If my reputation was of taking far too many vacations after being elected to a job I (to put it mildly) publicly sought, I woud be worried even more about being seen as campaigning when I wasn't on vacation.
Barack really doesn't have that internal warning system because his ego is too thick. He thinks he deserves everything and that he never has to suffer consequences. He is the text book example of: Pride goeth before the fall. I was thinking of Shakespeare but it's also Provers 16:18 (only instead of "fall," it's "destruction"). I don't generally quote Bible verse here -- though I learned many in Sunday School -- but I will make an exception since Barack, this month, finally made a show of going to a DC church for the first time this year (and I believe the first time since being sworn in).
"Almost Completely Naked: Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Part III" (Hillary Is 44):
We previously discussed Naked Sarah Palin and Naked Hillary Clinton and today we laugh at how brutally Bill Clinton attacks Barack Obama. Quick, what is the most repeated argument Bill Clinton makes as he campaigns for candidates around the nation? The answer is a disguised attack on Barack Obama and one David Axelrod does not appreciate.
This morning Fox & Friends produced a segment about how David Axelrod does not like Bill Clinton’s Big Argument as he campaigns around the nation. As Bill Clinton travels the nation making a naked series of attacks against Barack Obama most Big Media outlets either miss or dress up Bill Clinton’s remarks. For instance, the dumb New York Times published a story last week stupidly called “Bill Clinton Stumps For Obama“. The story included Bill Clinton’s most repeated argument this campaign season:
“Bill Clinton Stumps for Obama [snip]
Even though Mr. Clinton insisted on Monday that he was only “peripherally and fleetingly” back in politics, he has been headlining rallies and fund-raisers across the country to buck up the depressed party faithful.
“They shouldn’t take this lying down,” Mr. Clinton said during a meeting with reporters and editors of The New York Times on Monday.
Blaming Republican policies for digging the deep hole the economy is in, he said the Democrats needed to plead with voters for more time to turn things around.
“I think we ought to say, ‘Look, don’t go back to the shovel brigade — give us two more years; if you don’t feel better you can throw us all out.’ ”
Um…, what quadrennial event occurs in two more years, in 2012? Why, surprise, surprise, surprise, it’s the presidential elections. Bill Clinton is saying that if things don’t get better in two years – sufficiently better that voters “don’t feel better” – then throw Barack out. Idiots at the New York Times apparently do not get the consequences of the argument Bill Clinton has crafted. These are writers who must not understand that “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is not just about clothes. Not the brightest at the New York Times these days, well educated no doubt, but dumb as a bag of bricks.
The introductory passage in the article is even worse. Who can write sentences such as these and not expect to be labeled gullible or stupid, or both: “He was against him before he was for him.” “…Bill Clinton was often at angry odds with the man who ultimately defeated his wife.” “…Mr. Clinton is stumping hard to help his onetime foe — and has emerged as one of the most important defenders of President Obama’s Congressional majorities.” These idiots apparently do not understand that every single time Bill Clinton speaks it demonstrates how sorely unqualified and lacking Barack Obama is.
Does it occur to the dolts that effectively saying ‘throw Barack Obama out in 2012′ is not “stumping hard to help his onetime foe.” In addition when Bill Clinton adds “And I think they can” to his main point “I hope they can avoid calamity” this does not mean that Bill Clinton thinks Obama Dimocrats will avoid calamity. Bill Clinton understands the difference between HOPE and actual performance.
I love the above and that's what worries me. It is just too great for me personally. I would love to see Bill Clinton take the attitude of, "This is his mess, let him clean it up." But I don't know if Bill would do that and, as I noted, I'm too thrilled by it to be able to evaluate it.
It makes sense, as outlined by Hillary Is 44. (To be clear, I'm not saying Hillary Is 44 is wrong or lying or a liar. I'm just noting how happy that the above makes me and how my happiness is so great that I might not be able to evaluate it properly.)
Oh, go read "Questions Have Long Surrounded Accused Minister" which I see as a weaker version of my "The talk of Atlanta" from last week.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):