This was done at the last minute, so please forgive the amateur look about it.
This was done at the last minute, so please forgive the amateur look about it.
The full audio:
The Story via Politico:
Barack Obama, that prematurely gray elder statesman, is laboring mightily to remain neutral during Hillary Clinton’s battle with Bernie Sanders in Iowa, the state that cemented his political legend and secured his path to the presidency.
But in a candid 40-minute interview for POLITICO’s Off Message podcast as the first flakes of the blizzard fell outside the Oval Office, he couldn’t hide his obvious affection for Clinton or his implicit feeling that she, not Sanders, best understands the unpalatable pragmatic demands of a presidency he likens to the world’s most challenging walk-and-chew-gum exercise.
“[The] one thing everybody understands is that this job right here, you don’t have the luxury of just focusing on one thing,” a relaxed and reflective Obama told me in his most expansive discussion of the 2016 race to date.
Iowa isn’t just a state on the map for Obama. It’s the birthplace of his hope-and-change phenomenon, “the most satisfying political period in my career,” he says — “what politics should be” — and a bittersweet reminder of how far from the garden he’s gotten after seven bruising years in the White House.
The caucuses have a fierce-urgency-of-now quality as Obama reckons with the end of his presidency — the kickoff of a process of choosing a Democratic successor he hopes can secure his as-yet unsecured legacy, to keep Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or somebody else from undoing much of what he has done. And he was convinced Clinton was that candidate, prior to the emergence of Sanders, friends and associates have told me over the past 18 months.
“Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,” he said. “I think Hillary came in with the both privilege — and burden — of being perceived as the front-runner. … You’re always looking at the bright, shiny object that people haven’t seen before — that’s a disadvantage to her.”
He also spoke of Bernie Sanders:
Obama didn’t utter an unkind word about Sanders, who has been respectfully critical of his administration’s reluctance to prosecute Wall Street executives and his decision to abandon a single-payer health care system as politically impractical. But he was kinder to Clinton. When I asked Obama whether he thought Sanders needed to expand his horizons, if the Vermont senator was too much a one-issue candidate too narrowly focused on income inequality, the presidente didn’t dispute the assertion.
Gesturing toward the Resolute Desk, with its spread-winged eagle seal, first brought into the Oval Office by John F. Kennedy, Obama said of Sanders: “Well, I don’t want to play political consultant, because obviously what he’s doing is working. I will say that the longer you go in the process, the more you’re going to have to pass a series of hurdles that the voters are going to put in front of you.”
Then he added: “As you’ll recall, I was sitting at my desk there just a little over a week ago … writing my State of the Union speech, and somebody walks in and says, ‘A couple of our sailors wandered into Iranian waters’” — and here he stopped to chuckle in disbelief — “that’s maybe a dramatic example, but not an unusual example of the job.”
As much as I hate to say it; President Obama is correct about that one. The office of the President of the United States is a very difficult job and it requires someone who can handle the job. While Bernie Sanders might be a respectable person and all; if I were voting in a Democratic Primary, there is no way that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, I would most likely vote for Hillary Clinton. Because she has already been there and she seems, for a Democrat, a bit more reasonable, than Bernie Sanders.
Needless to say, being an ideologue is great; if you are an activist or even maybe a Senator. However, when you are the commander and chief, that is a whole other ballgame and there is a certain amount of pragmatism is required in that office, if you actually want to succeed at the job. You have to remember, when you are President; you are President of the people of the United States of America, not just the President of the people who voted for you. You have to take into account everyone, not just those who voted for you. This is why I am not too keen on Ted Cruz; he is an extreme ideologue on the right, where Bernie Sander is an extreme ideologue on the left.
This is where I think Donald Trump might just be the more pragmatic candidate, who might just be able to get things done in DC and put aside some of this partisan rancor that has become so terrible under Bush and Obama. Now, if we could just work on his humility and get him to stop retweeting stuff like this here.
Other Bloggers: Vox, The Daily Beast, USA Today, Yahoo Politics, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, Hot Air, The Daily Caller, Washington Post, ABC News, Shakesville, Slantpoint and The Week – Via Memeorandum
How not to win an election part 1:
Donald Trump on Friday retweeted a message from a Twitter user with the handle @WhiteGenocideTM.The tweet features a photoshopped picture of Jeb Bush holding a “vote for Trump” sign outside of Trump Tower.The user’s profile has a black banner photo with red lettering that says “Get the f— out of my country.” The name attached to the profile is Donald Trumpovitz and the location is “Jewmerica,” with a link to a page promoting a pro-Adolf Hitler documentary.The profile picture is the cover of the October 1961 issue “The National Police Gazette,” featuring a picture of George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party, thumbing his nose, and the subhead “The Man who wants to be Hitler.”Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. – Source: Trump retweets neo-Nazi’s insult of Jeb Bush
Trump will pay for that one and I mean dearly. Conservative politics 101 says no Jewish hatred at all. I am not saying that Trump might just be finished. But, if he doesn’t take a huge nosedive in the polls and have to do some serious apologizing; he is going to have a big problem on his hands. Not to mention that the left and the neocon right are going to have a field day with this one.
He also just secured the female evangelical female vote too.
AMES, Iowa — Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, endorsed Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, providing him with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state’s caucuses.“Are you ready for the leader to make America great again?” Mrs. Palin said with Mr. Trump by her side at a rally at Iowa State University. “Are you ready to stump for Trump? I’m here to support the next president of the United States — Donald Trump.”Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican so far. It came the same day that Iowa’s Republican governor, Terry Branstad, said he hoped that Senator Ted Cruz would be defeated in Iowa. The Feb. 1 caucuses are a must-win for the Texas senator, who is running neck-and-neck with Mr. Trump in state polls.The endorsement came as Mr. Trump was bearing down in the state, holding multiple campaign events and raising expectations about his performance in the nation’s first nominating contest.As Mrs. Palin announced her backing, Mr. Trump stood wearing a satisfied smile as she scolded mainstream Republicans as sellouts and praised how Mr. Trump had shaken up the party. “He’s been going rogue left and right,” Mrs. Palin said of Mr. Trump, using one of her signature phrases. “That’s why he’s doing so well. He’s been able to tear the veil off this idea of the system.” – Source: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Which Could Bolster Him in Iowa – The New York Times
The question that many are asking is, why did she pick Trump over Cruz? Actually, there are two reasons; one is that Cruz might have seriously pissed off Palin by basically insulting her. The other reason basically is because Ted Cruz’s wife works for or did work for one of the biggest banks, that was involved with the huge meltdown in 2008 and got a bailout from it. She also is or was, depending on whom you believe; a member of the council on foreign relations, which is huge minus among the Conservative base —- especially the Ted Party base.
Reaction has been predictable among the left. The reaction among the right is varied; some are happy, some, not so much. Personally, I think that this endorsement will be just another feather in Donald Trump’s hat; I just hope that Trump does not squander this chance. For the drive-by crowd, I am neither a supporter or against Donald Trump; I view all politicians with a good dose of skepticism.
I would recommend Trump not to use her too much to stump for his campaign, because there are a good number of people, who see Palin as a blithering idiot and that would work against him. An endorsement is fine, a campaign attack dog would be a disaster. So, keep Palin at a distance. I just hope Trump does not pick her to his Vice President; that would be huge mistake. I mean, anything is better than Hillary. But, with Palin in the VP slot, Trump would not get elected in the general election at all. I might be wrong about that, but I really doubt it.
Either way, I will be following this a bit more closely, as this primary race just got a bit more interesting now.
Blogger roundup: The Huffington Post, Donald J Trump for President, Guardian, John Hawkins’ Right Wing News, US News, Mediaite, Gawker, FiveThirtyEight, Bloomberg Business, Power Line, The Atlantic, Algemeiner.com, Business Insider, Hot Air, ThinkProgress, Right Wing Watch, Lawyers, Guns & Money, Vox, Shot in the Dark, Raw Story, The Right Scoop,National Review, Le·gal In·sur·rec· tion, RealClearPolitics, The Last Tradition, Washington Post, addictinginfo.org, Trail Blazers Blog, Talking Points Memo, American Spectator,Political Insider …, BuzzFeed, Outside the Beltway, The Slot, Weasel Zippers, Mother Jones, VICE, The Week, Vox Popoli, Daily Kos, The Last Refuge, Politico and Townhall.com, Mother Jones, ABC News, BizPac Review, New York Times, U.S. News, Washington Times, The Hill, National Review, RedState, Fox News Insider,Washington Monthly, The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, Balloon Juice, American Spectator, The Right Scoop, The Week, Mediaite, Salon, Hot Air, Telegraph,PoliticusUSA, Bloomberg.com, Politico and Little Green Footballs
I saw this last night and because I was a bit tired, I did not write about it. So, I am doing it now. I have to admit; I laughed about this one. The very people who are funding ISIS and Al-Qaeda are now going to try and form “an alliance” against these very groups. That, my friends, is funny.
The Story via NBCNews.com:
Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that 34 nations have agreed to form a new “Islamic military alliance” to fight terrorism.
The announcement published by the state-run Saudi Press Agency said the coalition is being established because terrorism “should be fought by all means and collaboration should be made to eliminate it.” …
The new counterterrorism coalition includes nations with large and established armies such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt as well as war-torn countries with embattled militaries such as Libya and Yemen. African nations that have suffered militant attacks such as Mali, Chad, Somalia and Nigeria are also members.
Saudi Arabia’s regional rival, Shiite Iran, is not part of the coalition. Saudi Arabia and Iran support opposite sides of in the wars raging in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia is currently leading a military intervention in Yemen against Shiite Houthi rebels and is part of the U.S.-led coalition bombing the Sunni extremist ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Here’s a real kicker:
Iraq and Syria, whose forces are battling to regain territory taken by ISIS and whose governments are allied with Iran, are not in the coalition.
Ed Morrissey observes the following:
Seeing Iran and Saudi Arabia on the opposite sides of a regional conflict is obviously nothing new. However, ISIS is a Sunni phenomenon, not a Shi’a group. They attack Shi’ite mosques within their reach, which is one reason among several that Iran has provided resources and military personnel to fight ISIS in Iraq’s Sunni-held areas. Iraq may be a client state of Iran more than in the past, but it needs to find ways to get the Sunni tribes allied with Baghdad to some extent if Iraq is to defeat ISIS in its own territory. The obvious partner for that would be Saudi Arabia, and for Saudi Arabia, the government in Baghdad is essential to that counter-terrorism fight too … if that’s what the priority truly is. Clearly, the new alliance has other priorities.
The Saudis aren’t the only entity nominally in the anti-ISIS fight with a curious set of priorities, either. Russia has escalated its diplomatic and military clash with Turkey (also in the Saudis’ new alliance) by bombing targets near Turkey’s borders to target anti-Assad forces there.
The Russians have other priorities, too. Their first priority is to prop up Assad. Turkey’s first priority is to depose Assad. Iran wants to prop up Assad too, but they’re more interested in expanding the grip of Shi’a Islam in the region. The Saudis and their new alliance have as their first priority to boot Iran out of Yemen and roll back both Shi’a and Iranian influence in the region.The only players that actually have ISIS as its first priority are the Kurds and the US, the latter of which has withdrawn from leadership in the fight and the former of which are the only effective force in the field against ISIS. And the latter won’t directly support the former with arms and material, but insists on working through Iran-based Baghdad instead.
Chuck Baldwin, in one of his most recent columns observes the following at Newswithviews.com:
ISIS is composed of mostly radicalized Saudi Arabian Sunni Muslims. The goal is to dispose of President Assad’s government in Syria as a stepping stone to conquering both Syria and Iran, thus turning those Shia Muslim nations into Sunni Muslim nations. The result of which means Saudi Arabia’s King Salman will become the de facto king of the entire Middle East. It would also mean that King Salman (already the richest man in the world) would single-handedly control the oil of the entire Middle East. And as everyone should already know, King Salman is in the harlot’s bed with virtually the entire western banking and petroleum worlds.
Neocons and globalists in Washington, D.C., are using the Shia Muslim people as the proverbial straw man to topple the governments in Iran and Syria, because those Shia Muslim nations care absolutely nothing about getting in bed with the international traders who want to further enrich themselves from the profits that can be made in those countries. The only one who is seriously making war against ISIS is Russia’s Vladimir Putin. And his efforts against the Sunni terrorists began but just weeks ago.
The refugee crisis is a tool of globalists to destabilize the West and help usher in a global Police State. Again, the goal is a global economic system. The Federal Reserve has taken the U.S. and European economies to the brink of collapse. The only thing that globalists can do to circumvent this inevitable collapse is create global panic, global war, and a global Police State. A Europe and America invaded with angry Muslims is just the antidote.
Please understand that the vast majority of refugees are NOT terrorists. They are persecuted Muslims and Christians (and others) who are literally fleeing for their lives. But there is no question that CIA-backed Sunni terrorists have infiltrated these refugees.
Ask yourself, why would refugees seeking safety and protection in other countries want to murder hundreds of citizens within those countries? They know this would completely alienate the country against them and only serve to further endanger the lives of their families. The attacks in Paris were NOT committed by refugees; they were committed by CIA-backed, Saudi-backed, Mossad-backed, Turkey-backed, MI6-backed ISIS terrorists.
Even though the majority of refugees are doubtless harmless people who did not want to leave their homes and did so only for their very survival–and with the knowledge that western operatives have created a radical Muslim Frankenstein–and given the fact that our federal government is making no attempt to vet these refugees, it is foolish for states to accept them. Governors are right to refuse. (If the U.S. government was truly behaving in the interests of peace and was not an active participant in creating war and instability in the Middle East–and thus creating the refugee crisis to begin with–it would be a different story.)
In addition, how did those terrorists successfully pull off these coordinated attacks? How did they get fully-automatic rifles and bombs into Paris? These sand people are NOT that sophisticated. They do NOT have those kinds of connections. Do you think you could successfully get a group of people together and smuggle dozens of automatic weapons and explosives into a European country–and then successfully coordinate a large-scale attack in a high-security major downtown city? The only people capable of such a thing are Special Ops military personnel. In other words, ISIS had help, folks–a LOT of help.
So, now, the Saudis are going to try and stop the group that they help start and now fund? Can you say kabuki theater? Ed Morrissey say this is what happens when America leads from behind; however, I have a different take. This is what happens when America invades a country based on outright false information propagated by a corrupt President and Vice-President. This is also what happens when a status of force agreement is broken by Iraqi President and when a President tries to placate his left-wing of his own party and pulls out of a Country too fast.
However, the fact remains, and the neocons, like Morrissey will not accept is that if we had just kept our noses out of Iraq, we would never even be here. But, now, we are and we’re stuck with this mess. Thanks Neocons, ya jerks.
Well, they didn’t ask me. I don’t support such silliness.
Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.Those are some of the findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, an online survey conducted Tuesday, that shows support at 37 percent among all likely general-election voters for the controversial proposal put forward by the Republican front-runner.“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. “This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign.”
Others: Politico, Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo, No More Mister Nice Blog,Washington Post, Hot Air, Outside the Beltway, FITSNews, Hullabaloo, PoliticusUSA, Rush Limbaugh, Allen B. West, Business Insider, Vox, The Week, Political Wire, Daily Kos and The Daily Caller (via Memeorandum)