(more…)

Bill Clinton?

Obama’s would-be choice for SecState tells us a bit about his confidence and demeanor. It tells us he no less lacks a capacity for leadership and change than he did before he decided to run for high office. So much for the “team of rivals.” So much for change for that matter.

And, to boot, it would appear all the media fuss about Hillary as SecState may be for naught.

…it’s difficult to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines. And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny…, but the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.

Ah, but is that enough in this soon-to-be rarified era of Liberal lunacy control of the White House and The Hill?

In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing.

Read the whole article and behold a laundry list of why Hillary Clinton should not be in public office let alone representing us to the world.

News Flash:  Chris Matthews wasn’t the only one whose legs The Light Worker made all tingly:

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled “Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story.” Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama’s campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue — “Obama’s American Dream” — filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.

Commerce is one thing.  Gassy hagiography?  Well, that’s downright…

…unjournalistic?

What’s troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing…But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

“The Obamas’ New Life!” blares People’s cover, with a shot of the family. “New home, new friends, new puppy!” Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: “I Think I’m a Pretty Cool Dad.” The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle “is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis — combined!” for the fashion world…Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it “BAM-A-LOT.”

Remember when the mainstream media umphed and bargled over the propriety of embedding with the troops, because they might not be “detached” enough to cover the war “fairly?”

Those were the days, weren’t they?:

“Here we are,” writes Salon’s Rebecca Traister, “oohing and aahing over what they’ll be wearing, and what they’ll be eating, what kind of dog they’ll be getting, what bedrooms they’ll be living in, and what schools they’ll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas’ tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?”

But aren’t media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?

Read the whole dismal thing.

…he certainly didnt’ forget he’s a liberal.

…and he certainly didn’t forget his teleprompter…but it does appear someone set it up a bit too high. Barack Obama usually likes to look down on us angry Americans, not up to us.

Another campaign speech from the Office of the President-Elect. Thanks for the reminder el Presidente’. I think we know we are in a recession. Your people caused it, remember?

He throws a $150 Billion around like we have it. Folks, best hope for another World War because that’s what it took to pull us out of the Great Depression, which was extended by the last “New Deal.”

Advisers doubt Obama

The majority of financial advisers have little faith in President-elect Barack Obama’s ability to put the nation back on sound economic footing.

An exclusive InvestmentNews survey of 968 advisers last week found that 61% lacked confidence in the new commander-in-chief’s ability to resolve the country’s economic woes.

After last Tuesday’s historic vote in which Mr. Obama was elected the nation’s first black president, advisers across the country began considering ways to protect client assets from changes that could go into effect under the incoming new Democratic-controlled government.

That’s not encouraging. Investment advisors are already advising their clients on ways to protect their assets from the President and his Economic Geniuses?

…and it might be too late to escape? (emphasis mine)

“Very possibly, we’ll be looking at a retroactive tax increase for upper-income people to Jan. 1, 2009,” Federal Policy Group managing director Ken Kies told more than 1,000 advisers who participated in InvestmentNews’ post-election webcast last Wednesday.

“the tax increase will be significant, and it’s going to be a lot more than anything he campaigned on.”

Before you dismiss this because you don’t count yourself among upper-income earners, remember, Obama’s standard for this distinction has and could fall further.