The Obama Watch

My car is dead as a doornail so, while I’m waiting for a tow truck, I thought I’d publish a list of some of the best anti-Obama posts I found this morning.

The Economist’s Hope and Fear, about Obama’s depressingly populist economic prescriptions.  (H/t:  Captain’s Quarters)

Big Lizard’s Chicago Rules, which tracks the bizarre coincidence that Obama’s political opponents are always destroyed pre-election by the leak of privileged information.

Michelle Malkin’s “Fauxbama” and the Race Mongers, which examines the absurdity of Saturday Night Live having a debate as to whether a mixed-race actor is black enough to parody Obama on TV.

Hot Air’s confirmation that Obama blatantly talked out of both sides of his mouth when it came to NAFTA.

Tow truck’s here.  Bye.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    I initially thought this guy was probably fairly smart, just ignorant. He clearly has no idea where the powers separate, and in what the respective jobs of President, Senator, etc. consist – but that could just be ignorance.

    I’m beginning to decide it’s something more than that. I’m beginning to decide he’s an idiot.

    Have e-mailed today with a friend who works in Washington – you all pay his salary, but I don’t feel entirely OK with saying precisely where he works or what he does beyond that it’s State Department (career,not an appointee) – and he made an interesting comment. His comment boiled down to: Canada is our biggest oil supplier, and Canada is tied to us in this regard by, among other things, NAFTA. We do not pay Canada as much as Canada could get on the open market for their oil. Elements in Canada are not best pleased about this, given the current prices of oil, but they do honor their agreements, including NAFTA. So it isn’t real bright of someone in Obama’s position to be making public remarks about reconsidering NAFTA, is it? China has already made inroads, in a very small way, into investing in Canadian tar sands in Alberta – and they would be happy to invest more. Canada’s ears, listening to Obama, elongated into long furry points, and they’d be just fne with abandoning NAFTA, and selling to the highest bidder rather than us. They are not, after all, opposed to making money – who is? Obama’s remarks are therefore not just very stupid and ill-informed, they’re very dangerous. My friend, and others in similar positions, have spent a fair amount of time on the phone with Canada in recent hours. His remarks concluded: “this genius is managing to $%#@-up foreign relations without even being in the White House – God help us all if he ever gets there!”

    And I note that Obama himself called up Canada to point out that he was just kidding, or some other lame explanation of his witless comments. “Heat of the election, I was just kidding” – or whatever he said.

    What a moron! How does anyone get to be the age he is without noticing that these things have consequences?

    And he reacts like a child far too often for my liking, too. Evidently we can’t use his middle name – that’s unfair, or something. We’ve had FDR, JFK, LBJ, RMN – but evidently we’re not allowed to say “BHO.” That’s “unfair.” Pictures of him – taken by his own staff – dressed up like a Tiki doll are not fair to publicize.

    Certainly that the picture was publicized by Clinton, Inc. indicates it was meant to be a low blow – but that’s the world you want to be in, Barry: stop whining. Grow the hell up.

    And that thing he’s married to, and the unstoppable mouth on her! Holy Moley!

  • Ymarsakar

    Democracies tend to create a whole heck load of megalomaniacs for some reason.

    You see, dictatorships and places that are in a state of anarchy already have a set quota of megalomaniacs existing at any one time. If only because those megalomaniacs ascend to power and then kill off anybody else like them. The effect of so many megalomaniacs working together creates an Iraq or a Russia or a Nazi germany or a Castro Cuba.

    In a democracy or a republic, however, there is no stopgap measure to kill off megalomaniacs when they grow larger and larger in number. However, since those megalomaniacs aren’t get to power easily, we don’t see or feel their presence as much as we would if this had been a dictatorship. What this means is that if they ever did finally acquire power, there would be a shat load of them suddenly appearing on our radars.

  • Mike Devx

    I think everyone here on Bookworm already knows how a hard leftie like Obama would create more serious economic problems – as if we don’t have enough of those already!

    But I sure hope everyone who is focusing on Obama – and not on Hillary – understand what they might be causing. Let’s take a look at the issues presented by Book:

    A. Obama’s depressingly populist economic prescriptions.
    – Do you really see ANY difference between Obama’s and Hillary’s “economic prescriptions”? Anything significant? They’re pretty much equally bad.

    B. the bizarre coincidence that Obama’s political opponents are always destroyed pre-election by the leak of privileged information.
    – Even if true, we have so much evidence of how Hillary and Bill destroy their opponents in any way possible – including hiring private detectives to dig up all the dirt they can – that do you again see any difference between them? Even if this is true, as we already know it is for the Clintons?

    C. the absurdity of Saturday Night Live having a debate as to whether a mixed-race actor is black enough to parody Obama on TV.
    – Isn’t this an issue for ALL Democrats and not just Obama? The Dems have forced everyone into their little special interest identity group boxes, and now it is biting back. It’s your gender, it’s your race, it’s your sexual orientation, it’s this, it’s that. Suddenly these identity groups are in severe conflict. Is Obama raising the SNL issue? Or are Democrats in general?

    D. Hot Air’s confirmation that Obama blatantly talked out of both sides of his mouth when it came to NAFTA.
    – And Clinton’s not talking out of both sides of her mouth on NAFTA?

    Here in Texas I’ve been debating with another friend in emails about whether to cross over into the Dem primary and vote there. We eventually agreed: It’s impossible to know which of Clinton or Obama would be the weaker candidate in November. To vote based on who looks weaker right now doesn’t really make a lot of sense. So we agreed that it would be about corruption, for us. And lobbyists and special interest money. Not just the usual political level of this, but the far extremes of this that we got from Delay and have ALWAYS gotten in huge, destructive, amounts from the Clintons. Sandy Berger stealing documents. Selling influence to China and Dubai. And on and on and on.

    It is that important to stop the Clintons. It’s not likely to happen in November if she gets the nomination. The best chance to stop her is right now. But everyone is piercing the Obama bubble now, including Rush Limbaugh, who is urging Texans to cross over and vote for… Clinton.

    Be careful what you wish for. I’ve tried to be careful. I hope other Republicans are careful too.

  • Al

    Mike is of course correct. The US can’t afford either Clinton or Obama. The issue is which one would be easier to beat in the General election. In view of the previously noted developing religions fervor for Obama, I think Clinton would be easier for McCain to defeat. Disappointed Obama supporters might vote for McCain to punish Clinton.
    There does seem to be a sizable fraction of the Democrat party that is tired of the Clintons.
    But then, my political acumen is rather weak.
    One does have to be careful of what one wishes for.

  • Ymarsakar

    The only objective way, in my view, of applying Al’s proposal is to have Clinton and Obama drain their campaign contributions against each other. They will then have less to use against the Republican nominee, which will be a quantifiable and objective benchmark for success.

    Whether Obama or Hillary would be easier for a Republican to beat, is unknown. That hasn’t been determined yet and probably never will be given quantum wave behavior.

  • jj

    Rush Limbaugh is advocating a vote for Hillary for no other reason than to keep her in the race, and for a simple reason: so they can shed as much light as possible on each other, and maybe even the American electorate will wake up.

    Hillary is free to criticize Obama in ways the MSM would never allow McCain – or any other Repuboican – to.

    Hillary, being herself a good and professional lefty, can point out that he is totally lacking experience. McCain can’t.

    Hillary can point out that his “pastor” is a racist nitwit and good pal of Planet Nineteen Farrakhan – McCain can’t.

    Hillary can point out that he knows nothing about the duties of the office of President – McCain can’t. She can go on to point out that he evidently doesn’t know much about the job of Senator either – McCain can’t.

    Hillary can point out that he’s THE mnost liberal Senator in the nation – McCain can’t. (Hell, McCain – or, again, any Republican – isn’t allowed to even use the word “liberal” in conjunction with him at all; that would be unfair, dirty politics.)

    Hillary can worry about his middle name, upbringing, and travels around the world – McCain can’t.

    Hillary can point out that he knows less about NAFTA than the average 6th grade Social Studies student – McCain can’t.

    That’s Rush’s point: the media has made it impossible for anyone on the right side of the aisle to criticize this guy – but Hillary can. Keep her in there, let her bloody him up as much as possible – and, incidentally, let him bloody her right back.

    McCain has saddled himself with a campaign director who A) happens to be a democrat,a nd who has B) already announced that the McCain campaign won’t say anything negative about Obama.

    Well – SOMEBODY better! Ergo, keep Hillary alive as long as possible.

  • Oldflyer

    I am pulling for Hillary because I think she is beatable.

    My wife and I have discussed this often. She cannot stand Hillary and is afraid of the wonderful Clinton political machine. I have repeatedly reminded her that the only real election that Hillary has won was handed to her when Rudy pulled out, and the sacrificial lamb, Lazio, was thrown into the fray. Still, they scare her.

    I know Democrats would rally to Hillary up to a point in the general election; but I am not sure how enthusiastic their base would be after this primary debacle. Certainly, the black component would be depressed. Right now Democrats seem to be running away from her as fast as they can. My wife is right about one thing; Hillary’s big advantage has been the awe with which people viewed the Clinton political jaugernaut. Some of the myth has exploded. Clearly, the only way she can win now is through some shady deal–and I doubt that the Democrat leadership will help her with anything like that.

    So, it looks like Obama. I find that scary. McCain will have to go after him hard from the first to change the dynamic. But, he wil face up to howls of racism if he does. If he doesn’t it is lost. I am not sure that he will do it. If he waits, it will look like desperation.

  • Mike Devx

    Well, I gave it my best shot in several posts! Thanks to everyone for letting me vent my concerns. I remain deeply concerned about the Clintons. The worst Obama can do couldn’t be worse than Carter, who was ethical and moral but presided over the complete collapse of American foreign policy and economics. Quite a feat! But vast corruption, that’s another matter entirely.

    Can anyone verify or refute anything on this link below? Written by Democrats, apparently. Another friend of mine challenged me on my belief that the Clintons were outrageously corrupt. He made me dig this morning, and I unearthed this gem. A lot of lies, or a lot of smoke and even fire? If you can let me know the truth, I’d appreciate it!

    The most stunning part – and therefore the part I simply cannot believe – is the last two-thirds, called ‘Clinton Memories’.

    Folks, please don’t let the Clintons up off the mat. Sorry, I just had to say it one more time. I know I’m getting very very boring!

  • Bookworm

    Mike, my problem is that I think events are going to reveal that Obama is every bit as corrupt as the Clintons — he just hasn’t had as much time as they have had to leave his trail behind.

    I’m with Rush and JJ, though, that it would be better if Hillary stays in the race. In the short term, she can continue to expose Obama in ways that McCain can’t. In the long term, if she is the Democratic candidate, the visceral dislike people feel for her will make her less appealing than the swoonability Obama attracts.

    In other words, I think Obama is more likely to win in November, not because he has anything to offer, but because people like him. And I believe he’s just as awful as the Clintons — which is why I worry more about him than about Hillary.

  • Helen Losse

    Maybe I’m hearing the reason why some of us – horrible horrible Democrats – don’t even bother to listen to all the debates and accusations et al. during the primaries. We decide who we’ll vote for and then glance at the headlines. The rest is just politics.

    All Republicans seem to value is either money and military power. Don’t your lives have any other aspects?

  • Ymarsakar

    In comparison to human history, Democrats don’t even reach the “hor” in horrible. The Mongols had the power to destroy, but they also had the power to replace what they destroyed. America has the power to obliterate all our enemies, yet that is reflected against the reality of America’s generosity and abilities at building up and uplifting nations, peoples, and cultures.

    The Democrats neither have the power to destroy nor the power to create anything of worth. Which makes them very dependent upon those that can do such things. But whether they rely upon an America or a Mongolian Empire, however, is already set in stone given the numerous favors done to enemies of humanity, let alone enemies of America, by Democrats.

    All Republicans seem to value is either money and [or] military power. Don’t your lives have any other aspects?

    Republicans, in general, have reached the “ible” in horrible. Because they are able and capable compared to the incompetent and discord philosophies of their detractors.

    We decide who we’ll vote for

    Did you forget what you told us, about how you don’t speak for all or even most Democrats, helen?

  • Helen Losse

    Have you seen this?

    or even this?

    You know, Ymarsakar, You are right. I don’t speak for anyone but myself. I’m so busy editing that I forget sometimes and use the plural. Bad me. :-)

    “All Republicans seem to value is either money and [or] military power. Don’t your lives have any other aspects?

    Republicans, in general, have reached the “ible” in horrible. Because they are able and capable compared to the incompetent and discord philosophies of their detractors.”


  • Helen Losse

    Y., I meant are you going to watch the race? :-)

  • Zhombre

    “All Republicans seem to value is either money and military power. Don’t your lives have any other aspects?”

    Oh come on. That’s simplistic. You’re a grown woman and it’s beneath you speak like some naive undergrad and reduce people you don’t agree with to such cliches. People who vote Republican most of them are people like anybody else, who have profess different ideals and a different vision of the country. They are not thin card-board pop-ups. Neither are liberals. Let’s not be foolish.

  • Ymarsakar

    As an international human rights lawyer who has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand better than most the security situation facing Americans and the world.

    I think a couple of Lebanon politicians, Bhutto from Pakistan, and Darfur refugees have need of an international human rights lawyer. Please do something positive for them.. for a change.

    Americans working abroad can no longer rely on the good reputation of their country,

    She has obviously been living in another world. To cut things short, I wrote a response at my blog to helen’s original comment before reading her number 12.

    It should address most, if not all, of the issues her links bring up. Which shouldn’t be a surprise given that the fundamental problem is the same, regardless of who is making comments about Iraq and Afghanistan.


  • Ymarsakar


    it’s either money or military power. Not either money and military power.

    I meant are you going to watch the race?

    Book and Laer are watching it for me.

  • Ymarsakar

    For the people that want actuality instead of rhetoric about change and hope, here are the goods.

    These Marines will be on their way home soon and don’t want to leave the pups behind
    to suffer a sure death by starvation or disease. A bullet would be a better end for them!

    Making necessary arrangement from a combat theater, on enlisted-mans pay, was nearly impossible. These guys truly needed some help getting their young “Devil Dogs” home.

    I think Book gave a mention of this as well. Link

    As you can see, with such actions as this, we can bring in dogs that would otherwise have lived a short and meaningless life, back as our own in the States. Then they can live a life as partners with humanity. Everyone benefits. Except the enemies of humanity. Every dog is not a warrior, but enough will have been rescued from a meaningless death to help us out, even if they just become reminders of our warriors’ humanity.

    The human rights lawyers are too far up in the clouds of god and goddess land to care too much for the life or fate of the weakest among us. A human rights lawyer would put more priority on not “exploiting” the dogs and not taking the dogs away from their “natural” environment. The natural environment that US power should not disrupt in the eyes of the useless UN NGOs in the world. Whatever power these individuals have, are never used for those that need it. For one thing, such folks care more about how they are “treated” by their fellow international useless tools than about how many powerless people have been empowered by human rights legislation.

    No father that intends to empower and protect his daughter will use a less effective weapon just because he cares about the “natural’ state of the criminal’s body being changed by the uber power. There is such a thing as priorities. When a person cares more about upholding the law as it exists than correcting the injustices done to people in the name of that law, that person can call himself a human rights lawyer. They can start the “change” with themselves. But they never will.

  • Ymarsakar

    The reason why people like Obama will never accept or promote this kind of solution for healthcare is that it would lessen the government’s power, and thus their chances for status and advantage.


    It’s too much to give up. For people like Obama to come from the bottom of a dysfunctional and divided family, to the Presidency, requires an extreme amount of ambition, envy, and greed. No altruistic motivation could propel someone through the intrigues of politics. This is compared to Bush and Cheney, who have already been at the top or have had seen people they care about use Presidential powers, and thus it is not something which they are psychologically obsessed with. As opposed to Clinton, who needs political power simply to justify the existence of her identity, which is interrelated with her being a Senator and the wife of Bill Clinton. Strip that away and you just get another person that believes in Leftism. Nothing special with that: nothing exemplary or worthy of status or privilege.

  • Pingback: quote on health insurance()

  • Pingback: freeware keno()