Oh well, some 200 years could be called a pretty good run ...

Basically, these folks are way overcompensated, provide little or no value to the real economy, are ruining the country's ability to govern and even harming the ability of their own precious markets to remain healthy. Most of all, while they may have great number-crunching skills and domineering social intelligences, they're really, really stupid when it comes to seeing the big picture consequences of their actions, which is ultimately the most important kind of intelligence there is.

And just consider that Obama --the constitutional law professor-- considered it his responsibility to help them take down the country.

Obama's comedy act ...

Obama: We’ll Get Those Revenues Next Time

Don't hold your breath ....

Obama's pirouettes ...

I keep reading how Obama is trying to appear the adult. But does secret deals, whining and complaining make one look adult?

To me Obama is looking quite immature and very much the fool. A cowardly fool at that.

At this point if the Rethugs could find an outwardly credible candidate to run for President I don't think Obama will have much chance. Once upon a time, in the days of hope, Obama was outwardly credible himself.

And who can really say that such a situation would be worse that what we have now with Obama-the-destroyer-of-Social-Security.

My respect for Bill Clinton continues his decline ...

Bill Clinton Hopes Democrats Don’t Use NY-26 Win “As an Excuse to Do Nothing” on Deficit

I was impressed with Clinton for refusing to let the ReThugs drive him from office and at the time I thought he wasn't a bad President. But I've changed my mind. It's clear now that Clinton did a lot of damage. As with Obama, Clinton is just so entrenched in the corporate/political corruption destroying this country that it's difficult to imagine there's even one uncorrupted brain cell in his head.

I wish we were 'a nation of laws' ...

Isn't this backwards?

"There was no indication" that Osama bin Laden wanted to surrender to U.S. forces who killed him on Sunday night, Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

No indication? What, do we now automatically shoot everyone in the head who doesn't indicate they wish capture over death? I don't personally know what bin Laden's preference might have been but unless he was armed and threatening his captors/killers I would think at that point it would not be his choice but the choice of those with the guns who were apparently in a position to capture him alive.

Why do politicians and the military, apparently always, lie first and then try to contain the fallout as the facts start to emerge?

I wish we were 'a nation of laws' and that we had captured bin Laden alive and had put him on trial (a real trial, not our current Kangaroo Courts for Islamic Peoples).

I certainly understand that a real effort to capture bin Laden alive might have failed and that they would kill him rather than allowing him to endager themselves but so far the information I've read seems to indicate that this was an execution squad.

I do think we, as a nation, have done somewhat better in the past. To have a self described 'Constitutional Law Professor' imitate an imitation Cowboy in lack of principle and outright criminality is devastating. Perhaps Obama isn't imitating Bush. Could he be competing with Bush to see who is the most despicable?

Perhaps it's a case of wanting to be fooled? ...

It just isn’t credible to believe that Obama’s new promises about these two issues. Not after he previously made them repeatedly, only to break his word when he had the chance to fulfill them.

So Obama is giving us, once again, promises that he has already broken. Gee, I suppose there may be someone to whom Obama speaks truthfully, but it certainly isn't to the people of the U.S.

Why listen to his speeches?

Surely, this is too kind ...

The President Is Missing, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: What have they done with President Obama? What happened to the inspirational figure his supporters thought they elected? Who is this bland, timid guy who doesn’t seem to stand for anything in particular?

I realize that with hostile Republicans controlling the House, there’s not much Mr. Obama can get done in the way of concrete policy. Arguably, all he has left is the bully pulpit. But he isn’t even using that — or, rather, he’s using it to reinforce his enemies’ narrative.

...
... it looks from here as if the president’s idea of how to bargain is to start by negotiating with himself, making pre-emptive concessions, then pursue a second round of negotiation with the G.O.P., leading to further concessions.

...
What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise.

But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing. [emphasis added]

Well, maybe it's not so kind after all. Unless one sees Obama's actions as proof of deliberate deception during his campaign, which I guess I do suspect. Either he is deceitful and pathetic or weak and pathetic. Some choice.

What's the best one can say about Obama? MIA? ...

MIA?

How about: Obama has from before he was elected worked against over 90% of all Americans?

Or why not just call him what he is: a traitor to those who voted for him?

Democrats Offer Strong Pushback to Ryan Budget… Except for MIA President

Obama's done almost everything that Bush did. What makes him any better than any Republican? At least the Dems in the House and Senate would have pretended to moderate the actions of a GOP President. Instead we have then working with a traitorous pretend Dem in the White House. Really, how is that better than having them knuckle under to at ignorant, vicious and intellectually deficient President like George W. Bush?

Well, slightly different approach than Bush, but end product of tyranny is still the goal ...

... Here, then, is a man who considers torturing a kid barely past his youth for an alleged crime whose principal result to-date has been an acute case of The Embarrassments, more important, more pressing, and more necessary than the public maintenance of his own image as a moderate reformer and as a conciliator. ...

... He does not delight in cruelty like his predecessor, but is grossly indifferent to it. ...

Obama, the hollow man ...

Again: Obama, just like Bush ...

... concerning the Saudis ...

As our other good friends Saudi Arabia and Bahrain collaborate on attacking civilian protesters, there are no calls for U.S. intervention there -- even though that's arguably more serious than what's happening in Libya -- because those governments serve our interests.

link: Various matters: Afghanistan, Libya & Manning

Just like Torturer Bush, Torturer Obama fires truth sayers ...

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley tells the truth (however reluctantly) about the ongoing torture of PFC Manning and Obama and his henchmen show him the door.

Just like Bush, Obama says we don't torture thus establishing himself as a liar in front of the world.

Everyone around Obama must pretend to be as stupid-blind as he is (or as he pretends to be).

State Department spokesman steps down amid flap

Of course, if Hilary Clinton had any integrity she would resign also. But who would expect her to have any more integrity than Obama as she's still working for a man who has step by step established himself as the current Torturer-in-Chief of the United States of America.

Obama is pathetic, pathetic, pathetic ...

... and, as an individual, must be as big a monster as George W. bush.

Obamas is reported as saying:

With respect to Private Manning, I have actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards. They assure me that they are. I can't go into details about some of their concerns, but some of this has to do with Private Manning's safety as well.

Oh gee, Obama asked the Pentagon and they told him everything is just hunky-dory.

Pathetic.

Quantico becomes Guantanamo ...

Well, why not? After all Obama is Bush's successor in mind and perversity as well as in his place of residence. Instead of closing Guantanamo, as he promised, Obama is bringing Guantanamo to us all.

Glenn Greenwald writes about the latest disgraceful conduct by US authorities perpetuated on Manning.

UPDATE II: Lt. Col. David Coombs, Manning's counsel, just posted the following:

Last night, PFC Manning was inexplicably stripped of all clothing by the Quantico Brig. He remained in his cell, naked, for the next seven hours. At 5:00 a.m., the Brig sounded the wake-up call for the detainees. At this point, PFC Manning was forced to stand naked at the front of his cell.

The Duty Brig Supervisor (DBS) arrived shortly after 5:00 a.m. When he arrived, PFC Manning was called to attention. The DBS walked through the facility to conduct his detainee count. Afterwards, PFC Manning was told to sit on his bed. About ten minutes later, a guard came to his cell to return his clothing.

This type of degrading treatment is inexcusable and without justification. It is an embarrassment to our military justice system and should not be tolerated. PFC Manning has been told that the same thing will happen to him again tonight. No other detainee at the Brig is forced to endure this type of isolation and humiliation.

I'm already disgusted anticipating the Obama loyalists and right-wing fanatics who will jointly defend this.

I think I'll go vomit ...

Who's gonna pay? ...

Such a question:

Here's what this all comes down to, dogma or no dogma: who is going to pay for a) the Bush tax cuts b) the bank bailouts and c) the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? If you want to get there by making janitors and pipe-fitters wait until they're 69 to retire, raise your hand. If you want to get there by making Jamie Dimon rent out his 900-foot rooftop terrace in Chicago two nights a year, raise your hand. [via The Left Coaster]

Guess, as if it's not absolutely clear, who Obama wants to carry the load. The 'good' Christian that he is he even calls it a sacrifice. Yours, not his, of course.

Right, after all they only had two years ...

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Repeal Could Become Victim of Senate Calendar

If they had four years do you think they would have done any better? I don't.

I, personally, don't think Obama ever intended to fight for anything that would show actual belief in even a few principles or would require sustained effort, determination and possibly some courage.

Two years seems long enough to 'hope' for something other than Obama's usual ineptitude and/or deceit.

Still true ...

Closer to the Fall-of-Rome comparison that we'd like to think ...

Happy Thanksgiving!

Exactly ...

Please Mr. President, don't spew any more nonsense about principles and the rule of law, OK? You are enabling torture, and have fallen so far down the chasm from your campaign rhetoric, that you'll soon be bumping into your predecessor as you hit bottom.

When no one will listen, you try to make them hear you any way you can ...

Glenn Greenwald's writing is among the best of those who actually understand how the Democrats managed to shoot themselves in the foot (or was it the head).

from Lawrence O'Donnell vehemently denies his own word

People are suffering economically and Democrats have done little about that. Beyond that, they failed to inspire their own voters to go to the polls. Therefore, they lost. By basing their power in Congress on Blue Dog dependence -- rather than advocating for the views of their own supporters and implementing those policies -- they failed, and failed resoundingly. Building their party around a large number of muddled, GOP-replicating corporatists not only creates a tepid and failed political image, but far worse, it prevents actual policies from being implemented that benefit large number of ordinary Americans. Democrats repeatedly refrained from advocating for such policies in deference to their Blue Dogs, failed to do much to alleviate the economic suffering of ordinary Americans, and thus got crushed. Anyone who thinks that Democrats lost because they were "too liberal" -- rather than because Americans are suffering so much economically -- is wildly out of touch, i.e., is a multi-millionaire cable TV personality who has spent decades wallowing in trite D.C. chatter.

The Republicans have long lived by what they call "The Buckley Rule": always support the furthest Right candidate who can plausibly win. This year, knowing that it would be a wave election, one that would sweep in huge numbers of Republicans in districts where they ordinarily couldn't get elected, they changed that to: support the furthest Right candidate, period. That's because they believe conservatism will work and want to advocate for it. Democrats don't do that. The DCCC constantly works to prop up the most "centrist" or conservative candidates -- i.e., corporatists -- on the ground that it's always better, more politically astute, to move to the Right. Even in the pro-Democratic wave years of 2006 and 2008, the Democratic Party blocked actual progressives and ensured that Blue Dogs were nominated, even though the anti-GOP sentiment was so strong that any Democrat, including progressives, could have won even in red districts (as Alan Grayson proved).

With that strategy, the Democratic Party now reaps what it has sown. Its message and identity are profoundly muddled, incoherent, unclear, uninspiring, and self-negating. Worse, its policies are mishmashes of inept half-measures that, with a handful of exceptions, produce little good for anyone (other than Wall Street, the Pentagon and other corporate interests). They are perceived as -- and are -- beholden to Wall Street, special interests, and the corporations they vowed to confront. They are without any ability to confront the massive unemployment crisis and financial decline the country faces. And as a result of all of that, they lay in shambles. Anyone who can survey all of that and cheer for the strategy which Democrats have been pursuing -- let's build our majorities by relying on GOP-replicating corporatist Blue Dogs -- or who thinks that this election loss happened because "Democrats are too liberal," resides in a world that has very little to do with reality. And that's true no matter how many times they repeat the simplistic snippets of exit polls to which they've obsessively attached themselves.

Bush supporters and Obama supporters ...

... just two groups of peas in a pod.

... endorsing civil liberties abuses because one's own Party is in power virtually ensures that those abuses will become permanent, available to future leaders from the other Party as well. That was the argument which fell on deaf ears when made to cheering Bush supporters, and it's barely more effective now.

Barack Obama, The Unjust ...

... following in George Bush's shoes. The short-lived pied-piper of 'hope' emulating the poster boy of hate, stupidity and ugliness:

Obama era justice