• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Earlynerd on Mercy and Comfort
    Catscatscats on Mercy and Comfort
    Bernard Jenkins on This is the thanks Michigan…
    jmac on Some politicians need to lose…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    William on This is the thanks Michigan…
    William on This is the thanks Michigan…
    William on Mercy and Comfort
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on This is the thanks Michigan…
    jmac on This is the thanks Michigan…
    bellecat on Some politicians need to lose…
    riverdaughter on Some politicians need to lose…
    William on Some politicians need to lose…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    August 2010
    S M T W T F S
    1234567
    891011121314
    15161718192021
    22232425262728
    293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread & March 28th US Covid Numbers Update
      As usual, use this for topics unrelated to recent posts. Since the blog has been all Covid, all the time this last week, this is a good place to discuss other issues. The results of the work I do, like this article, are free, but food isn’t, so if you value my work, please DONATE […]
  • Top Posts

Ann Althouse hits it out of the park

Those aren't your mom's jeans


Ann Althouse:

“Critics say Obama’s message becoming ‘incoherent.'”

Yes, of course. It was built into Obama’s style of communication that it would become incoherent when it moved from campaign oratory — which he seemed so good at — to the real work of governing — which requires you to make specific decisions about the details. At a high plane of principle and abstraction, there is a beautiful harmony.

[…]

But Obama should descend on his own from that level of abstraction — that “coherent set of themes.” If he doesn’t do it himself, he will be “pulled down” by whoever fills the gap and takes specific positions about the details he likes to rise above.

“Communicating as a law professor does not work as president. It’s not worked,” [Morey] said. “You’re drawing fine distinctions and speaking in long enough paragraphs that they can be misconstrued and taken out of context and frankly, handed to your opposition to exploit. And that’s clearly what’s going on here [with the Islamic center/mosque comments].”

Only a bad law professor operates that way. A good law professor speaks as clearly as possible and draws attention to anything the courts have glossed over or left ambiguous. We lawprofs try to extract the doctrinal rules and point up any place where courts have left the rule mushy. Then we apply those rules to particular factual settings. We hypothesize the most difficult applications of law to fact and help the students work through these hard problems. Obama’s lolling at high levels of abstract principle and avoiding the specifics of applying principle to real problems is not the way of the law professor.

It’s not the way of a leader, either.

Althouse was discussing the Wafflemeister’s “incoherence” on the topic of the mosque/Islamic cultural center that was proposed to be built near Ground Zero. I don’t want to discuss that issue because it’s become nearly as bad as discussions of the Israel/Palestine conflict – lots of strong opinions and very little middle ground.

But I said long ago that the worst thing that could happen to Obama was for him to win the presidency. Candidate Obama could be all things to all people, but President Obama would have to make decisions. No matter what decisions he made, he was going to piss some people off. Even if he chose not to decide he still would have made a choice.

Guess what? He won and once again I’ve been proven correct. 42% approval rating and dropping like Enron stock.

I’m really gonna have to do something about my track record. How will I ever get a highly paid job in the media if I keep being right all the time? (I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.)

BTW – Ms. Althouse is a REAL law professor at a pretty good law school, so I’m guessing she knows the difference between a good law professor and a bad law professor.

Just sayin’

73 Responses

  1. He’s not nor was he a law professor. This meme has got to stop.

    One of the reasons he’s incoherent is because he’s incompetent.

    • honk honk!

    • Correct, he was an adjunct professor.

      Active lawyers are often brought in to teach a class or two a semester at law schools. It brings a different point of view in for the students and the adjunct professor earns a little money at it — but they do not shoulder the full responsibilities of a professor, nor are they entitled to the honors of the profession. That’s all “professor” Obama was — until he became a candidate for President and the university went back to re-write history.

      djmm

      • Actually, Obama was not an adjunct, he was a “Lecturer.” There aren’t many Lecturers at Chicago, and the company is fairly distinguished. So, personally, I think the “Obama was not a professor” argument should just be dropped. He held a legitimate permanent teaching position at one of the nation’s top law schools.

        In case you’re thinking I’m an Obama-bot, you’re waaaaaaaaay off. I just don’t like bad arguments, whether they’re on my side or not.

        • Lecturers are still not professors. Faculty know the difference. So did the U of Chi. Before Obama-mania hit, it made it quite clear on its faculty website who was a professor and who wasn’t. You can call his position “permanent” if you like, but he wasn’t tenured. Moreover, professors of law (like scholars generally) are expected to author academic articles or books. “Professor” Obama wrote nothing but his self serving autobiographies, assuming he even wrote those.

          • Actually, Obama spent 4 years there as a Lecturer and 12 as a Senior Lecturer.

            At Chicago, Senior Lecturer is an honorific. There are only seven Senior Lecturers there now (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/people/faculty/all/all/Senior%20Lecturers), and they include Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, two of the schools best known academics (along with Cass Sunstein, who is listed as a Professor).

            Yeah, technically, he was not a “Professor,” but he held a prestigious permanent teaching position, probably MORE prestigious than Professor if you look at the list of people who have held the title. To equate him with an adjunct, as did the poster to whom I replied, is not even in the ballpark.

            If you want to go after Obama, there are plenty of genuine weaknesses in his resume to go after. This is not one of them.

          • You obviously know nothing about academia. To become a full professor you must do research, write, and publish as well as teach. You have to go through a grueling tenure process–it takes years of effort, and many don’t make it.

            Obama has never published anything in a peer reviewed journal as far as I know. Can you cite any such publications by Obama?

          • I looked at the link. It appears that “Senior Lecturer” is an honorific for people who aren’t full-time at the U. of C. Some of them are retired professors and others are well known people who aren’t really academics. The ones who aren’t professors are still just “lecturers.”

            Lecturer is the lowest rung in academia, used for teachers who are either adjuncts or teach on a contract basis. There is nothing shameful about being a lecturer. But these people have not done the hard work of becoming full professors.

            You have no idea what you are talking about, Trickster.

          • Many law schools create faculty positions for well known judges, appellate justices, and attorneys to lend prestige to the school. This is similar to law firms listing retired attorney’s, judges and appellate justices as “of counsel” on their letterhead.

            The fact that their names are there on a letterhead or faculty roster does not mean that they actually participate in anything the school/firm does. They’re kinda like FaceBook friends.

            Obama probably taught an elective course on a subject not tested by the bar. Untested subjects include family law (with the exception of community property), bankruptcy, taxes, intellectual property, employment and worker’s compensation.

            At every law school in the country tested subjects like torts, contracts, civil procedure and constitutional law are all taught from a handful of standardized “case books.” While the teaching style of different professors varies, the subject matter does not. This is because almost every state uses the Multi-state Bar Exam (MBE) as all or part of their state bar exam.

            Standardized tests require standardized subject matter. The MBE is not state-specific but tests general principls of law. A graduate of a nationally accredited law school (like Yale, Harvard, U of WI) can take the bar in any state.

          • Lots of info here on what he taught if you can get past the Obamacrush way it is presented…

            http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html

            there’s one syllabus and some final exams there

          • “Actually, Obama spent 4 years there as a Lecturer and 12 as a Senior Lecturer. At Chicago, Senior Lecturer is an honorific. There are only seven Senior Lecturers there now…and they include Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook, two of the schools best known academics (along with Cass Sunstein, who is listed as a Professor).”

            Yes, Easterbrook and Posner, besides being US Court of Appeals judges, are also well known authors of numerous scholarly works. But what does that have to do with Obama? He held the same position as them, yes. Because that position (“lecturer” or “senior lecturer”) is what folks who supposedly (in Obama’s case) hold other, full time jobs, but who also teach at a law school, are called. But Easterbrook or Posner, if they retired from the bench, could, perhaps, become professors at the U of Chi law school. But not Obama. They have written numerous scholarly works; Obama has written none. Think of a “lecturer” in this context as the same as a doctor, with no academic resume, teaching a practical course in med school. He might be a great doctor (or not), but he is not a professor of medicine. Same with Obama. He may have (but wasn’t, actually) a great lawyer or State legislator, but he was not a professor of law. Posner and Easterbrook are the exceptions here,in that could be professors, not the rule.

            “Yeah, technically, he was not a ‘Professor’….”

            Technically and in substance too. He did not carry the title of “professor” and was not, in fact, a “professor” either.

            “but he held a prestigious permanent teaching position, probably MORE prestigious than Professor if you look at the list of people who have held the title. To equate him with an adjunct, as did the poster to whom I replied, is not even in the ballpark.”

            Your stress on the “permanence” of Obama’s position is misplaced. Yes, he was not an adjunct, in that he was not hired on a semester to semester basis. But he was not a tenured faculty member either. The school could fire him (or Posner or Easterbrook, for that matter) at will. Without going through any of the formailities or procedures necessary to fire a tenured factulty member (ie a professor). If you knew even the slightest thing about life in academia, you would know that this basic distinction makes all the difference in the world. Most likely too, as lecturers, these folks had more limited roles in running the school than professors.

            Also, the fact that Posner and Easterbrook might be more impressive scholars than most of the professors is really neither here nor there. Not all lecturers, or even senior lecturers, are created equal. Of course a prestigous school like the U of Chi law school can have some distinguished scholars among its lecturers, but that doesn’t mean that Obama was one of them. As you mention, Sunstein is a famous scholar, and a professor, but not all of the professors are famous scholars. Why would it work any differently with lecturers? And, in this case, Obama is actually no scholar at all, as he has written zero academic works. The only things he ever wrote are his self valorizing autobiographies (assuming he even wrote them!).

            “If you want to go after Obama, there are plenty of genuine weaknesses in his resume to go after. This is not one of them.”

            Yes it is, actually. Obama was a community organizer who seems to have done no organizing. A law review editor who did no editing or writing. A civil rights lawyer who never fought, never mind won, an important civil rights case, a State and US Senator who got no important legislation passed, and who voted “present” (when he wasn’t absent entirely). This “professor” thing fits right in. A professor, by definition, is a scholar. Obama is not a scholar. Therefore he was not a professor. If you want to say he taught law school classes, that’s fine. If you want to get all high falutin’ and say he was a “Senior Lecturer” that’s fine too. But he was not a professor. To say otherwise, as he did, is to lie.

          • From the link I posted:

            As his reputation for frank, exciting discussion spread, enrollment in his classes swelled. Most scores on his teaching evaluations were positive to superlative. Some students started referring to themselves as his groupies. (Mr. Obama, in turn, could play the star. In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama’s hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. “Take Barack Obama, there’s a good-looking guy,” he would introduce a twisty legal case.)

          • Liberals flocked to his classes, seeking refuge. After all, the professor was a progressive politician who backed child care subsidies and laws against racial profiling, and in a 1996 interview with the school newspaper sounded skeptical of President Bill Clinton’s efforts to reach across the aisle.

            “On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr. Obama said.

            But the liberal students did not necessarily find reassurance. “For people who thought they were getting a doctrinal, rah-rah experience, it wasn’t that kind of class,” said D. Daniel Sokol, a former student who now teaches law at the University of Florida at Gainesville.

            For one thing, Mr. Obama’s courses chronicled the failure of liberal policies and court-led efforts at social change: the Reconstruction-era amendments that were rendered meaningless by a century of resistance, the way the triumph of Brown gave way to fights over busing, the voting rights laws that crowded blacks into as few districts as possible. He was wary of noble theories, students say; instead, they call Mr. Obama a contextualist, willing to look past legal niceties to get results.

            For another, Mr. Obama liked to provoke. He wanted his charges to try arguing that life was better under segregation, that black people were better athletes than white ones.

            “I remember thinking, ‘You’re offending my liberal instincts,’ ” Mary Ellen Callahan, now a privacy lawyer in Washington, recalled.

            In his voting rights course, Mr. Obama taught Lani Guinier’s proposals for structuring elections differently to increase minority representation. Opponents attacked those suggestions when Ms. Guinier was nominated as assistant attorney general for civil rights in 1993, costing her the post.

            “I think he thought they were good and worth trying,” said David Franklin, who now teaches law at DePaul University in Chicago.

            But whether out of professorial reserve or budding political caution, Mr. Obama would not say so directly. “He surfaced all the competing points of view on Guinier’s proposals with total neutrality and equanimity,” Mr. Franklin said. “He just let the class debate the merits of them back and forth.”

            While students appreciated Mr. Obama’s evenhandedness, colleagues sometimes wanted him to take a stand. When two fellow faculty members asked him to support a controversial antigang measure, allowing the Chicago police to disperse and eventually arrest loiterers who had no clear reason to gather, Mr. Obama discussed the issue with unusual thoughtfulness, they say, but gave little sign of who should prevail — the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposed the measure, or the community groups that supported it out of concern about crime.

            “He just observed it with a kind of interest,” said Daniel Kahan, now a professor at Yale.

            Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any. He was too busy, but also, Mr. Epstein believes, he was unwilling to put his name to anything that could haunt him politically, as Ms. Guinier’s writings had hurt her. “He figured out, you lay low,” Mr. Epstein said.

          • Students “flock” to easy graders.

            Remember – law students are all college grads. They’ve been in the grind for at least 4 years.

            Given a choice of taking the same class from an “easy A” teacher or a “grind-it-out C” from an instructor who will teach them more, which class gets filled up first?

          • I just thought it was interesting that he had “groupies” and referred to himself hypotheticals as a good looking guy and that he was so hellbent on tearing down the liberal record while being so resistant to take a side on how to solve anything. Fits perfectly. I remember reading this and other pieces about his law school days during the election… and thinking it was a good window into what he’d be like as president… all his supporters fell for his being a different kind of pol, apolitical or whatever, but he’s really a pol to the core.

            Here’s another…
            http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/

            Obama was so evenhanded and solicitous in his interactions that fellow students would do impressions of his Socratic chin-stroking approach to everything, even seeking a consensus on popcorn preferences at the movies. “Do you want salt on your popcorn?” one classmate, Nancy L. McCullough, recalled, mimicking his sensitive bass voice. “Do you even want popcorn?”

          • Also the part about the 1996 school paper interview where he sounded skeptical of Bill Clinton and said this:
            “On the national level, bipartisanship usually means Democrats ignore the needs of the poor and abandon the idea that government can play a role in issues of poverty, race discrimination, sex discrimination or environmental protection,” Mr. Obama said.

        • It’s not an argument. It’s the truth.

          • Weak, misleading truth.

            Let me re-emphasize the “not an Obama-bot” deal. Obama drove me out of the Democratic Party, where I have happily been for 35 years. But his UC law experience is the best part of his resume. Senior Lecturer at that school is a prestigious position, and it’s just wrong to say some of the things about it that have been said in this thread.

          • it’s worse if Obama was a constitutional law professor… his record as president is horrible on torture and civil liberties.

          • It may have been the best part of his resume, but that just shows how weak his resume was.

          • “Senior Lecturer at that school is a prestigious position”

            Holding “a prestigous position” is not necessarily the same thing as being a professor.

            The first two sentence in the very first post on this topic and in this thread reads:

            “He’s not nor was he a law professor. This meme has got to stop.”

            And that is absolutely correct. Not “misleading.” He was not, in form or in substance, a professor either.

            And while it’s true he wasn’t an adjunct, your charcterization of that position is misleading too. An adjunct actually IS a scholar, just one whom the school has not hired on a full time basis. Adjuncts often become professors. Much more rarely so do lecturers. So, an adjunct is actually closer to being a professor than a lecturer, or even a “senior lecturer.” Adjuncts have the necessary academic qualifications, which lecturers usually lack (as in Obama’s case). It isn’t as if “lecturer” is some sort of midway status between professor and adjunct. Lecturers are out of the hierarchy altogether.

          • Adjunct faculty at law schools are usually part-time teachers of special subjects (like tax or BK) or they are there to add prestige to the school.

            “Professor” is a full time job, while adjunct faculty either already have full time jobs or they are retired.

            Professors usually teach the core subjects that are tested by the bar exam (torts, contracts, ect.) but adjunct faculty may teach these subjects also (I took Evidence from an Appellate Justice who was adjunct faculty at my school.)

            But it is unheard of for a recent law school grad to teach a tested subject. Teachers of tested subjects are basically experts in those narrow subjects. They usually are experienced attorneys with appellate experience.

            But no one practices “torts” or “civil procedure” so instructors usually receive advanced training both in the subject matter and how to teach it.

            Imagine spending 3 years in law school (and beaucoup dollars on tuition) only to discover you failed the bar exam because your first-year torts instructor was an idiot.

          • According to the NYT link I posted above:

            At the school, Mr. Obama taught three courses, ascending to senior lecturer, a title otherwise carried only by a few federal judges. His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.

            His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law. Mr. Obama improvised his own textbook, including classic cases like Brown v. Board of Education, and essays by Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Dubois, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, as well as conservative thinkers like Robert H. Bork.

          • His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.

            It sounds like he taught narrowly focused areas of Con Law that are covered in basic Con Law classes but not in depth. (They aren’t tested on the bar exam in depth either.)

            If Obama provided Pildes with any significant help in developing a casebook why isn’t he listed as a co-author?

          • seems like he liked election law so much because he wanted to find ways to finagle his way around it. Starting with the way he knocked Alice Palmer off the ballot.

          • If Obama provided Pildes with any significant help in developing a casebook why isn’t he listed as a co-author?

            well I don’t know if he did or not or that’s something they devised to puff him up the way they did with other things in the Illinois state senate when he ran for US senator in the US Senate when he ran for prez. But if it is legit that he helped Pildes, then… from the other excerpt above somewhere…

            Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any. He was too busy, but also, Mr. Epstein believes, he was unwilling to put his name to anything that could haunt him politically, as Ms. Guinier’s writings had hurt her. “He figured out, you lay low,” Mr. Epstein said.

          • A law review article may reveal an attorney’s personal views on a legal topic, but if you’re representing someone you argue whatever valid legal theories support their case.

            You might argue for spousal support with one client in the morning and against it in the afternoon with a different client, with both cases having similar facts.

            Lots of prosecutors start out as public defenders and lots of private criminal defense attorneys are former prosecutors..

          • BTW – as an attorney Obama worked for a firm that represented slum lords like Tony Rezko, not his poor tenants.

          • NYU School of Law News:

            Professors Pildes and Issacharoff reflect on experiences working as attorneys for Obama campaign

            Now that the election is over, we are free to talk about our experience. Since the start of the primary season, we have been working as part of the Obama campaign’s legal team on voting and election issues. On Election Day and the days leading up to it, we were in the “boiler room” at campaign headquarters in Chicago, where we worked with others to monitor voting issues that arose around the country and to respond to any systemic problems that might require legal intervention or a response to legal intervention others initiated.

            {snip]

            For both of us, the election’s outcome has a surreal quality of closing a circle. Early in our careers, one of us used to get together with President-Elect Obama to discuss our casebook, The Law of Democracy, from which he taught when he was a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. The other of us began our legal career by being part of a successful lawsuit that led to the first seating of an African-American congressman from Misssissipi in the 20th century.

            It’s coming from lawyers who worked for O’s campaign, and his big help was they used to discuss it with him and he taught from it.

          • I think Hillary’s trips to Northern Ireland as first lady were more helpful.

      • Obama wasn’t even an active lawyer for long.

  2. He should have said it earlier, and when he finally said it, he waffled. He’s not a leader.

    That’s O in a nutshell.

    • adding onto this… this is the problem with O, he does not want to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to actually lead on ideas (goodness forbid he ever bring out the liberal in people), he wants to take everybody’s temperature first, straddle a safe middle that he can carve out, wavers even on that at the first sign of the right making noise (which I believe falls under the “failure is a feature, not a bug” category)

      honestly I think the only reason he finally spoke up about the Muslim community center (what is being referred to as “mosque”) after weeks of avoiding it…. he wanted to throw the left a bone after the Gibbsies “professional left” incident…give some crafted lipservice on the so-called mosque…he thought he had figured out the best way to say it as a rights issue while stating he wasn’t talking about the wisdom of building it there blah blah… this was an easy way to remind everybody he’s not as icky as the wingnuts… but when he got blowback even for that he instantly wavered and backed off. He wasn’t prepared to stand up to blowback b/c he never meant to stand up for anything here.

      • Frankly I think he was in front of a predominantly Muslim audience at a dinner for the start of Ramadan. That being the case, he said what made the people in front of him happy.

        It’s the same thing as the bittercling bit at his SF fundraiser. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Then he caught flack and walked it back. No principles, just instant applause.

        • you don’t think he knew this would get play? I noticed a lot of people like Glenn Greenwald et al. fell for this and thought Obama was taking some brave stand at first.

          • I really don’t believe he was thinking further than the big round of applause he would get when he said it. He seems to really need the audience love.

            He’s always managed to wiggle out of these things with minimal damage before and I think he imagined he would do it again.

          • It would take an unbelievable amount of stupidity for them not to realize his remarks on the Muslim community center would not go ignored. Even for the O White House, as tonedeaf as they are, they took care not to let him say anything on the issue until then. So the timing for him opening his mouth finally seems significant.

            I guess we’ll never know unless someone gives the True Obamaland Story on this Administration–which would require Dakinikat’s big pink bowl of popcorn.

      • spammy got me.

  3. BTW – Ms. Althouse is a REAL law professor

    Shhh…don’t tell the Obamabots that Oprecious wasn’t a REAL professor.

  4. What’s the TC record for most posts in a single day? I’ve got another one ready to go after Quixote’s upcoming post and I’ll bet I write at least one more before bedtime.

    These Adderall pills I found in my son’s backpack are better than Tylenol or Advil. They are pain medication, right?

    I’m gonna go mow the lawn again.

  5. I’m really gonna have to do something about my track record. How will I ever get a highly paid job in the media if I keep being right all the time? (I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.)

    Can you learn to brown nose miq2xu? The new journalists do that very well. Journalists that try to be like Walter Cronkite end up unemployed.

  6. You can’t say the man hasn’t had numerous opportunities to rise to the occasion. Whether it be foreign affairs, job creation, the most recent flap over the NY mosque or the Gulf Oil kill. In fact, the recent drive-by to the Gulf, family in tow, is a perfect example. He gives an incredibly dry, flat statement, encouraging the public to “come on down.” He doesn’t visit the hardest hit areas, and then has the gall to have a photo-op in St. Andrew bay, where he’s sure not to get his hands dirty.

    Incredible!

    The whole thing is a fraud, whether we’re talking about the economy, how he cares for the people of the Gulf or anything else. In fact, I have no idea where this man stands on anything, beyond a love affair with Wall St. He’s been in office nearly two years. Does he have a position? Did he ever have a vision for the country? Or just himself?

    I think for many Americans, the disgust factor is setting in. They just want POTUS to go away. And take TOTUS with him.

      • That’s the beauty of getting a pile of sh*t. Leaders, and those with a creative mind can turn the pile into gold. The G.W.s and Obamas of this world, complain about the pile, blame others for their misfortune and if given gold, like G.W. proved, turn it into sh*t.

  7. Althouse?

    Well, a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ann_Althouse

    • Wow.

      I knew she said she voted for Obama but had no idea about her boob envy issues.

    • rational wiki … hmmm … they have an interesting entry on “PUMA”

      • ohhh yuck.

        • They link to Blogstalkers for “proof.”

          ’nuff said.

          • For a real laugh read their entry on Hillary.

            Hillary Rodham Clinton is a slightly right of center American politician. Not an extreme liberal like James Taylor.

            As the wifely appendage of Bill Clinton, she served as “first lady” of the state of Arkansas, and later of the whole United States.

          • I think the people running that wiki are blockheads.

            She graduated in 1969 with a BA in political science, and entered Yale Law School, where she met her future husband and future President of the United States, Bill Clinton. They eventually moved to Arkansas and married. Hillary would do a lot of groundbreaking law things while her husband was busy getting elected to things at the same time, like the Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas. She actually made more money than him during this period, which proves she wore the pants in the family, not that Bill Clinton wore much pants. At this time they started to invest in the Whitewater Development Corporation with Jim and Susan McDougal. This would turn into a scandal later on when they were in the White House, and Hillary would personally murder Vince Foster over it and frame it as a suicide, at least according to some people.

          • But nothing at all about her lesbian lovers? I’m shocked!

            😯

      • Agreed, yuck.

        And yet they were denouncing Althouse for Clinton-hating on the Althouse article.

        Apparently RationalWiki does not consider consistency necessary for rationality. 😛

        I didn’t know RW existed until today. I just ran a search for Althouse and found that article.

    • I think that’s part of the upside down world efforts. They’re the opposite of rational, so they put it in their title.

  8. I was just about to say: Althouse? Really?

    Ugh.

    Surely we can do better.

  9. “At a high plane of principle and abstraction, there is a beautiful harmony. ”

    Which is exactly why I supported Hillary over Obama.

  10. Is Obama Losing His Focus?

    President Obama is being criticized for becoming “incoherent” and losing sight of his original focus. Others are wondering if this is just another excuse for the media to bash him.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: