In our last post, we provided the evidence that Biden and Hillary may have designs on "meddling" with Obama.
But. To be fair to Obama, and his rather well-deserved reputation as a timid player in foreign policy, he apparently displays much less timidity when it comes to handling division within his own administration.
Last week, the New York Times dropped this tibit about the Obama administration's response to the protests in Iran:
Even while supporting the president’s approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.
To that point, criticism of President Obama was mostly confined to Republicans and conservative leaning blogs. And while that story raised more than a few eyebrows, it was quickly dismissed by the White House.
However, since that time President Obama has begun to move away from his early hesitation in speaking out against the thuggish regime and for the protesters as reportedly advocated by both Biden and Clinton.
But even with this new approach, new evidence has emerged that Biden and Clinton may have themselves moved further toward the view that Obama is simply not up to the task:
Gird your loins, Obama.
UPDATE: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has issued a joint statement with Iran's Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei which states: “We don't want to meddle in what should be internal affiars of the Great Satan, but there may not be that much difference between any of them, and we are appalled and outraged that in a land of supposed free speech, the media so readily grants administration leakers anonymity.”
WELL, WELL, WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE: Dan Riehl has this observation concerning Hillary:
Oh my. Why would Hillary needan attack dog par excellence at the State Department? I speculated about Hillary's long-term thinking if Obama really gets caught up in a scandal, or just starts to fade for any reason. I'd keep my eye out for stories featuring "unnamed senior officials at the State Department".
Pre-mature, perhaps - but Blumenthal will say anything about anyone to help a Clinton. This is an interesting move. If there's ever any Obama blood in the water, Sidney will be one of the most dangerous sharks. Just sayin'.
It perhaps is not shocking to discover, though it is no less depressing. Even in the midst of a bloody crackdown in Iran by the thuggish regime against its own citizens protesting the June 12th elections, the Obama administration has no plans on rescinding an invitation to Iranian diplomats for July 4th barbeques at US embassies. Allah at Hot Air has the story from AFP:
The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.
President Barack Obama’s administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.
“There’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.
“We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran,” Kelly said. “We tried many years of isolation, and we’re pursuing a different path now.”
Some people are troubled by this, others are outraged. But ultimately there is but one course one should take in addressing this matter, gentle reader.
In our copy of Judith Martin's indispensible book, we find on pages 600-601 examples of the proper eitquette the Obama administration should be following in this type of situation, rather than the unfortunate and shameful actions we see above.
Although, on Google Books, it appears that the examples are on pages 701-702 -- yet unfortunately, Google Books does not contain a preview image for page 701.
Therefore, we will re-create page 701 (without the fancy script font on the invitations) and then copy the image for page 702 from Google Books.
President Obama would be wise to ask himself, WWMMD -- What Would Miss Manners Do -- and avoid what is obviously his very excruciatingly incorrect behavior.
The imperial president'shoneymoon is over. Just imagine what his approval numbers would look like if 99% of the media weren't in his back pocket.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama
Well. Yesterday I received a call. Normally I don't pick up calls when I don't recognize the number. But since it was a 214 area code and I have family in Dallas, I thought it might be someone I knew.
So, when we see these results today, Obama's lowest approval rating yet, I have only two words:
You're welcome.
-------------------
*That link takes you to the JustOneMinute thread in which I commented (real-time!) about being robo polled. If one were so inclined, he or she could follow that link and then scroll down for some of my observations of the polling experience.
Obama and his girls went out for ice cream today and, well, some people thought that was a little off key because of the crisis in Iran.
Instinctively, I went out and found an old pic of Obama eating ice cream and submitted it to twitter:
But!!! That was an old pic, and as fast as twitter moves, the pic was quickly overcome by the actual images of today's excursion. So I submitted today's pic (via Patterico) with the same caption...
Remember that Emanuel? It's all about taking advantage of a serious crisis, right?
Empowering Iranian protesters and demonstrators crying out to be freed of the oppression of the current regime, through clear moral and rhetorical support, in an effort that could help delegitimize, destabilize and perhaps overthrow the nuclear weapon-seeking and terror-sponsoring mullahs and Ahmadinejad?
Well.
"You neversometimes want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before but which would take too much risk in expending political capital such that doing anything other than sitting on your hands becomes undesirable."
And while the President sits on his hands...
The House passed it's resolution supporting the people of Iran. Two people voted present, 25 abstained, and everyone else voted for it, except one representative.
And then Ron Paul, the only person to vote against the House resolution, explained that he did so because he "admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly."
Of course, Paul is wrong to think he's aligned with Obama in cautious passivity, right?
President Barack Obama's chief spokesman said Friday that a House-passed resolution condemning the Iranian election and the unrest that followed "is very consistent" with the message the White House has been sending this week.
But wait.
"He believes those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that without fear of violence," Gibbs said. "That is an important universal principle that should be upheld and I think he supports that."
Gibbs thinks Obama supports that? He thinks???
Of course, Gibbs would know Obama supports that if Obama had actually come out and said that he supports that.
As it is, Gibbs is in the same position the rest of us are...
Reacting to Obama's reaction to the Iranian sham elections and the subsequent mass protests and demonstrations, Ace writes:
Unbelievable. The resisters in Iran cry out for support -- even mere support of the moral kind -- and Obama gives them the finger. He's Ahmadinejad's boy and he's not changing that for nobody.
Ace only thought that he was speaking metaphorically about that one finger salute:
No, the press conference didn't last 100 days, and besides it only felt like it lasted 3 or 4 days tops. No, it was ostensibly to commemorate Obama's first 100 days in office.
WALKERTOWN -- Young Matthew Armstrong knew that Saturday would be a big day, since it was the first day of the season for his Little League team.
But Matthew, 8, of Walkertown, didn't know how big the day would be until an announcer called him up to the microphone during the opening ceremony. She asked him where his dad, Frank Marques, was.
"In Iraq," he replied shyly.
And what message would he like to send to Marques?
"That I love him," Matthew said.
The youngster then got his chance to deliver that message in person.
Frank Marques, back home on a two-week leave from his tour of duty with the Army, emerged downfield and walked from first base toward home plate, where Matthew was standing.
Matthew ran out and jumped into Marques' arms, hugging him tight.
And the crowd of hundreds applauded. "He thinks his dad's a hero," said Whitney Marques, Matthew's mother.
I have a hard enough time trying to keep TheVIMH under control -- so I would never have undertaken this task.
Nick Robinson of the Guardian asked Obama a question at a joint press conference with him and Gordon Brown. Brown passed the ball to Obama, and the Guardian's John Crace transcribes not only Obama's verbal answer, but TheVIOH as well(*Language Warning*):
Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?" Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking [THANKS FOR NOTHING, GORDY BABY. REMIND ME TO HANG YOU OUT TO DRY ONE DAY.] Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] ... if you look at ... pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] ... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] ... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP].I think what is also true is that ... pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] ... here in Great Britain ... pause [SHIT, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] ... here in continental Europe ... pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] ... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] ...
Oh, there's more, click through and read it all.
[VIMH: What's with the language warning? You've never seemed to mind cursing on here before?] Oh, it wasn't for the cursing. It's that direct exposure to Obama's words can be harmful if digested in large enough quantities.
[VIMH: Yeah but TheVIOH was spectacular!] I figured you'd say that.
[VIMH: But why does TheVIOH get bold and all caps, and all I get is italics?] You're not spectacular.
The Biden prophecy has come to pass. Our wacky veep, momentarily inspired, predicted in October that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." Biden probably had in mind an eve-of-the-apocalypse drama like the Cuban missile crisis. Instead, Obama's challenges have come in smaller bites. Some are deliberate threats to U.S. interests, others mere probes to ascertain whether the new president has any spine.
Preliminary X-rays are not very encouraging. ...
With a grinning Goliath staggering about sporting a "kick me" sign on his back ...
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a clip of a precociously exploited eight year old expounding on Afghanistan at the behest of her dad. Ed transcribes part of the video:
Dad: Well, let me ask you this. Some people think we should send a lot of soldiers there [to Afghanistan]. Do you think that would help them [the people of Afghanistan]?
Daughter: N - O.
Dad: Why would, uh, why would sending soldiers to them not help?
Daughter: Because, if you think about it, our last president, who made a big mess. I feel so bad for Obama cleaning up that mess. You know, he made a big mess, and so he has this, like, charm. So when he sends troops, he tells the people, “Oh, they’re going to go get food for them,” and all that. But they’re actually going to go and kill them.
Dad: Kill them?
Daughter: Yeah.
Dad: Jiminy Cricket, that’s terrible. So you think that’s what soldiers do?
Daughter: Um, think about it! Soldiers have very big guns, marching like this. Oh, you think they go to Army School just so they can go there? No. They go there to kill people.
Egads. But Ed stopped short of the most ignominious part, starting at 2:57:
Dad: So what kind of people ... would you want to send some kind of people to Afghanistan?
Daughter: I would bring people ... some who kind of cares ... so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there...
Seriously, where do these people get these ideas?
Oooops. That last part wasn't this little girl or her father, nor was it actually on this video. I regret the misattribution.
"Here's the problem," Mr. Obama said, "It's almost like they've got -- they've got a bomb strapped to them and they've got their hand on the trigger. You don't want them to blow up. But you've got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger."
When you buy a toaster, if it explodes in your face there's a law that says your toasters need to be safe. But when you get a credit card, or you get a mortgage, there's no law on the books that says if that explodes in your face financially, somehow you're going to be protected.
We're not sure what triggered this launch of weaponized discourse, but it hits one fairly concussively. I'm sure it was just an improvised explosive rhetorical devise, but Obama should probably defuse the words in his arsenal little bit.
Because we're sure he's not a verbal terrorist and doesn't want to come across that way.
But these last few years we've seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home. ... We get secret task forces, secret budgeting, slanted intelligence, and the shameful smearing of people who speak out against the President's policies.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.
The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.
On average, they gave thepresident a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60.
61% of those who took the poll gave Obama a D or an F? Sounds like a strong, though not scientifically accurate, consensus.
Well, that leave us with only one thought.
Paraphrasing Obama: "America cannot afford four more years of the same failed policies of the past eight years weeks!"
Oh, and one more note from the article:
...economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. "They overpromised and underdelivered," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head."
