He is who we thought he was:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc

Jeebus H. Flippin' McGillicuddy...

What is it with folks like him? Didn't they do ANY research into what Obama was? They could send planeloads of reporters to dig up dirt on Palin, but couldn't be bothered to examine Obama's background? What would he do with a reporter that did such a crappy job?

I remember trying to talk to Lee Ward on the Blue about Obama, pointing out that there wasn't anything in Obama's background that made you think that he could run a McDonald's at a profit, much less the country. Think I got banned for it, too... :)

Now the self-proclaimed intelligentsia are reluctantly coming to the conclusion that we poor working stiffs figured out long ago - that Obama's a friggin con artist who'd rip 'em off in a heartbeat with no remorse whatsoever. Well, it's nice you realize you got scammed - shame you couldn't have figured that out before you tossed him the keys to the country and told him "Take good care of it!"

JLawson "I remember trying to talk to Lee Ward on the Blue about Obama,"

Speakin' of "Jeebus H. Flippin' McGillicuddy..." did you really, I mean REALLY need to remind us of that Ahole?

Now I have some serious scrubbing to do.

Mort "didn't know". It was his JOB to know. But he brought the rhetoric, he brought the stage management, he brought the lies. Tough shit you arrogant bastard! You and all the rest of the fucking "intellectual, we know better than you, elite". You got hosed! Your 'mea culpa' is a little too late!

Just like Brian Williams comment about Barry on being elected: "We don't know much about Obama do we?" Another shit head WHO DIDN'T DO HIS JOB!

You liberal bastards can shove your heads up your asses. We're not buying Barry's shit and and we're not buying yours. You sold your credibility. Live with it.

"What is it with folks like him? Didn't they do ANY research into what Obama was? "

But..but..but he was so clean, so articulate, so black....well, not SO black, IYKWIMAIKTYD, not like a real Harry-Reid-darkie, more like a nice, non-threatening mocha.
And wasn't it just the COOLEST thing in the world to vote for one of them blacks? It really made the white folks feel really good about themselves.
And really, we didn't want to look too closely at him, *whispering* 'cause he might go all angry-black-man and call us racist.

The media is part of the reason we are where are.

All Zuckerman would have needed was an hour, some honest curiosity, a laptop, and Google to look up Obama's "surprising" rise to the presidency. Corruption was obvious at every stage of the process, from taking out two of his opponents with vicious mudslinging in his early campaigns, Emil Jones' crediting Obama with authorship of legislation Obama had nothing to do with, his sweetheart property purchase from Tony Rezko, his wife's miracle salary history, his absentee, six month career in the US Senate, and many other red flags. These things were not state secrets. Everybody who was paying attention saw it coming.

Can you imagine launching a presidential campaign run for Scott Brown -- tomorrow? Of course not. The media would have a shitfit. But that's pretty much what happened for Obama, and the media played cheerleaders. Why, he was almost a god, I think they said.

None are so blind as those who will not see. Except journalists who don't do their jobs.

I think Les has it. A white liberal press, raised on political correctness wasn't about to do any 'digging' on Barry. Can't have that. So they brought the 'white guilt trip' and hosed the rest of the country.

Just like the bastards who wrote an 86 page report on the Ft Hood murders without once mentioning the name of the person who did the shooting or why.

All Hail Political Correctness!

Wrong from day one!

I think Les has it. A white liberal press, raised on political correctness wasn't about to do any 'digging' on Barry. Can't have that. So they brought the 'white guilt trip' and hosed the rest of the country.

Agreed, spot-on. They were so desperate to prove how oh-so-superior and enlightened they were compared to all the "racist" hoi-polloi, they made a decision based largely on race.

I would also note that until Barry came along, they were apparently so desperate to prove they weren't sexists, they were making decisions based largely on gender! But clearly, race trumps gender in the ranking of the intellectual poser culture.

It so pathetically predictable that it would be funny - if it weren't for the fact that they are hell-bent to destroy the country.

So in other words Mort, a good, solid B+?

"Mort Zuckerman on Obama: He's Done Everything Wrong"

No shit Sherlock, get Your head out of Barry's ass and start sucking freedom.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ!! Millions of us were screaming at the likes of you about who Obama really was, but you were so caught up in your white guilt ritual that you refused to listen.

Millions of us are not in the least surprised at the shenanigans this moron has pulled, and if those shenanigans didn't threaten the very existence of the United States, they would be quit comical.

You can regain a modicum of dignity by using your publishing position to help throttle this arrogant, incompetent narcissist.

Jesus Tap-dancing Christ!! Millions of us were screaming at the likes of you about who Obama really was, but you were so caught up in your white guilt ritual that you refused to listen.

Millions of us are not in the least surprised at the shenanigans this moron has pulled, and if those shenanigans didn't threaten the very existence of the United States, they would be quite comical.

You can regain a modicum of dignity by using your publishing position to help throttle this arrogant, incompetent narcissist.

If the strings were pulled anymore taut, Barry would be singin the praises of Hindenburg..

Oh wait, Chewie just thudded in! ,,,,, Hey babe! Whats new? Slap!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama is ill suited for his current position.

He would better serve America by being an organizer with Acorn.

Gotta agree with the comments here, great points all.

I would add, though, that the media was also very interested in covering history being made.

Add up their bias, the political correctness, and history in the making and there was no way they were going to cover this fairly.

And it's sad, really.
A cursory look at his background (or lack thereof) and there is no way to conclude he was qualified or ready to be President.

Never did I think I would be as wealthy as Mortie but now he admits I am smarter than him. Who knew?

No forgiveness, MSM. NO FORGIVENESS!

You are dead to me, MSM. DEAD!

DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, MSM!

All of you guys who were paying attention told us (and KEEP telling us) contradictory things.

Obama is a typical Chicago pol, who is simultaneously incompetent and inexperienced. Which is it?

He's a radical Marxist, who is interested only in his own advancement and has no real principles. Which is it?

He's a member of a racist Christian church who is a secret Muslim at the same time. Which is it?

He's a crooked politician and a starry-eyed idealist. Which is it?

He's weak on National Security, but continues all of your favorite programs from the Bush administration, including warrantless wiretapping, Gitmo, and the war in Iraq. Which is it?

And one other thing. In November 2008, we were faced with only two realistic choices: Either Obama/Biden, or McCain/Palin. Either something new, or the continuation of Bush/Cheney in the form of a doddering fool and a ditzy churchlady. Under the circumstances, Americans made the best choice they could.

Few people know that as a child, Obama used to fill his mouth up with stones and go practice blaming other people against the roaring surf.

He was magical.

Bruce:

Obama is a typical Chicago pol, who is simultaneously incompetent and inexperienced. Which is it?

How exactly are incompetent and inexperienced mutually exclusive ?

I suggest you plan ahead better when constructing your strawmen.

No doubt Mort is just suffering from a bit of post-Mass election letdown. He'll be his ignorant, leftist self again in no time. Maybe he should just go to the White House for a beer.

Bruce -

You're seriously arguing that McCain would have been a worse choice?

Obama's run up more debt in one year than Bush did in 8. The Dems are even now planning on adding another $1.9 TRILLION to the debt limit - that'll get us up above $14 tril. And like a credit card junkie who's at his max and gets a credit limit extension, how long do you think it'll be until the debt's at THAT limit?

A whole lot of people are looking at what Obama's done, and what he proposes to do - and they're looking at their wallets and seeing there's not much more there that they're willing to let Obama tap so he can feel good about how generous he is WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY!

You did get one thing right...

"He's a crooked politician and a starry-eyed idealist. Which is it?"

Both. They're certainly NOT mutually exclusive!

You guys except for #19 are right on!
We peasants figured him out right from day one, and yet all the elite did not!!! Or would not.
Moral of the story, look into your own heart and brain and not accept someone else's view just because they have more money, education, and are known.

Add up their bias should be bi-ass

Is this the same Mort Zuckerman who screwed-over the city of Boston and made a fortune in real estate development with his clever deals? Mort is so wrapped in himself, I'm surprised he can see the paper he writes on. Yet, he is adored as a wealthy media owner... kind of like the owners of the NYTimes. Sorry Mort, wallow in the gutter with the rest of them

"Obama's run up more debt in one year than Bush did in 8. The Dems are even now planning on adding another"

Close.. Actually Barry's ran up more debt in one year than Presidents 1- 40 did in 200 years!

Bruce Henry wrote:

All of you guys who were paying attention told us (and KEEP telling us) contradictory things.

Obama is a typical Chicago pol, who is simultaneously incompetent and inexperienced. Which is it?

and on and on.....

Essentially none of your "contradictions" actual contradict each other. Just for form - "typical Chicago pol" would be expected to be "inexperienced" in anything but thuggery. Not surprisingly, his thug-like approach to politics on a local level inside a machine doesn't work in Washington, with everyone looking out for #1 and have been doing it for decades, nor with our enemies, who just laugh at him.

The rest of your "contradictions" are similarly nonsense. If this is the best you can come up with, stick to Kos/HuffPo/DU. This sort of reasoning will fit right in.

RE # 23:

Well, Mr Lawson, whether I think in hindsight that McCain would have been a worse choice or not (I do), I was talking about the choice faced in real time in 2008.

ANY Democrat would have won in 2008, if the Republican choice was McCain/Palin. Hell, Gramps might have even done better if he had had the sense not to choose Palin. She turned off far more people than she "energized."

Most Americans, after watching the economy fall off a cliff under Bush's watch, were not going to vote for four more years of the same. And they sure weren't going to vote for a 72 year old former cancer patient knowing that his successor was going to be the loon he chose.

So, what was left? Nader? Bob Freaking Barr?

You guys should thank God, as I do, that John Fucking Edwards isn't president right now!

Re # 21:

I meant the dichotomy between "typical Chicago pol" on the one hand and "incompetent and inexperienced" on the other. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

And back to you, Mr Lawson, I would argue that "crooked politician" and "starry-eyed idealist" are, indeed, mutually exclusive.

But my whole point, which I guess I made rather poorly, is that your "warnings" were all over the map and usually over the top.

It's kinda like the anti-marijuana films of my youth. Since the dangers they warned us about were so obviously ridiculous, we didn't believe ANYTHING the adults said about drugs. And if your campaign message was, Obama is a racistChristianMuslimMarxistParisHiltonWannabe, you can't really claim that "I warned you he was fiscally reckless!"

"Most Americans, after watching the economy fall off a cliff under Bush's watch, were not going to vote for four more years of the same. And they sure weren't going to vote for a 72 year old former cancer patient knowing that his successor was going to be the loon he chose."

So what Your saying is most American's are stupid for voting Barry in? I could'nt agree more.

I'm not sure why comment #19 is rated so low. It's largely stupid strawmen, but it's civil and at least an attempt at debate. That should be encouraged, and the vile namecalling should be rated down instead.

I don't think McCain would have been a worse choice. He wouldn't have been much better of a choice, but he wouldn't have been worse. If you realize how much I despise McCain (as a politician, not as a person), you'd see what I think about Obama. Hillary would have been preferable to either of them. I can think of a dozen Republicans and a few independents who would have been preferable to any of the above.

But fundamentally, the fact that our choices were poor does not excuse the execrable job Obama has done. It's not surprising he's been a terrible president: anyone paying attention and not deluded by grandiose dreams of voting for a clean, articulate black guy saw exactly what he would do. The why was not difficult to fathom, either. The only surprise is that he's been so incompetent not just at governing, but at forcing his policy preferences into law given a Congress totally dominated by his own party.

Hopefully we'll have better choices next time around.

Great job with your reading comprehension, there, 914. As well as spelling ("Your") and punctuation ("would'nt").

Here I go defending Bruce, right before he comes back with an off-topic and juvenile ad hominem.

Oh, well.

Well, I appreciate it (I think), Mr Medcalf. And sorry, but I get frustrated with people putting words in my mouth. AND not understanding simple English sentences.

You may think I'm using strawmen; I disagree.

It would be as if I spent the year 2000 telling you GWB was a lightweight mediocrity who was running simply on a sense of entitlement, and then, in 2002, screamed, "See? I TOLD you he was a warmongering monster!" It's a similar thing here, in reverse. I was told Obama was everything from a terrorist to a babykiller. Now, I'm told he is fiscally irresponsible, and "You wuz warned!" That may have been in there somewhere, but I couldn't hear it over the noise of roaring Palin fans shouting "Kill him!"

Jeff, I will have to agree with you about Bruce. Usually he doesn't go too off the wall in his comments.

Calling McCain "grandpa" or "doddering old fool" was both disrespectful of his service and the fact that he is a moderate which you lefties harp on the republicans to run. Palin is so hated, people line up for hours to buy her book and have a picture with her. Your scope of news sites needs to be expanded Bruce. Palin is very much loved by the average american, which you lefty's make fun of anyway. Remember, you won't want to admit it but Palin had more experience then Obama and that inexperience CLEARLY shows now. ww

I've never posted in this forum before but I am so happy to do so, seeing as there appears to be no censorship of language or content. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak and add my 2 cents and much more to what everyone has said thus far and to which I agree 99.9% on.

I did my damndest to inform my goofball Obama worshiping cousin's wife and others the grave dangers an Obama presidency would bring. There was no single issue. You had a buffet of items to select from. Just one would have sunk his candidacy with minimal research and reporting. But we had to go online for the evidence since, as well documented here, the so-called MSM adopted a see no evil, hear no evil, know no evil approach to Obama. And as we all know, they wouldn't listen, no matter what evidence you'd throw at them. They were in bed with him, including my one cousin's wife. Her faithful support for Obama, including her lavish praise for him winning the No-Brain "Peace" Prize, and my opposition made me persona non-grata with her family.

It is good to know that Zuck has finally seen the light but he can do additional penance by covering the scandals he and his MSM buddies have largely refused to cover. Perhaps he can start with the late sex pervert Frank Davis and Obama's associations with him as well as the numerous lawsuits challenging Obama's constitutional authority to be president, among others. Who knows, maybe it will be a small step towards reversing the media's post "Mort"em credibility.

But somehow in the end I don't think Mort and his ilk will "get it".

In general, if you can't see through a politician's lies (from either party), I feel kind of sorry for you. I mean, every politician says something, usually during the stress of campaigning, that is immediately recognizable as:

1. Different from everything else they've been saying.
2. Candid - probably more candid than they meant to be.
3. Evidence of their deepest beliefs, character, and probable future behavior.
4. Providing a framework into which all the other rhetoric and positions suddenly fall as a coherent whole.

For Bush, it was when he called himself a compassionate conservative. At that point, I realized that he was fully Hamiltonian, and the only thing that surprised me in his presidency was how steadfast he was at sticking to his policy on Iraq.

For Obama, it was when he said he wanted to fundamentally transform America. (Well, that, and his wife's statement about being proud of America for the first time.) That was a clear indication that he was a radical who intended to push the country as far left as he could. The only real surprise to me so far has been how little of his agenda he's been able to accomplish.

Bruce Henry, Obama didn't inherit a bad economy from Bush, he inherited a bad economy from the Democrats.

The Democrats have controlled the House and Senate since January 2007, that's two whole years before Obama took office. Since then, unemployment has gone from 4.6% to 10%, Federal Debt has gone from $8.8 Trillion to $12.3 Trillion and Real GDP has been cut in half.

The recession started 11 months AFTER the Democrats took control of the entire Legislative Branch of government. You can blame Bush, but the recession started on the Democrats' watch.

Now a year later, with Democrats controlling the House, the Senate, the White House and with the Republicans having no power at all, the economy has still gotten worse.

Who is really to blame for the economy?

Eric, even if you weren't so fundamentally wrong on so many levels (you are), that doesn't refute my points.

Which are that, one, the only choice was between the unknown (Obama/Biden) and the known-too-well (McCain).

Two, that this wailing "You wuz warned" is bogus, because the so-called warnings were of scary muslims who palled around with terrorists, not because of big deficits looming.

And three, that you guys can't decide what you want to condemn him for -- being a tyrannical mastermind ramming a socialist agenda down your throats, or an incompetent pussy who can't get anything done.

If you want to write a short essay entitled, "Things I Learned on Talk Radio," fine, Eric, but that's not really what was being discussed here.

Eric, even if you weren't so fundamentally wrong on so many levels (you are), that doesn't refute my points.

Bruce, you are the one who said

Most Americans, after watching the economy fall off a cliff under Bush's watch, were not going to vote for four more years of the same.

How am I wrong? Did the Democrats not take over the House and Senate in January 2007? Did the country not slide into a recession in December 2007? Has the economy improved ANY in the last year? Are the numbers I provided in any way inaccurate?

Was the economy better or worse in January 2007 than it is today? What changed?

So explain it to me. In what way was I wrong?

You might want to go read something called the United States Constitution. specifically Article 1, Section 7 and Section 8 to see which branch of the government has the most control over the economy.

By the way I don't listen to Talk Radio.

Well, Eric, it is true that Dems took control of Congress in 2007. But, under the rules the Senate has taken to in recent years, it takes 60 votes to get ANYTHING done. So, a minority of GOP senators could effectively block anything the Dems might get credit for.

By your logic the Democrats should get all the credit for the Reagan prosperity of the 1980s, since they were in control of Congress most of the time. Is that your position?

I didn't think so.

The way I see it, whatever prosperity there was in 2001-2007 resulted from people using the inflated value of their homes as an ATM, and consumer spending on credit cards. When all that easy credit dried up, that began the slide, and in Fall 2008, the crash.

That's how you're wrong. Correlation does not equal causation.

And, anyway, whether you are wrong or not, and AGAIN, that's NOT what was being discussed here. So you can re-title your essay, "What I Learned On Conservative Websites."

All of you guys who were paying attention told us (and KEEP telling us) contradictory things.

Obama is a typical Chicago pol, who is simultaneously incompetent and inexperienced. Which is it? He's an incompetent, inexperienced politician in the vein of the late great Mayor Daily.

He's a radical Marxist, who is interested only in his own advancement and has no real principles. Which is it? He is a socialist ideologue. To quote Howard Hughs, "you don't care about money because you have it" It's easy to be a socialist when you're loaded.

He's a member of a racist Christian church who is a secret Muslim at the same time. Which is it? Seems to have little religious faith. The difference between Obama & God, God doesn't think He's Obama.

He's a crooked politician and a starry-eyed idealist. Which is it? Self delusion is the greatest of folly's. "The Emperors new Clothes"

He's weak on National Security, but continues all of your favorite programs from the Bush administration, including warrantless wiretapping, Gitmo, and the war in Iraq. Which is it? Don't confuse weakness with ignorance. Just to clarify: ignorance is a lack of knowledge and experience. He is ignorant and has surrounded him self with ignorance further enhancing his ignorance. Do you understand?

And one other thing. In November 2008, we were faced with only two realistic choices: Either Obama/Biden, or McCain/Palin. Either something new, or the continuation of Bush/Cheney in the form of a doddering fool and a ditzy churchlady. Under the circumstances, Americans made the best choice they could. So to paraphrase' Obama is the lesser of two evils. Whenever choosing between two evils we can never really know what the other choice would have held. "Open thine eyes and see what thou has rote."

By your logic the Democrats should get all the credit for the Reagan prosperity of the 1980s, since they were in control of Congress most of the time. Is that your position? I didn't think so.

Don't ask questions of people and then assume what they will say. It makes you look like an idiot when you are wrong. As in this case.

Yes, I do agree that the Democrats should share the credit for the properity that occurred in the 80's. While Ronald Reagan proposed the tax cuts that helped spur the economic recovery, he did not have the power to implement them. Congress did. The credit should be shared between both Reagan and Congress. I also think IBM and Microsoft deserve considerable credit for that prosperity too. The growth of personal computers in the 80's changed forever how companies were able to do business, it cut costs and improved productivity across the board.

Well, Eric, it is true that Dems took control of Congress in 2007. But, under the rules the Senate has taken to in recent years, it takes 60 votes to get ANYTHING done. So, a minority of GOP senators could effectively block anything the Dems might get credit for.

The Republicans didn't have 60 votes in the Senate. Explain to me how they got anything done? Explain all the boogie man laws that the Democrats have decried Bush over, such as the Patriot Act, Wire tapping, and the Iraq War if all it takes is 40 votes in the Senate to stop them.

Eric, I apologise for assuming I knew your answer before you gave it. That was a thoughtful response, and I appreciate it.

Where I disagree with you is your assertion that the election of 2006 was the root cause of today's economic clusterfuck. You and I both know it was a whole lot more complex than that.

It was that assertion that led me to assume you were a simple-minded ideologue. I see that I was mistaken. You must have just been f**king with me.

In regard to how a determined minority can thwart the will of the majority, look no further than the subprime mortgage fiasco: according to Wizbang's editors and commenters, Barney (you know he's gay, right?) Frank, ALL BY HIMSELF, blocked the will of the noble Republicans to reform Fannie and Freddie, thus bringing this poopstorm down and ruining everything.

No, but seriously, look at how many times a filibuster or threat of filibuster have been used in the last two Congresses, as opposed to previous Congresses. The whole purpose of the filibuster was that it only be used in rare instances. It's only since 2007 that a 60 vote majority became practically a requirement for EVERY piece of legislation. And you can blame McConnell and the other Senate Republicans for that.

As for Al, I can only ask, "WTF? Did you even read the questions while you were re-typing them? If so, why didn't you answer THEM instead of some other questions nobody asked?"

It was that assertion that led me to assume you were a simple-minded ideologue. I see that I was mistaken. You must have just been f**king with me.

Exactly. Now do you see how ridiculously simplistic it is to blame the recession on Bush because it occurred on his watch. Well it occurred on the Democrats' watch too. To say they had nothing to do with the recession is ridiculous. The problem is big enough and complex enough for plenty of people to share the blame.

The Democrats are hardly free of blame. As for Barney Frank, for God sake watch the videos where he is extoling the virtues of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Also, you need to understand how much power some individual House members and Senators are. There are parliamentary procedures that allow a single member to hold up legislation in committee. Look at this week, Sen. Jim DeMint was able to stall the appointment of Obama's TSA head until the guy finally withdrew.

Just to be clear, Eric, I didn't "blame Bush" for the recession. I just meant voters perceived that the crash happened on his watch, and therefore, a Democrat, ANY Democrat, would have been elected in 2008. as I've said before, a Ham Sandwich could have been the nomineee and we would now be living in the Ham Sandwich Administration.

A disaster like this should have been foreseen by both parties when they repealed Glass-Steagall. For which I blame both the GOP Congress and Bill "Best Republican President Ever!" Clinton.

That last was a joke, folks.

Let me tell you what's wrong with Obama:

1) He's a schvartze. That's right. I said it. He's a schvartze. I figured you cowards were too afraid to admit that the Talmad Sanhedrin 108b (including footnote 34), Midrash Rabbah page 293, Legend of the Jews, Volume 1, Artsot Ha-Hayyim (Lands of Life, yeah I know), all teach that schvartzes should be your slaves.

2) Obama's smarter than most of you idiots because he is a Harvard-graduated attorney -- and it is dangerous to have a nigger, uh, sorry, I mean a schvartze over the Ashkenazim. We schvartzes should be suckin' out your ass. It's Ha Shem's will!

3) He might be a real leader and encourage us schvartzes to do better -- that would be terrible for you Ashkenazim. Your people have enough trouble oppressing the Ethiopian Jews in Israel. You don't need more problems in America.

Have I said enough???

Ha ha ha.

Kiss my ass.