A legitimate comparison would be between Palin's and Hillary's expenditures, or Cindy McCain's and Michelle Obama's. That comparison would tell us something meaningful about Palin and makeup.
December 5, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, $750 million (Obama's campaign haul) used to sound like a lot of money, until we started talking $750 billion every day. And it sounds small still when we start throwing out numbers like "a couple of trillion".
But when I open my checkbook, $750 sounds like a lot of money to me.
PEACE
December 5, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look for an "ultimate progressive" pick in the cabinet soon.
December 5, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's total haul for the 2008 elections: nearly $750 million..."
A sad commentary on how much the media can profiteer from our presidential elections. How do we get dedicated intelligent leaders when it takes this kind of money to get elected?
Pundits assume the increase in gun sales was all to do with Obama when in fact many of us bought guns after seeing and hearing the opinions of those McCain/Palin supporters angrily pontificating while standing in line for a Palin rally. Paranoia runs deep among these goobers.
For Pelosi to assume that Bush would not do damage every single day being in office was a big mistake. He's more concerned about his image and being able to show his face in public without an armed escort without getting attacked than doing anything for the good of the country. How many more disasters can he add before leaving office just to make sure the next president's hands are tied as much as possible.
Under Bush's compassionate conservatism the nation has been wrecked, devastated... and all he attempts to do is protect the holdings of the wealthy and corporations and thanks to Pelosi he will walk away from this mess he created scott-free of consequences.
Almost 1/3 of the nation has been invaded by Paliens...and it is destructive...taken right out of the movie "Idiocracy"...Paliens have what voters need...it's got elected-lytes. What are elected-lytes?...it's what Paliens have and what voters need.
December 5, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw...for those who haven't seen it yet over at Reddit it has been confirmed that Bush has been drinking heavily for the past 1 1/2 yrs and any alcoholic can tell you that is drinking well beyond what non-alcoholics do to get drunk. So the disease has been running the country.
That incident of Bush not shaking hands with foreign heads of state was because he was plastered drunk and they knew it and were just reacting to his condition (like not knowing what to do rather than purposely ignoring him). How embarrassing.
One must separate the disease from the man but Bush sober is still a self centered spoiled brat. Even his ranch and his ranch pretense was a campaign prop??? Everything about this man is phony , a dangerous hypocrisy.
December 5, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link?
December 5, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink