Uhh Ohh Obama....

[OCinBuffalo]

First this article:

Clinton Teaches Obama how to lead properly

 

But this is not the only piece of evidence I have. Hillary has been saying a lot of stuff, that, if it was any other Secretary of State, the media would be all over. Most of it is way out of her role. Perhaps she is just filling the obvious gaps in saying the things Obama is supposed to be saying?

 

Oh, and I distinctly remember saying this, right here:

"The fourth most important thing today is to figure out who did what wrong and hold them accountable -- whether it was somebody in BP or somebody in the U.S. government. I'll do that, but let's do one, two, and three first... What people want is to fix the leak," he said.

so Dan, now that Bill Clinton has said the exact same thing, I suppose it's right. But only because he said it.

 

Anyway, in pure Clinton fashion, they are literally killing Obama with innuendo veiled in compliments. I am certain that they still think they have a shot at the Presidency. Otherwise, why are they doing and saying all this stuff?

 

I was looking for an article about Billary endorsing "the other guy", instead of Obama's hand picked candidate, by a leftist, to save on dopey conner objections, and it looks like this guy is already trying to play this off, and was on MSNBC doing that last night. Playing it off, on MSNBC? I don't know about you guys, but that tells me that it's almost definitely on. Why else is this Democrat hack (um, here's the title of one of his books "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception") already smoothing it over, if there's nothing there to be smoothed?

 

We'll see what happens, but at this point, clearly, the Clinton's are at least in "keep our options open" mode.....

[IDBillzFan]

We'll see what happens, but at this point, clearly, the Clinton's are at least in "keep our options open" mode.....

Spend some time at HuffPost and DailyKos. They're starting to BEG for Hillary to gear up for 2012. They see what they have with Obama; sounds good, looks good, but he couldn't lead a bunch of kids down the streets of town if you fronted him a corn cob pipe, a button nose and two eyes made out of coal.

 

The left is starting to convince themselves that Hillary will provide the far-left leadership that Obama is unable to provide them.

[keepthefaith]

Spend some time at HuffPost and DailyKos. They're starting to BEG for Hillary to gear up for 2012. They see what they have with Obama; sounds good, looks good, but he couldn't lead a bunch of kids down the streets of town if you fronted him a corn cob pipe, a button nose and two eyes made out of coal.

 

The left is starting to convince themselves that Hillary will provide the far-left leadership that Obama is unable to provide them.

 

Obama's left shoulder is tight up against the left wall. No room for anyone to his left.

[finknottle]

The left is starting to convince themselves that Hillary will provide the far-left leadership that Obama is unable to provide them.

 

Maybe what they are saying is that they are willing to settle for competent leadership? Half a loaf is better than none, and all that?

[Magox]

Spend some time at HuffPost and DailyKos. They're starting to BEG for Hillary to gear up for 2012. They see what they have with Obama; sounds good, looks good, but he couldn't lead a bunch of kids down the streets of town if you fronted him a corn cob pipe, a button nose and two eyes made out of coal.

 

The left is starting to convince themselves that Hillary will provide the far-left leadership that Obama is unable to provide them.

That's actually kind of funny. I absolutely believe she would of made for a much more competent president than Obama, but if they believe she would be more to the left than Obama then they are just bat **** crazy.

[Dan]

so Dan, now that Bill Clinton has said the exact same thing, I suppose it's right. But only because he said it.

You really don't pay attention do you? I never suggested that stopping the leak wasn't the priority. My point was, and still is, that it was nice to have BP held accountable for the spill and to set up the fund. Obama spent.. what.. one day doing that? That in no way prevented the President from stopping the spill. It in no way has detracted from anyone's efforts to stop the spill. But, you can't recognize it as something positive. Why? Because Obama did it. It's really that simple. So, you hang onto the notion that it was done out of order; therefore, it's bad. Had BP stopped the spill and a day later Obama got them to set up the fund, would it magically be ok?

 

You've argued that all efforts should be spent on the emergency situation of stopping the spill. When its been quite obvious for quite some time that they weren't going to stop this mess until relief wells are drilled. But, I guess all things should be held off until that's done. Because, god forbid, we try to concentrate on more than one thing at a time.

 

So, in short, yes, the priority of "to do" items is correct. It was then; it is now. But,that does not mean you cannot work on multiple priorities at the same time.

 

I'll tell ya what. When this thing is all over and the inevitable senate hearings and whatnot come about, if it is determined that the spill was prolonged because Obama needlessly spent a day getting BP to set up this fund; then I'll publicly state that Obama sucks and OC is right. However, if it is determined that the spill was not prolonged because Obama needlessly spent a day getting BP to set up this fund; then will you publicly state that Obama did something good and Dan is right?

[PearlHowardman]

The only reason that Obama won the 2008 Democratic party presidential nomination is because of the anti-Hillary animus out there.

 

There's plenty of Democrats who still hate her.

 

Additionally, Bill Clinton looks HORRIBLE. The man looks like he's about to die. He'd never make it through a campaign.

[Keukasmallies]

Bill Clinton looks HORRIBLE?

 

Gee, I actually think that gin blossom nose is quite becoming on him.

[OCinBuffalo]

You really don't pay attention do you? I never suggested that stopping the leak wasn't the priority. My point was, and still is, that it was nice to have BP held accountable for the spill and to set up the fund. Obama spent.. what.. one day doing that? That in no way prevented the President from stopping the spill. It in no way has detracted from anyone's efforts to stop the spill. But, you can't recognize it as something positive. Why? Because Obama did it. It's really that simple. So, you hang onto the notion that it was done out of order; therefore, it's bad. Had BP stopped the spill and a day later Obama got them to set up the fund, would it magically be ok?

 

You've argued that all efforts should be spent on the emergency situation of stopping the spill. When its been quite obvious for quite some time that they weren't going to stop this mess until relief wells are drilled. But, I guess all things should be held off until that's done. Because, god forbid, we try to concentrate on more than one thing at a time.

 

So, in short, yes, the priority of "to do" items is correct. It was then; it is now. But,that does not mean you cannot work on multiple priorities at the same time.

 

I'll tell ya what. When this thing is all over and the inevitable senate hearings and whatnot come about, if it is determined that the spill was prolonged because Obama needlessly spent a day getting BP to set up this fund; then I'll publicly state that Obama sucks and OC is right. However, if it is determined that the spill was not prolonged because Obama needlessly spent a day getting BP to set up this fund; then will you publicly state that Obama did something good and Dan is right?

 

This is all fine, but exactly none of it answers why we are doing #4, when #1, #2, #3 aren't finished. Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of "priority"? I can see if we did #2 first, because the opportunity presented itself, etc. But, to ignore the top 3 consistently, and spend any time on #4 is ridiculous, still, and nothing you have said here changes that.

 

You are flat out lying to yourself and the rest of us if you think holding BP accountable took "one day". This is a ludicrous statement, and there is no point in responding to it. Since that is your premise, there is no point in responding to the rest of your argument, since it is based on a lie.

 

Try again, and this time, try to come close to basing your argument on fact.

[Rob's House]

This is all fine, but exactly none of it answers why we are doing #4, when #1, #2, #3 aren't finished. Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of "priority"? I can see if we did #2 first, because the opportunity presented itself, etc. But, to ignore the top 3 consistently, and spend any time on #4 is ridiculous, still, and nothing you have said here changes that.

 

You are flat out lying to yourself and the rest of us if you think holding BP accountable took "one day". This is a ludicrous statement, and there is no point in responding to it. Since that is your premise, there is no point in responding to the rest of your argument, since it is based on a lie.

 

Try again, and this time, try to come close to basing your argument on fact.

 

You raise an interesting point, especially as it applies legally. Any lawyer worth his salt knows the last thing you do is litigate because you don't know how much it's ultimately going to cost. Any injury lawyer will wait until your entire rehab is done and stretch it out as long as possible to get as much as they can.

 

So why, as you mention, is Obama the Harvard law professor and smartest man in Washington starting with the end game, or #4 as I think you were alluding to? Is he that incompetent or is there some other agenda being served here? I don't have an answer, it's just that something doesn't seem right.

[OCinBuffalo]

You raise an interesting point, especially as it applies legally. Any lawyer worth his salt knows the last thing you do is litigate because you don't know how much it's ultimately going to cost. Any injury lawyer will wait until your entire rehab is done and stretch it out as long as possible to get as much as they can.

 

So why, as you mention, is Obama the Harvard law professor and smartest man in Washington starting with the end game, or #4 as I think you were alluding to? Is he that incompetent or is there some other agenda being served here? I don't have an answer, it's just that something doesn't seem right.

As a guy who helps clients through trouble...I can give you an informed opinion: When managers are stressed, they go to what they know best.

 

If you were trained as a nurse, you start treating the problem like a patient = top down assessment and creating a plan to address each problem you find. If you are trained as an accountant, you start by looking for data, and then trends in that data that may give you a place to start, once started, you begin to break down each piece of information down until you can prove something about the problem. Etc. Etc. We all do it, most won't admit to it.

 

Often times people from only one "school of thought" honestly believe that all the world's problems can be solved using their methodology. Just as often, they are wrong. Almost always, the problems that are conducive to being solved using their methodology, get solved first. This is fine, if you are departmental manager type, because chances are the problems you solve have to do with your department, and the training will apply. So, since Priority #1-4 all can be solved the same way, #1 gets done first, as it should be.

 

However, this is not fine if you are the CEO. CEO's must think broadly, and must not give in to the temptation to only see things from their point of view. They have the power to demand that everyone see it their way, but all that power doesn't change reality, or the nature of the problem at hand.

 

Among the many lessons it provides, leadership training/experience teaches us to see things from other people's perspective, especially when it's wrong, and to do it quickly.

 

Obama is a lawyer, as you say. Therefore:

1. Should we be shocked that the legal ramifications are addressed first?

2. Should we be shocked that the problems that aren't conducive to the legal profession aren't being solved?

 

Obama has no formal leadership training or experience, and especially none in large organizations of non-sycophants. Smarts simply isn't enough. We have seen over and over his refusal, because I believe he is capable, to see things from any other point of view than the twisted socialism he espouses. He is clearly not getting the job done as the CEO, because he is only going to what he knows, and he hasn't been trained on how to avoid doing that.

 

And, I am betting that the worse things get, the more "Philadelphia Lawyer" we will see out of this guy, and that will only make things worse. After all, from personal knowledge, most Philly Lawyers think they are far and away superior to everyone else on the planet....I can't imagine their meltdown if that was proved false, every day, over and over.

[Dan]

This is all fine, but exactly none of it answers why we are doing #4, when #1, #2, #3 aren't finished. Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of "priority"? I can see if we did #2 first, because the opportunity presented itself, etc. But, to ignore the top 3 consistently, and spend any time on #4 is ridiculous, still, and nothing you have said here changes that.

 

You are flat out lying to yourself and the rest of us if you think holding BP accountable took "one day". This is a ludicrous statement, and there is no point in responding to it. Since that is your premise, there is no point in responding to the rest of your argument, since it is based on a lie.

 

Try again, and this time, try to come close to basing your argument on fact.

A lie about as big as suggesting the government and BP have consistently ignored the broken pipe, containment and cleanup of the mess. How many meetings did BP attend at the Whitehouse to set up the $20B fund? Or are you suggesting that before and since the fund was set up, that that's all anyone has been able to focus on?

 

And, why is it ok to spend some time on #2 before #1; but not #4? So what's wrong with doing #4 first, if that opportunity presented itself? I mean, if it's ok to do #2, why can't we do #4? Or is that too far down the list? Can we only focus on 2 things at once, but 4 things is just brain overload?

 

My premise is that something good was done. A fund was setup to ensure that people would be compensated. It took relatively little time; yet gave people some assurance and perhaps a little glimmer of hope. But, you're unwilling to acknowledge that anything good was done. Why? Because, it was done in the wrong "order" or was it done by a President that you refuse to give any credit to?

[Nanker]

The $20B is merely window dressing at this point. It gives him some cover, but there's a farging gaping hole in the ocean with goo bubbling up and 78 days later the plan is still to wait and see. I guess President BO just doesn't care about the environment.

[OCinBuffalo]

The $20B is merely window dressing at this point. It gives him some cover, but there's a farging gaping hole in the ocean with goo bubbling up and 78 days later the plan is still to wait and see. I guess President BO just doesn't care about the environment.

Dan:

 

What he said.

 

Except, I am certain the President cares about the environment...he just cares more about big government not looking bad.

 

The Governors of LA, MS, and AL all tried to get multiple plans approved and at each step, some pissants in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH stopped/would not approve their efforts.

 

Leadership WOULD HAVE BEEN slapping the bureaucrats in line, and if they persisted in blocking the perfectly reasonable plans that were on the table WEEKS before the oil hit the f'ing beach, for no other reason than protecting their precious fiefdoms, firing their sorry asses, and getting somebody who would work the problem.

 

Yes, OSHA enforcing its will was more important than keeping the oil off the beach. We can't even clean up because they won't let anybody....so what the f are we supposed to do? Wish it away?

The EPA not letting booms be deployed....because it might hurt the f'ing fish? How are the fish doing now, you f'ing retards?

Then when they wanted to deploy the shallow water booms, it was the same thing.

 

ALL OF THIS could have been resolved with 1 f'ing phone call. These were CLEARLY the priorities, and NONE of them were addressed.

 

You want me to give credit to a turd, for not ruining the whole carpet? OK The Obama turd gets credit for not ruining the part of the carpet that's under the couch. Now, can we dispense with the obtuse notion that this somehow makes up for this turd ruining the carpet in the middle of the floor, and everywhere else we can see?

 

So, either:

1. you have deluded yourself into believing that 10% on a test is a passing grade

2. you are an idiot

3. you are purposely lying to yourself and others in a lame effort to protect this turd

 

I don't care, but you need to get a friggin clue. This is not leadership, and you either know it, or, you lied about being a leader.

[Dan]

Dan:

 

What he said.

 

Except, I am certain the President cares about the environment...he just cares more about big government not looking bad.

 

The Governors of LA, MS, and AL all tried to get multiple plans approved and at each step, some pissants in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH stopped/would not approve their efforts.

 

Leadership WOULD HAVE BEEN slapping the bureaucrats in line, and if they persisted in blocking the perfectly reasonable plans that were on the table WEEKS before the oil hit the f'ing beach, for no other reason than protecting their precious fiefdoms, firing their sorry asses, and getting somebody who would work the problem.

 

Yes, OSHA enforcing its will was more important than keeping the oil off the beach. We can't even clean up because they won't let anybody....so what the f are we supposed to do? Wish it away?

The EPA not letting booms be deployed....because it might hurt the f'ing fish? How are the fish doing now, you f'ing retards?

Then when they wanted to deploy the shallow water booms, it was the same thing.

 

ALL OF THIS could have been resolved with 1 f'ing phone call. These were CLEARLY the priorities, and NONE of them were addressed.

 

You want me to give credit to a turd, for not ruining the whole carpet? OK The Obama turd gets credit for not ruining the part of the carpet that's under the couch. Now, can we dispense with the obtuse notion that this somehow makes up for this turd ruining the carpet in the middle of the floor, and everywhere else we can see?

 

So, either:

1. you have deluded yourself into believing that 10% on a test is a passing grade

2. you are an idiot

3. you are purposely lying to yourself and others in a lame effort to protect this turd

 

I don't care, but you need to get a friggin clue. This is not leadership, and you either know it, or, you lied about being a leader.

I've never once stated that Obama gets a passing grade. I've never stated that he's been a great leader through all this. I've simply stated that here's one example of something good being done. Your problem is that you're completely biased. You've drawn your line in the sand and refuse to budge. Obama is bad, he's not a leader, he's a socialist, and every other talking point your heart can think of. Nothing Obama can ever do will be right in your eyes.

 

And that is what is what is most troubling - everything becomes politicized and reality becomes completely distorted. Rational thought and discussion have become an after thought. I can't even discuss this simple little issue without being labeled and idiot and a liar. But, that's ok. I'm sure you've already decided I'm an Obama supporter; therefore, I'm agin ya. And all I do or say is wrong by default. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world where all that is either good or bad can so easily be determined and forever known.

 

Nanker is right, this issue is largely window dressing. It's most likely political cover designed to do one thing - get votes. Because Obama, like every other first term President wants one thing - a second term. But, that doesn't change the fact that if I were a fisherman on the Gulf coast, I'd have at least a little relief knowing that there's money set aside to compensate me. It doesn't mean I'd be happy; that'd sleep easy; it doesn't mean I'll even get my fair compensation; but it does mean that I can start thinking of ways to inflate my lost revenue and cash out and move to a part of the world that God doesn't hate.

[OCinBuffalo]

I've never once stated that Obama gets a passing grade. I've never stated that he's been a great leader through all this.

Bullschit. Now you are contradicting yourself. Re-read that thread....I am still waiting for you to describe the little, yet decent-sized, trap I fell into when I said Obama is no leader, and you told me I was wrong. Now you want to talk in terms of degrees? OK The man is not Presidential material. He may be able to lead a local union, but that's not good enough.

I've simply stated that here's one example of something good being done. Your problem is that you're completely biased. You've drawn your line in the sand and refuse to budge. Obama is bad, he's not a leader, he's a socialist, and every other talking point your heart can think of. Nothing Obama can ever do will be right in your eyes.

Again, re-read the thread. Over and over again I state my SPECIFIC CRITICISMS of his ACTIONS. He is not a leader because he is not doing the things leaders do. You don't seem to understand. Not letting the governors do what they asked to do, not getting ahead of the oil, sitting on his f'ing hands and playing lawyer when people want to at least try to do something? These are not the ACTIONS of a leader. Ideology has nothing to do with any of my criticisms here.

And that is what is what is most troubling - everything becomes politicized and reality becomes completely distorted. Rational thought and discussion have become an after thought. I can't even discuss this simple little issue without being labeled and idiot and a liar. But, that's ok. I'm sure you've already decided I'm an Obama supporter; therefore, I'm agin ya. And all I do or say is wrong by default. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world where all that is either good or bad can so easily be determined and forever known.

I will tell you what is troubling: you contradict yourself, you obfuscate, you tell me that black = white, but I'm the one with the problem? Leaders lead, period. The fact that Obama is not leading is is as clear as day, and this is not the first time = Iran, Health Care. If he was a good leader, the Health Care plan would have started with him, instead, he used Congress for an asscover. This has nothing to do with ideology. If I was a fan of the Health Care plan, I would be pissed because Obama's lack of leadership has almost certainly doomed it, and the Democrats in Congress, to be thrown out the door. Do you get it yet? The far-left is calling for a primary challenge. Are they also as biased as I supposedly am? Friggin nonsense.

Nanker is right, this issue is largely window dressing. It's most likely political cover designed to do one thing - get votes. Because Obama, like every other first term President wants one thing - a second term. But, that doesn't change the fact that if I were a fisherman on the Gulf coast, I'd have at least a little relief knowing that there's money set aside to compensate me. It doesn't mean I'd be happy; that'd sleep easy; it doesn't mean I'll even get my fair compensation; but it does mean that I can start thinking of ways to inflate my lost revenue and cash out and move to a part of the world that God doesn't hate.

IF I was a fisherman, and I knew that I had a choice between protecting the shore, and getting a check this year, with no idea what will happen next year, I'd pick protecting the shore every time.

 

Why the hell are we talking about de facto political cover, when we could have easily been talking about working and getting ahead of the problem?

 

Answer: because a leader would have done the latter, and not given a crap about the former, until much later. Clinton, who for all his faults, was a leader, knows this, and he said so. Clinton actually ran a state, for a number of years, and therefore, learned the job. Obama hasn't led anything, and we should have paid more attention to that.

[Dan]

Bullschit. Now you are contradicting yourself. Re-read that thread....I am still waiting for you to describe the little, yet decent-sized, trap I fell into when I said Obama is no leader, and you told me I was wrong. Now you want to talk in terms of degrees? OK The man is not Presidential material. He may be able to lead a local union, but that's not good enough.

OK... this is really long past pointless and I have work to do. So, rather than refute each point you've attempted; I'll do just one and then let you rant back some nonsense. Sound good?

 

You seem fixated on the fact that Obama is no leader. And you're asserting that I am disputing that. Can we at least agree on that?

 

In the thread in which you reference (I assume because no link was provided):

 

I clearly state in my 4th post in the thread that:

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama has shown leadership on this mess. I'm just saying that at least some of the things people want to see done are being done."

Furthermore, in my initial post, I clearly state:

"And yes, Obama has made many missteps"

 

So, I would think it's fairly obvious that I'm not giving anyone an "all thumbs up" for how things have been handled. The problem with your argument is you stated: "That's not my point. My point is: given Obama's clearly demonstrable tendencies to be ideological, instead of practical, to the point of obtuseness, why on God's green earth should we let him be in charge of any other major initiative?"

 

So which is it? Do you want him to be the great leader and take charge of the oil disaster or do you want him defer leadership to someone else? You've indicated that you want both to occur.... you're upset that he's not leading, but you started your entire argument asking why should we even let him. And, in perfect bizzaro world fashion, I'm the one that's contradicting myself. Nice.

[pBills]

First this article:

Clinton Teaches Obama how to lead properly

 

But this is not the only piece of evidence I have. Hillary has been saying a lot of stuff, that, if it was any other Secretary of State, the media would be all over. Most of it is way out of her role. Perhaps she is just filling the obvious gaps in saying the things Obama is supposed to be saying?

 

Oh, and I distinctly remember saying this, right here:

 

so Dan, now that Bill Clinton has said the exact same thing, I suppose it's right. But only because he said it.

 

Anyway, in pure Clinton fashion, they are literally killing Obama with innuendo veiled in compliments. I am certain that they still think they have a shot at the Presidency. Otherwise, why are they doing and saying all this stuff?

 

I was looking for an article about Billary endorsing "the other guy", instead of Obama's hand picked candidate, by a leftist, to save on dopey conner objections, and it looks like this guy is already trying to play this off, and was on MSNBC doing that last night. Playing it off, on MSNBC? I don't know about you guys, but that tells me that it's almost definitely on. Why else is this Democrat hack (um, here's the title of one of his books "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception") already smoothing it over, if there's nothing there to be smoothed?

 

We'll see what happens, but at this point, clearly, the Clinton's are at least in "keep our options open" mode.....

 

 

Of course Hillary would take another shot at the Presidency. No big news there.

[OCinBuffalo]

OK... this is really long past pointless and I have work to do. So, rather than refute each point you've attempted; I'll do just one and then let you rant back some nonsense. Sound good?

 

You seem fixated on the fact that Obama is no leader. And you're asserting that I am disputing that. Can we at least agree on that?

 

In the thread in which you reference (I assume because no link was provided):

 

I clearly state in my 4th post in the thread that:

"Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Obama has shown leadership on this mess. I'm just saying that at least some of the things people want to see done are being done."

Furthermore, in my initial post, I clearly state:

"And yes, Obama has made many missteps"

 

So, I would think it's fairly obvious that I'm not giving anyone an "all thumbs up" for how things have been handled. The problem with your argument is you stated: "That's not my point. My point is: given Obama's clearly demonstrable tendencies to be ideological, instead of practical, to the point of obtuseness, why on God's green earth should we let him be in charge of any other major initiative?"

 

So which is it? Do you want him to be the great leader and take charge of the oil disaster or do you want him defer leadership to someone else? You've indicated that you want both to occur.... you're upset that he's not leading, but you started your entire argument asking why should we even let him. And, in perfect bizzaro world fashion, I'm the one that's contradicting myself. Nice.

False choice. Reading comprehension is important. Clearly you need to re-read my words again.

 

The guy is not a leader, he has had his chances, and he has failed. NOW, I am saying we shouldn't let him try anything else, because he has failed miserably as a leader BEFORE NOW.

 

Thus, I don't EXPECT HIM to take charge of the oil spill. I would love it if he did, but I don't expect it. In no case, THEN OR NOW, do I welcome him deferring his leadership role. I have said that consistently, whether it's Health Care, Iran, you name it. I have never said he should defer his role, anywhere, ever, and I won't unless we need to get serious about impeachment or resignation. He is the President, for Pete's sake.

 

That has nothing to do with whatever comes next. If he can't or won't fix the oil spill, than yeah, I don't think any sane/reasonable person should support him going off and starting some new major initiative. All indications are that they are done until the mid-term elections....which I have to say is a good thing.

 

Let's see if they can do simple tasks, like understanding NASA's job, before we try the harder stuff. Fine job of setting priorities there, huh? Is this what you learned in your leadership training? Making one department do another department's job? Is this some kind of jackass cross-training exercise? Go ahead and take all the time, and your supposed leadership ability, you need to explain how making Muslims feel good about themselves is ever, in any world, NASA's #1 priority.

[OCinBuffalo]

Of course Hillary would take another shot at the Presidency. No big news there.

This is fully as expected coming from you: it's giant news, especially since Obama was supposed to be the second coming, but you are sure to downplay it, since clearly he's not even qualified to be President, much less a great one.

It's a huge political story.

 

We haven't had a bona fide Primary challenge for a sitting President(no, bona fide doesn't include Pat Buchannan and Ralph Nader)since LBJ, but this is no big news?

It's a huge historical story.

 

But, it may not happen. People may simply have Clinton fatigue.

 

However, I think the largest story is: people simply have Liberal fatigue, and that means you will start eating each other, regardless of all.