OBAMA'S PLAYING POLITICS WITH RACE AND THE UNTHINKABLE. BRIE AND SYMPATHY.

Amid all the turmoil surrounding the economy, a few days ago there was an interesting news release. The release read: "Law enforcement sources have said that President-elect Barack Obama has been the target of more threats than any President-elect in history."

What's most telling about this release is that this information would never have been released without Obama deciding that he wanted it released. Law enforcement would never issue such a press release on their own. It would not be in their interest to do so. But Obama obviously felt it was in his political interest to do so. And so he ordered it to be disseminated.

Even amid a financial crisis, it seems that Obama can't help but continue to play the kind of cheap politics reminiscent of Richard Nixon. In this case, before he is even inaugurated he is looking for brie and sympathy.

But even Nixon never stooped to the level of trying to play on public sympathy by using threats of bodily harm against him,threats everyone knows are mostly insignificant since 99.99% of them come from harmless but deluded crackpots who pose no real threat at all. Which is not to say each threat shouldn't be investigated by the Secret Service and the lunatics arrested. After all it is a federal crime to make such threats. But it is telling and very much in character that Obama would want that information released when no President before him thought it mattered much.

But releasing that information gave him the political pretense to do his scheduled TV interview with Barbara Walters and play the tin hero, making sure the subject was brought up and then showing that he is oblivious to the mounting threats and danger around him, showing the world that he is not afraid, that he is a person of courage who will do his job despite the threats. That is pretty much what he said. Whatta guy. Even before taking office Obama thinks that being President is all about him. I wonder if it gave Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann goosebumps.

Another aspect of how cheap a political play this really was, is the unintentionally revealing use of the word"more". The release said Obama has received "more" threats than any other President-elect in history, What that word tells us is what we already knew. That every other President-elect in history received threats like these from the usual collection of unhinged lunatics around the country. They always do.

But none of them, not Bush, not Clinton, not Bush 41, not Reagan, not Carter, none of them decided to use these threats for PR or political purposes by releasing news of them to the public. Not saying anything in the face of these lunatic threats is real courage. Instead Obama decided to prey on public sympathy by having that information released and in the process went one step further by playing the race card while at the same time being able to say "who me"?

Because " more threats than any President in history" translates into only one thing -- "because I'm black". (Actually half black) And everyone, including Obama, knows it.

In wanting to play hero before he even takes the oath of office, Obama seems to have no problem with suggesting to people that despite the fact that the country elected the first person of color in history to the Presidency, we are still a racist society and he is still a victim of that racism even though he happens to have been elected President of the United States. Again, whatta guy.

Underhanded Nixonian politics is not new for Obama. What is new is that he is playing it as President-elect.

One always hopes, politics being the dirty business that it is, that once a politician gets elected they stop being a politician and start being a statesman. Very few rise to that level and Obama, Mr. Change, is no exception.

Except to use threats against him, most of them meaningless, for his own political use is somewhat lower than any President has gone before. No President before him felt it necessary to release information about threats against them. Law enforcement would never do it on their own. Obama instructing them do it so he can play Braveheart is just more political games at a time when that is the last thing the country needs.

Whatever time Obama spent with his advisers discussing this and then making the decision to go ahead and issue the press release was time wasted.

The one bright spot so far is that he is appointing capable people to fill his administration. One can only hope that when it comes to actually governing, he does what he knows how to do best - get out of the way and allow people who actually know what they are doing to formulate and follow through on policy. And so far it looks like he may be doing just that while he handles being the front man and doing what he does best. Nothing.

For those who havent seemed to be able to find any of the articles related to these stories about the rise in threats to Obama, here is one from the Associated Press. The release was also read on CNN and was talked about as mentioned in the interview Barbara Walters did with Obama.

LOLA WANTED SECRETARY OF STATE

Back in June after the last primary when Obama went for a secret meeting with Clinton at her Washington townhouse, I wrote a piece called "Whatever Lola Wants Lola Gets"

Now we know what actually went on in that closed door meeting at Clinton's Washington home back in June when Obama went to see Clinton hat in hand after Pelosi horsewhipped super delegates to come out and declare for him. Now we know what Lola wanted. And now we know what Lola got.

Four months before a stock market crash and a collapsing economy that all but sealed the victory for any Democratic candidate no matter who it was, Obama surely felt that he couldn't and wouldn't win as the nominee without Clinton's support or her voters. So he requested that meeting at her house which took place behind closed doors. The inside information at the time was that he offered her the Vice-Presidency in return for her support and she turned it down, understandably since, while Cheney had been the ventriloquist and Bush the dummy, usually the VP job is purely symbolic with no official Constitutional duties.

But it doesnt take much logic and insight to see now what was probably negotiated at the time. In all probability, after turning down the offer of VP, Obama offered her any job she wanted in an Obama administration if he should win, in return for her support. And she agreed. Which now explains a lot of Clinton's seemingly over the top support of someone she had campaigned against saying he wasn't qualified ( which happened to be the truth).

Clinton could have tried to fight it out and in my opinion if she had she would have won the nomination. But it was a risk. This deal was probably the next best thing and contained little risk for her other than giving up her campaign for the Presidency.

It's probable that since Obama's victory, Clinton has been pondering whether she wanted Attorney General or Secretary of State. It's no coincidence that a few days after Holder was named Attorney General, the news was leaked that Clinton will be offered Secretary of State. It is obviously the job she decided she wanted.

It is unlikely Clinton would have agreed to take the job if she had any substantial differences with Obama over foreign policy. So it is very likely that Obama's foreign policy will have more of a Clinton stamp than an Obama one since there is no way she would have agreed to carry out a foreign policy she didn't agree with.

The odd man out is Bill Richardson who, to believe James Carville, double crossed Clinton at the last minute by supporting Obama, probably in hopes of getting this job which he wanted really really really badly. This was to be Bill Richardson's twenty peices of silver.

Politics being what it is, it wouldn't surprise me if Clinton chose State partly to screw Richardson out of the job he coveted.Its also the second most important and visible job in any administration.

Of course some Obama sycophants in the press, David Bromwich over at Huffington Post to name one, have become apoplectic over Clinton's impending nomination as Secretary of State probably because its making him look like a fool after bad mouthing Clinton for 9 months in support of Obama, and now those in the press who spent 9 months tearing her down are going to have to eat their words. And who better to make them look like idiots than Obama himself?

Clinton as Secretary of State says a lot of things. First it says what was apparent back in June when Obama asked for that meeting -- that she was the one in the drivers seat calling the shots and told him what it would take to get her support. Obviously he made the deal. And now the IOU is being paid. Second, it shows that Obama knows he is in over his head and will have to surround himself with the best people he can find, and since he is going to have his hands full with a collapsing economy he obviously needed someone at State that had the visibility and impact to carry out foreign policy with almost the same authority as the President himself. So its' unlikely we are going to hear any more from the press about Clinton's trip to Bosnia as First Lady.

And one other thing. With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and Obama realizing this isn't going to be a book signing tour, it now seems fairly certain that an unofficial economic advisor who goes by the name of Bill is probably waiting in the wings.

NOT YOUR FATHER'S DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Whether or not to bail out the Big 3 auto makers has been the raging question of the last few days. And watching the Three Amigos of American business, the CEO's of GM Ford and Chrysler, testify in front of both the Senate banking committee and the House, one is struck by the fact that a real change has taken place. But its hardly a change I can believe in. In fact its change that is hard to believe.

There were the Republicans, staunchly taking a stand against giving tens of billions of tax payer dollars with no strings attached to the grossly irresponsible CEO's of GM, Ford and Chrysler, and there were the Democrats pushing it for it.

If this is the kind of change we can expect from Obama and the Democrats its going to be an interesting four years. There was Dick Shelby, Republican conservative from the South arguing against throwing $27 billion to the Big 3 automakers and there was Chris Dodd, liberal Democrat from the north, making the case for it.

The more you watched the hearings the stranger things became with Bob Corker, the Republican senator from Tennessee standing up for the taxpayer and making the most sense, and Bob Casey, the Democrat from Pennsylvania sounding like a GM apologist and lobbyist and pontificating about this being an important issue and thanking the CEO's for coming. Thanks a lot Bob. The buffet will be served next to the cloakroom.

So the Democrats, with Obama and Pelosi leading the way now want to throw $27 billion at the 3 most irresponsible corporations in America, which everyone knows is only a down payment anyway since they will be back for more and its the Republicans sticking up for the taxpayers.

Since when do Republicans stick up for the taxpayers while the Democrats screw them? Since now, obviously.

Throwing $27 billion at the automakers is nothing more than trickle down economics, the failed Republican economic ideology that has never worked, now being pushed by Democrats hoping that by giving money to the same management teams that screwed up in the first place, it will all trickle down and save jobs and the companies themselves. The Democrats, the party that used to stand for justice now wants to reward the lousy management of the Big 3 for the horrible job they did fighting tooth and nail against fuel efficiency standards while foreign car makers embraced them, and then producing gas guzzling cars which people didn't want when the price of oil skyrocketed.

But the Democrats, who seem to be playing politics with this more than anything else, want to give $27 billion with practically no strings attached even though they know they will be back asking for more. And they are doing it, in Maxine Waters words, by rolling over.

How about insisting that if they give them the bailout money, that current management step down? How about a provision insisting that any executives at the Big 3 making $500,000 a year or more, work for a salary of $1 a year until the money is paid back?

The CEO's of these three companies which lost $70 billion over the last 3 years, make on average $28 million a year. Just to put that in terms people can understand, that is $600,000 a week.

And now they want the taxpayers to hand over $27 billion to help them out of all the bad decisions they've made business wise for years. It's the management of these companies that are responsible for the mess they are in not the economic crisis.. They blame it on the economic crisis but that hasn't caused the stock of Honda, Nissan, Mercedes, Audi, or Toyota to drop 80%. They are in the same economic environment and those companies aren't hurting the way Detroit is.

The reason they are on the verge of bankruptcy is because of the way they have done business for decades.

I write a lot about little things mean a lot and how big pictures can be drawn from small things. Ive seen it with Obama and his nonsensical verbiage designed to fool people who cant think for themselves into thinking that it sounds good when its all nothing but nonsense with nothing behind it.

I made a similar observation of a small thing that told me a lot a long time ago when it came to Detroit and American cars.

I never owned an American car and so I never made this observation until one day, about 20 years ago when I rented a car. I was getting familiar with the dashboard when I noticed something that caught my eye I thought was an astounding and,telling discovery. Very telling in the little things mean a lot category. The odometer on the Ford I was renting had only 5 digits. The odometer on my foreign car had an odometer with 6 digits. That kind of small thing revealed some big thinking. Who was designing and conceiving cars that were built to last ? Who were designing and building cars meant to give people their moneys worth and were meant to stay on the road a long time?

The difference between Detroit's 5 digit odometer and the 6 digit odometer of foreign cars tells you all you need to know about Detroit's management thinking and the mess they are in now and what they thought of their own product..

A commenter here wrote the other day disagreeing with my position,that if the Big 3 failed it would be a major disaster for the country. The Big 3 have already failed. They aren't very big any more. They've been failing for decades and lost $70 billion in the last 3 years while their CEO's were making $28 million a year for all their good work.

There should be no bailout of Detroit.They are using the economic crisis as an excuse. Its not the reason they are in the shape they are in now. If there is no bailout the auto industry will not go under. GM can go into bankruptcy and reorganize and/or there can be a merger with the other two. Detroit will build fewer but better cars. The money the auto makers want ( which would continue to pay those CEO salaries) could be better spent guaranteeing the pensions of every auto worker and doubling the unemployment and severance for those who get laid off and do it for a lot less than $27 billion. These are the people who should get assistance. Not the people who caused the problem,. The other auto makers will pick up the slack in about a year when things start to pick up and hire those workers.

There is no reason not to let GM go into bankruptcy like any other failed corporation. The airlines did it and they've come out of it it smaller but viable. The biggest point the CEO of GM thought he was making against bankruptcy was that a survey showed that 80% of consumers wouldn't consider buying a car from a company in bankruptcy The Democrats on the committee all nodded knowingly proving that crash test dummies come from anywhere and can even rise to the level of CEO and US Senator, ( and even President of the US as the last 8 years and the current President-elect has shown).

There is only one reason people said they wouldn't consider buying and it's because a car is in an investment. People want to know there will be a company standing behind the warranty. And what could be easier to deal with? The government, for a fraction of what the automakers want in bailout money, can guarantee the warranties on all of GM's cars just like the FDIC guarantees bank deposits. That money would only be needed if GM actually went out of business which is not likely.But It would take care of people's fears and it would cost the taxpayers a lot less if GM management couldn't turn it around.

The bailout as it stands now makes no sense but the Democrats seem intent on giving them the money, not on taxpayer terms but on auto makers terms..

Maxine Waters asked the 3 CEO's if they would be willing to set aside $1 billion of the $27 billion to help ailing dealers who were suffering under the credit crunch and laying off workers. Sitting there and watching her take no for an answer as each CEO essentially told her no, and watching her trying to make it sound like a yes was one of the more pathetic moments of the House hearing. None of them agreed to do it with GM saying they needed all the money for operating costs Chrysler another saying they felt they were already doing what she was asking and so didn't need to set aside $1 billion, to which Waters responded
"so is that a yes"?

The Democrats have the votes and so if they want to throw this money at the auto makers with no strings, no management sacrifice, no management change and no guarantee that it will save jobs, they can do it. But the auto makers sound like they are taking everyone for a ride and the Democrats seem to be ready to hop in. Its not what the Democratic Party of 10 years ago would have let happen.

NOTE: The Senate yesterday refused to approve the $27 billion auto bailout with even some skeptical Democrats refusing to go along. Harry Reid amazingly said " we dont believe we need the legislation". Oh no? Then why did you try and pass some? What Reid is now saying is that Bush can allocate the money out of the TARP something Bush has already said he wont do. The Republicans were willing to pass legislation that would allow the auto makers to take $25 billion already passed and allocated to the auto makers to help make more fuel effecient cars and divert that to meet their present emergency money needs but the Democrats said no. No? If this is an emergency then why not? If Obama is insinuating himself into this behind the scenes then its starting to look like trickle down ineptitude is hitting the Democrats.

OBAMA'S FIRST BAD IDEA

To be fair Obama isn't the only one talking about this but he has not only embraced it he is pushing it and even going so far as to try and push the incumbent President into supporting it, which seems more like more political strategy than anything else since, if it succeeds he can take the credit and it fails he can blame Bush.

The idea the idea is to give the Big 3 auto makers the $27 billion bailout they are looking for. It's a bad idea. But one that takes no political courage to embrace since its the politically easy thing to do.

Detroit is claiming they need the money because of the economic crisis. But in case no one has noticed, the same economic crisis exists for Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Volvo and every other foreign auto maker making and selling cars in the US.The real reason for Detroit's economic problems is that they have lost $70 billion in the last 3 years thanks to management that has been responsible for selling cars the public doesn't want because they haven't been as good as the competition's. That has nothing to do with the economic crisis and it's no reason to bail them out and reward their managment for all their lousy work.

But what is even more worrisome is that on the subject of the auto bailout we get more of what we've been getting all along from Obama -- more Obamaspeak which, to me is the product, not of some soaring intellect but a sloppy mind.

Here is one example:

"For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment"

First, no one has said the auto industry would completely collapse if they didnt get the $27 billion so it's either an example of his not seeing the problem for what it is, or it's more Obamaspeak -- words with nothing behind it. The second part of his statement is almost laughable, that "... the collapse of the auto industry would be a disaster in the kind of environment". What kind of environment would the collapse of the auto industry not be a disaster? Should we wait a few years and then let the industry collapse? No one wants to see the industry collapse and it won't whether they get the $27 billion or not. So it's more words designed to sound smart but are more Alice in Wonderland nonsense from the person who said words matter.

The people who need to be looked out for first and foremost in the auto industry right now are the workers. And for less than half the $27 billion Detroit wants -- $12 billion -- the goverment can guarantee the lifetime pensions of every auto worker at the Big 3. That makes more sense than than throwing $27 billion at auto industry managment who are responsible for years of neglect and making cars that weren't as good as the competiton. Yes, everyone says they learned their lesson and now they are making better cars. But spending $12 billion to make sure the people who had nothing to do with the auto makers losing $70 billion over 3 years have their pension and health care benefits in tact makes more sense.

GM going into bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen. Major airlines have done the same and come out of it stronger and more viable. The possibility of Ford and Chrysler having to merge is also a better idea than throwing tens of billions of taxpayer money at management teams that don't deserve it.Yes, if GM had to file for bankruptcy and restructure and Chrysler and Ford merged there would be a loss of jobs, at least temporarily. But the rest of that $27 billion could go to doubling the severance of any auto worker who loses their job, and extending their unemployment benefits to twice their duration giving them ample time to get on their feet or get rehired. And with Detroit producing fewer cars it would almost certainly mean the foreign auto makers employing American auto workers would eventually take up the slack and increase production and over time would be hiring more workers.

At the very least if Detroit was to get a bailout it should come from the original $700 billion from the original bailout bill, not a separate loan. The reason for that is you just cant keep throwing money at everyone. It wont work and wont solve the problems. You start in one place and improve that and then move on from there and not try and solve everything at once.The one thing to be concerned about in an Obama presidency is that he is so used to doing things for strictly political reasons, to try and say something to appeal to everyone ( as he did when his statements about Jerusalem blew up in his face during the primary) that he may try and give something to everyone as a political sop . But the problem is too big and too wide spread for that to be a solution otherwise everyone would be for it.

GM should be allowed to go into bankruptcy and reorganize. Yes it would have a short term negative psychological affect but practically speaking its not a bad thing. GM, Ford and Chrysler mismanagement has caused this problem with years of neglect and not being competitive with foreign auto makers and now they want tax payers to bail them out using the economic crisis as the excuse.

Spending $12 billion to guarantee the pensions and health care of all the autoworkers, and another $15 billion to double the severance and unemployment benefits of those who lose jobs makes more sense than a management bailout. The other thing to keep in mind is that if you throw this money at Detroit management, there is no guarantee people wont lose their jobs anyway.

Forcing GM to downsize, getting rid of management, encouraging a merger between Chrysler and Ford would mean they would produce less but better cars. It also means sales of the foreign auto makers ( all of whom employ American workers in the US) would increase and so would create new jobs there -- jobs that can be filled eventually by auto workers who might be casualties of the downsizing.At the very least, any money going to Detroit should come out of the $700 billion already allocated, not a separate bailout package . But Obama has been pushing for the bailout now and pushing Bush to support it, something Bush has said he wont do.

The one thing to look for, the one big red flag, a marker to throw down now with regards to Obama and the bailout is, if the bailout doesn't happen now and Obama comes to office and doesn't do it himself, its going to be a sign that his seemingly pathological insincerity is real. If he thinks the bailout is a good idea, then let him do it when he comes to office and let the results will be what they will be. But if, after pushing Bush to sign a bailout bill, he doesn't do it himself, then the next 4 years are going to be lost years with Obama doing what he is done his whole political life -- nothing.

SO FAR NO GOOD.

Little things say a lot because little things usually reveal big truths. And nowhere has that proved to be more true than with Obama's speeches and his use of language.

For much of the campaign Obama used speeches and phrases designed to sound good but upon closer examination was saying nothing. In the words of Gertrude Stein there was "no there there". A lot of people were taken in by it and a lot of people weren't.

But given the economic crisis anything that Obama has to say now means a great deal whether he like it or not. And so far what he has had to say has been as empty and nonsensical as his campaign speeches.

For those who think that Obama's use of oxymorons and language which is designed to sound thoughtful but is really nonsense, is just semantics and that this is nitpicking lets hope for all concerned that none of you are airline mechanics. Or detectives.

Detectives usually solve crimes by noticing small things, not big things. Sometimes things too small to be seen by the naked eye or something that to an untrained eye doesn't mean much but can lead a detective to solving the crime. That's why they are called clues. And that's why so far Obama seems to be without one.

The other day Obama issued a statement about the economy and how he plans to address it and once again, as he has throughout his political life, he used phrases that were designed to sound thoughtful but were nonsense. And one has to take into account the thought process that goes into such use of language.

With people wanting to hear from him regarding the economic crisis, he told people that his administration would apporach the economic crisis and act with "deliberate haste". "Deliberate haste" is pure Obama. That is the kind of Through the Looking Glass nonsense that sounds like its important and meaningful when it means absolutely nothing. Its the kind of thing that should come out of the mouth of the Queen of Hearts or the hookah-smoking caterpillar not a President -elect. But it's the kind of phraseology he's always used to make people think he knew what he was talking about when he didn't.

In plain English he was actually saying was that he is going to take his time hurrying up. Or he was going to hurry up but take his time. Maybe he meant he was going to employ something new -- fast deliberation -- you know, kind of like Wendy's or McDonald's. Maybe bail out GM from the $30 billion value meal menu. Even Yogi Berra didnt know what he was talking about.

I don't know if Obama has a speech writer in charge of oxymorons or if he writes them himself.My guess is he writes them himself. And why not? They've worked before. Not on the floor of the US Senate. And not on the floor of the Illinois State Senate. But they worked on the floors of newsrooms around the country and in TV studios inhabited by Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as well as other campaign venues but the time for that is over.

Some people, especially those who supported Obama from the beginning will think this is all hairsplitting . Obviously these wont be airline mechanics or artists or writers or detectives or people who are used to paying close attention to things. which also eliminates journalists. Because speeches, especially Presidential speeches are usually carefully thought out, with words parsed and meanings and shades of meanings and subtleties discussed at length. Obviously not in Obama's case.

The fact is that everyone in the room thought "deliberate haste" sounded good. Which doesn't say much for everyone in the room because not one of them said, "what does that mean?" When you surround yourself with people who are more afraid of looking stupid ( because maybe they think they are) than asking an honest question, it doesn't bode well for effective problem solving.

But Obama now has to actually do something. People justifiably fed up with the havoc the Republicans caused ( and this economic crisis is directly related to Republican ideology regarding regulation and a Republican fox guarding the chicken coop chairman of the SEC) have turned to the Democrats who have historically handled economic issues better than the Republicans.

So Obama has to make good on the reason he was elected. The reason Montana voted for him. The reason Ohio and Michigan and Florida voted for him. The reason 8 states that voted Republican in 2004 voted for him. To fix the economy.And the reason that little things mean so much is that 70% of the GNP is consumer spending. And one of the biggest factors in consumer spending is confidence.

If Obama can't inspire confidence, which is the fastest thing a leader can do and what Roosevelt did in 1932, and has the quickest effect because it can be instantaneous, then it makes the job twice as hard because if people don't have confidence then they will want to see proof before they lift a finger and realistically any economic program has to have at least two years to work through the system.

So far given the 400+ drop in the market yesterday and the more than 1000 pt drop since he was elected, Obama hasn't inspired confidence. The day after the election a friend sent me a headline that said, "Biggest Post Election Drop in History". I wrote back asking if this was about the stock market or Obama's IQ.

Hopefully Obama will approach these problems with some concrete ideas that won't be motivated by politics. But whatever he does, he's going to have to be done with a lot more than deliberate haste.

FOUR MORE YEARS?

The old adage is that in a democracy a people get the government they deserve. Hopefully this wont be true this time around with Obama's election since its clear that a lot of well meaning and sincere people, many in need, and fearful of a possible depression voted those fears and understandably so. It was as complete a repudiation of the Republican Party, their policies and conservatism as you could get and after the worst administration in history and watching the Republicans run the country into the ground with Bush presiding over and in many ways causing four catastrophic events, Obama became the beneficiary of a country fed up with the Republicans. But will people get what they think they voted for or more of the same?

It was a year when the conventional wisdom said the Democrats could run Mickey Mouse and win but Obama's candidacy made the choices a lot harder for people who weren't voting their fears though its hard to blame working people in Michigan and Ohio for doing just that.

Many,understandably, voted to punish the Republicans and no one can say they didn't deserve it. The bad news is that the government is now in the hands of Pelosi, Reid and Obama by default, three people who have already proved they wont have a clue as to what to do with it. On the other hand no one expects them to be worse than the Republicans. Or will they?

When George Bush became President in 2000 many of us couldn't believe there were people so stupid as to actually vote for someone so obviously over his head and unqualified to be President. It wasn't enough to say the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency. It really shouldn't have been close and we said it was hard to believe people could be that stupid to elect someone so clearly unqualified.

After fulfilling our expectations and having 4 years of the most inept incompetent Presidency in history it seemed almost impossible to think people would be stupid enough to re-elect him. But people were and they did. And what followed was another four disastrous years.

Now its the Democrats turn as someone as unqualified, unprepared and inadequate as Bush has been elected but for completely different reasons because Obama has problems to deal with that Bush never had. Bush caused most of the problems, but that aside, they are still there and need solving and based on his track record Obama is not going to solve them.

Unfortunately, add to his lack of qualification that Obama is more dishonest,underhanded,and untrustworthy than any candidate in 40 years and while the repudiation of the Republicans for the last 8 years is well deserved, another four years of ineptitude is not deserved but that is entirely what people who voted for better is likely to get.

For those hoping Obama is actually going to do something to solve the problems facing the country,there is the likelihood that, like Bush he will make them worse. And the reason for that likelihood is that Obama has never done anything or accomplished anything or solved any problems in the past nor has he shown the slightest inclination to wanting to do so which is why he voted "present" over a hundred times in the Illinois state legislature and had a record of doing nothing in the US Senate. So why should anything be different now?

If Obama follows his pattern it will be to do nothing which is the safe thing to do. After all if you do nothing then you cant get blamed for much. Obama promised to start bringing the troops home from Iraq within 60 days after taking office. I'll give odds that never happens. Obama didn't spend 6 years in the Illinois state senate doing absolutely nothing because he is a dynamic problem solver. What he is and what he has made himself into is a symbol. Nothing more.

So will Obama turn the current economic crisis into a depression? Hard to say. Maybe. Will he make it better? Very doubtful. Like George W. Bush, he has never once ever shown he has the skill or the knowledge the intuition or problem solving skills or the conceptual ability to grasp a problem and solve it. What's even worse he's never even shown he has the desire to even try.

For many, his lack of problem solving won't matter. Like Reagan in the 80's he has been a symbol for people who need symbols instead of anything real. Or are superficial enough to believe that symbols will solve their problems.The primary symbol of course is that he is black but that is not why most people voted for him.They voted as much against the Republicans and holding them accountable for the last 8 years as anything else. And working people voted for him because they are concerned about losing their jobs and their homes and the economy is the number one issue in the country.

The media of course is going to milk the race thing for all its worth. That's who and what they are.They can always be depended on to make irrelevant things important and reduce important things to irrelevance especially if they think it will make buck. I'm sure if he could, Wolf Blitzer would start doing the news in blackface.

But it's not going to be any consolation after 8 years of Republican ineptitude and incompetence that if we have more of the same the face on the incompetence will be black instead of white. If things get worse, the fact that it will have a black face will mean nothing to the workers in Ohio or Michigan who lose their jobs.

Obama promised change because he knew how to press the buttons of people who wanted just that and made himself a symbol for people who wanted a symbol. But Obama has lied, reneged and broken every promise he ever made. That is indisputable. His path to success has been to do nothing or as little as possible and his goals have always been simply to get elected to the next office. But he has inherited a set of problems that need action. His history is that he will do little or nothing about them. That is what he has been in the past and taking action is just not who he is because its not who he's ever been.

Will the next four years simply be like the last four only with a Democratic Party label? Its not going to take long to find out. We'll know as soon as the first promise is broken and that might be with regards to Iraq. It also might be with the economy if things gets worse

Its been a tough year for choices. The Republicans deserved to be punished for their gross negligence and incompetence of the last 8 years.On the other side the Democratic congress hasn't exactly covered itself in glory and the Democratic candidate for President has shown the character of a shady used car salesman and zero problem solving or legislative skills. Yes he is black but I don't think the amount of melanin in his skin, the chemical that makes a black person dark and kept their ancestors from getting skin cancer from the sun's ultra violet rays, is going to help him much if the economy gets worse.

The country is just about finished with 8 years of an unqualified President. Its not going to take long to find out if there is going to be four more years of the same. A lot of people think there will be. Obama's speeches and ability to manipulate the easily manipulated won't help him now.

As Obama joked to a reporter a few years ago at one of his book signings, "Maybe it's time for me to actually go do something". He never did. And it could be because he doesnt know how. Let's hope for the sake of the people who voted for him that the real change is that he is the one who changes. If he doesn't, it could be a long four years for the people who expected more.

BITTER DEMOCRATS. OBAMA'S HARVEST

Bitter Democrats. It sounds like an Ingmar Bergman movie from the 50's. but that is what Obama supporters call Democrats who are refusing to support Obama and march in lockstep like they are and like the Republicans do traditionally. But it is actually the Democrats who will be voting for Obama who are the bitter Democrats. Bitter over 8 years of a Republican President who is without a doubt the worst most unqualified President this country ever had and never should have been elected in the first place.
Bitter that the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi have been a disaster and delivered on very little ever since they became the majority. And probably bitter that they can't pose any valid arguments for supporting Obama that doesn't expose them as a collection of trained seals swallowing whatever nonsense Obama throws at them which is why they get so flustered and angry when others won't go along.

Bitter Democrats supporting Obama seem to think the best revenge is to elect the Democrats version of an unqualified President who has no business being in the Oval Office either. You can almost hear them in their bitterness saying " If the Republicans can have an unqualified, unaccomplished intellectually dishonest President in the White House so can we!".

As has been the case throughout the entire campaign and primary process, the biggest affliction affecting Kool Aid drinking Obama supporters has been projection, that stage of denial, in the case of Obama supporters mass denial, where someone projects onto other people their own feelings and behavior they want to suppress instead of admit and so project it onto others. So Clinton supporters who refuse to support Obama because he is an inept, unqualified dishonest underhanded snake oil salesman are called bitter by Obama supporters, while those supporting an inept,unqualified, dishonest underhanded snake oil salesman believe themselves to be enlightened.

Since there is not a single good reason to vote for Obama other than you are bitter about 2000 and Kerry;s moronic 2004 campaign, and 8 years of gross incompetence by George W. Bush,it is bitter Democrats who will be voting for Obama. The fact that Obama was the product of a rigged roll vote and a rigged primary process engineered by people in the DNC who are every bit as incompetent and dishonest as George W. Bush ( Howard Dean Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazile) it doesn't seem to matter.

Even those deficient Democratic politicians like Dean, Pelosi, the bowing and scraping Bill Richardson and Chuck Schumer of New York,and all the rest who are missing the Truth Gene in their DNA seem to think the only reason to vote for Obama is to have a Democrat in the White House. Which 99% of the time would make sense. Except for this year.

Others say "Hillary is telling me to vote for him and I will do what she says" as if that is some kind of rational reason to do anything..

No one right now knows what the outcome will be. Obama has been trying to raise money to the very end. He is so confident of winning that he is buying commercials this morning in Florida. With all the money he has, if his internal polling showed he was a shoo-in ( what the dishonest enablers in the mass media are trying to make people believe) he would be channeling some of that money to Democratic candidates in tight congressional races around the country. He isn't. He is spending it on himself. Of course you can make the case that even if Obama was a shoo-in he would spend it on himself.

By tomorrow morning we will know if there are more bitter Democrats than rational ones since it will be the bitter and those caught up in race that will be voting for Obama. Predicting is a losers game since you could flip a coin and have a 50% chance of being right pr wrong. But for those who want to look for indicators, if Obama wins the close battleground states that now show him with a small, it will be the first time since the primaries began that the polls turned out to be right in states where the polls were close.

During the Democratic primary every state poll that showed Obama with a big lead proved accurate. But every poll that showed Obama with a small lead or Clinton with a small lead and a very tight race, proved wrong by landslide numbers against Obama.

In Ohio, Zogby had Obama and Clinton tied the night before the primary. Clinton won by 10. In California Rassmussen had Obama up by 1 the day before the primary. Clinton won by 15. The polls showed close races in New Jersey and Massachusetts. Clinton beat Obama by landslide numbers. The polls showed a tightening race in South Dakota with Obama with an ever shrinking lead. Clinton won by a landslide number.

This is not to say it will happen again. But if you're going to handicap and try to pick a probable winner, you handicap the past performances of the pollsters. That's what the "experts" are doing but failing to take into account how wrong the polls were in close races and by what margins.Again there is no way to know for sure. the best indicator that Obama's internal polling is showing he is in a dogfight is that he is still running commercials in battleground states.

If the polls do hold to form there will be a lot of bitter Democrats tearing up losing tickets when its all over wondering how Obama could have lost. If Obama wins we could be in for four years of "Scenes From a Bad Marriage".

NOTE: This post has been removed 5 times today by some pro Obama twit working at RCP. Whoever is doing it, he or she has been doing it for two weeks as 4 previous posts were taken down by someone with access, perhaps even the webmaster. Mine arent the only ones. Others have complained and had their anti-Obama posts removed by someone at RCP who is probably acting in as a rogue not officially for RCP. Perhaps I should be flattered that this political twit thinks these posts are so influential they should be removed from RCP.

This is the kind of political garbage that personifies Obama himself and his supporters. Whoever this neanderthal is should be exposed and fired.