Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The New Presidential Limo: 'A Rolling Tank with Windows'

By Garance Franke-Ruta
On Wednesday, pictures of a massive armored Caddy, reported to be the new presidential limo, leaked around the world. Now, Agence France-Presse confirms that a new GM-manufactured presidential limo -- described in an earlier CNN report, above, as "a rolling tank with windows" -- will debut in the Inaugural parade on Jan. 20.

Its nickname: "the Beast."

From the AFP report:

Cadillac spokesman David Caldwell promises that the finished product will combine form with function.

"It's really a new design," Mr Caldwell told AFP.

"It's a fresh, more modern, more expressive, a little bit more vibrant if you will, but it still is faithful to that tradition of presidential vehicles ... it's long and it's black."

The interior will include some of the plush detailing offered to regular Cadillac customers and the body has been built to be more "upright" and provide better visibility, Mr Caldwell said.

But any of the technical details are top-secret, he said, adding, "we're not even allowed to open the doors".

The vehicle is thought to have bulletproof glass, a heavily armoured body, run-flat tyres and a completely sealed interior to protect against a chemical attack.

Official photos of the behemoth are expected to be released early next week.

By Web Politics Editor  |  January 10, 2009; 2:27 PM ET
Categories:  Washington Life  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama Says Stimulus Will Redound to Private Sector
Next: Obama Gets a Half-Smoke at Ben's Chili Bowl


Has anyone contemplated the consequences if Obama is found to be ineligible? Setting aside the potential for blackmail, what if that is made public AFTER January 20th? Why wouldn't HE want this resolved sooner rather than later?

Posted by: JakeD | January 12, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse


• What happened to Homeland Security warnings of "heightened risk" during Presidential transition?

• How about the late November FBI warning about possible Northeast train station attacks?

• "Amtrak Joe" Biden's longstanding warnings about security flaws along the Amtrak Northeast corridor -- why isn't he waving this whistle stop tour to a halt?


OR (if link is corrupted):

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 12, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | January 12, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

If you haven't read the Keyes lawsuit, I suggest you do so. If you have, you would know there's more than a couple different arguments. How would you explain (hypothetically, of course) Obama not being Constitutionally disqualified if he was born in what is now Kenya to an underage mother?

Posted by: JakeD | January 12, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

No. You asked for one shred though. Have you read the Keyes lawsuit?

Posted by: JakeD | January 11, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

So you're hanging this whole thing on a single mistranslation that is corrected within the source conversation?

Posted by: SeanC1 | January 11, 2009 10:50 PM | Report abuse

That goes to the weight of the evidence. Sorry, but that still counts as a "shred". I don't have to explain the reasons why.

Posted by: JakeD | January 11, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

"Well, okay, but one "shred" of evidence would be Obama's paternal grandmother's statement that she was present (in what is now Kenya) for his birth."

That's a snippet from a phone conversation where one of two translators misunderstands the question, and later, upon finally realizing what is being asked, both say he was born in Hawaii. The phrase used was "son of this village", which is a Kenyan idiom not indicative of him actually being born there.

So, again, some evidence? Explanation for how they got to Kenya? Why they went? Why there's a phony birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser? Why they've been covering it up since 1961? How these low-income nobodies even perpetrated this hoax (how'd they get him back into the country?)? Why every politician and government agency, even those who are ideologically and politically his opponents and who would have no reason to cover for him, are doing so?

Posted by: SeanC1 | January 11, 2009 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Of course, all this talk about limos and helicopters puts the horse before the cart. Alan Keyes (and others) will continue to file suits to challenge pResident Evil Obama. The proper remedy for such suitors would be a Quo Warranto, which is unique among writs, in that the normal rules of pleading are reversed, the "relator" (one bringing suit) only has to make a "prima facia" case, and the "respondant" (Obama) has to prove full qualification for office! There are only 2 possible answers to a Quo Warranto writ: Disclaim (say he never had the job, title, franchise, etc.) or Justify (offer proof).

I believe that Marbury v. Madison was a Quo Warranto writ as well.

Posted by: JakeD | January 11, 2009 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | January 11, 2009 4:35 PM | Report abuse

(from the "Obama Gets a Half-Smoke at Ben's Chili Bowl" thread):


So, does that mean 80% or 100% of all Americans wouldn't eat with GWB?

Posted by: JakeD | January 11, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

(from the Colin Powell thread):

P.S. to KayinMaine:

If there were similar questions of the Republican's qualifications -- and he had "won" -- I would be making the same exact argument but suspect you would be singing a different tune.

For instance, if the "entire political establishment" thought it was just fine to let Arnold Schwarzenegger become President short of a formal Constitutional Amendment, I would object to that as well. Would you?

Posted by: JakeD | January 11, 2009 4:23 PM | Report abuse

I don't want to physically hurt KayinMaine, either, but I must have scared her away because she hasn't answered any of the questions I posed to her.

Posted by: JakeD | January 11, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse


I don't want to physically hurt Obama. The limo, and a new fleet of helicopters, were ordered long before he was elected. Next canard?

Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama has to have a safe limo thanks to all the neck drooling knuckle dragging neocons, such as, JakeD, who will find ways to hurt Barack. Isn't that right, JakeD? We can't trust you, now can we?

Posted by: KayInMaine | January 10, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

LOL! :-D

All O'Bomba needed, was a Vice-President like Dubya had, and he would not have had to worry!

NOBODY, wanted to wake-up to PRESIDENT Darth Cheney! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | January 10, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

pResident Evil Obama will not be (legally) sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Posted by: JakeD | January 10, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company