I started this blog a long time ago to advocate for the nomination and eventual election of Hillary Clinton as President of the United States. Didn’t work out that way and I killed my blogging efforts back in April of 2008 when it was clear that Barack Obama would be my party’s candidate. I have since warmed up considerably to President Obama and I have to admit that I adore the First Lady and the lovely first family as well.

But my political heart was also changed and I have been appreciative of the President’s efforts on many fronts and supportive in other venues. But it’s time now to really get back to work here on the jammer’s wordpress political blog. Because it’s now our turn to fight for the change that we ALL should want. So let’s get going.

There are many people who have a huge problem with President Obama trying to effect positive changes for most Americans. So killing those ideas for change, and the political power or aspirations of those who would try to enact them, becomes the political purpose for those who place themselves on the other side.

Well, how can anyone BE on the other side of significant positive change in America? Elizabeth Warren was on Morning Joe Thursday and gave what I think was a startlingly clear example.

She told the story of one large American bank who dropped the tasty tidbit into their annual statement that credit reform legislation had cost THEIR shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars in just one quarter. Elizabeth Warren, it should come as no surprise, had a different take on the matter.

One bank recently put out its annual statement and it said ‘Changing consumer protection cost our shareholders $650 million last quarter.’ You know, my answer on that one is, no, American families SAVED $650 million because of this one small change in the law.

Bank Annual Statement

I was surprised that Warren was on Morning Joe so soon and speaking so openly and forcefully against the banking industry. She’s obviously taking advantage of the notion that she doesn’t now and maybe never will have to face a confirmation fight. I love it. This woman IS real change. She should run for president some day soon. But just listen to what she’s up against.

It’s the lobbying world that never sleeps. Even when you’re not in an election cycle, even when it’s not about talking to specific representatives, it’s every single day. Get up, see if you can find a chink, see if you can find a mistake. Let’s attack this, let’s do background on that. Let’s go visit every single senator, let’s go visit every single representative, let’s go visit everybody in the media — to try to get a message out that will help OUR CLIENTS and will undercut doing the people’s business.

The Lobbying World That Never Sleeps

We MUST stop pretending that there are two equally well intended but just “ideologically” opposed ways of getting there (there being positive change and ideology being some innocent choice of two equally well-represented and well-intended perspectives on how things should be done.)

American politics is NOT a debate between two well-intended sides who have a tactical disagreement on how best to make the country work. Those bankers and Wall St. who fought tooth and nail the agency that Elizabeth Warren now leads are the REAL Right Wing. They’re the ones who benefit from the emergence of the wacko Religious Right and the effectiveness of the NRA and Fox News and Rush Limbaugh in influencing the American public.

And it should never be forgotten that it is the financial powers that be who place the 24/7 lobbyists in Washington who have nothing on their agenda but influencing the American government on behalf of their clients to enable those clients to continue to screw the American people. They muck up this country’s present and threaten its future by lobbying the government in Washington to put THEIR clients’ well-being before the People’s Business.

It is obvious that Elizabeth Warren believes that a big part of her job is giving the American people a clearer image of the cold bloodless heart of what is standing between them and the real and positive change they voted for.

Go get ’em, Elizabeth!


if you thought the tea party sensation’s self admission that she “dabbled into witchcraft” on an episode of politically incorrect from way back in the late 90s was a hot mess, you’re going to LOVE her foray into matters of science as recently as november of 2007, here on bill o’ really’s show (which I will not name) on faux-news.

american scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains.

oh no she didn’t.

christine o’donnell you did NOT say that!

welp, as my mother would say, she most certainly did.

here’s the 12 seconds of audio proof and i’m not going to add another word.

mice with human brainz

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asked. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

“This is a person who is fundamentally out of touch with how the world works, who happened to have played a wonderful con, as a result of which he is now president,” Gingrich added.

“I think he worked very hard at being a person who is normal, reasonable, moderate, bipartisan, transparent, accommodating — none of which was true,” Gingrich continues.

been so long, I know. but the new wordpress iPhone app threatens to remove a mental impediment, real or imagined, to my process of blogging. oh, and then there’s the displeasure with how things are shaping up, or not, in the world of big time politics.


I could be back.

Numerous publications digging deeper this week into why New Mexico Governor and former Clinton Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson turned on his old bosses and endorsed Barack Obama. The Los Angeles Times piece is here.

Nothing new or surprising in any of the reports that I can see. Richardson was moved by Obama’s speech on race, didn’t particularly like the Clintons’ approach.

There was that “3 a.m.” TV ad, in which Clinton questioned Obama’s personal mettle. “That upset me,” Richardson said.

There were some ham-fisted phone calls from Clinton backers, who questioned Richardson’s honor and suggested that the governor, who served in President Clinton’s Cabinet, owed Hillary Clinton his support. “That really ticked me off,” Richardson said.

But what’s largely missing from the public record since Richardson announced his endorsement of Senator Obama, amid all the finger pointing by both sides regarding who said Obama couldn’t win and the numerous op-eds defending both side’s positions, is a more fleshed-out version of events regarding what could possibly have led the Clintons, and their surrogates, James Carville most notably, to push back with such hostility at Richardson’s endorsement of Obama.

Missing until now, that is. Carville’s wife and former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, Mary Matalin, speaking on the born-again Imus in the Morning radio show, now simulcast on RFD-TV, last Friday morning offered the following:

I think what got everybody most juiced up… is when he asked President Clinton to come out and fundraise for him on the Super Bowl (??) and the President said…

“Don’t ask me to do this… I’m on the road with Hillary… if you’re going to go support Obama.”

And he gave to President Clinton and many other fundraisers his assurance on the grounds that Obama wasn’t experienced enough and he was going to support Hillary.

Matalin adds, “It’s just over the top.”

I would have to agree with her assessment.



“….they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” – Barack Obama, April 6th, 2008

Comments like this have tremendous political ramifications. Republicans destroy Democrats with far less potent ammo than this c-4 that Obama spews. Look how Republicans are already using Obama’s remarks in down ticket races.

From The Washington Post’s The Fix page.

Within hours, the National Republican Congressional Committee had issued a release pushing Rep. Chris Carney — a vulnerable freshman Democrat from Pennsylvania — to condemn Obama’s remarks.

“It’s time for Congressman Chris Carney to step up and denounce Barack Obama’s condescending attitude about families who live in small towns and who hold a viewpoint other than Obama’s,” said NRCC spokesman Ken Spain.”

Oh and let’s define antipathy since the degree of intolerance it suggests has been questioned.

an•tip•a•thy, noun

1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike.

—Synonyms 1. disgust, abhorrence, detestation, hatred. See aversion.

Obama was standing before a crowd of upscale left coast liberals, people who had maxed out their contribution to his campaign of $4600 and were sitting at this couple of thousand dollar-a-plate dinner… so that they could contribute even more money to his campaign…. in San Francisco… and he was explaining another group of very far less well off Americans TO them… like a sociology professor would explain the behavior of some far off indigenous tribe of people to a classroom of well off university students.

Did I say this happened in San Francisco?

This happened in San Francisco.

The Illinois senator said that “these people” away back in the Midwest CLING to religion and guns and explain or essentially blame their own frustrations and bitterness with life on “those not like them” for whom they, apparently, have a shared antipathy.

He’s saying to these left coast liberals who, from San Francisco, already look down their noses at the ignorance of people not like them, that these Pennsylvanians and Midwesterners have GOOD reason for being the God and Guns, anti-immigration xenophobic bigots that they are.

Thanks a lot, Senator. With friends like you…

You see, that’s the problem here. He didn’t just say they were bitter. This one rambling sentence is an absolute buffet of problematic assertions to emanate from the mouth of someone who wants to actually win an election in this country.

But Obama steps into this mess largely because he is unseasoned and untested by being a presence on the national stage for any significant length of time.

He obviously doesn’t know that the inability to shake this effete out-of-touch elitist image that these very people he is talking about DO have of Democratic politicians has been the downfall of the party in presidential elections past and has enabled the Republicans to define themselves, incredibly, as being more in-touch with these vast numbers of middle-of-the-road Americans.

This is like that old family poison for the Democratic party. It’s literally an image that helped create the Reagan Democrat and it’s how and why Ronald Reagan won two elections and why his VP, George H.W. Bush, was able to extend the Republican reign to twelve long years by winning in ’88.

I said Obama will be the easiest take down in the history of American presidential politics. We’re all watching that happening whether we know it or care to admit it.

the victim card


Someone suggested that Obama is caught in this situation where he has promised to run a different kind of campaign but when his wondrous and pure honesty forces painful truths out of the magnificent mouth that cannot tell a lie then he gets unfairly bashed for speaking of life’s inconvenient truths.

He’s just a victim of his own nobility and inherent honesty?

Sure he is.

Barack Obama is a dissembler and a liar. If it makes anyone feel better let me say this. Hillary Clinton is also a liar as is every politician I have ever been aware of.

But Obama’s promise for a new kind of politics, something that so many take him at his word on and then proceed from there, is itself a huge lie.

The Obama campaign knew that it could not compete with Hillary on the issues. If they were dragged into endless debates on actual governing policy… they felt that they would lose. So the Obama people came into this primary with a two pronged strategy:

1. Proclaim to be a campaign engaged in a new kind of politics that rejects the politics of personal destruction.

And, if NEEDED, at the same time:

2. Hit Hillary hard on issues surrounding personal character flaws such as honesty and remind Americans of Hillary’s many brushes with scandal in the 90s.

That’s a breathtaking and cynical example of lying as a strategy and deceiving the American voter in the process.

By the way, this information comes by way of New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza as reported on The Tim Russert Show (not Meet the Press) two weekends ago. Stay tuned for the audio file of Lizza discussing Obama’s campaign strategy.

Bottom line: Obama is not going to experience any mercy or forgiveness for anything that he says or does for the rest of his political career. And if he is successful in November, you can extend the negative scrutiny to the end of his days on this planet.