Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Barack Obama and the Cult of Competency



President-elect Obama is using his transition to emphasize how his administration will be different than that of the current president.

Barack Obama won the White House last month in large part by running against George W. Bush and tapping into the public perception that his administration has been ineffectual in handling important policy questions. So it's not surprise that in the first month of his transition to the presidency, the president-elect is putting a premium on competence above all else.

From his decisions to bring in former rivals (is everyone sick of the "Team of Rivals" references yet?) to his repeated emphasis on the qualifications of each of his nominees for the Cabinet, Obama's first month as the president-elect seems designed to serve as a point by point refutation of the way Bush handled the White House over the past eight years.

Where John McCain was marginalized/punished following his 2000 primary challenge to Bush, Obama put his main primary rival -- Hillary Rodham Clinton -- into one of the most important spots in his Cabinet. Where Bush was seen as installing his Texas team into the White House, Obama has purposely avoided putting his closest Chicago confidantes (with the exception of Valerie Jarrett) into high-ranking positions.

Looking at the last month then, that cult of competency (not bad, eh?) -- more so than any grand ideological vision -- is the common thread that ties together all of Obama's picks for his Cabinet and White House senior staff to date.

Obama seems far more focused on ensuring that his nominees have impeccable credentials and a readiness for the job rather than that they fit into a specific ideological box or share a particular vision on the issue (or issues) they will oversee in his Administration.

The American public, long weary of the perceived mismanagement and incompetence of Bush (Katrina, war in Iraq, the economy), is reacting well to Obama's approach to the transition thus far.

A Gallup poll conducted on Monday showed that nearly eight in ten (78 percent) approved of the way Obama is handling the transition with a scant 13 percent disapproving.

Individual Cabinet picks received similar high marks. Seven in ten voters approved of the president-elect naming Clinton as his secretary of State while 80 percent approved of Obama asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay in his current position.

Obama has also quickly emerged as a more credible messenger than Bush on the economy. Nearly two-thirds of those polled said they trust Obama more than Bush to handle the economy, while just 20 percent said they trusted the current president more than the soon-to-be president on the issue.

Before the champagne is popped over in Obamaland, however, it's worth remembering at least two caveats.

First, people historically have approved of transitions no matter how haphazard they may be.

In a mid-December 1992 Gallup survey, 67 percent of those polled approved of the way Bill Clinton was handing his own transition despite that most politicos believe that to be the most unorganized -- and mismanaged -- handover of power in recent memory.

Second, Obama is still dining out -- in terms of public opinion -- on the fact that he is not Bush. Bush's approval ratings were so dismal and the number of people who believed the country had veered off in the wrong direction so high that his successor was almost certain to reap the benefit.

Once Obama becomes president in his own right on Jan. 20 and Bush begins to recede from view, the 44th president will be less able to focus solely on competence and instead will face more persistent questions about his grand vision for the country and how he will take us there.

How Obama answers those questions will be the test of his first 100 days -- and perhaps far longer -- in office.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 4, 2008; 11:25 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: Hillary's Experience
Next: Jordan Signs on With Saul Shorr

Comments

It's incomprehensible to me why people continue to harp on about Obama not being born in the USA. The courts have verified it, the Hawaiian authorities have verified it.

But truly the most simple reasons is that back in 1961, no sane woman or man would want their children to be born in Kenya when they were located in Hawaii. It would have been an extremely expensive flight or voyage to Kenya from Hawaii. Jet planes were in their infancy. The Jet Set had yet to be invented and the jet set was invented to reflect the glamour of those who breakfasted in New York and dined in Paris. These days, no one talks about the Jet Set when world travel is a norm (unless you are Sarah Palin) and the words Road Warrior more accurately defines the drudge of travel and being on the road - something which happened in the 1990s when air travel became much cheaper.

Finally what sane person would reject the safety and better medical conditions found in Hawaii in the 1960s for the primitive - and still primitive medical conditions in Kenya?

Posted by: lichan1 | December 5, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

37thandOalley, for the last time (what is the point):

BHO was born in Hawaii. His birth certificate is accessible in PDF format on the Internet. The state of Hawaii has personally examined the original and found it valid. Beyond that, one of the "factchecker" websites has, as I understand it, personally seen and authenticated the original. In addition, a day after his birth, BHO's local newspaper published his birth announcement. We can only hope that the trial courts forced to hear these idiotic cases start to pushback by accessing attorney's fees against the fools who are filing this mischievous garbage.

BTW, Gas expected to drop to $1 per gallon. Currently it's already at a four-year low. Thanks, O!

37, reading your incoherent bigoted daily rants reminds me of something Mr. T once said, "There are fools in every city, so there are a lot of fools to pity."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 5, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

When will we all figure out that we did not elect the King of the World - rather a President who is supposedly sharing power with two other branches of government and the United Nations' countries? This is a rhetorical question -- if you supported Obama (I did not) -- be happy that you got what you voted for and do something constructive (not posting on this site).

I remain cautiously hopeful that this is indeed a positive move toward a better future - let's not ever forget that we don't want to let any one party or person have uncontested power or persuasion. I am considering supporting any viable third party candidate.

I realize this has nothing to do with the subject matter -- just trying to offer an unbiased view.

Posted by: newbeeboy | December 5, 2008 3:13 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe


That is not the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHICH IS BEING HIDDEN.


Obama could easily sign a waiver and have the State of Hawaii release the ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.


It is really that simple. Why haven't the REAL documents been released, and instead we have a deceptive document produced to the public? (the document you are referring to is the SAME document issued to babies born outside the country)


broadwayjoe I have already explained this to you - you must have a mental deficiency if you can not understand simple things.

ALSO Obama is hiding his College transcripts and grades - these documents and his financial aid applications - MAY reveal that he went to college as a FOREIGN STUDENT - on an INDONESIAN PASSPORT.


WELL.


Obama travled to four countries in 1981 including Pakistan, apparently WITHOUT A US PASSPORT. - So what kind of Passport did he use? Could it be an Indonesian passport?


Proving that he was an Indonesian citizen - If his step-father renonunced Obama's American citizenship and made him an Indonesian citizen, it is GAME OVER.

SORRY.

Obama actually could be an ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO SHOULD BE DEPORTED.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 5, 2008 7:08 AM | Report abuse


brisbaneharris


Why don't you make your points, support them with facts or reasoning - and leave the attacks on the other posters at the door.

It is people like you who are dragging down the discussion on this blog.

Grow up.


.

.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 5, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

armpit,

Jose Padilla, an American Citizen was arrested, denied his Constitutional rights, denied Habeas Corpus, tortured for years until he was judged to be legally insane, then convicted in a kangaroo court on trumped up charges with no real evidence against him.

That could happen to any U.S. citizen under Dubya/dick.

Now those who instituted the Dubya/dick torture program are being investigated and could very well be prosecuted for war crimes.

Clinton never approved of anything like the wholesale torture that occurred under Dubya/dick.

Trying to compare a Clinton mole hill to a Dubya/dick mountain is another reason why the Republican Dodo Party will soon become extinct.

Enjoy the irrelevance.

Posted by: kevinschmidt | December 5, 2008 12:11 AM | Report abuse

The percentage of these comments that are from off-the-planet wingnuts is fairly astonishing... presumably this is another manifestation of whatever is producing the ever higher levels of road-rage in our country... among educated people it is assumed that obviously moronic party hacks like Hannity/Limbaugh could do no real damage because no thoughtful person could be fooled by them... these comments make one worry about that judgment...

Posted by: david2009 | December 4, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Chris writes:

"The American public, long weary of the perceived mismanagement and incompetence of Bush....."

No, Chris, it is not "perceived mismanagement and incompetence," it is simply "mismanagement and incompetence." The incompetence and mismanagement are real and demonstrable, not merely perceptions.

The clown nearly destroyed the country.

Good riddance!

Posted by: wpost4112 | December 4, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

The hypocricy of the liberal Democrat Socialists here whinning about tortures going on, and violations of the Geneva Convention Human Rights Laws in the Bush administration is truly amazing. During Bill Clintons 8 year presidentcy there was not one peep from any one of them--nor one peep from the Democratic Party--controlled MSM--about these sort of Human Rights violations going on under Bill Clintons watch. They only became outrageous when GW Bush became president. The CIA's Black Box operation is a good example. This CIA operation was to ship captured terrorists we caught to Egypt, Jordan, and a few other countries for interrogation to circumvent our, and the Geneva Convention Human Rights Laws. Needless to say that these terrorists weren't given 5 Star Hotel treatment while there. It was Bill Clinton who invented and first used the CIA's Black Box initiative, and it was standard procedure thruout his presidentcy. It became public knowledge ONLY when GWB became president when the treasonous New York Times and Washington Post revealed it by publishing this top secret operations details. While these treasonous revelations of our CIA's top secret operations caused all kinds of crocodile teared outrage by the liberal Democrat Socialists, like the ones whinning here, it was no big deal when their guy Bill Clinton was doing it. The obvious conclusion: To liberals, Democrat Socialists, and the Democratic Party--controlled MSM, all tortures, human rights violations, and Geneva Convention Human Rights laws violations are ONLY Human Rights violations when Republicans do it.

Posted by: armpeg | December 4, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

-armpeg wrote:

President George W. Bush has done an exellent job in his 8 years in office, and in a couple of years of the Socialist Marxist Obama administrations governing, most Americans will be wishing for the good ol Bush days.

What color is the sky in your world, armpeg?

Posted by: brisbaneharris | December 4, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

-armpeg wrote:

President George W. Bush has done an exellent job in his 8 years in office, and in a couple of years of the Socialist Marxist Obama administrations governing, most Americans will be wishing for the good ol Bush days.

---------

I couldnt agree more. But would add:

G.Bush proposed the most sweeping changes in oversight of our regulatory system for GSE's in 2003!
Posted by: Homunculus | December 4, 2008 9:28 PM

Hurry up and go extinct Republican Dodos! Your revisionist BS is not wanted around here.

Dubya/dick are the worst administration ever. They are responsible for the current Republican inspired Great Depression II.

They, and not the Democrats, are responsible for the lack of oversight and massive theft from our Treasury by their minions.

Soon, the investigations and prosecutions will begin.

History will not be revised by lying NeoCONS!

Posted by: kevinschmidt | December 4, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

-armpeg wrote:

President George W. Bush has done an exellent job in his 8 years in office, and in a couple of years of the Socialist Marxist Obama administrations governing, most Americans will be wishing for the good ol Bush days. We had FULL EMPLOYMENT, a GDP surplus in most quarters (not all-but most), low inflation rate, a good economy (despite the 8 year doom and gloom made-up facts by the Democrat Socialists and their MSM propaganda arms false bullsh** to get Democrat Socialists elected), a sucessful Afghanistan and Iraq War against terrorists, who have been waging a 30 year Jihad against us, and Bush's main accomplishment--and a presidents primary job--8 years of keeping the American people safe from terrorist attacks on our soil after the 9/11 WTC attack, which was primarily caused by the Clinton administrations "what-me-worry", "lack-a-daisycal", "who cares?" way of fighting terrorism. Thank you President George W. Bush for a job well done and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

---------

I couldnt agree more. But would add:

G.Bush proposed the most sweeping changes in oversight of our regulatory system for GSE's in 2003! Proposing that we create an agency, under the Treasury department to regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, AIG, and Lehman Bros.. Democrats revolted and Barney Frank (D) publicly cried “These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” He then deep sixed any regulation.

Barney Frank & Co. (Chris Dodds (D)) made matters worse by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take on greater risk. They wanted more loans to people who might not qualify for traditional bank financing. And, as The Wall Street Journal has pointed out, Frank “pressured regulators to ease up on their capital requirements — which now means taxpayers will have to make up that capital shortfall.” And we as taxpayers have... to the tune of 700 BILLION! w/more on the way?

Even now, after the government took the companies over (which Frank repeatedly said over the years was not a possibility), Frank opposes limits on the amount of money they can risk on mortgage backed securities — the one reform that might have done the most to prevent the current meltdown and probably would do the most to keep it from happening again.

Boy, a perfect alliance of a liberal press and an incompetant Democratic leadership and whola! You can get rewarded for bad performance. If these clowns ever DO get thrown out on thier ear they will have a job on Wall Street that same day!


Posted by: Homunculus | December 4, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

To all the white-supremacist, Idaho-survivalist-compound-dwelling nutcases who keep insisting that there's a tape of Obama's grandmother stating that he was born in Kenya: a link please?

Posted by: RexRacer | December 4, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Bush & Cheney should be prosecuted for war crimes. Period.

Posted by: brisbaneharris | December 4, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

Water boarding is not torture. You are a sick mf neocon.

Posted by: brisbaneharris | December 4, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

"You are pretending that I advocate torture simply because you believe water boarding to be torture. Just because it has been redefined by you and others to discredit Bush"

It's when you say nonsense like this that you discredit everything else you say. Waterboarding has ALWAYS been considered torture. It is Bush himself who has redefined it as "enhanced interrogation"

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

37thOStreetRules , you are one nutcase!

Posted by: brisbaneharris | December 4, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Time will tell how this all works out. I hope for the best for Mr. Obama but am fearful that it may be too much for him. I truly hope he surprises me and will give him the benefit of the doubt. Check out GloomBoom.com

Posted by: GloomBoomDotcom | December 4, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Let us take our current situation in America:

how is it that people are surprised that the economy is in the dustbin?

how does that happen, when most of AMERICA has been down-sized, outsourced and internationalized and all or most production of goods is done overseas….

which means that there is no DOMESTIC in GDP, and certainly no in-country product.

how do you use a number to tell the strength of a country when the number reflects nothing more really than paper traded…

looka here:

GDP growth is not all derived from manufacturing as we are lead to believe.

It is the movement of money from one business transaction - a product is not necessarily created, but fees are generated, mortgages, corporate buyouts, downsizing, transactional legal fees, selling of credit derivatives, etc.

These constitute the movement of money which registers GDP growth although nothing was created.

There is also a report from two leading economics I believe at Harvard which discusses how the Bush administration has incorrectly equated imports as GDP growth.

If oil were sold in Euros and not dollars, the US would lose primary control of the oil markets. There was discussion that prior to our invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein was planning to revalue Iraqi oil in euros, thereby destablizing American markets. Further discussion can be found on line, about the joining of Mexico, Canada and the US - the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which calls for use of a common currency the Amero. To justify a common currency between our three countries,

the dollar must bottom out so this idea can be sold to the American public.

Which to me explains the almost

INTENTIONAL

devaluation of our currency by bush and friends oh my gawd!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it certainly looks as though they planned to tank the economy

catch a clue dumb heads…

things are cheaper if you and your friends are the only people with MONEY.


end

WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND????

is that bushCO and CRONYs are treating imported/foreign manufactured goods as_if they were made in country

saying that they economy is good,

when it’s in the can, because of their “creative accounting,”

aka propagandizing the information stream.

to cover a theft of your future.

.

bottom line: putting THE NATION's money into an economy with _n_o_ REAL GDP

makes it so that bushCO and CRONYs deals float.....as they try to sneak out...while enabling some piracy in India,

as your lives float away.

there is _N_O_ DOMESTIC in GDP....


and there is NO TRICK_LEDOWN in the bailout, although there is a trick

are afraid_of_me?

You and yours are becoming the pimple on the forehead of our nation....easily seen....and soon to be history.

.

.

Posted by: tesser_actsoflove1 | December 4, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

inDC2,

You seem to have closed your mind. Read the definition of torture. Water boarding is not torture. You are using an emotional argument over a factual one. I am not advocating torture. The friendly comforting approach works 999 out of 1000 times. You are pretending that I advocate torture simply because you believe water boarding to be torture. Just because it has been redefined by you and others to discredit Bush, does not change the Merriam Webster definition of torture.

Why is Obama going to invade North Korea??
Let's hope Obama does not do that.

BTW, North Korea yanks fingernails, cuts off fingers and pulls teeth. They don't try the friendly comforting approach.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Ok brain dead Republican Dodos, here is the proof that Obama was in fact born in the USA:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

From the FactCheck article:

"In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:

Obama's birth announcement

The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.

Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday.

We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat.

The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A."

End of story!

Posted by: kevinschmidt | December 4, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

37andOalley --
.
.
.
for the 187th time
.
.
.
A PDF of BHO's birth certificate in accessible on the Internet so everyone can see it. The state of Hawaii has officially certified that certificate as true and valid.
.
.
.
It says O was born in Honolulu.
.
.
And his birth announcement was published a day after his birth in the local newspaper.
.

.
.
"37," where were you born or do you know?
.
.
.
Where is your birth certificate? Huh? Huh?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 4, 2008 8:26 PM | Report abuse

who is gates?

an unprosecuted felon and a bush man, who can keep funneling money and slanting the information stream

in such a fashion as to help them avoid discovery....


he's the embedded enemy soldier, covert within the Obama administration....ready to take action to take out the commander of the opposing army....


The United States of America's military is being used as a tool of the corporatocracy, and war-profiteering companies

Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, KBR, DynCorp and so on....


Gates was chosen by bush because he had shown his loyalty in choosing party over country in rear-ending Jimmy Carter and committing treason, and also in committing obfuscation and criminal activity during the Honduras y Salvadoran y Chilean y Ecuadorian y Panamanian y Nicaragua

"interventions"

read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (ISBN 0-452-28708-1) is a book written by John Perkins and published in 2004

it gives more detail....it's about a two hour read, not brilliant but it places Gates "in context."

To call him a military man is like calling Karl Rove an ambassador.

Blackwaterisanattempttotake power away from the military.

Blackwater represents his take on how things should go.

.
The Danger of Holdovers?

I would say that Broder, Fred Hiatt, David Ignatius, and Richard Cohen are holdovers as well...I almost hurled when I saw Fred Hiatt videotape his endorsement of Obama...

he's a plant within the Washington Post along with the others named...


a foothold for disinformation and spin to find it's way into MSM. take them out....

make them responsible for their last 8 years of work....poisoning the information stream.

this economy is as much _their_ fault as the bush administrations'

they work hand-in-glove to prevent the truth from finding it's way to "the people"

take them out and put me in Marcus....take a chance.


.

Posted by: tesser_actsoflove1 | December 4, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

All I can say is that if Obama makes little changes he'll get little results.

I have some suggestions, shared by most the people who supported Obama:

1. Leave Iraq now. We marched right in, we can march right out.

2. Tax the rich at a LOT more than the previous 39 percent.

3. Tax the heck out of companies that offshore American jobs. Give huge tax breaks to companies that are 100% American owned and operated.

4. Huge tariffs on imported goods.

5. Fairness doctrine.

6. At least one four-year administration without a war or military conflict of some kind (if that's possible).

Finally, a complete end to imperialism.

Posted by: michaelfairbanks | December 4, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

It is hard to remember an all-star team like the one BHO is putting together.

Even O's appointment of "frenemeies" like Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton is impressive (although noted hysterian D. K. Goodwin and the bogus book she typed er "wrote," "Team of Rivals," wore out their welcome some time ago.

O's emerging administration is reminiscent of Jack Kennedy's administration of "whiz kids" like MacNamara and his brother Bobby. I believe FDR as well may have brought in a similar all-star stable of talent. Of course the JFK and FDR administrations were memorable high points in American history.

...Now for 37's off-topic junk, the request for the Supreme Court to consider whether to take up the frivolous wing-nut citizenship issue which was previously rejected by Justice Souter. Under court protocol, Souter's rejection should have ended this nonsense. However, under court rules, the petitioner may in ewffect re-submit his request to another justice of his choosing. This knucklehead petitioner took another bite at the apple and and the second justice agreed to put the matter on the agenda of the court's conference tomorrow. Let's be clear: There is ZERO chance the full court will take up this idiotic case and it is almost certain they are dispapointed that the case is even on their conference agenda after Souter already dismissed it out of hand. Some lower court judge should have cut this off even earlier, by dismissing the case months ago as a frivolous suit and assessing attorney's fees against the mischief-makers.

Finally, Kudos to the Dean (aka D. Broder). He's got his groove back. Great column today on why BHO should be cautious about the officials he's holding over rather than replacing (b/c their advice may be self serving and looking to justify past their past blunders). A pleasure to read, Dean, and I hope BHO takes his sage advice to heart.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 4, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

It seems like the argument you really want to make that it's OK for the United States to torture certain very evil people (KSM etc.) in certain really dire situations. But you're not making that argument.

Instead, you're making the much tougher argument (logically) that waterboarding is not torture. So then you're forced to admit that it's OK for U.S. troops to be waterboarded as part of an interrogation.

Will you call it an "enhanced interrogation technique" when we invade North Korea and they waterboard captured U.S. troops? If so, then I guess at least you're being consistent.

Also, remember we're talking about waterboarding only. Obviously, the N. Koreans might do much worse things which we all agree are torture. The issue is--is waterboarding torture?

Posted by: inDC2 | December 4, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

So, will someone please go tell Silly Chrissy that he can stop drinking his Obama
kool aid and sober up and stop fawning over
his Messiah Barack Hussein Obama since I
like a lot of other mad American women donot consider Obama naming a damn sexual
harasser and female gropper no business
experience lifetime Democrat politic hack
and career backstabber Bill Richardson
as his Sec of Commerce. As that is a major
insult to American women and we need to
demand Obama withdraw Bill Richardson name
from nomination as Sec of Commerce unless
Obama wants to be known as the President
who rewards sexual harassers. Please call,
fax or e-mail your US Senators and demand
they donot confirm Richardson as Sec of
Commerce or be remembered like Obama come
their re-election. Obama needs to get his
phony arrogant butt kicked over this one.

Posted by: sandy5274 | December 4, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

rharring

If Obama was not born in this country, he should step aside and Biden should be sworn in.


Obama should do that as soon as possible to allow for the smoothest situation given what has happened.

A separate question is whether Obama is a US citizen or not - and whether Obama should be deported back to Indonesia.

The right thing to do is to put Obama on trial for Fraud - and somehow make him earn the money back and pay all his contributors back - the legal contributors that is.

The illegal credit card contributions which may have come from overseas - well that is a another matter, right?

.

.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 8:06 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Chris:


Do your realize there will be an uproar in this nation if Obama has to withdraw? No one understands the sucession will fall to Biden and no one appears to want to accept that.


It will be bad.


Half the people I talk to feel McCain should get it if Obama is out and half say Hillary should get it.


It is hilarious.


Some people say we have to have a re-election McCain v. Hillary - they all feel that Obama's disqualification applies to Biden too.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"Again, I can say it is unacceptable to capture our troops as well. Is it unacceptable to capture terrorists?
I say it is unacceptable to shoot or blow up our soldiers. Is it unacceptable to shoot or blow up a terrorist?"

Those examples aren't war crimes. Historically, waterboarding is.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 7:32 PM | Report abuse

37&O,

Lets say that he is an illegal alien, i would still vote for him over any holy roller from the GOP.....

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

harleyrock1--Obama is an American citizen.

Posted by: nonagon | December 4, 2008 7:19 PM | Report abuse

Here's your Obama cabinet. The same guys that ripped off the Russians under our bought and paid for stooge Yeltsin and have been continually doing the same to us.


Who are the Architects of Economic Collapse?
Will an Obama Administration Reverse the Tide?

by Michel Chossudovsky

The Washington Consensus

Summers, Geithner, Corzine, Volker, Fischer, Phil Gramm, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Rubin, not to mention Alan Greenspan, al al. are buddies; they play golf together; they have links to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg; they act concurrently in accordance with the interests of Wall Street; they meet behind closed doors; they are on the same wave length; they are Democrats and Republicans.

While they may disagree on some issues, they are firmly committed to the Washington-Wall Street Consensus.

They are utterly ruthless in their management of economic and financial processes.

Their actions are profit driven. Outside of their narrow interest in the "efficiency" of "markets", they have little concern for "living human beings". How are people's lives affected by the deadly gamut of macro-economic and financial reforms, which is spearheading entire sectors of economic activity into bankruptcy.

The economic reasoning underlying neoliberal economic discourse is often cynical and contemptuous. In this regard, Lawrence Summers' economic discourse stands out.
He is known among environmentalists for having proposed the dumping of toxic waste in Third World countries, because people in poor countries have shorter lives and the costs of labor are abysmally low, which essentially means that the market value of people in the Third World is much lower. According to Summers, this makes it far more "cost effective" to export toxic materials to impoverished countries. A controversial 1991 World Bank memo signed by of Chief Economist Larry Summers reads as follows (excerpts, emphasis added):
DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP
"'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the Less Developed Countries?

You can read the the rest of Summers' solution to getting rid of toxic waste in less developed countries here.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/summers.htm

Obama, like his predecessors from both parties will continue to destroy our country while they enrichen themselves with our treasure and blood.

All of you rooting for Bush in past and the Obama/Clinton Administration now are knowing enablers.

Posted by: jsbar | December 4, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

inDC2 wrote:

thelaw1 wrote a lot more: and this is totally out of context, but hey lets go with it.
"Actually, it is perfectly acceptable to water board us, if that is all that happens."

This means: if John McCain had been waterboarded by the North Vietnamese, you would defend that as an acceptable way to interrogate a POW. Correct? (I know you don't like American POWs being interrogated at all, but assuming that they will be during wartime, is waterboarding an OK way to do it?)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How do I start. John McCain was tortured through burns, crushing, and general beatings. If he was only subjected to water boarding performed correctly, his body would not be broken, he would be healthy. I doubt the NV army could do that correctly, they would have drowned him.

Water boarding, if the 10 degree head down tilt is not used, or too much water is used for too long, the subject can drown. Otherwise it does not cause injury. There is a fine line between discomfort and death.

But the context of the discussion was about the horrible things that we know the current set of psychotic murder monkeys are doing.
The infrequent use of harsh tactics is being blown way out of proportions.

The best thing we can do is let President Obama decide what level to go to, codify it in the Constitution, and then shut the hell up about it. Right now, all the emotional speak has everybody in a tizzy about something that was not torture or done as a matter of policy.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 7:16 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


IT's not really a conspiracy, it's more like a FRAUD - however haven't we said that before about Obama?

Someone just caught Obama - because Obama was traveling to Pakistan and several other countries in 1981

However we know that Obama did not have a US passport in 1981 - so Obama MUST have been traveling with a foreign passport - meaning he was a citizen of another country - meaning perhaps he isn't even a citizen of this country and that he was born in Keyna


Obama could actually be an illegal alien.

Obama lied, Obama lied, Obama lied, Obama lied, Obama lied.

.


.

.


.



Obama's grandmother is an eyewitness - she is on tape saying that Obama was born in Keyna.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 7:13 PM | Report abuse

the law1,

Ok i understand your thinking now. But i hate to say you are wrong. Holding out on giving them heat and food and sleep has shown over the years to produce nothing. We had one like that in 84, defected didnt want to give up squat. We treated him well, played chess etc.. Now the reason we made him crack was the intelligence we gathered a few days later and confronted him with it. But by then we knew all he was going to tell us. Now Middle Easterners are a little tougher, but any good soldier will give up nothing. Since September 11th of all the detainees we interview not one gave any credible evidence to us, if anything quite the opposite. They wanted to send us on goose chases. Difference between al-queda and the USSR is Al-queda purposely keeps at arms links away from the actual individuals carrying out the act so they could give up nothing about the hierarchy. The most credible evidence found against KLM came from his computer............

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone remember how incompetently Hillary's campaign was run?

The liberal media's puffery of Obama and his team is laughable.

Posted by: bobmoses | December 4, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

rharring,

I never claimed the level of 'expert'. I agree that friendly and comforting works well. I would agree that deprivation is harsh. I also would agree that most subjects never drive the interrogation to discomfort either. It is disingenuous to say that the only way that works is X. OK, when X doesn't work then what?

So when I explained that non-compliance meant no heat in their cell and I was there to help them, what do you do when you know they set the bomb on the bus, but they will not give up their higher ups? They go back to a 54 degree cell, I guess. The next day they detail everything. No bruises, eyes are still clear, they just realized it was futile to not comply. Discomfort is used to dissuade subjects from staying non-compliant.

If you were in the field for 25 years, you have to have seen one hard case that would not respond to 'friendly and comforting'.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 7:01 PM | Report abuse

PC,

Yes, McCain was tortured, not subjected to discomfort. He did not have a doctor standing by in case he needed one.

Torture does not work, it will make the knowledgeable spill and the ignorant spill as well. Since most interrogations result in either no info 80% of the time or good info 20% of the time, you do not want the ignorant spilling anything they don't know.

John McCain understands the difference between torture and discomfort. He and I agree on that.

We can argue as to what level of discomfort your stomach allows, but the discomfort driver is the individual being interrogated not the people doing the interrogation. They always have the ability to comply. Nine times out of ten we will know the subjects correct name and how they fit into the case. We will know the type of information that they could provide. Many times we knew the correct names of their associates, and convinced them the others gave him up to us. (I know very hill street blues).

And nine times out of ten, no discomfort needed. But, I would pose this. How, when you make threats, do you put your money where your mouth is?

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 6:45 PM | Report abuse

the law1,

So you heard from rumors but didnt witness it? Gee and your an expert. I have been in the field over 25 years going back to the cold war. And we found that being friendly more than any deprivation worked well. And i guess you ignore the fact that numerous generals are meeting with Obama to stress no torture....

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

that is very interesting! Good to know we're hearing from someone who knows something about it. :-)

Posted by: pcpatterson | December 4, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Bush is history. Obama's worry is building momentum for the tasks his administration faces. He has picked the Cabinet appointees and staff that expects will serve him best in these tasks. He has also made a big effort to present short simple statements of direction to start building the consensus he needs to cope with our current acute problems and to effect the substantial changes he intends for our financial system, health care, education and other areas where we have a long history of failure to move forward. His emphasis is on competence because that is what is required for success.

Posted by: dnjake | December 4, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

You said:

"Actually, it is perfectly acceptable to water board us, if that is all that happens."

This means: if John McCain had been waterboarded by the North Vietnamese, you would defend that as an acceptable way to interrogate a POW. Correct? (I know you don't like American POWs being interrogated at all, but assuming that they will be during wartime, is waterboarding an OK way to do it?)

Posted by: inDC2 | December 4, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

PC,

Experience is from Kosovo in 1999, the Albanian Muslims murderers are not fanatical enough to be considered psychotic murder monkeys. The Albanians wanted kill Serbs. Serbs wanted to kill Albanians. They wanted to do it in clinical fashion, i.e. fast and kill, not maim. They did not put nails or ball bearings in their bombs, just explosives, until later.

The interrogations there worked out fine mostly. I used the rape tape and the beating tape the most. Uncomfortable meal and sleep disruption were probably employed, I learned from rumors, as I never saw any of the punishment. There was a separate unit for that. My job was to be the friend. A lot of interrogation is just listening to babbling nonsense. You have to lie to the subject many times. You need to be convincing or the ruse does not work. The Albanians mostly were trying to play us. I have no idea how the Serbian subjects were.

I left before the psychotic murder monkeys arrived.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Barack Obama wants the most intelligent, experienced, and articulate individuals on his team who will provide him with accurate information together with their own honest insights and assessments. Although more comfortable ideologically on the left, he knows that he and his administration need to hear and thoroughly understand all points of view in order to make the best possible and most effective decisions.

Posted by: bobwestafer | December 4, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

WillSeattle - I am correcting your spelling error, it's "the dolts are back in town". We get to wave "bye" to one collection of clueless fools and replace them with a different crew of dolts, con artists, sleaze-bags, crooks, and assorted free trade vermin. It's all very familiar, rather like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 4, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

PERCEIVED mismanagement and incompetence?! Come on now. If anyone's incompetence should override the "some say" rule, it's Bush. Sometimes objectivity should mean not having to say you're sorry.

Posted by: mblasen | December 4, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1:

"from experience"??? are you saying that you are a current/former military interrogator? surely you're not saying that you've been tortured yourself?

the key phrase in your response was "that we know of". In the context of the most secretive administration in history, de facto run by a VP who probably thinks his driver's license info is "top secret-classified", that's not terribly reassuring....

bottom line, the military experts that I've read all say that waterboarding or other extreme forms of "discomfort" are unreliable because the subject will say anything to get it to stop, even on subjects he has absolutely no personal knowledge of. McCain, incidentally, the subject of torture himself, agrees with this sentiment.

Posted by: pcpatterson | December 4, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm all for competency, but I'm worried about the "Cult of Presidency." More and more we focus on our presidents as being the sole hands on the wheel, the Supreme Leader who can save us or sink us. This is what, IMO, allowed Bush to arrogate so much power to himself: he did stuff that would make the Founding Fathers spin in their graves, yet the country's reaction, by and large, was, "Well, he's the President, how you gonna stop him?" The fact is, the president runs the Executive Branch. He doesn't make law, he runs the country according to laws passed by the people's representatives. We should remember that, and enforce it. The more and more the president becomes the star of the movie, the one person everyone looks to for EVERYTHING, the more opportunities there are for a George W. Bush to abuse the office. I can only hope Obama's seeming diffidence is for real and that he'll deflect the spotlight a bit, help us remember how our government is actually structured.

Posted by: JimC45 | December 4, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

47 days and counting until that idiot goes back to Crawford.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | December 4, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

why is it that the military experts on interrogation all say that the most useful information we've received has been from more traditional "American" forms of interrogation (i.e., those not employing waterboarding or any other borderline torture/"discomfort" methods)? Do you know more about the subject than they do?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No, I know about the subject from experience. We have waterboarded 3 people that I know of(public knowledge). We have interrogated thousands, near as I can tell the best way to get them to talk is to convince them it is the only way to freedom. You want to convince them you are their friend, that you want to help them. Most times, you know the information they could give up, and you can verify most anything. You point out that they lied, when you catch them, and convince them it is best not to screw with you. Only the true hard case psychotic murder monkey will survive that. At a certain point threats stop working and you have to put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you lose credibility. You reward compliance and punish non-compliance. Punishments start small and HAVE to get larger with further non-compliance. Most interrogators never have to go to where KSM pulled them.

So, in turn, it makes sense that most interrogators never have to go there, so they don't see why you must in some cases. They got the info they needed.

I am not justifying water boarding as the first thing you do, but I am saying water boarding will be the last thing you have to do before compliance.

Fear is the largest motivator, period. It is better than friendship, better than money.

Question: Is it torture, to all you re-definers, to tell a subject that he will get what is going on in the other room? When in the other room you are playing a real loud tape of fake human anguished cries, and fake noises that sound like you are beating the tar out of some one.

What then do you do if the subject does not comply?

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Right on the money, Chris.

The cult of competency - America is BACK!

And the adults are back in town.

Posted by: WillSeattle | December 4, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Two birds with one stone:

We do not torture, so I am not justifying that.

Bondo wrote:
Well that brings up the issue of extraordinary rendition. We don't torture. But we'll fly someone to a country that does, and wait outside the door while it's being done.


So only send them back to their country if we can guarantee that country does not torture, is that right?

OK, so we cannot subject them to discomfort, what you are calling torture, and we cannot send them anywhere near their home country. So when Obama closes GITMO, and all the bad guys there come into our judicial system. They wall all be released due to lack of Mirandizing.

I like the way this is going to work out.
Strength through weakness is really going to be interesting. When we have a Mumbai style attack here, will you be able to fight or just get shot?

Curious in Silver Spring

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1:

why is it that the military experts on interrogation all say that the most useful information we've received has been from more traditional "American" forms of interrogation (i.e., those not employing waterboarding or any other borderline torture/"discomfort" methods)? Do you know more about the subject than they do?

Posted by: pcpatterson | December 4, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I admitted that it is unacceptable to waterboard our troops, as they are acting on the side of good. I 100% feel that it is acceptable to waterboard psychotic murder monkeys as they are acting on the side of evil.

Again, I can say it is unacceptable to capture our troops as well. Is it unacceptable to capture terrorists?
I say it is unacceptable to shoot or blow up our soldiers. Is it unacceptable to shoot or blow up a terrorist?

Plus you completely don't understand our enemies if you think they will water board us.

Actually, it is perfectly acceptable to water board us, if that is all that happens.
Unfortunately, they will do far worse.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1:

Well that brings up the issue of extraordinary rendition. We don't torture. But we'll fly someone to a country that does, and wait outside the door while it's being done.

Posted by: Bondosan | December 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Ah yes, you must mean the competent Clinton people who helped bring the country out of another Republican inspired recession, bring millions of people out of poverty, and balance the budget.

The real losers are you and the rest of the cynical, brain dead Republicans who can only wreak havoc on anything you touch.

Why are the stupid Republican Dodos not extinct yet?

Posted by: kevinschmidt | December 4, 2008 5:32 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1....

It's torture trying to read your lame arguments for torturing people.

We should just cut and paste your posts and make Osama read them. He'll flip in a heartbeat.....

Posted by: RightDownTheMiddle | December 4, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I should have stated it better. Torture does not work, period. Discomfort does. However it is still an emotional argument in the sense that we do not torture, but people use the argument like we do. We do not torture. We court martial and punish those that do. The emotional part is the redefinition of torture to include discomfort.

I hope that clears up my meaning.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Chris is such a good writer that I expect great things when he grows up.

Posted by: gary4books | December 4, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

"It is not acceptable, but out of my control. Enemies will probably not water board us."

You admit that waterboarding is unacceptable. So it seems like the argument you're making is: it's OK if we do it, but it's not OK if anybody else does it. Is that right?

Posted by: inDC2 | December 4, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"I actually believed Obama when he said her foreign policy experience was simply drinking tea. I guess that does constitute change though."

Perhaps drinking tea is the kind of change we need. Read Three Cups of Tea to learn more about Americans on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan who are combatting terrorism by improving peoples' lives, rather than trying to bomb them into submission.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 4, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

You are blaming the wrong person. If i remember correctly President George W. Bush received a PDB on August 2001 stating that Al-Queda intended to strike the US and probably use airplanes. Bush was so concerned he did nothing, didnt alert the FAA, didnt alert the military. All he said to the person reading the PDB is OK you have covered your ass. So if Dubya had paid heed to what he was told we wouldnt have to torture murder monkeys (your term). And one other thing, if your great Messiah Ronald Reagan hadnt left the freedom fighters high and dry after the Soviets were defeated we probably wouldnt be in this mess.

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

True until he knew we were serious, he lied his butt off. Most of what KSM gave up is still classified. The unclassified part is he gave up the money movements and some names, New York Times reported. The info got better once we stopped mollycoddling him. With no discomfort, he would have kept lying to us.

This guy sat there and told interrogators to go ahead and kill his children, when they attempted to dissemble and tell him that we had his children and would kill them. This guy was not messing around. It took a tight towel pulled over his mouth and nose, with a little water dribbled on for discomfort. Kill his children, no problem. Feel discomfort, big problem. He lasted 2.5 minutes, I lasted about 20 seconds, and even that was longer than most in my wing.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Please refrain from using the word cult in the same sentence as Obama. the thugs will have you waterboarded for that. they wish to appear legit from now on. hence the recycled clinton losers. I actually believed Obama when he said her foreign policy experience was simply drinking tea. I guess that does constitute change though.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 4, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1 wrote: "The emotional argument is that 'torture' does not work."

Quite the contrary. The emotional argument is that torture works. Experts in interrogation are virtually unanimous in considering it the least useful means of extracting information from a suspect.

And since when did "it works" become the proper standard for human conduct? Killing children quite effectively reduces childhood poverty, but no civilized country would utilize that tactic.

Posted by: nodebris | December 4, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

okay, what about the definition for terrorism
by webster..

"to inspire and instill fear"

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 4, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

It is not acceptable, but out of my control. Enemies will probably not water board us. Judging by the bodies I have seen, I would say we will be subject to having knees broken, toes and fingers chopped off one by one, teeth pulled, beatings with large sticks, plumbers blowtorch on your genitals, cigar or cigarette burns in sensitive places, and finally, if you are lucky, killed quickly.

So no, it is not acceptable, but you are making a moral equivalence between the US soldiers and psychotic murder monkeys. That is what is unacceptable.

Again guilty of #3 definition

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

Another Bush myth, What did KLM give up that was so valuable? From what i know everything he gave up was false, the bombing of malls etc. Look if you want to back a criminal (Bush) that is fine, but when you start to exaggerate that torture isnt bad and we received a wealth of information you are just wrong.

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

I don't care if there was video of Obama being born straight outta Osama Bin Laden's uterus I'd still want him to be our next Prez.

He's clearly the man for the job.

And you people clamoring on about his birth certificate are clearly grade-a morons.

Do you truly believe that they will somehow give the presidency over to McCain because of you whack jobs posting about Obama not being born in HI?

Seriously? Deep down is that what you mental midgets really, seriously, truly believe? Seriously???

Posted by: RightDownTheMiddle | December 4, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1:

I'm not quite following you.

My understanding of waterboarding is not that it's merely an unpleasant sensation, but that the person experiencing it believes that they are drowning to death.

This would seem to qualify as torture under your Merriam-Webster #1 "anguish of body or mind" definition.

Regardless of whether it passes muster with your online dictionary, if waterboarding is an acceptable interrogation technique, then so is putting someone up in front of a firing squad and firing blanks. No physical harm done, but the person will certainly believe they are being executed.

There are many arguments against the use of torture, including the fact that we don't want our own service members or intelligence officers tortured, but from a purely information-gathering standpoint, experts argue that torture is simply ineffective. The person being tortured will say whatever he or she thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

Posted by: Bondosan | December 4, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Archarito: You are humiliating yourself. You noted that I linked to the factckeck article but you clearly didn't bother to read the whole thing. Your idiotic claims that the birth certificate has been "proven to be a forgery" are completely debunked by it. How was it "proven" exactly?

The lack of a raised seal? The raised seal it DOES have and which factcheck provided a high resolution image of?

The lack of a certifying signature? The certifying signature it DOES have and which factcheck provided another picture of? (they stamped it on the back you moron, and the person who certified it has PERSONALLY vouched for it.)

The ominously blacked out document ID? The document ID Factcheck ALSO provided an image of, uncensored?

The mysterious so called "photoshop halo effect" around the letters that is complete bunk and also does not exist in the imagery factcheck provided?

You just continue to ignore that they even announced his birth in the Honolulu Advertiser at the time, what the hell is your explanation for that? the Illuminati went back in their top secret time machine and did it to cover for him?

And for the Nth time, the Hawaiian Department of Health has verified they have his Hawaiian birth certificate. you know, the thing they issue to people who are freaking BORN IN HAWAII.

Wake the hell up you credulous idiot. There is nothing to this. At all.

Posted by: gcomeau2013 | December 4, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Well I hate to burst bubbles, but verifiable good info came from water boarding KSM. He gave up lots of good info, that was verifiable and acted upon. He knew huge amounts of info about al-qaeda. Plus, clearly, interrogators have a list of info that is known, but not verified. KSM verified actual info that we had. All new info then needs to be verified.

You can call me an idiot of you want it does not help your argument, since I KNOW KSM gave us lots. The emotional argument is that 'torture' does not work. I agree, you usually kill the subject if they have no info, since they cannot tell you anything. Water boarding does not kill or injure you, and is plenty uncomfortable. It serves the purpose to make you a compliant traitor.


Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

That sounds like a no, but just to make sure, are you OK with enemy governments waterboarding U.S. troops captured in battle?

If not, why not?

Posted by: inDC2 | December 4, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

well the reason for me calling you an idiot is stating that good comes from it. From someone who has experienced it it is not comfortable and no reliable info comes from the detainee. So yes it is idiotic for you to say there is nothing wrong with waterboarding....

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse


ualec1:

interesting...
you would think the republicans, specially mccain...would have found the truth out and literally would have
RUN WITH THAT INFO....

why all the fuss now.
i guess republicans are really crying in their beer now....supplied by Cindy McCain, no doubt. ((sly grins )))

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 4, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

InDC2

Is it acceptable to fly planes into buildings? Is it acceptable to chop heads off? Is it acceptable to do the things terrorists do?

We are, in fact, trained to deal with this very technique. That is why you give very few operational details to the mission teams. You will talk when they do that to you. It is very effective. I lasted about 20 seconds. I would have spilled.

US troops are supposed to be subject to the Geneva conventions, but only if we are captured by a signatory. The current psychotic murder monkeys we a dealing with are unflagged and our capture or theirs is not subject to the conventions, unfortunately. Although we do our best to comply with, but not required to, the Geneva Conventions.

If you live in a bubble that is built on emotion, the facts will never convince you.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules

One very ignorant person with posts made.

Posted by: sunshineinTtown | December 4, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Archarito wrote: "If ANYONE thinks the State of Hawaii has said Barack was born in Hawaii - Prove it! Post a quote and a legitimate link. It never happened. Hawaii has never claimed they certified Barack was born in Hawaii."

Here you go, from the official site of the state of Hawaii, an official statement from Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics:

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

Now shut up, you whacked out nimrod.

Posted by: nodebris | December 4, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

rharring

thelaw1,

If it is so effective why did we court martial our own troops that used waterboarding in Vietnam??? Idiots....

UM, because our troops were and still are not sanctioned to do it. No troops (soldiers, marines, seamen, or airmen) have been doing it now. All the troops that abused prisoners have been courts martialed and punished. Obviously the AFM regarding interrogations is different than that of the CIA. Again all you have to do to convince me is explain how water boarding meets definition #1 or #2. I do see how you are guilty of definition #3 by straining to make it torture.

I did not insult anyone specifically yet you feel comfortable doing so. In fact I was trying to discuss ideas, but a closed mind must insult and demean to feel superior.

Just relate how water boarding or other discomfort meets #1 or #2. I might change my mind. I honestly do not see how it meets the criteria for torture. I have experienced it during training and did not like it, but was never injured. Calling me an idiot will not get me to change my mind, but ideas might.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

When you have 78% of the country approving of the way he's handling the transition and the outgoing president being treated as a nonentity then the Obama haters can spew all the nonsense they want. It doesn't matter tuppence. One almost has to duck to avoid the spittle that's coming from the nutcases posting here. These folks are deeply pathetic and at one with the alien abductionists and Scientologists.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | December 4, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1, are you saying that it would be acceptable if enemy governments waterboarded U.S. troops captured in battle?

Posted by: inDC2 | December 4, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Competency?

obama has to do something before his cabinet is labled competent. You are already labeling his cabinet as competent and they haven't done anything yet!

Just wait for the crisis' to start coming in...then we will see how liberals deal with being in charge! One thing will be sure though, the liberal media like the Post will never point out anything wrong with an obama administration. Moreover, I am sure they will just blame Bush!

Which is viable, being that the INCOMPETENT Clinton administration led to 9-11.

Posted by: jim000122 | December 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

###########################################

We certainly know that conservatives are incapable of running this government, so anything the so-called "liberals" do will be an improvement.

One big improvement will be stop blaming all your failures on everyone except yourselves. That includes 9/11, the biggest conservative failure of all.

Posted by: maggots | December 4, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

All Obama had to do to get elected after the financial crisis hit one month before the election was 1. blame Bush. 2. be a Democrat. 3. deflect all blame about subprime mortgages to deregulation. 4. Run against Bush

common sense would tell you that deregulation did not include lending money to people who could not pay. Yet emotion works better than fact when you are a liberal

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

thelaw1,

If it is so effective why did we court martial our own troops that used waterboarding in Vietnam??? Idiots....

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Now that torture has been redefined to include any discomfort, why not investigate the Bush administration. Any one who overreaches, over refines or strains to make discomfort torture is actually guilty of torture. Go to Merriam-Webster online, read all three definitions.

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

As you will see all sanctioned interrogation techniques do not constitute torture. Only in the minds of the Bush-haters can you get there. Yet they are guilty of #3 with all the torture talk.

For all it's worth, water boarding is uncomfortable and you do not want to experience it more than once. It is not torture and it is effective. The efficiency is what the opponents do not like. They would like it to be harder to get info. That is why meal disruption, sleep disruption, loud music, isolation, and water boarding have all been classified as torture by the opponents of Bush. Emotion is always a better argument than fact for the left.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Clearly this is a Weak Administration - you have all the Obamaniacs on here claiming that Obama is so smart, blah blah blah


However, read the postings about Hillary on this blog....


The appointments so far have been silly - a group of inexperienced blowhart artists who would be rejected by any human resources department in all the major corporations in the country.


Hillary is not qualified, period.


Richardson's performance at the Department of Energy should BAR HIM from all federal government buildings.


Eric Holder did a horrible job at Justice during his years there - he DOES NOT deserve a promotion to head the Department of Justice - the primary motivation in his appointment appears NOT THAT HE IS THE BEST QUALIFIED PERSON TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.


Napolitano may have been a good Governor, of a state with border issues, however let's be serious: DOES SHE HAVE ANY EXPERTISE AT ALL IN SECURITY ISSUES ??? Homeland Security has become a fairly important post and it appears that Obama doesn't know what he is doing appointing someone with so little experience in the actual field of HOMELAND SECURITY.


Rahm Emanuel ? As Chief of Staff? Why doesn't Obama just offer it to Bill Clinton himself. This DOES NOT represent change, and is a little silly to throw back in the faces of all the people who supported Obama in the primaries because they did not want another Clinton administration.


Overall, ONE HAS TO STATE THAT OBAMA HAS SHOWN POOR JUDGEMENT OVERALL IN THESE SELECTIONS - HE DOES NOT EVEN DESERVE A "C" - MORE LIKE A GRADE OF A "D"


Again, thank you for reading the truth.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

In general, I am pleased and even relieved in a sense to know that Obama is going to do things differently than what we've had. I don't think it speaks any volumes in Bush's favor for him to be a governor and still not have half the sense or common sense that Obama has shown since. I am relieved at his competence and his careful selections. Noone is perfect, no, but he is furthermore showing me NOW why I trust him. I absolutely do not and did not trust Bush, but he is our current president. I am relieved that competence is being restored to the White House. Some disagree, but I am even more relieved Hillary accepted the offer to join the team. This is not the time to get all of your buddies in, and I appreciate that Obama took that important aspect into consideration. Smart move.

Posted by: Obama2008 | December 4, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Babenemo asks:
what is this obsession with President-Elect Obama's birth certificate?

The reality challenged wingnuts are clinging to a disproven notion that Obama is not a US Citizen. That is after being an elected official on both the State and Federal levels. Go figure.

Posted by: ualec1 | December 4, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Hey AsperGirl. Thanks for being self critical and open to changing your mind once presented with evidence of our soon-to-be President's capacity to run good government. I admire you for that.

Posted by: dcampbell1 | December 4, 2008 3:41 PM

That's a really nice thing to say.

I have to say that not only do I feel good about Barack Obama as president. But when his voice comes on the radio, etc. I feel confidence and trust welling up. I think it's ... Oh no! ... HOPE that this destruction of our country will maybe turn around.

Posted by: AsperGirl | December 4, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Oh my God. He was doing it on purpose!

I'm Really Gonna Miss Systematically Destroying This Place
By George W. Bush

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/im_really_gonna_miss

Posted by: AsperGirl | December 4, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

wj_phillips


It would be helpful if you admitted it was Bill Clinton and the democrats who deregulated Wall Street - and who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act - and it is the democrats who are to blame for the Wall Street mess.


Honesty is called for here.


Honesty - Barney Frank honesty. Chuck Shumer honesty.


.

.

.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

what is this obsession with President-Elect Obama's birth certificate?

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | December 4, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

OMG, enough already. All you wingnut low information red state voters please go into hibernation for the next eight years, or at least discuss your conspiracy theories among yourselves in the comfort of your private little circle jerks.
Meanwhile everybody else can enjoy the urgently needed competent government, without your meaningless background noise

Posted by: ualec1 | December 4, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse


Before we can have a "grand vision" for the country, we have to stop downward spiral of Bush's messes. To keep the country together is the "grandest vision" we need now.

That Obama is getting the best help he can to do that job makes him a far better president elect than he was a candidate. The measure of a good leader is how well he chooses his subordinates. What we have is a man who knows he does not know it all and is smart enough to pick people to run parts of the show.

What more can you ask for?

Posted by: wj_phillips | December 4, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Hill/Billy Secretary of State- that's CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN! Janet Napolitano = Homeland Security - resume on security experience - success sealing her state's border with Mexico? Nothing there that equates to competence on either appointment. Commerce secretary - from a state with lots of commerce, eh? This article is meant to be a test, right?

Posted by: sonny_sky | December 4, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Oops.

You guys who hate Obama forgot the Post is in the tank for him. They feel as if it is their job to make him successful, just as they felt it was their job to get him elected. There will be no investigation into the financial collapse that conveniently happened 1 month before the election. Democrats said no finger pointing is needed. Yet they finger pointed about everything, all the time. There will be no one asking for his Columbia transcripts or chacking about his passport. THEY WANT HIM TO BE PRESIDENT, PERIOD. Just get that through your thick skulls. He lied about being a hard lefty to the hard lefties for their vote. Now going back on those promises is called pragmatism. If he had told the truth about his intentions, I would have voted for him. I thought from what he said that he wanted to fail in Iraq in 16 months and all combat troops would be out, no matter facts on the ground. I thought we was going to retreat from Bush's policies regarding terrorism. I thought he was going to close GITMO and move the prisoners to the US justice system so they could be released due to chain of evidence problems. I though he was going to cancel the al-qaeda surveillance program so that we would not be able to listen when they call this country.

Now that he is changing his tune, I like what I hear. I am going to keep an open mind though. He might be lying now.

But no one is going to look at his college records, passport issue, or birth certificate. Get over it.

Posted by: thelaw1 | December 4, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

So why arent you guys interested in investigating the Bush administrations crimes? Oh i know because you all drink the GOP Kool Aid. Torture, no problem, paying our buddies in the oil industry, no problem. High gas prices, love it because our GOP guy is in charge. Outing an undercover CIA agent, no problem. Politicizing the Justice Department, no problem my guy Dubya is in charge. If the Dems had done a fraction of the above you would scream from the hilltops. I sure hope you hate paying lower gas prices.....

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

'Obama has purposely avoided putting his closest Chicago confidantes (with the exception of Valerie Jarrett) into high-ranking positions".

Am is mistaken?

Rahm Emanuel?

http://tiny.cc/rahmemanuel

Mike


Posted by: redmike | December 4, 2008 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Regan and Clinton and Busch even Carter had staffs to bring and most of his Chicago buddies don't pass the smell test so his only alternative is to have a Clinton Cabnet. Why do think Bill has been so good?

Posted by: phlap | December 4, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Competency?

obama has to do something before his cabinet is labled competent. You are already labeling his cabinet as competent and they haven't done anything yet!

Just wait for the crisis' to start coming in...then we will see how liberals deal with being in charge! One thing will be sure though, the liberal media like the Post will never point out anything wrong with an obama administration. Moreover, I am sure they will just blame Bush!

Which is viable, being that the INCOMPETENT Clinton administration led to 9-11.

Posted by: jim000122 | December 4, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

How wonderful to see brain-power back in the Oval Office!
Puddin'head Bush and his group of neo-Nazi republican know-nothings have left us a broken country...and, like daddy, one in a Recession.
This pack of buffoons will have historians rolling their eyes for centuries!
Good riddance to bad rubbish!
(and that goes for the entire Grand Oil Party!)

Posted by: kase | December 4, 2008 4:15 PM | Report abuse

gabbamonkey:

I suspect you voted Democratic, which is a good thing.

But boy, dude, you really aren't the sharpest pencil in the box, now are you?

Posted by: Bondosan | December 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse


.

.

.

.


Chris I do not mean to complain - however does the Washington Post do any investigations anymore ? I'm not asking for Woodward and Bernstein here however does the WASHINGTON POST have verification of the location of Obama's birth ???


Very simple.


There are allegations today that Obama had traveled abroad to Pakistan in 1981 - if you remember someone broke into his State Dept records last year -


Obama did not have a passport from the United States in 1981 -


So Obama had to be traveling on a passport of another country - either Keyna or Indonesia. ALSO there are indications that Obama's college admission papers reveal that he was a FOREIGN STUDENT - THAT MUST BE WHY OBAMA HAS BEEN HIDING HIS TRANSCRIPTS AND HIS GRADES FROM COLUMBIA BECAUSE THEY WILL REVEAL THAT HE WAS A FOREIGN STUDENT - IS IT POSSIBLE we actually have elected an ILLEGAL ALIEN WHO SHOULD BE DEPORTED.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

-- You go 37OStreetRules --

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Armpeg: please join us in the reality-based world. How in the world can you claim that Bush presided over a "good economy" and "successful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan"? I think we all know the state of the economy; the war in Iraq is going better at the moment but the outcome is very much unclear; and the war in Afghanistan is a disaster at the moment. Bush has left an incredible mess for Obama to try to clean up. Your rah-rah patriotism and bizarre comments about socialism insulate you from the world, and that's not a good thing.

Posted by: rlaw1 | December 4, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

eddiehaskel

The statement from Hawaii does NOT say they have a birth certificate saying Barack was born in Hawaii does it?

In 1961 Hawaii issued Certifications of live birth based on birth certificates from anywhere in the world.

Barack's digital Certification that was printed in 2007 was altered in 2008 using digital borders that were only available in 2008.
There are four other proofs his COLB was criminally and illegally forged or altered.

www.obamaforgery.com

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 3:59 PM | Report abuse

He wasnt required to serve in the military to be President?

You are correct, but he kept talking about his military experience when running for POTUS. So why not release his records? Its a shame you focus on a birth certificate and not the problems of our country. Can you say OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

President George W. Bush has done an exellent job in his 8 years in office, and in a couple of years of the Socialist Marxist Obama administrations governing, most Americans will be wishing for the good ol Bush days. We had FULL EMPLOYMENT, a GDP surplus in most quarters (not all-but most), low inflation rate, a good economy (despite the 8 year doom and gloom made-up facts by the Democrat Socialists and their MSM propaganda arms false bullsh** to get Democrat Socialists elected), a sucessful Afghanistan and Iraq War against terrorists, who have been waging a 30 year Jihad against us, and Bush's main accomplishment--and a presidents primary job--8 years of keeping the American people safe from terrorist attacks on our soil after the 9/11 WTC attack, which was primarily caused by the Clinton administrations "what-me-worry", "lack-a-daisycal", "who cares?" way of fighting terrorism. Thank you President George W. Bush for a job well done and MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Posted by: armpeg | December 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


AT this point, without Obama giving us any further information - AND REFUSING TO RELEASE HIS ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHICH HE COULD WITH ONLY A WAIVER SIGNED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN HAWAII - SUSPICIOUS HAVE RUN WILD.


Obama - why did he let this get so far?


If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, I think we would have seen the evidence already - that proves that this story just might have legs.


Obama's grandmother is on tape stating that Obama was born in KEYNA.


OK so what are the odds that Obama will NOT be sworn in - and Joe Biden will be President in January - a reaonable person would have to say at this point the odds are 50 - 50.


.


.

.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

kats7

You conveniently left out that the single parent had to lived as an adult in the USA for five years and at least two years in the same state. Barack's mother citizenship, age and residence requirements do not make him a natural born citizen.

In 1981 Barack traveled to Pakistan and four other countries. He did not have a US passport at that time.

During that time, travel to Pakistan on a US passport was forbidden.

The first time Barack was issued a US passport was when he became a US Senator.

Having had a passport from another country (have to be a citizen to get a passport) Barack is not a natural born citizen.

Since Barack traveled on a foreign passport he never even became naturalized after that travel.

Barack apparently went to college getting foreign aid for foreign students. That would also reclude him from being a natural-born citizen.

Since his gran said he was born in Kenya it raises obvious questions that can only be answered by Barack presenting an original birth certificate;

Not a forged and altered digital copy of a digital reproduction of a certification saying he was born somewhere.

Barack's COLB would be as legitimate a digital copy of a US Dollar bill made on a copy machine.

Barack is a supreme CON ARTIST who is conning the USA into installing him as POTUS on behalf of the rest of the world at the expense of American citizens/voters and the US Constitution.

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama's approach has been to do the planning right, put the right people in place, and then stay on course. We will see if that approach can survive the surprises inherent in the Presidency, but it worked in the campaign, didn't it?

Posted by: jonawebb | December 4, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

Bondosan

You are wrong.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Hey AsperGirl. Thanks for being self critical and open to changing your mind once presented with evidence of our soon-to-be President's capacity to run good government. I admire you for that.

Posted by: dcampbell1 | December 4, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama's going to show for work every day. He's going to think things through. He's going to talk things over with other bright people who work hard with a problem solving mindset. And, they are all going to compare reality with the theories, making adjustments accordingly.

The grand vision thing will take care of itself.

Posted by: bubbuh | December 4, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Since sometimes the obvious must be pointed out to those who deny reality:

http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html?rss=hon&psp=news

That is a link to a news story about the State of Hawaii verifying that it is in possession of a valid berth certificate for President-elect Obama.

It took two seconds on the Google.

It interesting that there is a cadre of persons that really want to be governed badly. They worship at the alter of figurehead leaders that talk just like 'em and doggone would be great to have a beer with.

Real leaders scare these people because they do not want to be held responsible. A leader inspires people to take responsibility by taking it themselves. All Mr. Bush can summon up now is a sad sack plaint of how he was the victim of circumstances.

Real men take their lumps and admit their mistakes.

Posted by: eddiehaskel | December 4, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I am with the 80 percent who think Obama is doing a great job of picking his key leaders. Your choice of the word cult is a big confusing to me? What was your point. I can buy competent but cult? Generally the term cult has a negative connotation. Jim Jones led a cult that drank the kool-aid but I don't think anyone would think Hillary or Gates would be blind followers as in the Jones disciples. Otherwise you column makes sense. Too bad you clouded an otherwise good article by choosing a word that doesn't fit the situation.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | December 4, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"There are two plausible reasons why Pres-elect Obama would pick Sen. Clinton for the Sec of State post: (1) he wanted to show he was above holding a grudge and only cared about credentials [as you believe] or (2) he didnt want his biggest primary rival torpedoing his legislative agenda in the Senate. What makes you pick the first one?"

Because Hillary and Obama disagree on practically nothing, particularly domestic?

Posted by: SeanC1 | December 4, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

...and another question: how can there be ANY questions left about Obama's background when there is an entire network--the so-called "Fox News Channel"--dedicated to conducting opposition research against Democrats?

Is is because there is nothing left to "find out?" Or is Fox "News" simply so incompetent that they are unable to actually find anything controversial?

Both I presume.

Posted by: payoung1 | December 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

"1.) You've not provided any quote from anyone in Hawaii claiming Barack was born there."

Yeah, I'm sure I've got a dozen eye-witnesses of my birth. I'll be sure to get their numbers.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

wapo7

You are mistaken claiming there have not been emoulements during Senator Clintons term.

The salary of the SOS was increased somewhere in the range of $4000.00 per year. That disqualifies her from taking on that office according to your own reference.

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

After trying to read some of the juvenile comments, I found wasn't worth it.

If you morons have nothing useful to say, go back to playing your video games, burning your crosses, going to your circle jerks in your bed sheets, etc.

Posted by: rtreff | December 4, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse
---------------------------------------
And this post from you is what?...........Moron

Posted by: gabbamonkey | December 4, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Natural Born Citizen:
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Posted by: kats2 | December 4, 2008 3:31 PM | Report abuse

WOW......what can I say that hasn't, in some way, already been said? Conservatives fear Obama for one reason: he will bring effective, transparent governing back to the White House. People who follow the doctrine that "Government is the problem" fear people like Obama because competent, effective government makes their whole ideology unravel.

Obama and his cabinet are going to make mistakes--not because he hired unqualified cronies whose purpose in coming to Washington is to make a buck and move on. No, they'll make mistakes because they're human. I'm fine with that. I am looking forward to the day 4 years from now when Obama will crush another Republican wannabe for President with the simple question, to steal a line from the Gipper: "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"

I can answer that question right now: yes.

Posted by: payoung1 | December 4, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

So Obama is competent. WOW!!! A competent President-elect who is making great decisions. Now that's something to write about - NOT.

Posted by: rlj1 | December 4, 2008 3:29 PM | Report abuse

geomeau2013

HaHaHa- You linked factcheck hahaha

1.) No where is there a direct quote from a person in Hawaii that certifies Barack was born in Hawaii.

2.) Factcheck ambiguously claims someone from the AP said something about Hawaii saying something about a birth certificate but that's it.
They said, he said, she said, they said - No verification there.

3.) Factcheck in June claims they have a birth certificate. Then in November they state that Hawaii has a birth certificate but that they haven't seen it.

4.) The alleged birth certificate factcheck says it has, has been proven to be an altered document!
Nor is it a birth certificate.
It is a certificate Hawaii could have issued in 1961 shortly after it became a State to anyone born anywhere in the world including Kenya.

www.obamaforgery.com

In summary:

1.) You've not provided any quote from anyone in Hawaii claiming Barack was born there.

2.) Nor have you provided a link to any legitimate document that says Barack was born in Hawaii without being thoroughly identified as being altered and forged.

www.obamaforgery.com

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Did you guys know that Barack HUSSEIN Obama killed Vince Foster?

That's TOTALLY true, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was about to expose the truth...but then THEY got to him!

Posted by: Bondosan | December 4, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse
----------------------------------------
You're a fuukin idiot man. I'm sure your mother is proud to have complete racist bafoon as a son. Do you think for a moment that John McCain would've let this slide if he or anyone with common sense unlike you, would not have blasted him in the press? See this is why your a fuukin fool, you believe this garbage and you run on here trying to sound like you got some juicy info that for some reason, the AMERICAN public wasn't privy to. You don't know shiit obviously and you should not be allowed to pro-create. Fuukin azzlick.

Posted by: gabbamonkey | December 4, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Chris --

Totally boring column, dude. You start off with "Barack Obama won the White House last month in large part by running against George W. Bush and tapping into the public perception that his administration has been ineffectual in handling important policy questions."

"Public perception"? What are you hedging against? Can't you just write "the utter failure that is the Bush 43 administration"?

Then you refer to the team of rivals and ask if we're yet sick of it's overuse.

Not funny. Utterly boring.

DAStubbs,
Minneapolis

Posted by: dastubbs | December 4, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I have to say that I'm really, really pleased with Barack Obama so far. He has exceeded my expectations. I'm sure everyone here has memorized all my precious past posts as if they were golden dollops of wisdom. But I was extremely anxious that, after 8 years of Bush, Obama would be like a left-wing version of Bush: not enough of the right kind of experience, surrounded by neo-ideologues (in Obama's case that would be neo-libs instead of neo-cons), and in general an incompetent ivy league face man. But as Obama started to show in September when the Wall Street meltdown started and McCain (with no really competent economic advisors) and Obama (with a deep bench of leading economic policy experts) didn't, that he has depth and an executive timbre. I'm really happy with the kind of people he is picking, in terms of politics, qualifications and experience.

The saying a few days ago was "A Team of Rivals". I tend to view it as even better than that. I view his Administration picks as being an "A-TEAM (of Rivals)". These are A-list people. And they're not peculiar ideological "stars" like Bush's neo-con Administration (at least the first 6 years of it).

Just for grins, I'm including a post that I posted on June 5, horrified by my view that Obama would assemble an Administration of incompetent ideological hacks like a left-wing version of Bush's:

...It's tempting to say that everything Bush touched failed because he's wrong on policies, ideas and approaches. But that's a facile conclusion. I mean, you look at his failed Iraq campaign and say it was wrong to invade. But the condemnation of the policy is after the fact of his failures. For example, Bush didn't have some conservative policy of letting New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi languish for years unreconstructed, and he didn't plan to have 9/11 hijackers fly into buildings.

If you look at the biggest, most fundamental problem that is a common theme with all of the big Bush screw-ups, it's all about his inexperience, incompetence and insular mismanagement.
...

I've watched 8 years of consistent, horrifically colorful incompetence dismantle the country in a variety of ways. From the Iraq war post-invasion planning to the collapse of the housing boom and teetering economy, there's some Bush-appointed unqualified partisan who caused it.

This is why I'm so horrified and angry and extremely opposed to Barack Obama as the next President. He's even less experienced and qualified than Bush. Bush had at least been governor of Texas. And Obama would have a Democratic controlled Congress. That, to me, is a left-wing replay of the past 8 years.

Posted by: AsperGirl | December 4, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"Comparatively, aren't Sen. Clinton's foreign affairs credentials relatively weak compared to the most recent Secretaries of State (e.g., Powell [former Chariman JCOS, NSA]; Rice [Soviet Advisor to 41, NSA, Stanford Prof.] vs. Clinton [former First Lady, 1.25 terms in Senate])?"

Posted by: Jindal2012

And, Exocist2012, what effectiveness did Powell of Rice exhibit? The first was ignored by his President, unmanned by the vice president, and wound up giving up his reputation in favor of presenting lies to the American people that put the U.S. military and the Treasury on their butts. Rice ignored Richard Clarke, and during her confirmation hearings as SOS lied out of every orifice, including about how many tens of thousands of Iraqis had been trained to take over security from the U.S. military. Even today not even half that number has been trained. That said, I can't think of one appointment yet that wasn't filled by a complete a(s)shole. But, from my vantage point, America is a place that twice elected GW Bush, that pays CEOs tens of millions to drive their companies into the ground, and, in the only federal recycling policy now in action, keeps circulating the very individuals whose actions and philosophies were responsible for the debacle the country is now in.

Posted by: edwcorey | December 4, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Laughing through my tears:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/im_really_gonna_miss

Goodbye W. You supposedly naturally born citizen....you. You have certainly given this generation some purpose. Clean up our own mess. Cut it out partisans, or all you will be left with is parts.

:)

Posted by: StoptheSpin | December 4, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

Can you not read? Or not understand what you read? There's nothing here that says H. Clinton can't be Secretary of State. That office (Sec. of State) was not just created while she was serving as Senator, nor were its Emoluments increased during that time. And she would give up her Senate seat to become Sec. of State, so she wouldn't be a Member of either house during her Continuance in Office.

Learn to read. That's a minimal requirement of being an informed citizen. And even then you may not know what you're talking about, but at least PLEASE learn to read before you start flinging the Constitution around and saying that it says something it doe not.


Posted by: wapo7 | December 4, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

For all you stone age racist fools, who simply can't stand the fact a Black man will be President of the United States..get over it and leave the man alone.

Posted by: WilliamConway | December 4, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Did you guys know that Barack HUSSEIN Obama killed Vince Foster?

That's TOTALLY true, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was about to expose the truth...but then THEY got to him!

Posted by: Bondosan | December 4, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Pardon my interruption,
I was under the impression that I would find a coherent discussion about the given topic on this site. I have obviously stumbled upon a 2nd grade “dozens” site instead. Does anyone know where I might find a grownup?

Posted by: overed | December 4, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

It seems Barrack has thrown a smaller bone
to Richardson than he deserved. Instead, he
has given State to Hillary, whose qualification are based on travelling to 82
countries and having tea with heads of State. Keep in mind that the Clintons loved
to travel on the Tax payers nickel and took
every opportunity to do so conveniently when Chealsea was off school on vacation.
How sweet it is to see the world and not use your own money. On the reverse side
of the coin, Richardson is a seasoned diplomat with results up front. He has
negotiated with N. Korea, had a UN diplomatic assignment and was Secretary of
Energy and Governor of New Mexico for several years. Richardson got the short end of the stick from Barrack. Hillary's
resume shows she is a freshman Senator from
NY, with very lettle legislative accomplishent. Hillary, was elected on the
coattails of Bill, her husband, who surprisingly enough, enjoys wide popoularity in spite of his deplorable moral behavior while President. It clearly
tell us that our ethical and moral baromether as a country is more and more in
the gutter. Barrack you made a mistake.

Posted by: Ricksusan | December 4, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

It's funny, I would think that rabble rousing would get old after several months. Who knows, maybe its addictive?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

heehee! You wingnuts will still be talking about the PRESIDENT ELECT'S birth certificate and the muslim school in Indonesia when Barack HUSSEIN Obama is in his second term!

Heehee.....:-)

Posted by: toritto | December 4, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Re "Before the champagne is popped over in Obamaland, however, it's worth remembering at least two caveats. First, people historically have approved of transitions no matter how haphazard they may be.."

This doesn't make perfect sense.

Posted by: e9999999 | December 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Has ever a President Elect been so scrutinized? Historic agendas exist her so perhaps that accounts for a heightened analysis.
Should that not be true, than it appears MSMs, the military, opposition parties, and other groups are ALL prepared to teach P-E BHO how to do his job.

Chill out why don'cha?

Posted by: neec13 | December 4, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Bush was not required to serve in the military to be President. Obama is actually required to fulfill the US Constitution.

why are the loony libs always so prepared to overlook anything improper in thier cult leaders?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 4, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

jjj33,

I will give you a million dollars if you can name one attack that Dubya has prevented since September 11th? This is a GOP myth.

King of zouck and 37 and Blow, So i dont remember reading your post demanding investigations into our torture, or the outing of a CIA agent or even Cheneys secret energy meeting, but know you want to investigate a birth certificate? Keep it up and the GOP wont win local dog catcher must less any big office.Its amazing that you think this is more important than the reckless ways of the Bush admin.............

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

king-of-zouk,

If you had bothered to do research you would know the school he attended in Indonesia was a christian school. Me im still waiting on Dubya to release his military records. Im not convinced he served in the military...

Posted by: rharring | December 4, 2008 2:52 PM | Report abuse

How was the messiah able to attend a Muslim school in Indonesia which accepted only Indonesian citizens at the time? He must have renounced his US citizenship, if he had it. He never applied to be reinstated. there are many questions here which remain unanswered - the mantra of the Obama phenom. why is he hiding the facts again and as usual? the audacity of thugocracy.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 4, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

After trying to read some of the juvenile comments, I found wasn't worth it.

If you morons have nothing useful to say, go back to playing your video games, burning your crosses, going to your circle jerks in your bed sheets, etc.

Posted by: rtreff | December 4, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

You fox news/hannity/limbow listeners need to get a life. The alleged Constitutional challenge to Hillary is not anything new. It has happened several times in the past and there are many ways to avoid the Constitutional issue. And get a grip on the birth certificate thing. You live in an echo chamber if you are still listening to the lying fools who keep beating this long dead horse.

Posted by: John1263 | December 4, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Archarito: I posted the link in the post immediately before your demand for a link, you genius. They have certified the authenticity of the certificate, the certificate specifically says he was born in Honolulu. I know that's really really complicated stuff but try to wrap your brain around it.

Posted by: gcomeau2013 | December 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

To Archarito (the arch conservative, arch cretin): here's the site you keep demanding to see--
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

Are you computer savvy enough to use it--or literate enough to read it??

Posted by: commonsense101 | December 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story

This nonsense about Obama not being a natural citizen is nonsense.

McCain had a sketchier constitutional case, but was stil eligble under past precedent (McCain was born in Panama, but since it was on a US base, technically US territroy, and to US parents, he is a natural citizen)

However, those wishing to derail Obama's election should take a deep breath and ask themselves why they are doing so. Obama has already proved an adept leader. He is doing more out of power to provide some underpinning of confidence than the current president. He is assembling a fromidable team of highly qualified individuals, regardless of ideology, and is well on the way to putting together a comprehensive strategy for starting the difficuclt task of undoing the results of 6 years of unified republicon rule.

Unless you really love the world economy in the toilet and an ever growing danger of terrorist attack, then what is it about republicon rule is it that you have enjoyed? is it the deficit? The environmental destruction? The increased crome? The increased poverty? the decreased access to health care? the higher energy food and medicine costs? the denial of basic constitutional rights? the abuses of power? What is that you point to as being positive from republicons?

Posted by: John1263 | December 4, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Pesky document that Constitution isn't it?


Read this


No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.


It appears Hillary can not be Secretary of State.


So NOT ONLY IS OBAMA DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE HE WAS BORN IN KEYNA, HILLARY CAN NOT BE SECRETARY OF STATE.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

If you want to subpoena records under the FOI Act, then contact VIC, the registrar @ Occidental College in Los Angeles. www.Occidental.com = website Perhaps "PUMPSKI" put his real nationality on the paperwork when he applied for his
College tuition/ student aid !!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: WmIce | December 4, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

cfeher

Nice of you to acknowledge no Hawaiian statement claims nor does any certification exist that shows Barack was born in Hawaii.


Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

It wouldn't make any difference if Obama were born in a Soviet gulag or a Muslim Brotherhood training camp, as his mother was a United States citizen. That makes him a natural-born citizen.

These lunatics posting here are clinging to some twisted interpretations about Naturalization Acts passed by congress in 1790 and 1795.

The Supreme Court will not invalidate the presidential election of 2008.

Now go back to reading about how 9/11 was an inside job.

And don't pay your income taxes either, because you read on some Web site that they're illegal.

Posted by: Bondosan | December 4, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

We tried having the dumb people in charge for a while; time for the smart ones to give it a try. If only they can clean up the messes the dumb ones left....

Posted by: thrh | December 4, 2008 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Uh Chris,
Hate to tell ya Bra, there is more than just a "perception" of incompetence from the Bush Administration on things like Katrina, the economy, Iraq/Afghanistan, etc. There's quite a bit too much actual incompetence to be just a 'perception'

Posted by: cadet70 | December 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Remember George W. Bush's first cabinet team? Back then, everybody referred to it as an "All Star" team. There was plenty of competence on that team but nobody compared them to Lincoln's Team of Rivals. Why? Because the liberal media thinks Obama is a god even though he has yet to prove himself. Whereas Obama's team is praised for its competence and diversity, Bush's team was questioned because with all those all stars on the team, how could they possibly ever agree and work together as a team?

Talk about double standards.

Posted by: DCTommy | December 4, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

I am SITTING AROUND IN MY UNDERWEAR. My stomach protrudes flagrantly. It is all the fault of that IMPOSTER Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I do not apologize for being WHITE and I RESENT other posters telling me that I am DUM.
.
---------

Oh, my.

Cheney finally cracked, didn't he?

I swore it would be Bush, first.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | December 4, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

AFTER 9/11 BUSH'S TOP PRIORITY BECAME PREVENTING ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK ON US SOIL, SO FAR MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

I WISH OBAMA WELL. SOME THEORIZE THAT A CABINET FULL OF STRONG PERSONALITIES LEADS TO INACTION/INFIGHTING. WE SHALL SEE.

Posted by: jjj33 | December 4, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

You paranoid wingnuts AKA the republican party/ conservatives, The Movement, will never, never, never ever be satisfied by any documentation Obama could produce. Give it up. You lost and you lost big.

George Bush was your boy and he stunk the place up as Preznit. He is the worst ever President. Competence is the change.

Obama is a Christian, much more so than his enemies are. He is an American just like the rest of us. He will do a fine job as President.

Posted by: cfeher | December 4, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

.

This is for all the conservative music lover's out their. :) :) :)

https://www.sfgmc.org/index.shtml

Hussein hussein!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: 37thOstreet_Rules | December 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

If ANYONE thinks the State of Hawaii has said Barack was born in Hawaii -

Prove it!

Post a quote and a legitimate link.

It never happened. Hawaii has never claimed they certified Barack was born in Hawaii.

Today's Houston Chronicle article misrepresents that in their article.

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

You birth certificate conspiracy theorists are really, truly hilarious. The state government in Hawaii has already, repeatedly, confirmed the authenticity of his birth certificate and that he was born in Honolulu (they might be lying! It's a giant government conspiracy!). There was a birth notice in the Honolulu Advertiser when he was born. (It's planted! It's faked! Ummm... the conspiracy began over 4 decades ago at his birth and they got them to print the notice so 47 years later they could use it to trick people into thinking Obama was born in the States so he could become President!)

Would you people please try to get a grip on reality? I mean for a while you were kind of entertaining, but now it's just getting embarrassing to watch. Here, read this:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

...then go find something productive to obsess about.

Posted by: gcomeau2013 | December 4, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

Hussein! Hussein hussein, hussein hussein hussein? Hussein, hussein hussein.

Hussein,

Hussein

(See I can speak Democrat! Ha ha ha)
.

.
.
.
. O I forgot, bookmark my blog if you're not a Communist.

.
.Archarito and King of Zouk, I love BOTH of you!!! xoxoxoxox
.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: 37thOstreet_Rules | December 4, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

consider that Obama is spending hundreds of thousands of $$ fighting these various law suits about his birth cerfiticket. It seems he should just reveal it. why not? same as his transcripts? He clearly has something to hide, not the least of which is his total lack of any skills in his position.

If he can just stall long enough to actually be sworn in, the lib press and rabid loons will never allow him to be removed (just like clinton), he hopes.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 4, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

jepysdad - To be sure, Bush has a large share of the responsibility for the mess we are in, but the Democrats share equally. It was a Democratic Congress in the 1990's that stripped trade tariffs that had protected our jobs and provided 25% of recent federal revenues. In this nations history, trade tariffs provided 100% of federal revenues, prior to the passage of the income tax laws. Every one of our "trade partners", that collection of parasites that feeds of this country's jobs, production capacity, factories, and technology, as a part of the free trade fiasco, has tariffs to protect THEIR jobs. Why don't we? Two, the Democratic Congress passed the laws creating the H1-B visa and changed the L-1 visa from an training visa to another type of work visa that has cost this country millions of jobs. Indeed, since 2003, when the Democrats regained control of Congress, the number of H1-B visas alone has been between two and three times the number of new job openings in the hi-tech industry. The result has been the direct loss of more than 3 million jobs, as those cheap H1-B guest workers displace U.S. workers. Three million living wage jobs, more than twice as many jobs as those fools in Washington are talking about saving as a part of an automotive industry bailout, and every one of those jobs lost the blame of Democrats.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 4, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hey DHUSSEINDAWD, are YOU black? Your such a big Obama fan you must be. King of Zouk, I love you even more than I love archarito. But he has a cuter butt.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: 37thOstreet_Rules | December 4, 2008 2:15 PM | Report abuse

There is a comparison between Bush-I and Obama:
Bush-I said during the campaign: "there is no new taxes, read my lips" After the election he raised the tax without any apologies. He last the second term.
Obama said during the campaign: "Washington has to Change. I will Change washington" After the election, he appointed all "old washington hands" for all Key positions.
That is not change!! That is like "old wine in a new bottle"
Now recall the election results of BUSH-I for the second team.

Posted by: madayilnair | December 4, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

,
,
,
,
,
Midknight, I ALREADY took my Clozaril. Maybe it's time for YOU to take your Im A Bad HUSSEIN American pills, if your so smart. Archarito, I love you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: 37thOstreet_Rules | December 4, 2008 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"So I'm not sure I understand the supposed controversy about the document which Obama has presented for inspection. It looks pretty much like mine, and nobody has ever questioned mine."

Are you black?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Dear 37thOStreetRules: Based on your writings, you appear to be a seriously disturbed individual who may really require professional mental help. If Obama's Hawaii birth certificate was fraudulent, I believe the Governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, would have revealed this a long time ago. Futhermore, please consider the number of others who would have by now uncovered this birth certificate cover-up you're so convinced exist: the Republican party, the McCain campaign, independent groups opposing Obama, media outlets (certainly FOX News), heck just someone in the Hawaii birth certificate office trying to sell the story to the National Enquirer. You may be a good person and, you may genuinely believe the things you say, but please know you sound like a maniac.

Posted by: blacdc202 | December 4, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

To the poster who said bush put competent people in office - exactly who would that be? rumsfeld? asscroft? gonzales? poindexter? wolfowitz? rice? brownie? These people may have worked in government or at least had jobs, but that alone does not make them competent. most of the people appointed under the bush regime were appointed based on the criteria that they were movmement conservatives, not because they were experts or respected in their fields. Jim Jones was a religious leader - that does not mean he was competent or respected by his peers in the religious community. Same with bush appointees.

I was juts speaking with a conservative colleague who unprompted said h was very pleased with the apppointments President Obama has made so far. Chosing people beacue of their temperement and qualifications and not because they are ideologues portends well. We need to work together, to the temporary exclusion of right wing fanatics, in porder to undo the damage movement conservative have done to our nation and the world.

Posted by: John1263 | December 4, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

One good thing about all these retreads - they are now out of congress. Of course. like all retreads, we shall soon see them discarded on the side of the road, as Obama does when you no longer serve to advance his ambition.

some change that.

Obvious he has not an inkling what he is doing and is still trying to hide it.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 4, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

I happen to have a certified copy of my "birth certificate" in front of me as I type this. It's from Georgia (1961) and is entitled:
Certificate of Live Birth
Georgia Department of Public Health

So I'm not sure I understand the supposed controversy about the document which Obama has presented for inspection. It looks pretty much like mine, and nobody has ever questioned mine.

Posted by: bobsewell | December 4, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Liberal policies and spending whether by Bush or Obama cannot save the nation.

Posted by: leapin | December 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am SITTING AROUND IN MY UNDERWEAR. My stomach protrudes flagrantly. It is all the fault of that IMPOSTER Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I do not apologize for being WHITE and I RESENT other posters telling me that I am DUM.
.
.
.
.
.

Posted by: 37thOstreet_Rules | December 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Which nit vit coined "team of rivals" CNN, Fox?

Thus far Obama has put together the best minds in the business in the right place. All of them are highly capable and accomplished people and professionals and I am certain all of them are aware of the huge mess we are in and wnat to serve the nation to pull ourselves out of this mess.

I am not seeing any rivals but I do see like minded people who wants to get things done.

Posted by: pramanathan | December 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

get ready. no drilling,no tree cutting,no woodburning furnaces,an attempt at no guns,more regs for all you poor people who want to buy land and build a home,no more selling your home and keeping the money. bend over.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | December 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

www.drudge.com

Today has a link to the US Supreme Court conference(s) involving Barack's failure to provide a birth certificate.

The part on the Berg v Obama hearing is partially inaccurate. That case has not been dismissed and there will be a conference on that case within a week or so.

Berg had been in the hospital having surgery after he was roughed by Obama's genocidal cousin Raila Odinga in Kenya when Berg had been there obtaining info on Barack's Kenyan birth from his grandmother and others.


Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

To all of you birth certificate skeptics I have a question: Don't you think if there was an issue with it some intelligence agency would have already sniffed it out?
Would he have even been able to be elected senator? Are the fools who started the birth certificate questions smarter than the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, etc?

Posted by: titan21 | December 4, 2008 2:04 PM | Report abuse

It looks like a few people forgot to take their medication this morning. Time for everyone to line up now for your Haldol and Thorazine.

Posted by: skipper7 | December 4, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

Glad to see someone in the media waiting for facts/results before praising or damning.

Posted by: rupertornelius | December 4, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"An all star team of competent people does not make a team. George Bush put all-stars on his cabinet and failed. How will Obama create the chemistry needed for team cohesion?"

By having a strong vision as to where he wants to go. Yeah, there might be a lot of cacophony behind closed doors, but once they break from the huddle, they are all going to run the play that was called.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

ohjeez

Thank you for your post.

There is so much info. Start by using a search engine - several different search engines because some of them edit searches - using terms. or; several terms like: "birth certificate" "Supreme Court" Obama

Also judiciously use:
forgery or Kenya to get more info

Also, Click on "news" after some of those searches. Rotate between 'most recent' and 'most relevant'
you will get different info

Also check out: www.wnd.com every day.

Read it and weep...

Barack is a constitutional lawyer, good talker, and those traits combined with his desire to take over the USA for the rest of the world, make him an especially good CON MAN...

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

"Well, his grand collection of free traitors have announced that they expect to somehow grow us out of our current economic mess with more globalization, more guest worker visas, more outsourcing."

Awww, would you like some cheese to go with that whine?

Cmon, don't be too down. You've still got another month and a half of Bush. Enjoy it!

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

The expectations of President Elect Barrack Obama are huge but so are his limitations as the head of his Administration.

True test will be how he forges his Cabinet team and delegates authority but assumes all responsibility of results. e.g. Can he use President Clinton's goodwill to engage in the pressing problem of Kashmir an issue embroiling two close allies in Asia.

India, an emerging power has to be given due recognition it deserves. Gone are the days when India through Indira Gandhi belonged to the Soviet orbit. Secy of State (SoS) Rice has recognized that through the nuclear agreement it has forged with India. So balancing India with military aid to Pakistan is the thing of the past.

President Elect Barrack Obama needs to assign President Clinton as special envoy to South East Asia and delegate authority to him to do the ground work to remove the sore thorn of Kashmir out of the two strategic atomic powers like allies that are India and Pakistan.

Then SoS Clinton can cement a deal between India and Pakistan that will bring comfort and security to the two nuclear nations and help the US to deal with Al Qaeda in the North West Frontier of Pakistan with full force and might of Pakistan at its disposal.

This is the time to seize the opportunity and spear ahead a Kashmir detente between India and Pakistan which only the Clintons can manage for Obama on the world stage today.

Posted by: ajain31 | December 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

President Obama is doing what an actual PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES does.

Integrity and ability trumps EVERYTHING.

The public is used to seeing officials in suits stand at a lecturn. Those suits speak glowingly about the new appointee...but the past appointees were selected on ideology rather than ability, experience, and integrity.

..Then ineptitude such as led to the Katrina disaster happened over, and over again. Most of the time out of the public eye, but with disasterous effect none the less.

The public is NOT accustomed to the individual behind the lecturn using ability and integrity as the measure of their appointees, as President Obama does.

Welcome to how a government is supposed to be run - by ethical intelligent capable experienced individuals - not by ideology.

Posted by: onestring | December 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Bush is an a-hole. It still amazes me that some people still think he is competent. About the only think he is good at is screwing things up. How the hell does he look himself in the mirror?

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | December 4, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

harleyrock:

Apparently Obama did provide documentation but it was not a birth certificate and the legitimacy is being questioned. Check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ

To be clear, I have nothing against Obama being president but the issue is the constitution and the precedent this sets if he is in fact ineligible.

Posted by: madmax8600 | December 4, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

The Obama team inherits systems damaged from eight years of Bush mismanagement. A $1 trillion stimulus will be executed via a denuded federal government.

The private contractor funnel will overflow with greenbacks. Hopefully competent federal employees remain and feel safe to raise their heads.

Posted by: jepysdad | December 4, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Why are so few media outlets reporting on the constitutional issue of Obama's eligibility to become president and his refusal to provide legal documentation of his birth citizenship. There is a sit-in at the supreme court tomorrow (12/5). For info check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhI6VkUIuNw

For additional info on the issue check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYdk26ezVio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDIVEfVGLBQ

Posted by: madmax8600 | December 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"Office of the President-elect" is part of an ongoing charade to perpetuate "The Jack" using Con Man terminology, in Barack's persistent ethereal zeal to "close the deal" or complete the Con of America, the US Constitution and the SCOTUS being that he is NOT a natural-born citizen as mandated by the US Constitution.

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

An all star team of competent people does not make a team. George Bush put all-stars on his cabinet and failed. How will Obama create the chemistry needed for team cohesion?. ................

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/12/04/obamas-team-chemistry-the-x-factor/

Posted by: glclark4750 | December 4, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

harleyrock1 wrote:
>[...] refusing to
>prove he is a Natural Born Citizen is
>beyond comprehension.

This issue has been kicking around in anti-Obama circles for a while... but there's something very basic I don't understand about this. Wouldn't all candidates for the Presidency, including Obama, have to submit the relevant documents (birth certificate, etc.) at the time that they declared their candidacy? A major-party candidate has to be approved as such by their party, and so you would certainly think that part of the routine would be to check that the candidate meets the basic constitutional requirements. Or, at the least, that this would be checked by the Federal Elections Commission (?) after the person was chosen as the official candidate of the party.

Is there anyone who knows more about this process who can answer this? Is it really even technically possible that someone without U.S. citizenship could even become a major-party candidate in the primaries-- let alone the official candidate chosen at the convention-- let alone the President?!

Posted by: ohjeez | December 4, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

The Whiney Quislings are out in force..
Obama will do just fine..

Fei Hu

Posted by: Fei_Hu | December 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Competency? Give it break, Chris. Obama's collection of hucksters, con artists, corporate crooks turning their "talents" to government, are a train wreck. Wasn't it Obama that kept telling us, during his campaign, that we cannot keep repeating the same old mistakes, treading out the same old policies, and expect a different result? Well, his grand collection of free traitors have announced that they expect to somehow grow us out of our current economic mess with more globalization, more guest worker visas, more outsourcing.

Instead of a bailout of Wall Street banks and corporations, half of which ends up overseas, the remainder ending up as bonuses and shareholder dividends, we need to actually grow the economy from the bottom up. It was job loses, massive job loses, that caused this depression, and it will be getting those jobs back and consumer spending that ill lead us out of it. We would be better served with a cabinet of pet rocks than by the blind fools Obama has assembled. Likewise, the Democrats, now that they are in charge, need to clean up the mess they created in the 1990's when the removed trade tariffs, passed the H1-B visa, and embarked on this free trade fiasco.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 4, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately Obama's team is the executive branch. And credentials and readiness for the job do not define competence in managing and implementing policies. It would be better stated as "alleged competence". Moreover Obama has maintained a small standard deviation around his ideology. Just because Clinton was a primary competitor does not make her ideologically different from him - they are both Dems with, if not exact ideological makeup, at most minimally different; in fact I am more concerned about her skills at diplomacy and management. The only potential significant variations are Geithner (although I doubt it), Gates and Jones. But even Gates and Jones seem to be reasonable and pragmatic, and hence naturally centrist. And although folks may find it hard to believe, Obama has always been a centrist because he is all about consensus-based results.

So as far as I am concerned the jury is still out on the Prez-Elect and his administration. I dont see anything noteworthy so far; W-Bush was more of an exception in paying little regard to credentials for appointments, treating them all like general manager tasks. But we all know that managing aspects of a country, esp. one like ours, require skills and the appropriate background. So Obama really is only doing what he should be doing anyways. Lets not hold the bar too low.

Posted by: CantabrigianAl | December 4, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is unqualified any votes for the ticket would be illegal votes.

Biden would not become POTUS.

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Archarito


AMEN !


.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

RE Cult of Competency

I like the phrase, it plays on the "cult of personality" that people criticized Obama for generating, and it implies that these people heed to competency more than any other ideologue (ie they're cultish on it)

Posted by: ChicagoIndependant | December 4, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

Midknight


Would you please state your opinions on the topics offered - support your opinions with facts or reasoning - and stop harassing other posters.

The Obama people are way out of line in attacking other posters and generally whining about the opinions of others.

This is a Free Nation - we have the First Amendment - learn to love it when someone disagrees with you -

But leave the harassment and ill words to other posters at the door.

Thank you for reading the truth.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Barack is a talented TALKER.
After all he continues with his CON getting uninformed Americans to imagine he is a natural-born citizen with his allegedly forged COLB and Hawaii stating they have a (albeit foreign since his gran says he was born in Kenya) birth certificate for him thereby qualifying him to be POTUS.

Thank God SCOTUS is looking into it before the Electoral College meets--they are being asked to issue an injunction stopping electoral votes for UNQUALIFIED CANDIDATES until they prove they are a natural-born citizen.

Posted by: Archarito | December 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland


Front page of the Chicago Tribune website today - so please apply the same standard to the Chicago Tribune.


Thank you.


.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Inviting people in the cabinet who may express their dissenting opinions is the opposite of a cult, Chris - but I am sure you understand that

Posted by: rm-rf | December 4, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the one bring the vision to the White House, and he realizes that have good (compentent) people who can figure out ways to implement his vision are the people to have in his cabinet.

I do think, though, he needs to give the liberal base that helped spur him forward some more progressive additions -- like an RFK Jr. at EPA (while elevating it to a cabinet position, if Bush dropped it back).

Also, I assume he knows that all his picks will play ball (a team of whatever is fine, as long as they get behind the general when the doors open to the public). That is crucial.

Posted by: MShake | December 4, 2008 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Hey 37th. Isn't it time for your Clozaril?
Stop your incoherent rambling dude!

Posted by: Midknight | December 4, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

Jimibristol :

Don't knock the big margins he uses. They're always a sure sign that what follows is yet another post that isn't worth reading.

Posted by: rashomon | December 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse


Oh, please. 37th, if that's you, you have really sunk to new depths if you are picking up on the stupid birth-certificate crap.

If Obama personally brought his original birth certificate to your house, you would simply claim it was a forgery.

And what in the world does this have to do with the competence of his cabinet picks.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | December 4, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse


I make big margins in my comments so that I can go back and read it and feel like I'm important and smart.

I think that anything done by somebody with a D next to their name is wrong, and anything done by somebody with a R next to their name is right.

Eric Holder was obviously hired because of his skin color, not because he is an experienced and respected lawyer.

Napolitano isn't as qualified as Tom Ridge, because he knew that using "color-coded warnings" could scare people away from voting for Kerry in 04. She was hired because of her gender.

Barack HUSSEIN Obama is turning his back on people who voted for him by hiring former Clinton people. He's not hiring them because they're experienced, intelligent, effective, pragmatic. He's just a big muslum jerk.

And Hillary would have been a thorn in Obama's side in the Senate, even though they're pretty much twins on the issues.

OK FIX READERS, guess who I'm impersonating?


Posted by: Jimibristol | December 4, 2008 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Astute analysis indeed. And yes, "Cult of Competency" is a great phrase to coin for the transition, even better perhaps than "Entourage of Experts" and "Colloquium of Capability,"

Posted by: sfcpoll | December 4, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Give 'em a break, SanJose1. I thought it was a nice play on words. The positive connotation of "competence" more than neutralizes the negative connotation of "cult".
There is a clear and certainly refreshing (I'd almost say thrilling) emphasis on competence in the new administration. That, unfortunately, is no guarantee of success. Cheney, Powell, and Rumsfeld were widely seen, even among Democrats, as a strong, competent foreign policy team in 2001. Eventually, however, Powell and the foreign policy realists were marginalized and Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon clique led us into the abyss of Iraq. A generation earlier Kennedy's "best and brightest" led us into the abyss of Vietnam.
What is, perhaps, a more encouraging sign is that Obama understands the problem of "group think" and promises to encourage more thorough debate.

Posted by: wmw4 | December 4, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Chris

I will concede that the Obamaniacs resemble a Cult


competent has yet to be seen


I'm leaning against competent.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


AT this point, without Obama giving us any further information - AND REFUSING TO RELEASE HIS ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE WHICH HE COULD WITH ONLY A WAIVER SIGNED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN HAWAII - SUSPICIOUS HAVE RUN WILD.

Obama - why did he let this get so far?

If Obama was actually born in Hawaii, I think we would have seen the evidence already - that proves that this story just might have legs.

Obama's grandmother is on tape stating that Obama was born in KEYNA.

OK so what are the odds that Obama will NOT be sworn in - and Joe Biden will be President in January - a reaonable person would have to say at this point the odds are 50 - 50.

.


.

.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Further, I think the choice of Governors as heads of Agencies is outstanding. These are people who know how to manage people and money. They know how to administrate as they have had to deal with tough State budgets. This fact has been missed by many, but should be recognized. This supports your point about competent Governance.

Posted by: mbshults | December 4, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"[T]he public *perception* that his [Bush's] administration has been ineffectual in handling important policy questions . . . the *perceived* mismanagement and incompetence of Bush . . ." (emphasis mine).

The problem hasn't been the public's *perception* of Bush's incompetence, Mr. Cillizza. It's the actual, demonstrable incompetence.

Posted by: nodebris | December 4, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Jeez, lighten up, SanJose1.

I'll take "Cult of Competency" over "Team of Rivals" any day of the week.

Posted by: JohninMpls | December 4, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

that cult of competency (not bad, eh?) --

Actually, very bad IMO.

Since when is competency a "cult"?

Posted by: wstander | December 4, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

"By the way, your kind of empty rhetorical flourishes? - well, they went out of style with the anti-intellectual Bush Era."

Actually, I'd love to see all the people who are against a black president try and stage a coup of the White House. We could get rid of the dead weight of the country in one fell swoop.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama is sending a clear message that he is deciding to lead from a non-ideological place. His choices are Centrist and not left or right. They may lean a particular way, but all are pragmatic appointees who will do what needs to be done. Not twist intelligence or ignore scientific discoveries to meet ideologically driven agendas.

I think the appointments are also based on solid politics. How can Republicans have an issue with this administration if they are included in governance. Similarly, how can Hillary run against Obama in four years if she is part of this administration. Her taking the job indicates several things. 1) That she truly thinks that Obama will be a very good President, and 2) Based on this there would be no room for a challenge in four years.

I also like twisting the cult references around. Cult of competence, nice! That stupid cult stuff was an insult to all the college educated people who mostly voted for Obama.

This Obama guy looks to be a good POTUS.

Posted by: mbshults | December 4, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

dcraven925


Homeland Security involves a massive budget and making significant decisions concerning SECURITY POLICIES - we do not need another lawyer involved who will mess everything up and get little done - I stand by the truth.

.


.


.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

If you want an objective view of Obama's cabinet selection, I recommend skipping Chris' column and read Al Kamen's In the Loop (Washington Post) article instead. Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/02/AR2008120203293.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Chris' views are slanted.

Posted by: SanJose1 | December 4, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

37th and O "wrote"
Napolitano may have been a good Governor, of a state with border issues, however let's be serious: DOES SHE HAVE ANY EXPERTISE AT ALL IN SECURITY ISSUES ??? Homeland Security has become a fairly important post and it appears that Obama doesn't know what he is doing appointing someone with so little experience in the actual field of HOMELAND SECURITY.

My comment:
Former prosecutor Napolitano? Former U.S. attorney responsible for prosecuting terrorists? Head of the Western Governors and one of the leaders for additional border restrictions? In any event, the head of homeland security's job is not to go to the border and enforce the law. It is to run the agency.

Posted by: dcraven925 | December 4, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Wasn't that Supreme Court case argued back in October?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

harleyrock1 asked: "Who is this person called Obama? We dont know ..."

Gee, harleyrock, you must have just emerged from a 60's-era bomb shelter!

Barack Obama is the president-elect of the United States, as voted by a large majority of the citizens of the United States just a month ago.

By the way, your kind of empty rhetorical flourishes? - well, they went out of style with the anti-intellectual Bush Era.

Posted by: JC505 | December 4, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Clearly this is a Weak Administration - you have all the Obamaniacs on here claiming that Obama is so smart, blah blah blah


However, read the postings about Hillary on this blog....


The appointments so far have been silly - a group of inexperienced blowhart artists who would be rejected by any human resources department in all the major corporations in the country.


Hillary is not qualified, period.


Richardson's performance at the Department of Energy should BAR HIM from all federal government buildings.


Eric Holder did a horrible job at Justice during his years there - he DOES NOT deserve a promotion to head the Department of Justice - the primary motivation in his appointment appears NOT THAT HE IS THE BEST QUALIFIED PERSON TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.


Napolitano may have been a good Governor, of a state with border issues, however let's be serious: DOES SHE HAVE ANY EXPERTISE AT ALL IN SECURITY ISSUES ??? Homeland Security has become a fairly important post and it appears that Obama doesn't know what he is doing appointing someone with so little experience in the actual field of HOMELAND SECURITY.


Rahm Emanuel ? As Chief of Staff? Why doesn't Obama just offer it to Bill Clinton himself. This DOES NOT represent change, and is a little silly to throw back in the faces of all the people who supported Obama in the primaries because they did not want another Clinton administration.


Overall, ONE HAS TO STATE THAT OBAMA HAS SHOWN POOR JUDGEMENT OVERALL IN THESE SELECTIONS - HE DOES NOT EVEN DESERVE A "C" - MORE LIKE A GRADE OF A "D"


Again, thank you for reading the truth.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

"I don't understand why you consistently couch any compliments you may have concerning how Pres-Elect Obama is doing in such a back handed way? The term "cult" is quite negative and a put down. What Obama is doing is not cultish."

Don't read too much into it. He just wanted to use alliteration. Remember "Counting Chaos" not too long ago?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 4, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Chris,
I don't understand why you consistently couch any compliments you may have concerning how Pres-Elect Obama is doing in such a back handed way? The term "cult" is quite negative and a put down. What Obama is doing is not cultish. You need to look up the definition of cult. Rather, it is an intelligent solution to the at undoing the horrific impact of the current administration on not just the economy but everything that affect us, here and abroad. Could it be you don't like the fact that because he HAS sought out competent, intelligent, experience persons in his administration that that very act in and of itself is a repudiation of the lack of leadership given by Bush? Why would that bother you? As an objective person, it would appear that you should be pleased? Given you are an objective person,...of course.
Also, there is no "perception" of Bush's incompetence and misconduct, it's a fact based in TRUTH. If you'd get off of your partisan views long enough, you'd acknowledge it. Why don't you acknowledge the voters made an excellent choice in electing Obama? The 1st true election in the past 8 years!

Posted by: SanJose1 | December 4, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Interesting analysis. But the example you cite as showing Pres-elect Obama caring more about credentials than personal electoral history may be a good counter-point to your conclusion. There are two plausible reasons why Pres-elect Obama would pick Sen. Clinton for the Sec of State post: (1) he wanted to show he was above holding a grudge and only cared about credentials [as you believe] or (2) he didnt want his biggest primary rival torpedoing his legislative agenda in the Senate. What makes you pick the first one? Comparatively, aren't Sen. Clinton's foreign affairs credentials relatively weak compared to the most recent Secretaries of State (e.g., Powell [former Chariman JCOS, NSA]; Rice [Soviet Advisor to 41, NSA, Stanford Prof.] vs. Clinton [former First Lady, 1.25 terms in Senate])?

Posted by: Jindal2012 | December 4, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

harleyrock1 you are 100% correct.


Obama's press releases about these appointments verge on hypocricy.


Let's see Obama held to the same standard.


Chris, Let's see you hold Obama to the same standard.


Chris - you could probably find a far better qualified group of people to hold all the cabinet positions from your own alumni class - we are acting as though there are not hundreds of qualified people in this country - there are hundreds of qualified people who are getting passed over for this group of bozos.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Clearly this is a Weak Administration - you have all the Obamaniacs on here claiming that Obama is so smart, blah blah blah


However, read the postings about Hillary on this blog....


The appointments so far have been silly - a group of inexperienced blowhart artists who would be rejected by any human resources department in all the major corporations in the country.


Hillary is not qualified, period.


Richardson's performance at the Department of Energy should BAR HIM from all federal government buildings.


Eric Holder did a horrible job at Justice during his years there - he DOES NOT deserve a promotion to head the Department of Justice - the primary motivation in his appointment appears NOT THAT HE IS THE BEST QUALIFIED PERSON TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN.


Napolitano may have been a good Governor, of a state with border issues, however let's be serious: DOES SHE HAVE ANY EXPERTISE AT ALL IN SECURITY ISSUES ??? Homeland Security has become a fairly important post and it appears that Obama doesn't know what he is doing appointing someone with so little experience in the actual field of HOMELAND SECURITY.


Rahm Emanuel ? As Chief of Staff? Why doesn't Obama just offer it to Bill Clinton himself. This DOES NOT represent change, and is a little silly to throw back in the faces of all the people who supported Obama in the primaries because they did not want another Clinton administration.


Overall, ONE HAS TO STATE THAT OBAMA HAS SHOWN POOR JUDGEMENT OVERALL IN THESE SELECTIONS - HE DOES NOT EVEN DESERVE A "C" - MORE LIKE A GRADE OF A "D"


Again, thank you for reading the truth.

.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 4, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

why is Obama so interested in everyone elses back ground and qualifications when he refuses to present his back ground and qualifications? A note from a Doc in Hawaii is not a Medical record, freezing doucuments from College is not transparency, refusing to prove he is a Natural Born Citizen is beyond comprehension.

Competent? Who is this person called Obama? We dont know because apparently from his actions he does not have access to the real Hussien Obama records or they would be right here for all to see

Tomorrow the Supreme Court decides wether Obama is bound by the Constitution and is he isnt niether am I or any one else. If they decide against America and for Obama we are going into a War of Revolution to retake America from a foriegn Usuper

Posted by: harleyrock1 | December 4, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company