posted June 07, 2008 05:00 PM            

May 21, 2008
By Joe Hanel | Herald Denver Bureau

DENVER - Forget about Tuesday's votes in Oregon and Kentucky. Barack Obama has won the Cosmic Primary and is destined to be the next president of the United States.

Seven leading astrologers consulted their charts and came to the unanimous conclusion, which they shared Tuesday at the United Astrology Conference in Denver.

Although the crowd of several hundred cheered at the forecast, the seven panelists shared a sense of foreboding.

"There are things that are going to happen in the next couple of months that could turn the game into something different than we think it is right now," said Shelley Ackerman, a New York City astrologer who appears frequently on television and radio shows.

A time of upheaval is coming, they agreed. Election Day - Nov. 4 - will put Saturn in opposition to Uranus, meaning the two planets are aligned at opposite ends of the zodiac. Saturn symbolizes experience and the establishment. Uranus is the planet of change and youth. When they are opposed, the country sees a period of "revolutionary fervor," said Raymond Merriman, the panel's moderator. The last Saturn-Uranus opposition was from 1965-67, a time of drastic cultural change.

Other astrological events during the summer make the election unpredictable. Democrats will gather in Denver for their national convention in August - the same month as a solar eclipse and a partial lunar eclipse.

The events raise the possibility of President Bush somehow interfering with the election, said Robert Hand of Reston, Va.

In fact, most of the astrologers on the panel weren't sure if the winner of the election would be the same person taking the oath of office on Inauguration Day. Some of them expressed concern about Obama's personal safety.

"I'm hoping they really pump up the security around him. I'm just really concerned about that," said Sandra Leigh-Serio of Boulder.

And the election gets even trickier for astrologers.

It's the single most "screwed-up" election from an astrological perspective in decades, Hand said.

"We don't have a single solid birth chart, so this is going to be very difficult," Hand said.

Astrologers think Hillary Clinton was born at 8:02 a.m. Oct. 26, that John McCain was born at 9 a.m. Aug. 29 and that Obama was born at 7:11 p.m. Aug. 4. But those times might not be accurate, and if they're not, then all bets are off with the candidates' astrological charts, Hand said.

And most menacing of all, whoever wins might regret it. The charts don't look good at all for Jan. 20, Inauguration Day.

"Whoever gets sworn in, it ain't going to work too well," Ackerman said.

*edited to delete broken and add working link*
http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.asp?article_type=news&article_path=/news/08/news080521_1.htm

An exerpt of an article from the Denver Post:

"Astrologers starry-eyed for Obama"
May 20, 2008
By William Porter / Denver Post Columnist

The United Astrology Conference was in Denver this week. On Tuesday, seven top forecasters took the stage in the downtown Sheraton and made like television political pundits, minus the screaming.

Six panelists predicted the election will go to Barack Obama, thanks to a Saturn-Jupiter conjunction spelling change. The seventh, Shelley Ackerman, saw an Obama win, but worried about Neptune doing something funky in January, endangering his chances of actually taking office. Her colleagues agreed the stars did look dicey in this respect.

Panelist Sandra-Leigh Serio ran it down for me.

"Obama's chart and the United States' chart are very much alike," she said. "From an astrological standpoint, he's a man of destiny. (John) McCain also has a strong connection to the U.S. chart."

Hillary Clinton? Eh, not so much, apparently. "There's a little more confusion with her and the U.S. chart," Serio said.

Gloria Star noted that Clinton has looming problems with Neptune. While signs indicate she will be gone from the scene on Election Day, other signs "indicate she's fighting somewhere."

So there it is, courtesy of our top astrologers: Obama wins, probably.

The rest of the article can be found at: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9327085

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted June 07, 2008 05:33 PM            

quote:

---

His very public statement touched off waves of protests in Pakistan and inflamed radical islamics who despise the United State and who have already attempted to assassinate Musharraf four or five times....jwhop

---

quote:

---

No it didn't. Further, it's exactly in line with Bush's position...acoustic

---

"ELKO, Nevada (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday stood by foreign policy comments that sparked an anti-U.S. protest in Pakistan and attacks from his opponents, telling an audience in rural Nevada, "There was no mistake there"

The government of Pakistan last week branded Obama's comment "irresponsible" and protesters in Islamabad burned an American flag.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/obama.foreign.policy.ap/?eref=yahoo

Oh really acoustic.

You must have been off planet in your little leftist bubble world when this was going on. Even CNN saw fit to go public with these facts.

The difference between Bush and O'Bomber is that if Bush thought it necessary to launch an attack on terrorist positions in Pakistan, he simply would do it and not talk about it. Why put the life of a friend and ally in danger by making public boneheaded statements? Well I already know the why. O'Bomber is a weak kneed little twit trying to prop up his constructed image as a leader. But talking about bombing our friends and allies and talking to terrorists isn't going to take him very far down that road.

Something else O'Bomber doesn't know or didn't think about is that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and missiles with which to deliver those nuclear weapons.

Getting Musharraf killed would probably usher in Islamic hardliners aligned against the United States....and our allies.

posted June 07, 2008 05:51 PM            

Many were there at the meeting where the unfair delegate apportionment for Florida and Michigan were decided

One woman went public with the press covering the event and said the DNC just made her a second class citizen. She also said McCain is going to be the next President of the United States. I take that to mean that many Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain...as they said they would if Hillary was not the democrat party nominee.

posted June 07, 2008 05:56 PM            

I added the Denver Post to favorite places and will read it all when I have more time.

posted June 07, 2008 06:02 PM            

http://www.durangoherald.com/asp-bin/article_generation.as p?article_type=news&article_path=/news/08/news080521_1.htm

juni

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted June 07, 2008 10:56 PM            

quote:

---

The government of Pakistan last week branded Obama's comment "irresponsible" and protesters in Islamabad burned an American flag.

---

Some riot. Yes, there were a few mentions of some Pakistanis taking offense here and there, but saying, "His very public statement touched off waves of protests in Pakistan and inflamed radical islamics," is quite an exaggeration. There weren't "waves of protests" over there because of what he said, and he probably wouldn't have received the response at all if they heard the way he qualified his idea. The government, which has been doing a questionable job at hunting down terrorists, should take offense, and they should STEP IT UP, so we don't have to.

quote:

---

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” - Barack Obama
Link

---

posted June 08, 2008 12:34 AM            

quote:

---

Some riot. Yes, there were a few mentions of some Pakistanis taking offense here and there...acoustic

---

Your assignment acoustic...should you choose to accept it...is to show where I ever said anything about a riot or posted any information indicating there were riots in Pakistan over what the bonehead O'Bomber said about a unilateral US attack on Pakistan if he were President.

It’s a scene from an anti-American rally in Karachi, Pakistan, on Friday, in response to Obama’s Macho Man remarks threatening to invade Pakistan whether they like it or not.

Pakistani tribal protesters gather to condemn the U.S. presidential hopeful candidate Barack Obama’s remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Miran Shah, capital of Pakistan’s tribal area of north Waziristan along the Afghanistan border. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. Speakers told protesters that they will fight back in case of U.S. strikes.

Way to go, Barack!
By Michelle Malkin • August 5, 2007 09:12 PM

You know that “Obama for Change” t-shirt all the left-wing Hollywood starlets are wearing? They might want to get this photo via Yahoo! News silk-screened on the back:

It’s a scene from an anti-American rally in Karachi, Pakistan, on Friday, in response to Obama’s Macho Man remarks threatening to invade Pakistan whether they like it or not.

Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit has more scenes of what Barack has wrought. Somehow, I don’t think this is what Obama meant when he said we needed a “uniter in the White House:”

posted June 08, 2008 12:53 AM            

Pakistani protesters hold placards condemning U.S. policy during a rally to protest against U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Lahore, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. Placard at bottom left reads 'Down with America.' (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary)

Pakistani protestors chant anti American slogans after setting on fire the effigies of U.S. President George W. Bush, center, Republican Tom Tancredo, left, and U.S. Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, right, at a protest rally in Lahore, Pakistan on Sunday, August 5, 2007. Protesters criticized to Tancredo and Obama for allegedly making irresponsible statements on military strikes against Muslims and bombing on the Islamic holiest sites, Mecca and Medina. (AP Photo/K.M.Chaudary)

Sunday, August 05, 2007
Pakistanis Protest Barak Obama's Invasion Threats

On Wednesday, Barak Obama pledged that he would ignore Al-Qaeda in Iraq but would invade US ally Pakistan to hunt down members of the terror organization.

On Friday, Pakistanis took to the streets to protest Obama's invasion threats.

Pakistani officials also blasted Obama for his irresponsible remarks of a unilateral invasion.
ABC reported:

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

President George W. Bush telephoned President Gen Pervez Musharraf on Friday to allaeviate fears of the Pakistani administration.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/08/pakistanis-protest-barak-obamas.html

Yes, Bush had to phone Musharraf to defuse the situation after the bonehead O'Bomber attempted to show he had enough testosterone to actually attack anyone when the world..and especially the terrorists know differently.

By all means, pull US forces out of Iraq which terrorists themselves have said is the central battleground in their war against the United States...and attack a friend and ally, Pakistan.

posted June 08, 2008 03:52 AM            

quote:

---

in response to Obama’s Macho Man remarks threatening to invade Pakistan whether they like it or not.

---

I don't like the word "invade" here. There's a connotation of aggression towards Pakistan itself, when in actuality he made no beef with the nation. He was very specific in pointing out that he would be after terrorists ONLY. His plan does not at all fit the definitions for invading where the outcome is conquest.

quote:

---

Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists.

---

Military strikes on terrorist targets. Nothing else. To put it the way it's said above is to imply that Obama was suggesting bombing all of Pakistan, which isn't at all the case.

quote:

---

Pakistani protestors chant anti American slogans after setting on fire the effigies of U.S. President George W. Bush, center, Republican Tom Tancredo, left, and U.S. Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, right, at a protest rally in Lahore, Pakistan on Sunday, August 5, 2007.

---

It's Bush's policy that Obama said he would pursue (perhaps with more concentration and vigor). I agree with Obama, they weren't irresponsible statements. The way they've been misconstrued is unfortunate, but what he's said isn't at all controversial in my opinion. What he said is a course of action I can absolutely see a Republican administration carrying out.

Anger after apparent U.S. missile strike in Pakistan
Pakistan protests U.S. missile strikes in tribal areas

quote:

---

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

---

posted June 08, 2008 06:24 AM              

WHAT’S UP HILLARY’S SLEEVE?

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
06.6.2008
Published on FOXNews.com on June 6, 2008.

Why won’t Hillary just concede that she has lost and pull out of the race? Why does she persist in keeping her delegates in line for her and not releasing them to Obama? Why does she feign party unity while, in fact, undermining it?

The Clintons never do anything without a lot of thinking and planning. There is no benign explanation for her maneuvers. They have several options that they are deliberately keeping open by their increasingly awkward positioning. Here’s what they’re up to:

1. The Obama Stumbles Option

As Hillary says, June is “early” in politics when the convention is not to be held until the end of August, unusually late for a Democratic conclave. And, as Tip O’Neill says “a week is a long time in politics.” So is three months.

Rumors abound about incriminating material on Obama, the potential for misstep is amplified now that he adjusts to a new task of taking on McCain, who knows how many other preachers there are in the closet? Hillary’s skilled force of private detectives, who we once called the secret police, are doubtless diving into garbage dumpsters all over America to come up with whatever they can.

Hillary wants to be there to exploit any mistakes. She will be watching and waiting. Suppose Obama flubs a line on the campaign trail or damaging material emerges from the Rezko prosecution? Hillary will indicate her continued availability as an alternative. Remember that superdelegates can change their minds anytime they want to. Now they are leaving Hillary to back Obama, the winner, but they could easily go the other way. By not releasing her pledged delegates, she remains within striking distance of the nomination if an Obama faux pas leads to an exodus of superdelegates from his camp.

2. Hillary for VP

By remaining a force at the convention, Hillary might be in a position to bail out a faltering Obama campaign by going on the ticket. There is no love lost between the two candidates. Hillary knows that Obama will not choose her voluntarily as his running mate. But if Obama falters, he might just need the shot in the arm Hillary would represent. By remaining in the shadows as a potential threat to wrest away the nomination, she might leverage her position to make Obama put her on the ticket.

She wants to be VP in case Obama loses so she can be positioned for 2012 and in case he wins so she can shoot for the stars in 2016. And, she doesn’t want anyone else to have the job so as not to create a potential rival.

3. The I Told You So Option

By remaining viable and keeping her delegates, Hillary stays in play through the convention. Her aides and associates can be counted on to dump on Obama subtly and, often, anonymously, as he moves forward. If Obama loses the election, and did not take her on his ticket, she can run as the “I told you so” candidate in 2012, much as Ronald Reagan capitalized on Gerald Ford’s defeat in 1976, after Reagan had unsuccessfully sought the nomination, to bolster his credentials in 1980.

4. Paying Off Her Debts

By staying, at least partially, in the game, Hillary can continue to raise money and pay off her debts. And she can hold out a bargaining position to force Obama to do more and more to help her to raise money. Debts to her vendors are one thing. She can always raise funds to pay them off in the future. But the election law makes it illegal for her to pay herself back any sum above $250,000 after the Democratic Convention. Since she has lent her campaign at least $11 million, she wants to get as much of it back as possible before the convention deadline.

Hillary may set her candidacy aside for the moment. But her fortunes will continue to rise and fall inversely with Obama’s. Should he hit a rough patch, Hillary’s numbers are bound to improve, strengthening her bargaining position for funds or for the VP slot or, possibly giving her enough momentum to reopen the contest.

posted June 08, 2008 12:16 PM            

I also agree with Dick Morris who knows the Clintons very well, having worked in the Clinton White House.

posted June 08, 2008 07:10 PM            

Thanks silverstone, I hadn't seen that video.

Again, I agree with Dick Morris. In spite of all the smiley faces in public, I don't think Hillary and O'Bomber like each other and Michelle Obama most certainly doesn't like Hillary.

He's right again when he says all Bill's financial dealings would have to revealed and stand up to an examination. Further, I doubt O'Bomber wants Bill Clinton anywhere near the White House trying to give him advice and telling him how he used to do it.

I'm not too sure Hillary would carry all her voters to O'Bomber anyway. Lots and lots of women are really ticked she wasn't the nominee and VP is usually a position with lots of pomp and circumstance but without much in the way of real power. It's almost an honorary position and Hillary's voters would know that.

posted June 09, 2008 05:56 PM              

IT’S NOT OVER, YET

By Dick Morris 06.9.2008 Media commentators and pundits heard what they wanted to hear in Hillary’s speech on Saturday. Her endorsement of Obama and her “suspension” of her campaign seemed to indicate that it is all over. No its not.

Hillary has not released her delegates. She still has 1,639.5 pledged, elected delegates, within reach of the 2118 needed to be nominated if the super delegates break in her favor.

So, for now Hillary is deferring to Obama, bowing to party pressure. But don’t be deceived. If Obama makes a mistake and begins to drop in the polls or some other tape comes out or a new pastor emerges with more racial rhetoric, Hillary still has her 1,639.5 delegates. Count on her to back Obama in public, but look for her aides and supporters, and perhaps her husband, to raise the question of whether or not the results of the primaries should not be revisited in light of the trouble in the Obama candidacy. If Obama continues to stumble, look for the chorus to swell and crescendo into a dull roar.

Three months is an eternity in politics. With Obama having to stand up to McCain, particularly if the Republican bests him in the forums they may hold over the summer, this thing is not yet settled.

It would take a lot for the super delegates to reverse field and give Hillary the nomination. It probably won’t happen. But Hillary has not thrown in the towel. She has assumed a waiting position, circling high overhead looking down and waiting for some mishap to hit the Obama campaign so she can swoop down and pick up the nomination.

Hope springs eternal and you are deluding yourself if you think Hillary has given up.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/06/09/it%e2%80%99s-not-over-yet/#more-356

HILLARY CIRCLES SLOWLY OVERHEAD

By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 06.9.2008 Hillary’s suspension of her campaign, and her omission of any release of her delegates, makes her a factor for Obama to consider for the next three months until the Democratic nomination is officially and finally his. Absent an actual statement to her delegates urging them to vote for Obama on the first ballot, Hillary’s candidacy cannot be said to have ended.

Rather, the former First Lady will be slowly circling overhead during June, July, and August waiting for Obama to make a mistake or stumble. Throughout the next three months, there will always be the possibility that he errs so badly that Hillary gets back into the race. Should another pastor rear his head or if one of the mythical tapes that are said to be about to emerge does, in fact, exist, Obama cannot rest secure in the nomination as long as Hillary is overhead, waiting.

Even if all of the super delegates desert Hillary, as most will now do, she still has 1,639.5 pledged or elected delegates to call her own. While these men and women can legally vote for either candidate, regardless of the slate on which they were elected, one must assume that they are true Hillary believers, who would not have been put on her slate to begin with. These pledged delegates mean that she is always just a step or two away from the nomination, should Obama commit a faux pas.

And there will be many opportunities for Obama to err over the next three months. With John McCain keeping up the pressure by suggesting ten town meetings between now and the conventions, at which the two putative candidates appear side by side, a weak debate performance or a decisive McCain win in any one of them could trigger a crisis for Obama which Hillary could move to exploit.

General election candidates usually try to move to the center after they have won their party nominations, but Obama may find his maneuvering room cut by Hillary’s hovering overhead. Any move to suggest that he might re-engage in Iraq should things fall apart or that he may not raise taxes for ambitious health care plans during a recession – any departure from Democratic Party orthodoxy – could lead to grumbling by Hillary supporters and crimp Obama’s flexibility.

Oddly, McCain finds himself in a parallel predicament. Republican leaders are worried that he is not a true Republican and concerned about his liberal positions on issues like climate change, alternative energy sources, torture of terror suspects, and corporate governance reform. His ability, too, to move to the center is handicapped while he awaits his coronation in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

But Obama’s is the deeper predicament since, unlike McCain, he does not have a rival whose vote share begins to equal his at his party convention.

posted June 09, 2008 11:20 PM            

There is a certain imagery associated with Hillary circling high overhead. It's not the image of an Eagle but rather that of a Buzzard circling and waiting to pick O'Bombers bones the first time he slips up.

Have you ever hear O'Bomber speaking off the cuff...not in a prepared speech? I have and he's not the silver tongued orator the press makes him out to be.

Hillary may yet get her main chance.

O'Bomber doesn't think well on his feet..so to speak. He's used to reading prepared statements he didn't write off the teleprompter.

posted June 10, 2008 02:31 AM            

quote:

---

I have and he's not the silver tongued orator the press makes him out to be.

...

Look for McCain to throw some things into the mix O'Bomber didn't prepare for in the coming debates which will leave O'Bomber stuttering and stammering and making himself look both foolish and unprepared.

---

posted June 10, 2008 10:33 AM            

Gross and utter stupidity to talk about strikes in another country which have several consequences. One, they tip off the targets in advance and two, the talk inflames citizens and puts pressure on their government.

In the case of Pakistan, Musharraf didn't need the radicals inflammed who have been attempting to assassinate him. We don't know whether Bush informed him first privately but we do know Bush took/accepted the heat and let Mucharraf posture...just as it should have been.

We also know the Taliban/al-Qaeda targets were taken out because they had no advance warning.

posted June 10, 2008 11:13 AM            

quote:

---

the talk inflames citizens and puts pressure on their government.

---

They were/are already inflamed, and there already is pressure on their government as a result of the real bomber.

quote:

---

We also know the Taliban/al-Qaeda targets were taken out because they had no advance warning.

---

posted June 10, 2008 11:44 AM            

Barrack Obama has women troubles, and Hillary Clinton is far from alone as being a problem. Danger lurks much closer to home.

First there are the 13 million disaffected women who supported Hillary not for her agenda but for her gender. Fifteen times in her concession speech Hillary name-checked Barack Obama and fifteen times there were loud boos in the audience. Yes, many will back Obama, but Democrats, unlike Republicans, don't fall in line. In one poll 40 per cent of Clinton supporters said they will not support Obama; whether that turns into votes for McCain is another matter.

Then there is Hillary herself. In her swan song speech (is it?) she claimed she would "do whatever she could to ensure that Democrats take the White House back and defeat John McCain," In their quiet chat together at Diane Feinstein's house in Washington last week, I can only imagine that Obama said that the best help she can give is to give no help at all. Obama can only hope that the Bill & Hill Show quietly retreats to the shadows only to appear -- briefly -- at the convention in late August. Obama doesn't need the distraction or the constant reminder that she is still about.

Then there is the problem of the vice presidency. Unless Hillary announces unequivocally that she has no intention to stand and will not accept an offer, this will hang like a pall and a question mark over the Obama campaign.

Her brigade of soul sisters will continue to push for her to the Obama camp either with her endorsement and connivance or not. The shards from those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling will start to fall on Obama and his campaign will suffer death from 18 million small cuts.

Obama does not have to wait until the nomination to name his pick for veep and the vetting committee he has set up will buy him some time but that still leaves a glimmer of unrequited hope for Hillary supporters. Yet another distraction from his core message.

Of course, Hillary may not want the post. She could figure that Obama will lose to McCain and this puts her in the position in 2012 to tell the party elders "see I told you so." Why be tainted as part of a losing ticket? Though she will on the surface give the appearance of helping the Obama campaign enough to secure her place in the party, it is in her interest not to help too much. Giving the appearance of being "open to the idea" of the vice-presidency keeps the dance and the guessing going and distracts from the main thrust of selling Obama and his ideas (of which we know not what they are) to the electorate. The distraction continues without her fingerprints on the gun.

And what if Obama should pick Hillary? That brings up a host of problems of their own. First there is the Clinton motivational factor on the GOP base -- if Republican John McCain can't rally his conservative base, the Clintons will.

Then there's the Michelle problem.

In her famous television interview with Martin Bashir, Diana the late Princess of Wales, referring to Camilla (now the Duchess of Cornwall) complained that there were "three of us in this marriage." Not only will Hillary not want to do a job she's in essence already done - the vice presidency may even be a step down for her after being Bill's co-president - but in Michelle Obama's eyes it's now her turn to be vice-president.

If Barrack Obama's throwback ideas to the Carter administration aren't scary enough, the thought of a Michelle Obama as part of the administration should really put the frighteners up.

Think back to Hillary Clinton's time in office dodging those bullets in Bosnia or securing peace in Northern Ireland. Imagine what Michelle can do as FLOTUS. Think about Cherie Blair Britain, where I live, and her time in Downing Street. Mrs. Blair, or Cherie Booth as she is known professionally, was happy enough as a barrister to take her own husband's government to court on human rights charges on a number of cases. The recent publication of her memoirs have been a unneeded distraction to Gordon Brown (notable fact: youngest son, Leo Blair, was conceived while she and Tony Blair were guests of the Queen at Balmoral. She was too embarrassed to take her contraception as Her Majesty's household staff unpack one's bags).

Michelle will take the art of interfering first spouse to a whole new unexplored level. This will be a lot more than just -- as Bill Clinton spoke of Hillary -- "two for the price of one."

Be it her only recently found pride in her country or moans about the price of ballet lessons or complaints about what "it [criticism of the odious preacher, Rev. Wright] is doing to my kids," Michelle is already famous for a strain of affluent victimhood; I can only feel for the White House staff who would have to suffer four years of her employ.

Add to this her leftist view of Barack Obama as Commander-in-Chief, not just of the military but of the whole nation; the nanny state with her as the chief nanny.[b] Think of this famous prediction from Michelle:

[b]"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Hmm, where in the US Constitution does it give him the power to do that? Michelle is Hillary, Cherie and Oprah on steroids

posted June 10, 2008 11:58 AM            

Talk about bombing friends and allies and talking to screeching enemies shouting "death to America" isn't rational.

As to where terrorists might go; who knows. They might just scatter or move to different locations within Pakistan.

O'Bomber has made other gaffes. On tax policy, on trade policy and on other foreign policy positions.

He's said he would almost double the capital gains tax...even when it was pointed out to him that would reduce tax revenue to the federal government.

He's said he will renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. Then, he sent an adviser to Canada to tell them he didn't really mean it. Apparently, his public statement was only lying rhetoric to fool the suckers.

He sent an adviser to talk to Hamas...a group on the US terrorist list. Then, he fired the adviser when the shiiit hit the fan.

O'Bomber is a walking disaster zone.

posted June 11, 2008 02:28 PM            

Hahahaha!