Now I’m Really Getting Pissed Off
by David Michael Green

"Hey did you hear about the iconic African-American guy who plays golf, and whose relationship with the public is in a free-fall lately?

No, as a matter of fact – I’m not talking about Tiger Woods.

You know, I’ve really been trying not to write an article every other week about all the things I don’t like about Barack Obama.

But the little prick is making it very hard.

Like any good progressive, I’ve gone from admiration to hope to disappointment to anger when it comes to this president. Now I’m fast getting to rage.

How much rage? I find myself thinking that the thing I want most from the 2010 elections is for his party to get absolutely clobbered, even if that means a repeat of 1994. And that what I most want from 2012 is for him to be utterly humiliated, even if that means President Palin at the helm. That much rage.

Did this clown really say on national television that “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of you know, fat cat bankers on Wall Street”?!?!

Really, Barack? So, like, my question is: Then why the hell did you help out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street?!?! Why the hell did you surround yourself with nothing but Robert Rubin proteges in all the key economic positions in your government? Why did you allow them to open a Washington branch of Goldman Sachs in the West Wing? Why have your policies been tailored to helping Wall Street bankers, rather than the other 300 million of us, who just happen to be suffering badly right now?

Are you freakin’ kidding me??? What’s up with the passive president routine, anyhow, Fool? You hold the most powerful position in the world. Or maybe Rahm forgot to mention that to you. Or maybe the fat cat bankers don’t actually let do that whole decision-making thing often enough that it would actually matter…

But, really, are you going to spend the next three interminable years perfecting your whiney victim persona? I don’t really think I could bear that. Hearing you complain about how rough it all is, when you have vastly more power than any of us to fix it? Please. Not that.

Are you going to tell us that “I did not run for office to be shovel-feeding the military-industrial complex”? But what – they’re just so darned pushy?

“…I did not run for office to continue George Bush’s valiant effort at shredding the Bill of Rights. It’s just that those government-limiting rules are so darned pesky.”

“…I did not run for office to dump a ton of taxpayer money into the coffers of health insurance companies. It’s just that they asked so nicely.”

“…I did not run for office to block equality for gay Americans. I just never got around to doing anything about it.”

“…I did not run for office to turn Afghanistan into Vietnam. I just didn’t want to say no to all the nice generals asking for more troops.”

Here’s a guy who was supposed to actually do something with his presidency, and he’s turned into the skinny little geek on Cell Block D who gets passed around like a rag doll for the pleasure of all the fellas with the tattoos there. He’s being punked by John Boehner, for chrisakes. He’s being rolled by the likes of Joe Lieberman. He calls a come-to-Jesus meeting with Wall Street bank CEOs, and half of them literally phone it in. Everyone from Bibi Netanyahu to the Japanese prime minister to sundry Iranian mullahs is stomping all over Mr. Happy.

And he doesn’t even seem to realize it.

Did you see him tell Oprah that he gave himself “a good solid B+” for his first year in office? And that it will be an A, if he gets his healthcare legislation passed?

Somebody please pick me up and set me back on my chair, wouldya?

I am seriously beginning to worry that this cat is delusional. He has lopped off twenty full points from his job approval rating in less than a year’s time, falling now below fifty percent. His party, once dominant in generic congressional election poll questions, is today almost even with hated Republicans in the public mind. Last month, Obama’s inverted coattails (don’t even ask where those go) got two Democrats clobbered running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The otherwise obnoxious George F. Will (very) rightly points out that in Kentucky, “a Republican candidate succeeded in nationalizing a state Senate race. Hugely outspent in a district in which Democrats have a lopsided registration advantage, the Republican won by 12 points a seat in Frankfort by running against Washington”. Wow. Obama is now wrecking state senate races! What’s next? Will local Republican candidates for sheriff win office just by opposing the embarrassment in the White House who chooses abysmal policies and then refuses to fight for them, lest he should ruffle any feathers?

“For Democrats, the red flags are flying at full mast," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart in a recent AP article. "What we don’t know for certain is: Have we reached a bottoming-out point?”

Au contraire, Peter. Au contraire. I think anyone more sentient than a newborn amoeba can answer that question. The first thing to note is that the economy is not coming back anytime soon, if it comes back at all. Unless, of course, you’re a fat cat Wall Street banker. Then you’re just fine, because the Bush-Obama administration took care of you quite nicely, thanks very much. The rest of us poor slobs out here in real-world land, on the other hand, got a “jobs summit”.

I can’t even begin to describe how insulting Obama conducting a “jobs summit” is to me, or what an unbelievably ham-fisted piece of public relations that was for the White House, which is increasingly showing itself not just to be sickeningly regressive, but also fully inept. I think I speak for a whole lot of Americans when I say that, one year into his stewardship over a destroyed economy that was actually atomizing for at least six months before inauguration day, I don’t want my president sitting around a table, running a dog-and-pony show, pretending to kick around ideas on how to generate jobs. I wanted him to have those ideas, himself, before he was inaugurated. I wanted those to be real ideas, that produce real jobs for real Americans who are really hurting. I wanted that to be, and still be, the be-all and end-all of his presidency, not some distant fourth-place priority, behind healthcare and the White House dog selection process. And, especially not some fourth-place priority behind jive healthcare reform.

Which brings us to the second answer to Mr. Hart’s question. If Democrats think they’ll be screwed next November because of unemployment, wait till Congress passes this healthcare monstrosity. Or doesn’t. At this point, either way they’re gonna get slammed for it, and rightly so.

If they don’t pass anything, they will be seen as unable to govern. This perception will be quite true because they will have failed to pass a major piece of legislation, despite having 60-40 majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the presidency. It doesn’t get much better than that for a governing party in the American system. But it will be true in an even more profound sense, because the whole priority structure of the Democratic agenda is wrong. Sure, people want healthcare reform right now (especially if it were to miraculously also have the virtue of being authentic healthcare reform), but what they really want, overwhelmingly, is jobs. This choice of priorities is the equivalent of, say, invading Iraq when you’ve been attacked by people in Afghanistan. Surely no president would be that stupid, right? Surely any political party would realize the costs of having priorities so divorced from those of the voters, right?

On the other hand, the Democrats and their hapless president are probably in worse shape if they actually pass this legislation. Especially now that it’s been stripped of nearly every real progressive reform imaginable, it has become an incredibly stupid bill, from the political perspective. It will force people who can’t afford it to spend a giant amount of money on lousy insurance, without any real choice to hold down costs, and it will fund this by hacking away at the Medicare budget. No wonder an insurance industry lobbyist broadcast an email last week declaring: “We WIN. Administered by private insurance companies. No government funding. No government insurance competitor.”

But here’s a little riddle that any sixth-grader can easily figure out, although it seems to have eluded the brain trust at the White House: If insurance companies are winning big-time, then who is doing the losing? Something tells me that if Democrats are dumb enough to pass their own legislation, voters will provide them the answer to that puzzle in November of 2010, and then again two years later. What could be stupider than saddling thirty-five million Americans with a new monthly bill that will probably represent the second or third biggest item in their budget, in exchange for crappy private sector health insurance that is unlikely to pay out when needed, and wastes a third of the dollars paid in premiums on bureaucracy and profits anyhow? Slapping big fines on them if they don’t pony up for the insurance, perhaps? Yep, that’s in there too.

This bill alone could mobilize legions of people to go to the polls and vote for whichever party didn’t do it, and I’m pretty sure the GOP won’t be shy about reminding Americans who that is. I mean, if Democrats were searching for legislation less likely to win them votes, why didn’t they just bring back slavery or the debtor’s prison? Why not come out for pedophilia? It would have been so much more efficient. At least they wouldn’t have spent the last year looking like idiotic bunglers who, in addition to sponsoring really unpopular ideas, also inadvertently left their testicles at the coat check and have spent the last thirty years trying to find their way back to the gala.

Ah, but wait! If you order now, there’s more!

As I understand it, the bill doesn’t even actually force insurance companies to cover people, at least in the sense that they can charge prohibitive amounts to those with whatever they define as pre-existing conditions. You know, like the young woman who had a policy but died when she was denied cancer treatment because she had a bad case of acne as a teenager.

This will be a total train wreck for the Democratic Party. Already, the public opposes the plan by a ratio of 47 to 32 percent. And they haven’t even been handed the bill for it yet. And they haven’t even had their premiums skyrocket yet. And they haven’t even seen insurance corporation executives buy small countries for use as second homes with the increased compensation they will be floating in. And they haven’t even found out what this does to their Medicare yet. And they haven’t even seen the impact on the national debt yet. And they haven’t even realized that the ‘good’ parts of the bill don’t go into effect until FOUR YEARS from now.

You know, elite Republicans may be sociopaths, and they may be lower on the moral totem pole than your basic cannibal, but they’re not stupid. I bet they’re salivating at the idea that this thing passes. I bet they’d even have Olympia Snowe vote for it if necessary, just to put it over the top. They must be laughing their asses off at this gift. All they have to do is oppose it right down the line, then say “Told ya so!” at the next election, squashing the pathetic Demognats, one after the next. Hey, even if worse comes to worse and the thing eventually becomes popular, they can always wait a decade or two and become champions of the new publically beloved healthcare system – just like they did for Medicare, Social Security, civil rights, etc.

This is President Nothingburger’s great gift to America, along with doing nothing about jobs, doing nothing about the Middle East, nothing about civil liberties, nothing about civil rights, and now doing nothing at Copenhagen. Regarding the latter, the world is literally on fire, and he jets in, gives a speech haranguing the delegates that “Now is not the time for talk, now is the time for action”, then splits even before the vote in order to beat the snowstorm headed to the east coast that might delay him getting home to his comfy bed. I’m not kidding. You can’t make this shit up, man.

This guy is killing me, though at the same time I still can’t quite figure him out.
Here’s what I get: This president is a corporate hack. Like Bush or Clinton, he has constituents, alright – but you and I are not on that particular list.

Here’s what I don’t get: He is radically tanking, at a moment when people no longer have patience for those kind of politics anymore.

Here’s what I get: This president has his fingers in many pies, as he needs to, ranging from global warming to economic implosion to two wars abroad to massive federal debt.
Here’s what I don’t get: Why does he bother to do these things in a way that pleases no one, and only dramatically undercuts his own political standing? Why does he refuse to make anyone his enemy, thus making everyone his enemy?

Is he just massively deluded? I wouldn’t have thought so, but watching the guy give himself a very good grade for 2009 – straight face and all – during the same year he’s lost twenty points off his job approval rating, and at a moment when even blacks and gays are deserting him, you know, you have to wonder.

Is he happy just to be a one-term president – just to say he’s been there and done that, and then sell some more books – even if he is reviled as one of the worst in history?
Maybe. But what about the rest of us?

The rest of us, indeed. It’s been quite some time since anyone in the White House ever cared about that sorry pack of rabble.

Obama looked like he could’ve been something different. He ain’t.

So this is it, folks.

Change you can believe in?

More like bullshit you can take a bath in, if you ask me.”

"I try to avoid hyperbole, but I think Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had."—Nat Hentoff

which is much worse than Obama just losing his base of supporters in my opinion:

http://www.thechrismatthewsshow.com/html/transcript/index.php?selected=1&id=197

The Chris Matthews Show
December 26-27, 2009

CHRIS MATTHEWS, host: "Your thoughts?

Ms. KATHLEEN PARKER (Columnist, The Washington Post): I'm hearing a couple of very interesting things. One shocker is that a—some Democrats are thinking of jumping ship and changing parties.

MATTHEWS: You got some names?

Ms. PARKER: That's all I—that's all I can say about that.

MATTHEWS: Do...

Ms. PARKER: The other thing is that...

MATTHEWS: What part of the country?

Ms. PARKER: I can't say. One more thing—in fact, I'm probably in big trouble already.

Mr. HOWARD FINEMAN (Newsweek Senior Washington Correspondent): In the continental United States?

Ms. PARKER: Yeah! The other thing is that these—some of the senators, these senators who've been...

MATTHEWS: Arlen Specter going to flip back?

Ms. PARKER: Yeah, there you go. No, but these people have been obstructionist on the health care...

MATTHEWS: OK.

Ms. PARKER: ...bill are going to have a lot of trouble, their seats are in danger, they're going to have a lot of trouble getting money...

MATTHEWS: OK. OK.

Ms. PARKER: ...from their donors..."

David Corn in this article confirms several of the key points that I made in this post: 

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/04/will-disappointment-on-the-left-hurt-obama-and-dems-in-2010/ 

David Corn

Will Disappointment on the Left Hurt Obama and Dems in 2010?

http://twitter.com/davidcorndc

terrorism and of national security" according to Howard Fineman in the Hardball transcript and video below and I agree with him.  Howard Fineman is a liberal commentator (he is a regular guest on Countdown with Keith Olbermann) so I do not think that he can be accused of being biased against Obama! 

In my opinion, this is even more evidence to prove point 3 in this post that "All of the evidence I have seen so far shows that Obama and the Democrats cannot beat Rush Limbaugh and his massive media empire in message warfare in an even fight on a level playing field:" 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34706625/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Monday, January 4th, 2010
Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Charlie Cook, Howard Fineman, Matt Nesto, Eugene Robinson, Michael Smerconish, Richard Engel, Bobby Ghosh, Anne Kornblut, Jonathan Martin

HOWARD FINEMAN, NBC CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT:  "I think the bigger news in the last week or two is that I think the president has lost control of the narrative of the fight against terrorism and of national security. 

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST:  Was he hurt by being in Hawaii, that simple thing? 

FINEMAN:  I don‘t think he was hurt by—I don‘t think he was hurt by being in Hawaii specifically.  I think some of the early comments by administration officials were off the mark..." 

Here is the Hardball video of this interview where Howard Fineman said this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/34693427#34693427  (08:46)

Saving their seats
Jan. 4: Newsweek’s Howard Fineman and NBC political analyst Charlie Cook discuss the outlook for Democrats following the midterm elections.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/34693427#34693427  (08:46)

come back to hurt him politically in my opinion. The Republicans are already using this against him in this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmNdV0PSRy4

Obama Pledges to Put Health Care Negotiations on C-SPAN, White House Enemies List (2:36)

RepublicanSenators
October 27, 2009

"Republican senators and members of the media highlight President Obama's failure to live up to his pledge to conduct health care negotiations in full view of the public. Senators and media members also highlight the White Houses alarming tendency to seek to punish those who dont share its views."

Here is the YouTube video of what candidate Obama promised about how that health care negotiations would be on C-SPAN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Api4fUziAnI&feature=player_embedded

obama C span (1:30)

ironmill
August 10, 2009

"Video of Obama stating he will televise the Health care Debate on C-Span. Since he has not kept his promise, most of the disorder at town hall meetings can be attributed to his failure to keep his campaign promises"

These broken campaign promises about transparency are making me very concerned about the future of health care, what it will be, and how it will be paid for:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/05/sitroom.02.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Critics: Strip State Dept. of Big Job; Complicated Maze of Congressional Panels; Dems Plot Next Health Reform Moves; Google Launches Phone War; Arctic Blast Moving In

Aired January 5, 2010 - 17:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Dana, sorry for interrupting, but I want to get to this question that our White House correspondent Dan Lothian asked the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs earlier in the day, because it directly affects Congress. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN LOTHIAN, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: C-Span television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras. I know this is something the president talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something he supports, will be pushing for?

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I've not seen that letter. I know the president's going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and Senate bill, and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: You remember, Dana, during the campaign, the president said no back-room deals going on, everything will be in front of the those C-Span cameras. Is that likely or unlikely?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: At this point I think it's fair to say it's unlikely and it's very interesting Wolf. The house Democratic leaders were asked about that letter from C-Span's head Brian Lamb asking for televised coverage. They punted pretty much the way Robert Gibbs did over at the White House. They simply insisted there has been transparency in the process, televised committee hears, legislation on is on the website, but Republicans are pouncing on this, saying they want Democrats to honor this request by C-Span, because just as you said, they see a political opening here, because they see this as a perfect way to prove that Washington hasn't changed in the year that since President Obama has been in office, because it was he himself who promised that things would be open and on television. One thing I think was fair to say odd, the speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked about the president's campaign promise, and she responded by just saying, well, there are a number of things he swore on the campaign trail. Wolf?

BLITZER: Dana Bash will be busy over these next few weeks. We'll see if it gets resolved before or after the state of the union address..."

Here is more information about this story that was also on CNN:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1001/05/ctn.01.html

CNN TONIGHT

Major Security Failures; Health Care Divide; Afghanistan's Intel Failures; Deadly Deep Freeze; California Education Overhaul

Aired January 5, 2010 - 19:00 ET

JESSICA YELLIN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: "And the president is also being targeted today over promises to keep the health care debate open and transparent. The television network C-SPAN is pleading with Democratic leaders to let them broadcast the negotiations, but Democrats are likely to do most everything behind closed doors.

Lawmakers are at the White House tonight meeting with the president, hashing out the differences between the House and the Senate health care bills and our Dana Bash is on Capitol Hill, following it all. Dana, first tell us what do you know so far about the negotiations?

DANA BASH, CNN SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jessica, look, as you can see from the empty hallway that goes very far behind me, Congress is not here. They're still officially in recess. However, earlier today, just down this hall where the House Speaker's office is, there were initial conversations just between House Democratic leaders. They're trying to figure out actually plot strategy for how to meld the health care bill, their health care bill with the Senate's, and remember, this is Democrats negotiating with Democrats, but there are a lot of differences in these bills.

In fact the House Democrats, their aides, they made about an 11- page document that anybody can access. It's public. It's on the House Speaker's Web site, Speaker.gov, which lists a lot of the differences and they really range from how they're going to pay for health care, what kind of taxes to impose for reform and things that really affect consumers like what kind of government assistance people will get to pay for health care reform and who will get it and how much -- Jessica.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER: Well I don't know who you're talking about, but what I will say that they...

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YELLIN: (INAUDIBLE) to actually broadcast the health care debate on C-SPAN. So what are lawmakers' reaction to C-SPAN's call to televise it?

BASH: There was a very ironic visual today up here, Jessica. You remember times like this covering Capitol Hill. House Democrats came out of the closed door meeting right down there and they punted on questions about whether or not cameras would eventually be allowed into formal or even informal negotiations between House and Senate Democrats.

That was officially requested today by Brian Lamb, the head of C- SPAN and Democrats both in the House and the Senate frankly they wouldn't answer the question. Instead, they gave some talking points about all of the reasons they believe this has been a transparent process when it comes to health care, all of the committee hearings that were public, the legislation that has been online, but as you can imagine, and as I know you know, Republicans, they're having none of it.

They believe that this is a great political issue for them, because they think that this is proof that in the year since President Obama has been in the White House, he's promised to change the way Washington works, that it hasn't come to fruition, because as you said, he did promise in the campaign trail that things would be open, and C-SPAN cameras would be in meetings like this.

YELLIN: OK, so on that question, Speaker Pelosi I know was asked about the president's promise. She had an interesting response, didn't she?

BASH: Yes, I think odd is probably the best way to phrase it. I was standing right next to her and somebody did ask, well, what about the president's campaign promise to open negotiations like this in C- SPAN? And she said, quote, "Well, there are a number of things he swore on the campaign trail." It was unclear what she meant. It sounded like a little bit of a jab at the president, but look, I got to tell you, if it was a jab at the president, there are a lot of liberals who are probably applauding her right now, because there are a lot of members of the president's base when it comes to health care and other issues who think that he is not standing up for them.

YELLIN: All right. Thanks so much Dana -- Dana Bash on Capitol Hill.

BASH: Thank you..."

Here is the Politico article link about this story:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0110/CSPANs_Lamb_to_Congress_Open_health_care_debate.html

January 05, 2010
Categories: Networks.

C-SPAN's Lamb to Congress: Open health care debate

"C-SPAN chief executive Brian Lamb, who has long fought for more television access in Congress, is now asking House and Senate leadership to allow cameras inside while members hammer out differences between the two health care bills..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34728351/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/

'The Ed Show' for Tuesday, January 5th, 2010
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Evan Kohlmann, Tim Walz, A.B. Stoddard, George Miller, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Ron Paul, John Feehery, Brad Blakeman, Joan Walsh

ED SCHULTZ, HOST:  "In recent polls in the state of North Dakota, sitting Governor John Hoeven, there‘s a lot of talk about whether he is going to run for that Senate seat.  In the last poll, he was up on Byron Dorgan by 20 points.  Whether that pushed Senator Dorgan away or not, but Dorgan has been around the Congress for some 30 years.

This is a big story.  He has been a stalwart Democrat, a fighter for the middle class.  It‘s sad news tonight that Byron Dorgan is not going to run for the United States Senate seat and seek re-election.

A.B. Stoddard, associate editor for “The Hill,” and Steve McMahon, Democratic strategist, with us tonight.

A.B., what do you make of this story?  Byron Dorgan has been looked upon as a real fighter for the middle class in this country, and this is a man that has given a lot to the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. 

A.B. STODDARD, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, “THE HILL”:  Well, Senator Dorgan knows that these races are very expensive and that the environment for Democrats is terrible this year.  Democrats are on the defensive on the economy, on joblessness, on a domestic agenda, on health care reform, unfortunately, Ed, which is sinking in the polls every day.  And obviously, possibly on the issue now of terrorism. 

We don‘t know what it‘s going to look like come August, September, October, but it‘s going to be a tough year for Democrats across the board.  And looking at a governor who is in a strong position, at this point, in January, is a tough uphill battle, and he made a decision that was right for him.  I don‘t know if it was all political, but it‘s a tough year for Democrats. 

SCHULTZ:  It is.  This is a big blow, I think, to the Democratic Party..."

Here is The Ed Show video link to watch this dialogue:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34716107#34716107  (04:31)

Sen. Byron Dorgan to retire 
Jan. 5: Ed Schultz and a panel of analysts (A.B. Stoddard of "The Hill" and Democratic strategist Steve McMahon) react to the breaking news that Senator Byron Dorgan will no seek re-election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34716107#34716107  (04:31)

If Obama's poll numbers keep on going down, then he will probably have a lot of political problems in November. Obama especially needs to improve his poll numbers with Independents in my opinion because they are the people who usually decide close elections:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/124949/Approval-Obama-Starts-2010-Shaky-Spot.aspx

January 6, 2010

Obama Starts 2010 With 50% Approval

More than 8 in 10 Democrats but less than half of independents approve

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- "President Barack Obama begins his second year as president with 50% of Americans approving and 44% disapproving of his overall job performance. This is well below the 68% approval rating Obama received in his first few days as president, and matches his average for all of December -- which included many days when public support for him fell slightly below that important symbolic threshold.

The latest job approval score is based on Gallup Daily tracking from Jan. 2-4, 2010 -- the first Gallup Daily survey conducted entirely within the new year...

Obama enjoys 84% approval from Democrats, but closer to 50% approval from independents (currently 47%) and minimal support from Republicans (14%)..."

Charlie Cook in my opinion is an overall serious, objective, and credible political analyst.

Cook's quote that "Come November, Senate Democrats' 60-vote supermajority is toast" is something that I think has to be taken VERY seriously. This means that Republicans (most of whom truly fear Rush Limbaugh because he can order his huge activist base of many millions to primary them if they ever upset Limbaugh which makes them especially dangerous in my opinion) could possibly win back a lot of power basically on a default basis just like how Democrats won in 2006 and 2008 mostly on a default basis because of Bush's unpopularity:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/cr_20100109_1621.php

THE COOK REPORT

Democrats Trapped In A Vicious Circle

From retirements to party defections, the bad news for 2010 keeps coming.

by Charlie Cook

Saturday, Jan. 9, 2010

In the world of economics, a virtuous circle is created when a series of positive events triggers a self-perpetuating pattern of other good occurrences -- a positive feedback loop, in other words. A vicious circle, of course, is just the opposite and appears to be what Democrats are caught in these days.

Over the past five weeks, four House Democrats in difficult districts have announced their intention to retire and a fifth switched to the GOP; then, in a single day, news broke that three more Democrats, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, and Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado, have decided not to seek re-election and that Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry, who had been expected to be the party's gubernatorial nominee, has opted out of the race.

"Come November, Senate Democrats' 60-vote supermajority is toast."

Ritter faced a very tough, perhaps uphill, re-election campaign and might well have lost. Cherry was up against similarly formidable obstacles. Dorgan's situation was more complicated. Gov. John Hoeven might have challenged him, but that was not certain. If Hoeven had taken on the incumbent, the governor would have made it a heck of a competitive race that could have gone either way. If Hoeven had opted not to run, Dorgan would have been a cinch for a fourth term.

With Dorgan out, Hoeven would automatically become the favorite. Will he run? Arguably the only potential candidate with a chance of holding the seat for the Democrats would have been Rep. Earl Pomeroy, but he is seeking re-election, not a promotion, in what is almost certain to be a bad year for Democrats in his state. North Dakota Republicans haven't elected a senator since 1980, when Mark Andrews won -- only to lose six years later to Democrat Kent Conrad. The GOP hasn't won the state's at-large House seat since 1979.

North Dakota Democrats partly owe their success to Dorgan, Conrad, and Pomeroy: That trio cracked the code, figuring out how to re-engineer the national Democratic Party's liberal gene into a populist gene by pushing for fiscal restraint and balancing the federal budget. But would that alchemy have worked in a really bad year for Democrats? Although Dorgan may have had other considerations, he decided to go out on top rather than risk leaving as a loser.

Ironically, Dodd's planned retirement is the only good thing that happened to Democrats this week. Another Connecticut Democrat, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who launched his candidacy after Dodd's news conference, will have a pretty good chance of holding that seat. Dodd had little chance. Unlike in many other states, the Democrats' problem in Connecticut was the incumbent, not the party. Other than Dodd's announcement of his exit strategy, this week was a horror show for Democrats, and party leaders ought to be plenty worried about the self-sustaining nature of vicious cycles.

How many other wavering House -- or Senate -- Democrats will look at the past five weeks and decide that spending the rest of this year as a lame duck is more attractive than spending a horrific year fundraising, scarfing down fast food, and shaking hands -- all the while facing the very real possibility of losing in the end? When their party starts singing endless choruses of "This is going to be a lousy year," lawmakers can easily find themselves humming along.

Come November, Senate Democrats' 60-vote supermajority is toast. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how Democrats could lose the Senate this year. But they have a 50-50 chance of ending up with fewer than 55 seats in the next Congress.

As for the House, we at The Cook Political Report are still forecasting that Democrats will lose only 20 to 30 seats. Another half-dozen or more retirements in tough districts, however, perhaps combined with another party switch or two, would reduce Democrats' chances of holding the House to only an even-money bet. We rate 217 seats either "Solid Democratic" or "Likely Democratic," meaning that the GOP would have to win every single race now thought to be competitive to reach 218, the barest possible majority. But if Democrats suffer much more erosion in their "Solid" and "Likely" columns, control of the House will suddenly be up for grabs.

Ed Show Video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34813430#34813430  (06:49)

Obama and unions differ on reform
Jan. 11: Playbook: Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., and former Vice President for CIGNA, Wendell Potter, discuss President Barack Obama’s meeting with labor leaders Monday afternoon at the White House to try and work through their differences on health reform.

POTTER:  Thank you, Ed..."

Lots to think about here, Mitch! Thanks!

while the spending freeze that Obama is proposing could cost him some support from his base:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101377.html?hpid=topnews

Obama's $3.8 trillion budget heading to Congress

By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010; 8:18 PM

"The $3.8 trillion budget blueprint President Obama plans to submit to Congress on Monday calls for billions of dollars in new spending to combat persistently high unemployment and bolster a battered middle class. But it also would slash funding for hundreds of programs and raise taxes on banks and the wealthy to help rein in soaring budget deficits, according to congressional sources and others with knowledge of the document.

To put people back to work, Obama proposes to spend about $100 billion immediately on a jobs bill that would include tax cuts for small businesses, social safety net programs and aid to state and local governments. To reduce deficits, he would impose new fees on some of the nation's largest banks and permit a range of tax cuts to expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year, in addition to freezing non-security spending for three years.

Despite those efforts, the White House expects the annual gap between spending and revenue to approach a record $1.6 trillion this year as the government continues to dig out from the worst recession in more than a generation, according to congressional sources. The red ink would recede to $1.3 trillion in 2011, but remain persistently high for years to come under Obama's policies..."

Obama cannot afford to lose these voters because the base on the other side is very energized and is more unified in their effort to try and get back power:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013102860.html?hpid=topnews

The Elephant in the Room
New media help conservatives get their anti-Obama message out

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 1, 2010

"With the Democratic defeat in the recent special senatorial election in Massachusetts, engineered in part by tea-party activists working with several Beltway-based groups, the conservative movement is more energized than it has been in years.

It is also more unified. Disputes festered between economic and social conservatives during the Bush years, but they have eased amid what all sides decry as Obama's liberal agenda. "Nothing unites like a common enemy," said Colin Hanna, president of the conservative group Let Freedom Ring..."

If this accusation is either true or if this story should get a lot of media coverage (even if the accusation is not true), then I think that this will be a major distraction for Obama and it could also hurt Democratic candidates in November:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/2427402,CST-NWS-BLAGO24.article

Harris: Obama knew of Blagojevich plot

BLAGO TRIAL | Price of Senate appointment of president-elect's friend

June 24, 2010

BY NATASHA KORECKI AND SARAH OSTMAN Staff Reporters

"A top aide to former Gov. Rod Blagojevich said he believed Barack Obama knew of Blagojevich's plot to win himself a presidential Cabinet post in exchange for appointing Valerie Jarrett to the U.S. Senate.

John Harris, Blagojevich's former chief of staff, testified Wednesday in the former governor's corruption trial that three days after the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the ex-governor told Harris he felt confident Obama knew he wanted to swap perks.

"The president understands that the governor would be willing to make the appointment of Valerie Jarrett as long as he gets what he's asked for. . . . The governor gets the Cabinet appointment he's asked for," Harris said, explaining a recorded call.

Harris said Blagojevich came away believing Obama knew what he wanted after having a conversation with a local union representative, who in turn spoke with labor leader Tom Balanoff, with whom Blagojevich met to discuss a Jarrett appointment. Jarrett, now a White House adviser, was seeking the appointment to Obama's Senate seat.

Defense lawyers say Harris' testimony contradicts the government's previous public statements that Obama knew nothing about deal-making involving the Senate seat appointment..."

Democratic races, and the election. They know that Obama and the Democrats are in trouble right now:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38026726#38026726 (05:15)

Will Dems suffer at polls if economy stays sour?
June 30: Msnbc political analyst Howard Fineman and John Heilemann of New York magazine join Hardball's Chris Matthews to discuss.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38026726#38026726 (05:15)

----------------------------------------------------

Also, here is the transcript of Chris Matthews, Chuck Todd, and Charlie Cook talking about the economy, Obama, and the election on Hardball on Tuesday, June 29 (I did not see a video of this dialogue made available yet):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38016467/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Tuesday, June 29th, 2010
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show

Guests: Bob Cavnar, Sherrod Brown, Claire McCaskill, Mac Thornberry, Arlen Specter, Charlie Cook, Chuck Todd

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: "Welcome back to HARDBALL.

Well, today, the stock market tumbled. Consumer confidence is down by 10 points. The market is down a couple hundred points in the Dow. And this Friday, we get the new jobless numbers.

The stakes for President Obama and his party couldn‘t be higher. How will jobs affect the November elections? Well, we‘re going to know pretty soon.

Chuck Todd is NBC News political director and chief White House correspondent, of course. And Charlie Cook, an MSNBC or he‘s an NBC News analyst and editor of the “Cook Report.”

I want to start with Chuck down at the White House.

Chuck, we were talking earlier today. It looks to me like we‘re facing possibly really bad economic news this Friday. We‘re coming off a very bad May report which shows very slow real civilian job growth. If we get something about 10 percent this Friday, that‘s taking us into July. I don‘t know how—is it possible there could be good economic news at all between now and the election?

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, look, I think it‘s - if you look back in previous election cycles, they‘ll tell you, the end of the second quarter, which is this six-month—the end of the first six months of an election year, what the economic—what the economic conditions are then are what voters think they will—they are going into election day in November. So, that‘s why this report and then the GDP, the growth report that we‘re going to get for the second quarter which comes later in July, we‘ll find out what that is.

Did we grow as an economy? Most people think we will have grown. But by how much? Will it be less growth than, say, we in the first quarter? That‘s more than likely since we had growth of 5 percent in that first quarter.

So, all that put together is going to paint what appears to be a very negative economic negative picture in the mind of most Americans, and the fact is, they usually carry that over into November. That said, the speed with which people get information now versus, say, before makes it possible that in September or October, if there‘s suddenly some sort of acceleration, that that would be put into the voters‘ mind.

But right now, you‘ve got to look at this picture and think, it‘s going to be pretty bleak the way people feel about the economy. We‘re seeing it in our own polling that they‘re going to—the numbers are going to back up a bleak picture.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

I‘m just wondering, Charlie, the same question. I‘ll put it a little differently. Can you imagine the situation this fall where people as a majority say keep it up, three cheers, love the way you‘re doing this? Can you hear that coming out of the masses of the country? Working whites, people that didn‘t go to college—they are getting killed by this unemployment situation.

CHARLIE COOK, NBC NEWS ANALYST: Well, that‘s right, and the thing is we‘ve had four months, three months of 9.7, one month of 9.9. I don‘t know whether it‘s going to go up or down, but it‘s not likely to move more than a tenth of a point or two one way or the other.

Democrats need this thing to be heading down to the low 9s, and the administration‘s own economists were telling us months ago: don‘t expect it to get a lot better between now and election day because, you know, as the economy—even if people feel like the economy is getting better, it just means that people that are unemployed that had stopped looking for work, starts looking and that drags the number back down.

But what we badly need is we need more stimulus but, now, we don‘t have somebody (ph) to do it.

MATTHEWS: Can we use another word, please? Can we find another word?

COOK: Well, the thing is, we need to goose the economy.

MATTHEWS: Right. That‘s better than the stimulus.

COOK: And there‘s no—and there‘s no money left to goose.

MATTHEWS: At least people know what that means. It‘s a crude term obviously. But at least—the word “stimulus” has become so amorphous and almost a joke. It reminds me of bailout.

It reminds me, Chuck, of deficit. When I hear the word stimulus, I hear amorphous spending. Not—I don‘t smell a job construction site.

TODD: Right.

MATTHEWS: I don‘t see a job shack somewhere. I don‘t see cranes going up. I don‘t see guys with hard hats along the street. I don‘t even see a guy waving one of those flags to slow down. I don‘t see anything in my mind when I hear stimulus, you know why? Because we haven‘t seen anything like that. I‘d like to know visibly where these jobs have been where we can go look at them.

And I think—isn‘t that a problem, Chuck, that there hasn‘t been a tangibility, a visibility to these jobs he‘s created?

TODD: And that‘s right, and they were trying to—you were saying you wanted to see it. Remember, they even came up with a logo. And, in fact, if you drive around here, you see that logo every now and then.

But, you know, my colleague, Savannah Guthrie was talking to a local official on the city and county level about some of this, about what stimulus has meant for them, and they were telling stories like—well, you know, we had these orders that they had to be shovel-ready. Well, shovel-ready meant sometimes in some cases they just repaved roads, but if you had a new bridge you would like to have but it wasn‘t considered shovel-ready, you didn‘t have time to use the funds.

And now, look, you understand why the administration said shovel-ready. They didn‘t want people sitting on this money. They wanted to hurry up and get the money into the system. But on the infrastructure front, in particular, I think we‘re going to look back and wonder if this was the best use of infrastructure money.

COOK: Well, there was—Chris, there was a lot of concrete poured.

MATTHEWS: Where?

COOK: A good bit. I mean, you try to drive around the country. There was a good bit. There was a lot more in the stimulus package, though, that wasn‘t concrete. And maybe it was good laudable stuff. Medical research, I‘m all for medical research. But it doesn‘t stimulate the economy.

MATTHEWS: Wasn‘t a lot of it just job retention in little counties, mayors didn‘t have to fire some people in which they—

(CROSSTALK)

COOK: That‘s a big deal.

MATTHEWS: Yes. But the state employees aren‘t going to brag and say what a great guy President Carter—President Obama is, he saved my job for six months. That‘s not going to help you politically.

COOK: Well, you don‘t get as much bang for your buck, but it was important for the economy, just keeping somebody from getting thrown out of work. But the thing is, they needed—we need to do more goosing.

MATTHEWS: OK. Compared to Roosevelt, NWPA, NRA, CCC—lots of people going off to work in jobs.

COOK: Yes.

TODD: Yes, but --

MATTHEWS: Look, half the city was built in the ‘30s. All these federal buildings, all the concrete, every one of the buildings along the federal triangle is all built during the ‘30s. The Jefferson Memorial was built then. This is good stuff.

Anyway, Chuck Todd and Charlie Cook—thank you, gentlemen..."

Immigration Reform will more than likely not happen the way that Obama wants it:

1) Obama is in very serious danger of losing Latino voters:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/01/cnr.05.html

CNN NEWSROOM

Obama Pushes for Immigration Reform; Louisiana Senator Defends Offshore Drilling; Rules for Overdraft Fees Changing; Creating Supersonic Jets For Travel; Allen and Gibbs Address Press on Gulf, Economy

Aired July 1, 2010 - 13:00 ET

T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: "Some might say the president's a little late in making a push for immigration reform. Others might just say better late than never. So why now?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Some might say it's just in time for the elections.

HOLMES: Yes.

CROWLEY: Listen, it's an election year. It's very hard to look at anything without that prism. The fact of the matter is the president, last year, in his first year in office, had promised interested groups, Hispanic-Americans and others, that he would get to immigration reform. It didn't happen last year.

He has been -- been pushed very heavily by Hispanic leaders to do something about this. He's had meetings with them. They've voiced their displeasure.

So and it's a very important constituency come the November elections, at any time, particularly for the Democratic Party, because Latino voters, Hispanic voters tend to vote heavily Democratic, at least at this point.

So this is something that, if you talk to people up on the Hill, they say, "Listen, we just don't see this happening this year." This is a huge, huge undertaking, a comprehensive bill on immigration. And by the way, the president in this said, "Listen, I need most Democrats are on board. And I need a couple of Republicans," so it's a nifty way to kind of blame the Republicans.

But the fact of the matter is that there are Democratic congressmen in some of these districts, deeply affected by the influx of illegal or undocumented workers. And Democrats that don't want to have a vote this year on that. They've got to go back home.

So it's not just Republicans. Is it largely Republicans? It is. But there are lots of Democrats on Capitol Hill that don't want this issue to come up before an election year.

HOLMES: Well, he might be getting some goodwill just by talking about it. But also, you talked about some of the groups that have been pushing the president to do something. Will they view this speech today as that something?

Because we know what it looks like, if the president gets behind a big reform. We saw it during the health-care reform debate. He was out there, town halls and meetings, campaigning all over the country. Does he need to do a whole lot more than just a speech to get that goodwill?

CROWLEY: He probably does, yes. They -- and in fact, we've had a couple of Latino leaders already complain that a speech just isn't good enough..."

2) Immigration Reform will more than likely not happen the way that Obama wants it. I completely agree with John King of CNN when he said "I would not bet the ranch on it:"

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/01/sitroom.02.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Alleged Russian Spies in Court; LeBron James Sweepstakes Begin

Aired July 1, 2010 - 18:00 ET

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: "Our CNN's John King is joining us now.

John, if the president says he needs to get this thing done, why is no one willing to bring this to the floor for a vote?

JOHN KING, HOST, "JOHN KING, USA": Well, the answer to that was in his compliment that he paid to George W. Bush today.

Usually, when the president talks about problems he inherited, he criticizes President Bush. Today, he gave President Bush his due, because this one is so hard. It frustrated President Bush. It is now frustrating him.

He's absolutely right when he says, to get it done, you need Republican votes. You also need something else. You Democratic risk- taking and Democratic courage, because the Republican votes are not going to be volunteered in this election-year climate. So would to Democrats bring it to the floor in the House, bring it to the floor in the Senate, and call their bluff, give a bill that gives you more border security, but deals with issues that Lindsey Graham, John McCain, many Republicans in the House, the Chamber of Commerce have supported in the past?

But they won't, because so many Democrats don't want to take that vote. And they will only take that vote if you have guaranteed Republican support, so this is a bit of a game of chicken going on in Washington.

MALVEAUX: Is it possible that both sides win, both parties win if they don't bring it forward and they can blame each other?

KING: That is a great point. And that's what just most -- about every cynic in Washington says, in the sense that the president had to do this because Latino groups are furious at him and furious at Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid.

The president, you remember as a candidate, he promised to do this in his first year in office. He promised repeatedly he would have an immigration bill in his first year in office. There is no Obama White House immigration bill. There are proposals he supports in Congress, but the Latino groups are saying, where are you, Mr. President? We gave you our votes. Keep your promise.

They say the same thing to the speaker and to the leader, but there are so many moderate and conservative Democrats in tough races this year who would rather not cast this vote. They would cast it if you had plenty of Republicans with them. They're not going to get those Republicans, Suzanne.

So, can the president say, I tried? Yes, he can. Is that enough? We will find out in November. Watch Latino turnout in November. Is trying enough or do they think it is a promise broken?

MALVEAUX: Now, you and I both covered President Bush, and he tried and tried and tried. He couldn't get this. Does President Obama, does he have enough political capital to take this risk, to move this thing forward?

KING: At this moment, most people would tell you probably not.

However, he is still the leader of his party. He is still about 50 percent approval rating. He is more popular than anybody else nationally.

But this one has turned so emotional. John McCain, who was essentially on the same page as this president as a candidate for president and in his prior life in the Senate, won't do it right now. They all say border security first, border security first.

Maybe in a lame duck session after the election, is there a slight possibility? If there is any chance, most people say, of getting it done this year, it would be then, after the election, when Congress comes back, and a whole lot of Democrats and some Republicans who won't be here in January who will have lost in November. Maybe it would different then, but I would not bet the ranch on it.

MALVEAUX: OK. All right, thanks again, John. We will see you soon..."

that "they want to see a timetable for the war in Afghanistan" which I do not think will happen because Obama obviously does not want to go down in history as being the President who lost the war in Afghanistan. I also think that Obama is in danger of losing some of his anti-war base of voters if they do not see a timetable for the war in Afghanistan:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1007/01/sitroom.01.html

THE SITUATION ROOM

Russian Spy Confesses.; President Obama Speaks on Immigration Reform; Hurricane Alex Complicates Gulf Oil Cleanup.

Aired July 1, 2010 - 17:00 ET

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN ANCHOR: "A big vote is looming in Congress tonight on money for the war in Afghanistan and there are signs that democrats may be increasingly at odds with their president's strategy. I want to bring in our Congressional correspondent, Brianna Keilar, what are we hearing about the funding measure here and the level of opposition to this?

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Suzanne, we're hearing about growing discord between democrats here on Capitol Hill and President Obama over his policy for the war in Afghanistan. What we're going to be seeing tonight is a vote to add $33 billion more to pay for the war in Afghanistan, and keeping in mind, sources are telling us that they expect that this is going to pass, albeit narrowly.

But what we're really watching is some other votes that we'll be seeing. Anti-war democrats who are going to be given at least a couple of chances to add timetables maybe or conditions to this money, so that's what we're keeping an eye on here, and one of the democrats who is pushing an amendment here would be Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern. What he wants to do is force President Obama to report to Congress a plan on how to draw down troops in Afghanistan starting next summer, and then if the president decides that he wants to deviate from that plan, he'd have to come back to Congress and basically ask for the money to do that, and Congress would have much more discretion. Here's what McGovern told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM MCGOVERN (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Let us not waste, you know, more resources, more lives, on a policy that quite frankly is going to lead us nowhere. We need to let Karzai know that we're not a cheap date. We're not a blank check. We're not going to be here forever and ever. We expect him to clean up his government. This is not a guy that we should be sacrificing our young men and women in the field of battle for.

KEILAR: President Obama and General Petraeus have left the door open to if conditions change, they may change that July 2011 plan. This amendment puts you directly at odds with that.

MCGOVERN: Well, and Congress, if we wanted to, could make a necessary adjustment if it was the right thing to do. Look, we've been there for almost ten years. You know, where are we going with this?

KEILAR: What kind of support do you have?

MCGOVERN: I think more than half the democratic caucus will support this. I think people are anxious about what's happening.

KEILAR: What's the point of this vote if it's not going to pass?

MCGOVERN: The point is to show the White House and to show others in Congress that there is growing concern. I mean, that there are people who care and that we need some answers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, there's another more liberal amendment that will be up for a vote that would completely strike all money for the war in Afghanistan. That is not expected to pass. It's still expected to get a significant amount of votes, not as much as the McGovern Amendment, but the point here, Suzanne, is that this is a message that these anti-war democrats are sending to the White House, and this is really their first chance since the surge in Afghanistan to send that message to President Obama about how they want to see a timetable for the war in Afghanistan..."

These two Hardball video also get this point across very well in my opinion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/37985418#37985418 (09:38)

Liberal Democrats challenge Obama's war strategy
June 28: In the wake of General McChrystal's dismissal, liberal Democrats are challenging Obama's war strategy in Afghanistan. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, tell Hardball about their letter to Obama asking for a clear plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/37985418#37985418 (09:38)

Here is the transcript link of this Hardball video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37997804/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Monday, June 28th, 2010
Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Alan Mollohan, Charles Peters, Barbara Lee, Chellie Pingree, Matt Bai, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kaufman

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: "California Congresswoman Barbara Lee has written a letter to the president asking for a clear plan for troop withdrawal before Congress votes on any more war funding. She wrote—quote—“We believe that it‘s imperative for you, the president, to provide Congress and the American people with a clear commitment and plan that would draw U.S. forces from Afghanistan. This should include not only a date certain for the initiation of this withdrawal, but a date for its completion and a strategy to achieve it.”

I don‘t think she‘s going to get it. So, does President Obama really have a clear strategy to win in Afghanistan?

U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee—Foreign Affairs Committee—and Maine Congresswoman Chellie Pingree is a member of the Armed Services Committee and has also signed onto that letter.

Thank you, both, Congresswomen.

I want to ask you this. Barbara Lee, Congresswoman, I was watching you yesterday. You made a strong case. But bottom-lining this thing, do you think this president will ever give you what you want, a date for the beginning of the withdrawal and a date for the final removal of all troops from Afghanistan?

REP. BARBARA LEE (D), CALIFORNIA: I certainly hope so, Chris, because, remember, nine years ago, when we went into Afghanistan, the president then was given authority to wage what I considered then an endless war, and I did not vote for that resolution.

But the American people were told that we were going into Afghanistan to capture Osama bin Laden and to stop bin Laden—and to stop al Qaeda—excuse me. This is now the longest war in American history. The American people are war-weary, Chris. We need to develop an exit strategy, a plan, and a timeline to begin to safely redeploy our young men and women out of Afghanistan..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/37932682#37932682 (06:42)

Liberals to abandon Obama on Afghan war?
June 25: Reps. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., and Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., who are asking Nancy Pelosi to hold off on supplemental war funding until they get more answers on the president's strategy, join Chris Matthews to discuss the effort.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/37932682#37932682 (06:42)

This dialogue is currently missing in what is supposed to be the transcript link of this Hardball video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37974627/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/

'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Friday, June 25th, 2010
Read the transcript to the Friday show

Guests: Susan Page, Roger Simon, Carol Marin, Jerrold Nadler, Jim McGovern, Jim Moran, Jim VandeHei

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: "Left out. Liberal Democrats may have been hoping that the change in generals in Afghanistan would mean a change in policy, but after President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to the strategy, liberals may be abandoning him on the war. Tonight, I‘m going to speak with two Democrats who are asking Speaker Pelosi to hold off on war funding until they get more answers on the president‘s mission in Afghanistan..."

This is very serious in my opinion because it is mainly independent voters who decide close elections:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/07/independents-abandoning-obama-gallup-poll.html

Crucial independent voters abandoning Obama, now under 40%, lowest ever

July 7, 2010 | 3:52 am

Two new polls this morning augur ill for President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats who control Congress.

The worst -- from Gallup -- finds that for the first time since Obama took the oath, his support among independents, a key voter segment in his decisive 2008 coalition election win, has fallen below 40%.

The new tracking finds that Obama's support among all voter segments has declined in the past year, but nowhere more than among independents.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141131/Obama-Job-Approval-Rating-Down-Among-Independents.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Presidential%20Job%20Approval

Only 38% now support him, an 18-point drop from 52 weeks ago, when polls first began showing the nation's rapidly-growing population of independent voters peeling off, as Obama relentlessly pushed his healthcare plan and ignored polls saying jobs and the economy were uppermost on voters' minds.

In that same time span, support for the Democrat has fallen 9 points among Democrats (from 90% to 81%) and 8 points among Republicans (from 20% to 12%).

Collectively, only 46% of Americans approve of the president's job performance, just 1 point above his worst approval of 45%. Obama's approval has not been above 50% since February.

Despite his professed success with the healthcare legislation, Obama is confronting a stubbornly sluggish economic recovery, continuing high unemployment, growing concerns over deficits and spending, impatience among some supporters such as gays and Hispanics and mounting casualties in his ongoing Afghanistan military campaign.

Other recent presidents suffered similar low ratings in their second year -- Jimmy Carter (40%), Ronald Reagan (42%) and Bill Clinton (43%).

And each of those presidents' parties lost substantial numbers of congressional seats in the ensuing midterm elections.

George W. Bush's experience ran counter to that pattern; his Republican Party actually gained seats in the 2002 midterm elections, the first time that had happened since Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first midterm election.

Reagan and Clinton recovered in the second half of their first terms to easily win reelection; Carter did not.

Also out this morning, a new Harris Poll of 2,227 adults finds widespread dissatisfaction and disenchantment with leading Democrats in Washington. Only 26% have a favorable view of Vice President Joe Biden's job performance, while nearly half (45%) have a negative view of his job.

http://view.sales.harrisinteractive.com/?j=fe631674746107787110&m=fef51674726302&ls=fdf81d777464047f77107873&l=fe5d15767d6401787317&s=fde5157573660d7a7d17797d&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe1d1677736c037b721271

Only one-in-five approve of the job done by California's own Speaker Nancy Pelosi, while nearly half (49%) give her negative reviews.

The public is happy with neither political party in Congress, with 54% disapproving of the majority Democrats' job performance and 52% dissatisfied with the minority Republicans' work.

You'll never guess which female secretary of State gets the best reviews in the Obama Cabinet. Hillary Clinton's job performance draws positive ratings from 45% of those surveyed, while 35% give her a negative job evaluation.

-- Andrew Malcolm

and "American voters say by a narrow 39 - 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today:"

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1478

Home> Institutes and Centers> Quinnipiac University Polling Institute> National (US)> Release Detail

July 21, 2010 - Obama Approval Drops To Lowest Point Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Independent Voters Turn On President Since Honeymoon

Word format

"A year after President Barack Obama's political honeymoon ended, his job approval rating has dropped to a negative 44 - 48 percent, his worst net score ever, and American voters say by a narrow 39 - 36 percent margin that they would vote for an unnamed Republican rather than President Obama in 2012, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 48 - 43 percent approval for Obama in a May 26 national poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University and a 57 - 33 percent approval last July, just before the political firestorm created by opposition to his health care plan galvanized political opponents and turned independent voters against him.

In this latest survey of more than 2,000 voters, independent voters disapprove of Obama 52 - 38 percent and say 37 - 27 percent they would vote for a Republican contender in 2012.

American voters also say 48 - 40 percent Obama does not deserve reelection in 2012.

Anti-incumbent sentiment slams both parties as voters disapprove 59 - 31 percent of the job Democrats are doing, and disapprove 59 - 29 percent of Republicans in Congress. But voters say 43 - 38 percent they would vote for a Republican in a generic Congressional race..."

This CNN article is relevant to the Quinnipiac poll right above in my opinion:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/21/democrats.agenda/

Democrats agenda running out of gas as midterms approach

By Ed Hornick, CNN
July 21, 2010 8:27 a.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- "Congressional Democrats have had a fairly successful time pushing through their agenda since taking control of both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Congress passed items backed by President Obama such as health care reform, a financial regulatory bill and economic stimulus measures...

Those statistics are undoubtedly front and center for members of Congress as they head back home to campaign for November elections. The time for legislative work will likely be pushed to the side.

For Democrats in close races, any work on controversial issues could hurt them in November.

"Vulnerable and conservative Democrats are tired of carrying the president's water on left-wing policies," Bonjean said. "They would rather focus on how to attract independents to vote for them in November."

Epstein said that Democrats could turn it around -- with the help of Obama..."

I do not believe that Obama will be of much help to these Democrats who are in close races because I agree with Joe Scarborough and Joan Walsh that he is not a strong leader:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/scarborough-if-white-house-is-scared-of-glenn-beck-were-screwed-with-iran/

Scarborough: If White House Is Scared Of Glenn Beck, “We’re Screwed” With Iran

by Steve Krakauer | 12:30 pm, July 21st, 2010

"In the ever-evolving Shirley Sherrod story there is one bit of information that relates directly to cable news – Sherrod’s claim she was pressured to resign specifically before Glenn Beck’s Fox News show at 5pmET.

It was through this lens Joe Scarborough blasted the White House for being scared of “the guy with the chalkboard.”

“If that is their biggest concern they’re screwed,” said Scarborough..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38315685#38315685 (02:19)

Should Obama have sounded-off sooner on the GOP?
July 19: Salon.com’s Joan Walsh explains to Ed Schultz why she thinks President Barack Obama waited too long to speak out against the Congressional Republicans blocking the extension of unemployment benefits.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38315685#38315685 (02:19)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38324448/ns/msnbc_tv-the_ed_show/

The Ed Show for Monday, July 19th, 2010
Read the transcript to the Monday show

Guests: Jeanne Shaheen, Bill Press, Mike Papantonio, Elijah Cummings, Sam Stein, Karen Hanretty, Jack Rice, Cliff May, Joan Walsh

ED SCHULTZ, HOST: "Do you think there‘s a pattern here that President Obama only jumps out like that when he‘s politically safe?

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM, EDITOR IN CHIEF: I do. Yeah, I do. I think he really doesn‘t go far enough in being the populist fighter especially when he‘s not sure he‘s got the votes. I don‘t know that he could have scared up or invent that had 60th vote, Ed. But he could have heightened the differences between the parties and he sometimes seems a little bit unwilling to do that..."

I also agree with Mark Halperin who said at about 06:47 into this Morning Joe video that the White House has lost the war against FOX News and the freak show media culture:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38341608#38341608 (13:04)

USDA reconsiders ousting official over race remarks
July 21: Morning Joe discusses the latest developments in the story of Shirley Sherrod, a USDA employee who was forced to resign yesterday when a edited video of her making race-related remarks surfaced.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38341608#38341608 (13:04)

All of this was very easy to see as far back as September of 2007 if the media had seriously done their job of vetting Obama like how they were supposed to instead of being cheerleaders for him:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16555

Mark Halperin explained why Obama is having problems with GOP attacks right now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 10:58am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16555#comment-328296

Obama not understanding the GOP attack machine & how to fight it

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 15, 2008 - 11:05am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744

VIDEO: Dan Abrams asked about Hillary's primary loss "Is it the media’s fault?"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 9, 2008 - 5:58pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15744#comment-309677

There is NO question in my opinion of anti-Hillary media bias...

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16816

PEW: By a margin of 70%-9%, Americans say most journalists want to see Obama win

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 23, 2008 - 2:51am.

Obama in my opinion is also a weak communicator when he is not giving prepared speeches to large audiences which is why I think that he keeps on losing the message and PR war. Obama got some very huge political breaks when all three of the Presidential debates were overshadowed by the financial crisis regardless of what the debate topic was supposed to be about (please see the comments in this post for the documentation of this point):

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/16344

ANALYSIS: Why Obama will have a very hard time when he debates McCain!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 20, 2008 - 2:15pm.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15340

Obama supporter Jamal Simmons said "Debates are just not his particular forte"

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on April 22, 2008 - 3:13am.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15840

Obama first challenged McCain to debate so Obama needs be willing to debate now!

Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 19, 2008 - 1:55am.

This was also very easy to see in my opinion if the media had seriously done their job of vetting Obama like how they were supposed to instead of being cheerleaders for him!

This very humorous but truly sad video gets the point across about the media very well in my opinion:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728

The Obama Love Shack: That's Where It's At (4:28)

Submitted By: DannyG
Date Aired: July 22, 2008

"The press has been in bed with Barack Obama since he gave the keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Relive the "Obamedia's" public displays of affection in this video love story."

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?RsrcID=1728

is a VERY dangerous assumption on his part in my opinion:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/11/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-8112010

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release August 11, 2010

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 8/11/2010

Watch the Video

http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2010/08/11/press-briefing (61:05)

1:40 P.M. EDT

Q "Just on another topic, what do you think the consequences should be of the comments that you made about this “professional left”?

MR. GIBBS: The consequences?

Q Yes.

MR. GIBBS: Do you have anything in mind? (Laughter.)

Q No supper.

Q One House member suggested resignation, so I’m asking what you think your view is.

MR. GIBBS: I don’t plan on leaving, so -- and there’s no truth to the rumor that I’ve added an inflatable exit to my office. (Laughter.)...

Q Robert, following on Jennifer’s question, I mean do you regret any of what you said to The Hill?

MR. GIBBS: I will say I think there are many times when I read the transcripts even of answers I give in here that I could have done -- could have said things slightly differently. I will say I watch a lot of cable TV, and you don’t have to watch long to get frustrated by some of what is said, and I think that’s what that answer has borne out.

Q But do you feel like there’s still substance to what you said, not necessarily -- maybe not in the way you said it, but that there is too much of a demand or too much pressure perhaps from the left of the party and that --

MR. GIBBS: I didn’t say there was too much of a demand. I think -- or too much pressure. I think that a lot of what -- a lot of the issues that Democrats throughout the party have worked to see happen have come to fruition as part of what this President has accomplished in the first 17 months.

Health care was an issue that was worked on for a hundred years. President after President after President discussed the importance of passing something comprehensive and historic that cut how much we were paying for health care, that extended the life, as we saw last week, of the Medicare trust fund. I think those are accomplishments that we all should be proud of regardless of whether it encompasses a hundred percent of what we had wanted in the beginning.

Q And what about the rest that is outstanding -- gay rights, Guantanamo --

MR. GIBBS: I will say this -- all things that the President made commitments on and is focused on doing. We have a process underway with the Pentagon to make changes, as the President outlined in the campaign and, quite frankly, even before the campaign, in “don’t ask, don’t tell” as somebody running for the U.S. Senate in 2004. We have a process to make good on overturning “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Q What do you say to progressives who on reading your comments yesterday say, well, if that’s their attitude, I’m staying home in November?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t think they will, because I think what’s at stake in November is too important to do that. I think what’s at stake in November, as you’ve heard the President outline throughout trips -- on trips throughout this country, are exactly the choices that we face in November. Are we going to go back to the economic policies that got us into this mess, or are we going to go forward and see the type of progress that we’ve seen over the past 18 months..."

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is calling on Robert Gibbs to be fired while Keith Olbermann is not very happy:

1) Ed Show video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38666418#38666418 (10:11)

Gibbs remains unapologetic about remarks
Aug. 11: An Ed Show panel (Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL and Democratic strategist Bob Shrum) debates with Ed Schultz whether Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' shots at the liberal press will hurt President Barack Obama.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38666418#38666418 (10:11)

2) Countdown video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38650108#38650108 (05:10)

Olbermann: Gibbs frustration understandable but misguided
Aug. 10: In a Special Comment, Countdown’s Keith Olbermann explains to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs that while his frustration is understandable, it is more appropriately directed at the “professional right” and at the Obama administration itself for throwing out so many principles in an effort to compromise with an unwilling partner.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38650108#38650108 (05:10)

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) talks about his fear of "the couch" (Democratic voters staying at home) at about 04:00 into this Countdown video:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38667853#38667853 (06:54)

Angle shuts out Hispanics
Aug. 11: On Tuesday, KLAS-TV in Las Vegas reported that Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle has shut out Hispanic media not just from interviews but has practiced a complete blackout. Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., discusses with Keith Olbermann how her actions will affect the GOP.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/vp/38667853#38667853 (06:54)