Your thoughts on Obama - now and then

[Phantasee]

In 2008, the Internet told me Obama was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that he would make everything better.

In 2010, the Internet told me Obama was the worst thing since McCain/Palin, and that he has made everything worse.

I think what the Internet tells me to think.

[Cecelia5578]

Most of the overall tone I've picked up on the last two pages is "he didn't get much of anything done because of those obstructionist Republicans (and he's spineless) WAHHHH!!" Uhh folks, until November 2nd The Anointed One had a Democrat Senate and a Democrat House; he didn't need Republicans to go along with his plans!

But he didnt have 60 reliable votes in the senate for most of that time, you idiot. Look up Blue Dogs and the filibuster.

[Count Chocula]

Palin's stated reason for stepping down from the governor of Alaska was the several-million dollar fiscal drain on the her family's and the state's coffers defending her from a series of frivolous lawsuits, as well as to shield her family from politically motivated attacks on them. Funny how, despite the lawsuits, she wasn't found guilty of any wrongdoing. Too bad she didn't have mad Kerry/Heinz or Bush money, so she could've sicced her own lawyers and insulated her family. Quitting her job because it was too hard...that's your opinion. Cited fiscal drain versus...your opinion. Still not buying it.

And Lonestar, I didn't say "honest but spectacularly stupid" - don't put words in my mouth. BTW, her famous and widely mocked "you can see Russia" quote is actually true - you just can't see it from Wasilla or Anchorage. Which she didn't say. It appears to me that she was less stupid, but more viciously attacked, than most people are willing to realize.

But he didnt have 60 reliable votes in the senate for most of that time, you idiot. Look up Blue Dogs and the filibuster.

And he didn't have a supermajority vote in the House, either! Oh wait, he did. Nice use of the word "reliable," why didn't you just come out and say that despite all his political capital he couldn't twist the arms needed in his own fucking party, you moron? It's the Republicans' fault he's a spineless worm! Yeah! Oh yeah again, can you show me one time - just one time - in the last two years where the Republicans filibustered a Senate bill and killed it? One? I can't think of a single occurrence it was more than a delaying tactic, but maybe you'll spend more than 2 minutes practicing Google-fu and prove me wrong.

[Lonestar]

Palin's stated reason for stepping down from the governor of Alaska was the several-million dollar fiscal drain on the her family's and the state's coffers defending her from a series of frivolous lawsuits, as well as to shield her family from politically motivated attacks on them. Funny how, despite the lawsuits, she wasn't found guilty of any wrongdoing. Too bad she didn't have mad Kerry/Heinz or Bush money, so she could've sicced her own lawyers and insulated her family. Quitting her job because it was too hard...that's your opinion. Cited fiscal drain versus...your opinion. Still not buying it.

So fucking what. I'm actually not opposed to using government monies to handle legal problems of elected officials. Again, it is coming back to "wa wa it's too haaaarrrrrddddd". But hey, don't take my word for it. Let's see what another governor with a, *ahem* colorful career had to say:

"if she's got plans of running for higher office, I would never vote for her, because if it gets too hot in the kitchen, she is liable to quit. ... I don't think she was put under any more scrutiny with the media than I was as an independent. My children were attacked in Minnesota. Everything I did was put under the microscope. But the point is, you don't quit. When you make an obligation and you take an oath, doesn't it mean anything anymore?"

So hey, there's at least one of her peers who agrees with my assessment that she fucking quit because it was too hard.

YUP! Presidential Material right there!

And Lonestar, I didn't say "honest but spectacularly stupid" - don't put words in my mouth. BTW, her famous and widely mocked "you can see Russia" quote is actually true - you just can't see it from Wasilla or Anchorage. Which she didn't say. It appears to me that she was less stupid, but more viciously attacked, than most people are willing to realize.

I honestly wasn't thinking at all of the Russia comment, I'm thinking in terms of her reading "all" newspapers, claiming that socialized healthcare leads to death panels for kids with Down Syndrome, the insistence that church should not be seperated from state or using her Yahoo account for government business.

And yeah, sorry, you just implied that she was more more honest than Obama because her college transcripts were public. Whoop de do. That doesn't magically make her a viable(or maybe reasonable would be a better word) option for POTUS.

[Count Chocula]

Fair enough. I don't think Palin's the American Maggie Thatcher (I'd nominate Condoleeza Rice for that role), but I don't think she's mindless. And I'm not sure that 9/11 Troofer Ventura makes for a good peer review.

I think we can both agree that Big O's doing a less than stellar job. Maybe he should take fewer vacations and get some shit done. On second thought, strike that! Go on vacation, Barry! DC sucks in the winter! Stay in Rangel's Punta Cana digs! Go to Vail! Follow the Lakers on the road! Start your 2012 reelection campaign! Go raise that billion dollars you want for a $400k a year job and stay out of the White House!

PS Nobody's identified the sources of my EDIT quote? Really?

[D.Turtle]

And he didn't have a supermajority vote in the House, either! Oh wait, he did. Nice use of the word "reliable," why didn't you just come out and say that despite all his political capital he couldn't twist the arms needed in his own fucking party, you moron? It's the Republicans' fault he's a spineless worm! Yeah! Oh yeah again, can you show me one time - just one time - in the last two years where the Republicans filibustered a Senate bill and killed it? One? I can't think of a single occurrence it was more than a delaying tactic, but maybe you'll spend more than 2 minutes practicing Google-fu and prove me wrong.

And thats exactly why I'm greatly disappointed by Obama: He didn't fight. He didn't fight Republicans, he didn't fight conservative Democrats, he didn't fight Blue Dogs, he didn't fight - on anything anywhere except for complaining about those progressive Democrats daring to take him at his word and holding his feet to the fire and telling him when they didn't like what he was doing.

Instead of using criticism from the left in order to achieve better bargaining solutions (you know - compromising between the left and the right), he capitulated to the right on almost everything and told the Left to fucking eat the shit and shut up. The only things he "achieved" where things that other people pushed through despite his objections - and that moderate Republicans in the 90s would have loved - because they were their ideas (health care reform)!

He fucking sucks, because he didn't get anything vaguely progressive done despite having one of the largest majorities in the House and the Senate in decades. The only thing he has done is cemented the right-ward shift of the US.

P.S. Yes, he did pass a few minor progressive laws. However, they are massively overshadowed by the conservative, corporatist nature of all the big, important acts.

[General Zod]

I think we can both agree that Big O's doing a less than stellar job. Maybe he should take fewer vacations and get some shit done. On second thought, strike that! Go on vacation, Barry! DC sucks in the winter! Stay in Rangel's Punta Cana digs! Go to Vail! Follow the Lakers on the road! Start your 2012 reelection campaign! Go raise that billion dollars you want for a $400k a year job and stay out of the White House!

Fewer vacations? Not that I'm saying he's actually being productive in the office, but vacations are hardly something you can ding him for.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/presid ... tion-days/

President Obama has spent all or part of 26 days "on vacation" during his first year as president, according to CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller.

Knoller, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford and is known for keeping detailed records on presidential travel, counts the following among President Obama’s "vacations" in 2009:

* A four-day holiday weekend in Chicago in February where the president played some basketball and treated First Lady Michelle Obama to a Valentine’s Day dinner date.
* An eight-day stay with his family at a rented house on Martha’s Vineyard in August.
* A trip out west to the U.S. states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and Arizona that combined both business and pleasure. The president held town hall meetings on health care during the trip. And he went fly fishing and took trips to Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon with his wife and two daughters.
* An 11-day stay in Hawaii where the president and his family celebrated Christmas and New Year’s Eve.

Some of the president’s recent predecessors, however, have spent more days — either entirely or partially — away from the White House "on vacation" during their first year in office.

President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation" at his home in Santa Barbara, Calif, according to Knoller. President Reagan and his wife, Nancy, also spent three or four days around New Year’s Day each year in Palm Springs, Calif., at the home of philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (In 1993 the late Mr. Annenberg founded the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, which is FactCheck.org’s parent organization.)

President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001, according to Knoller.

Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, spent less time "on vacation" during his first year than his son, but spent more days than President Obama. According to travel records provided to FactCheck.org by the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, the former president took six trips — spanning all or part of 40 days — to the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1989. The archivist at Bush’s presidential library told us she didn’t have a list of all vacations but did have the Kennebunkport visits.

But at least two recent presidents — by Knoller’s count — took less "vacation" time during their first year than President Obama — Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

According to Knoller, Carter spent just 19 days "on vacation" in 1977. Most of that time, Knoller says, the former president spent at his home in Plains, Ga. President Clinton took all or part of 174 days of vacation during his eight years as president — most of that "vacation" time was during the summer, according to Knoller. But Knoller says Clinton only took 21 "vacation" days during his first year.

[Lonestar]

Fair enough. I don't think Palin's the American Maggie Thatcher (I'd nominate Condoleeza Rice for that role), but I don't think she's mindless. And I'm not sure that 9/11 Troofer Ventura makes for a good peer review.

I'd say for the purposes of comparing the stress of the job, it is. He isn't discussing the melting point of steel, he was talking about willingness to see through stressful jobs. Again, if you fucking quit that doesn't speak to her being a better choice than Obama.

I think we can both agree that Big O's doing a less than stellar job.

I don't think there is anyone in this thread, with the possible(possible, I am placing emphasis on this word) exception of Nitram, who has claimed otherwise. Everyone here except Cecilia are throwing words around like "spineless".

Maybe he should take fewer vacations and get some shit done. On second thought, strike that! Go on vacation, Barry! DC sucks in the winter! Stay in Rangel's Punta Cana digs! Go to Vail! Follow the Lakers on the road! Start your 2012 reelection campaign! Go raise that billion dollars you want for a $400k a year job and stay out of the White House!

Yeah okay, I'm going to respond to that retarded comment the same way every other dumbshit did about Bush being on Vacation "all the time": The President of the United States is never on vacation. That is to say, he is never, ever, out of the fucking loop. When Bush went to his ranch he held daily briefings and teleconferences just like he was at the White House. When Obama travels to Hawaii the situation is exactly the same. The United States Government spends a princely sum to ensure that the President is plugged in 24/7. It is not unreasonable for the POTUS to want to get the hell out of town, especially when he will be able to largely carry out his duties anyway. If anything I would criticize Obama for, as an example, flying down to the Gulf Coast Multiple times during the oil spill. It just creates security concerns when a major emergency relief operation(such as it is) is underway. I understand that other people don't feel that way, but there it is.

[Andrew J.]

I kept my expectations reasonable, so Obama's been doing about as well as I thought he would. Guantanamo is the only issue I'm really disappointed on.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Meh, Obama has had a few fuck-ups, but he really is doing better than people give him credit for. I just don't think people realize how broken the American political system is, and how relatively powerless the executive actually is in a lot of cases.

[Cecelia5578]

And he didn't have a supermajority vote in the House, either! Oh wait, he did. Nice use of the word "reliable," why didn't you just come out and say that despite all his political capital he couldn't twist the arms needed in his own fucking party, you moron? It's the Republicans' fault he's a spineless worm! Yeah! Oh yeah again, can you show me one time - just one time - in the last two years where the Republicans filibustered a Senate bill and killed it? One? I can't think of a single occurrence it was more than a delaying tactic, but maybe you'll spend more than 2 minutes practicing Google-fu and prove me wrong.

And how is there now a filibuster in the House as well? It doesn't matter what the House passes, it almost certainly dies in the Senate.

[Simon_Jester]

Meh, Obama has had a few fuck-ups, but he really is doing better than people give him credit for. I just don't think people realize how broken the American political system is, and how relatively powerless the executive actually is in a lot of cases.

I think the biggest beef people have with Obama is that looking at him, you get the sense that he isn't really struggling against the system.

It's easy to respect a would-be reformer who strives mightily to effect change in a broken system, even if they don't accomplish much. But there isn't much evidence for Obama striving; it seems to many (me included) like he gives away the game wherever it would require a serious sacrifice or risk on his part to get anything done.

Maybe "the system" prevents him from taking on corporate wrongdoing, prevents him openly calling out Republicans when they make shit up about him and his policies, prevents him from holding things the Republicans want hostage to extract concessions from them the way they do to him.

But if so, why don't we see him trying and actually getting bruised by a run-in with the system more often? You don't get to plead that a task is hard until you've tried and lost; it isn't enough to look at it and go "Nuh-uh! Not going out there! It's uncomfortable and I might lose!"

At least, not if you want people to keep any respect for you.

[aerius]

I just don't think people realize how broken the American political system is, and how relatively powerless the executive actually is in a lot of cases.

Really? Then why was Bush able to ram though pretty much everything he wanted?
If I'm not mistaken I remember a bunch of people complaining that he had too much power to do whatever he wanted.

[Cecelia5578]

show me one time - just one time - in the last two years where the Republicans filibustered a Senate bill and killed it? One? I can't think of a single occurrence it was more than a delaying tactic, but maybe you'll spend more than 2 minutes practicing Google-fu and prove me wrong.

Um...you must not have been paying attention to Congress' attempts to repeal DADT.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federa ... dural.html

'Don't ask, don't tell' procedural vote fails
By Ed O'Keefe and Paul Kane

Updated 5:41 p.m. ET
A Senate procedural vote to move forward with debate on a bill ending the military's "don't ask, don't tell" law failed Thursday to earn the 60 ]votes necessary to proceed, delivering a significant blow to efforts to allow gays to serve openly.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/21/ ... =allsearch

Washington (CNN) -- In a graphic example of election-year politics at work, a defense bill that would repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy got blocked Tuesday in the U.S. Senate by a Republican-led filibuster.

The bill stalled on a 56-43 vote, four short of the 60 votes needed to overcome the Republican opposition. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, changed his vote to "no" as a tactical move, allowing him to bring the measure up later.

[Bakustra]

I just don't think people realize how broken the American political system is, and how relatively powerless the executive actually is in a lot of cases.

Really? Then why was Bush able to ram though pretty much everything he wanted?
If I'm not mistaken I remember a bunch of people complaining that he had too much power to do whatever he wanted.

He had firm control of both houses of Congress and a sympathetic Supreme Court under Rehnquist that went further right under his administration. Oh snap! A Canadian, ignorant of the political system of a close neighbor? I thought only Americans did that!

Bush's Democratic party was shaken by 9/11 and went along with a number of Bush policies because the narrative was one in which they'd lose by objecting, and then became a more forceful opposition party once Bush began to piss away his popularity. Obama, meanwhile, inherited a Republican party fearful of revanchism amongst the Democrats, eager to get away from Bush's disastrous policies, and with a dissatisfied constituency. You're right, the situations are totally identical, and all the problems the Obama administration has faced are self-inflicted!

PS: Have you guys remembered how to elect a majority government yet?

[StarshipTitanic]

And he didn't have a supermajority vote in the House, either! Oh wait, he did. Nice use of the word "reliable," why didn't you just come out and say that despite all his political capital he couldn't twist the arms needed in his own fucking party, you moron? It's the Republicans' fault he's a spineless worm! Yeah! Oh yeah again, can you show me one time - just one time - in the last two years where the Republicans filibustered a Senate bill and killed it? One? I can't think of a single occurrence it was more than a delaying tactic, but maybe you'll spend more than 2 minutes practicing Google-fu and prove me wrong.

The person you were responding to used DADT as an example, which is foolish because the policy was obviously ended despite the early filibuster. Therefore, I wanted to make a better reply, if you don't mind. No dogpile intended.

The Democrats did not have a supermajority in the House, which would be a two-thirds majority needed to pass anything with the rules suspended. A two-thirds majority in a body of 435 representatives is 290 representatives. The Democrats have 255 in the current congress. So you are wrong here.

Here is one bill that was solely filibustered by Republicans, which led to it being abandoned:

S. 3628: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act.

[aerius]

He had firm control of both houses of Congress and a sympathetic Supreme Court under Rehnquist that went further right under his administration. Oh snap! A Canadian, ignorant of the political system of a close neighbor? I thought only Americans did that!

Bush's Democratic party was shaken by 9/11 and went along with a number of Bush policies because the narrative was one in which they'd lose by objecting, and then became a more forceful opposition party once Bush began to piss away his popularity. Obama, meanwhile, inherited a Republican party fearful of revanchism amongst the Democrats, eager to get away from Bush's disastrous policies, and with a dissatisfied constituency. You're right, the situations are totally identical, and all the problems the Obama administration has faced are self-inflicted!

Unless wikipedia is lying to me, Obama's Dems enjoyed a larger majority in both the House and Senate than Bush's Republicans did back in his day. So bottom line is Obama can't get his shit together and actually lead his party. Part of the President's job is making sure his party has its shit together and fixing it so that he can get shit done, that's called leadership. All I'm hearing here is excuses.

PS: Have you guys remembered how to elect a majority government yet?

Does it matter? Our government is getting shit done. Your government is standing around with a limp dick in its hand.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I hear people say all the time that they should either vote third party, GOP or abstain from voting. How does that move the progressive movement closer to their goals?

The problem is that we(the American people) have allowed ourselves to be boxed into a 2 party system because if you vote for a Third Party you are "throwing your vote away".

I will likely be voting for a third party in 2012.

Voting third party only works if so many people votes third party that it forms a viable third party in the electoral race. The progressives need a movement, which I feel does not exist in any real capacity. The closest thing I saw to a real progressive movement was the 2008 Obama campaign. And after Obama was elected, it was as if the entire movement evaporated.

[Cecelia5578]

The person you were responding to used DADT as an example, which is foolish because the policy was obviously ended despite the early filibuster. Therefore, I wanted to make a better reply, if you don't mind. No dogpile intended.

The Democrats did not have a supermajority in the House, which would be a two-thirds majority needed to pass anything with the rules suspended. A two-thirds majority in a body of 435 representatives is 290 representatives. The Democrats have 255 in the current congress. So you are wrong here.

Here is one bill that was solely filibustered by Republicans, which led to it being abandoned:

S. 3628: Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act.

The bill to repeal DADT was filibustered twice, and its pretty obvious the Republicans wanted a bill that was barely passed in the lame duck session to never pass in the first place. Foolish? Eh, whatever.

Why do people keep bringing up the House, supermajorities and the filibuster? There is to the best of my knowledge, no filibuster or supermajoity requirement in the House.

[StarshipTitanic]

The bill to repeal DADT was filibustered twice, and its pretty obvious the Republicans wanted a bill that was barely passed in the lame duck session to never pass in the first place. Foolish? Eh, whatever.

Your reply was foolish because your answer was wrong. The defense authorization and DADT repeal didn't pass together but each did separately. He asked for a bill that the Republicans successfully killed via filibuster. The defense authorization wasn't killed, it was amended.

Why do people keep bringing up the House, supermajorities and the filibuster? There is to the best of my knowledge, no filibuster or supermajoity requirement in the House.

Without a supermajority in the House, the opposition party can insert poison pill amendments into legislation to kill it. He brought it up so I responded. I didn't make any connection to the filibuster.

[Coyote]

I hear people say all the time that they should either vote third party, GOP or abstain from voting. How does that move the progressive movement closer to their goals?

When the GOP loses an election, they figure they weren't "conservative" enough, so they shift boldly to the Right.
When the Democrats lose an election, they figure they weren't "moderate" enough, so they... shift meekly to the Right.

The USA is more conservative in general, but it gives the impression that there are no votes to be found on the Left, and no need to court those votes. Remember that if you hint that "maybe a little government regulation to deter unfair business practices" might be a good thing, you are shrieked at as a "socialist", and tossed in with folks like the Communist Party of the United States or the Socialist People's Party.

As the GOP shifts hard-right, and the Dems shift center-right, the whole left field of the political spectrum is opened up for disaffected voters who are tired of the descent into lunacy. By writing off the Democrats as "GOP-Lite" and inflating the ranks of, say, the Greens party, the Democratic Party can realize that they can either, 1) continue to become the sissy auxiliary of the Republicans, or 2) realize that there are still votes to be harvested back on the Left and re-position themselves.

As it is, continuing to vote Democrat is saying "moderation and being the Republican's Poodles is the right course to take, and I'll reaffirm that by giving you my vote". But if people show the Democrats that Progressives votes cannot be taken for granted and that there are conditions and consequences for Progressive support, the Democrats will have to make their choice-- or continue their slide into irrelevancy as the Greens (or someone) takes their position as an actual opposition worthy of the name.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Voting third party only works if so many people votes third party that it forms a viable third party in the electoral race.

They won't become a viable third party if people like yourself refuse to vote for them because they aren't yet a viable third party.

Third party options do not just magically appear, you have to work to create them.

[Lonestar]

Voting third party only works if so many people votes third party that it forms a viable third party in the electoral race. The progressives need a movement, which I feel does not exist in any real capacity. The closest thing I saw to a real progressive movement was the 2008 Obama campaign. And after Obama was elected, it was as if the entire movement evaporated.

You do realize you just confirmed exactly what I said about how we're boxed into the 2-party system because people are convinced that voting for a third party is a wasted vote, right? Thanks for making my point. You've accepted that the status quo is the only option.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Voting third party only works if so many people votes third party that it forms a viable third party in the electoral race.

They won't become a viable third party if people like yourself refuse to vote for them because they aren't yet a viable third party.

Third party options do not just magically appear, you have to work to create them.

Wow. Did you figure that one out on your own?

My vote for a third party won't create a viable third party. My point was that you need a movement to convince large swaths of the population to vote for said third party for a third party to be viable.

[Coyote]

Most of the overall tone I've picked up on the last two pages is "he didn't get much of anything done because of those obstructionist Republicans (and he's spineless) WAHHHH!!" Uhh folks, until November 2nd The Anointed One had a Democrat Senate and a Democrat House; he didn't need Republicans to go along with his plans! And after the 8 years of Bush he went into office with a hhHHUUUuuge amount of political capital.

No, that's pretty much exactly why I'm disappointed with Obama. I mean, the American public beat up the GOP, staked them to the altar, lit the black candles and handed Obama the knife, and he looked right at the sacrifice and went "Awwww, I don' wanna hurt his widdle feelings!" while everyone in the crowd was screaming, "Blood! Blood! Blood!" He kept going back to the Thugs on his kneepads, begging bipartisanship and handing out psychological blowjobs to them as they openly laughed and mocked him and admitted they had no intention whatsoever of working with him-- and, in fact, their sole goal was to block his every move, humiliate him, and make him a trapped, powerless, one-termer. And there was ol' Barry, strapping on the kneepads again. I mean, it got to the point where *I* was embarrassed for him.

SirNitram listed the things O has gotten done, most of which can be good things or bad things depending on point of view. IMO, most of the "achievements" are shit sandwiches

Yeah, the "tax cuts for the rich" suck ass. The thing is, all the heavy lifting was done by the houses of Congress, and Obama just tossed the issue sout there and let the Congress deal with them, offering zero public support, no rhetorical support, and pretty much just ignored the issues... until something got shot down, at which point he got angry at Democrats for not being more supportive as he sold us down the river.

And what about the lame duck passing of the "Food Safety Act?" FDA police! Backyard garden raids! No bake sales! Federal diktats on what can be put in the chilrens' vending machines at school!

Actually, a lot of that I don't mind, but I do dislike the limits on local organic producers having to jump through hoops.

You are disappointed that he hasn't gotten enough done. With. A. Democrat. Majority. In both houses. I think he and Congress have done enough damage already, and more than a few of us saw this coming in 2008. Neener neener!

No, we actually expected him to fight and do shit with that Democratic majority. He talked plenty tough in the campaign, about fighting for the average American, people making less than a quarter-mil a year, etc.... but the moment he got elected, he ran right to the Rethugs and started unhitching his trousers and grabbing for the bum grease, mumbling about "bipartisanship". I for one was stunned how he won a fantastic victory, only to promptly surrender. Like a fucking Minbari.

For the Palin haters, let's do a little comparison between two candidates (hypothetical only, because this did not occur in 2008):

Oh my God, you did not just do that. I'm sorry to break it to you, but my dog Sadie is better Presidential material than Sarah Palin. The only thing we learn about Sarah Palin from her transcript paper trail is that she has an IQ estimated to be somewhere around 85 which puts here about in the region between "normal" and "fucking retarded". (PS-- guess what? In University of Idaho, "Communications" is the "Degrees for Jocks and Morons" sheepskin.)

And what's all the hoo-haa about TelePrompters? Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes used TelePrompters. Sarah Palin used notes written on her hand. What is this, a history test in Junior High?