Quote :

"If the stock market is going to dip because people would rather banks over-leverage themselves to make things as unstable as they were before, then so be it."

Do your own homework. Don't put your money in a bank that you think is over-leveraged. Why does the gov't have to do your work for you? If people want to keep their money in a bank with crazy strategies, that's their fault. It's not up to the rest of us to bail you and your bank out.

1/22/2010 10:42:07 PM

Quote :

"If people want to keep their money in a bank with crazy strategies, that's their fault."

2008 proved that no band is an island.

1/22/2010 10:49:47 PM

Quote :

"no band is an island."

Quote :

""No Band is An Island" This, the second release from Crannog, is quite a showcase for the band's collective talents. Indeed, the flow of the music is so natural, one would think that the band had been performing together for decades instead of years.""

1/23/2010 12:20:11 AM

what song do you like best?

1/23/2010 1:30:00 AM

How Can You Pick a Favorite? It's All Crannog!

1/23/2010 1:46:11 AM

1/23/2010 3:30:49 AM

Obama is bringing back David Plouffe, his 2008 campaign manager, to help him out. In a Jan 24th Op-Ed, Plouffe outlines the things that Democrats need to do to avoid getting skunked in November.

At first I thought he was brought in to help Obama get a new message out in response to the voting results in Mass. etc. But reading these campaign-points makes me think they are just trying to emphasize the things that are making voters mad.

1) Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside

2) We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them. ...the government can have only so much direct impact on job creation, on top of the millions of jobs created by the president's early efforts to restart the economy. That's why Democrats must create a strong foundation for long-term growth by addressing health care, energy and education reform. We must also show real leadership by passing some politically difficult measures to help stabilize the economy in the short term. ..and yes, we can remind voters where Republican policies led us -- and if we do, without apology and with force, it will have impact.

3) Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy. If GOP challengers want to run ads criticizing the recovery act as wasteful, Democratic candidates should lift up the police officers, teachers and construction workers in their state or district, those who are protecting our communities, teaching our children and repairing our roads thanks to the Democrats' leadership. Highlight the small-business owners who have kept their doors open through projects funded by the act. In future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House. In the long run, this will haunt Republicans, especially since they made the mess.

4) Don't accept any lectures on spending The GOP took us from a $236 billion surplus when President Bush took office to a $1.3 trillion deficit, with unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and the Medicare prescription drug program. Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility has never been matched in our country's history.

5) "Change" is not just about policies we have to make sure the freshman and sophomore members of the House who won in part on transparency and reform issues can show they are delivering. The Republicans will suggest they have changed their spots, but the GOP cannot hold a candle to us on reform issues. Let's make sure we own this space.

6) Run great campaigns Our campaigns can leave no stone unturned, from believing in the power of grass-roots volunteers and voter registration, to using technology and data innovatively, to raising money -- especially with big corporate interests now freed up to dump hundreds of millions of dollars to elect those who will do their bidding.

7) No bed-wetting Instead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win.

Let's remember why we won in 2008 and deliver on what we promised. If Democrats will show the country we can lead when it's hard, we may not have perfect election results, but November will be nothing like the nightmare that talking heads have forecast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204216.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[Edited on January 23, 2010 at 10:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/23/2010 10:10:17 PM

Quote :

"You realize that if we let the banks and car companies fail like the right always claims is the best things, things would have been MUCH worse?"

no. we could have stopped the mess long before that by never bailing any one else out to begin with. Then no company would have ever gotten the insane notion that it could get away with such things. Or, we could have not kept interest rates so low for so long... Or we could have... Yes, things would have been "worse," but then they would have gotten much better, as the problem would have been solved. instead, we are just throwing good money after bad and delaying the inevitable things that must happen in order to move

Quote :

"4) Don't accept any lectures on spending The GOP took us from a $236 billion surplus when President Bush took office to a $1.3 trillion deficit, with unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, two wars and the Medicare prescription drug program. Republicans' fiscal irresponsibility has never been matched in our country's history."

that, alone, made me How long can Obama ride the OMFG DUBYA train till people get sick of it. Not to mention the fact that clinton did hardly anything to form that surplus.


and it bears repeating:

Quote :

"so, now he's going to start working on a jobs bill for infrastructure projects. wait, what was the stimulus bill supposed to be again? I forget."

1/23/2010 10:42:57 PM

Disapproval of closing Guantanamo facility reaches new high

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/disapproval-of-closing-guantan.html

White House preparing fiscal task force
January 19, 2010

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House and congressional Democrats have reached a tentative deal to set up a task force that could make it easier for lawmakers to approve tax increases, spending cuts or other unpopular measures needed to reduce budget deficits, lawmakers and aides said on Tuesday. The proposed commission would enable President Barack Obama to say he is taking steps to reduce record budget deficits over the long term during his State of the Union address next week without having to spell out how he would do so."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/19/AR2010011902175.html

[Edited on January 24, 2010 at 8:07 AM. Reason : .]

1/24/2010 8:01:50 AM

Look at the ghostly image in the upper right part of the glass door...is that Jimmy Carter?

1/24/2010 10:46:53 PM

No.

1/24/2010 10:58:13 PM

Quote :

"I'm fond of his recent bent towards demagoguery and demonizing "wall street" again. The little political ploy about fining banks and changing the rules was largely responsible for the worst week on the Dow since March of 09."

Oh god, more people here think the stock market went down because Obama spoke, and not because of some tepid earnings announcements and forecasting, economic data that stopped improving on the second derivative, profit taking, and various other minutiae.

Way to drink the kool aid pal.

1/24/2010 10:58:26 PM

Quote :

"You realize that if we let the banks and car companies fail like the right always claims is the best things, things would have been MUCH worse? But you're going to whine about a dip in the stock market that has been rising overall recently?"

Extremely doubtful on the car company front. Despite a fairly nasty debt load that Ford will have to deal with, they are doing quite well despite government efforts to save their competition.

The banks are a slightly different story. A domino-ing of big Wall Street firms would have been a catastrophe in the short term however the Fed most likely had it in their powers to provide the short term liquidity needed by our and world economies and not in a way that propped up banks that should have died.

Karl D might be one of the cookiest tin hatters out there and more or less everything he posts calls for the end of the US economy any minute, but stuff like this really makes you wonder

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1895-Financial-Terrorism-You-Decide.html

Not just because of this post, but it's more or less obvious the Fed has and had more than vast enough power to save the system while letting their connected interests fail.

1/24/2010 11:03:57 PM

Quote :

"so, now he's going to start working on a jobs bill for infrastructure projects. wait, what was the stimulus bill supposed to be again? I forget."

1/25/2010 1:50:16 AM

I think we need a quiz for people like

1. The Trouble Asset Relief Program, which allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled assets", was passed under which President?
a. President Barack Obama
b. President George W. Bush

2. This President expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion:
a. President Barack Obama
b. President George W. Bush

3. This President is the first president in history to implement budgets that crossed the $2 trillion a year and $3 trillion a year marks.
a. President Barack Obama
b. President George W. Bush

1/25/2010 10:58:43 AM

Don't forget the quiz on which senators voted for #1 and #2

1/25/2010 11:07:24 AM

Yeah let's look at that.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-213&sort=party

1/25/2010 11:14:22 AM

OMG Bush did it, so it must be OK that Barack Obama does it!



Well that fucking settles it for me.




And seriously, if you didn't want to inherit the problems from the last administration DON'T FUCKING RUN FOR THE GODDAMNED PRESIDENCY. It isn't like Bush in cahoots with Fox News was hiding from the American public the fact that we were engaged in two wars and facing a serious economic crisis and only through the intrepid openness of Barack Obama and MSNBC did we discover that the last administration shit all over the nation. President Obama wanted the job, he got the job. Deal with it and don't make excuses.

1/25/2010 11:37:29 AM

Quote :

"OMG Bush did it, so it must be OK that Barack Obama does it!"

That wasn't the point. The point is that the same people complaining about government spending, government expansion, and government takeovers, both in Congress, in the news media and in American homes, certainly kept their traps shut (or didn't care) during the latter years of the Bush presidency when it became the norm.

Quote :

" It isn't like Bush in cahoots with Fox News was hiding from the American public the fact that we were engaged in two wars and facing a serious economic crisis"

Actually this was pretty much exactly what happened.

1/25/2010 11:41:25 AM

Quote :

"That wasn't the point. The point is that the same people complaining about government spending, government expansion, and government takeovers, both in Congress, in the news media and in American homes, certainly kept their traps shut (or didn't care) during the latter years of the Bush presidency when it became the norm."

I'll agree that some of the same people complaining about government now weren't complaining back then. There were plenty of other people that saw Bush policies for what they were, and were even more critical when Obama took office and stepped on the gas.

1/25/2010 12:01:37 PM

Well maybe the Libertarians.

But the GOP was lock-step in line with every policy that Bush pushed forward.

1/25/2010 12:02:29 PM

Wait, I thought Fox was in cahoots with a warmongering president to promote the fact that we were in two wars against an Axis of Evil . . . were they simultaneously pretending we were not?


All of the media and both political parties are guilty of our entry into Iraq, the Patriot Act, bailing out the banks, manipulation of the housing market, and the stimulus boondoggle etc. etc.



I agree there are hypocrites out there, and plenty of them, but pointing out that hypocrites exist is a diversion from the real topic at hand. No shit hypocrites exist, we have a ceremony every 2 years to chose which hypocrites we want to represent us.

Quote :

"You realize that if we let the banks and car companies fail like the right always claims is the best things, things would have been MUCH worse?"

That is, at best, speculation. There is a large body of economic thought which believes that our attempt to resurrect New Dealesque economic policies are precisely what is prolonging this dip. Let's be honest, hard Keynesian economics have been tried 1.5 times in the history of the world, first in the Great Depression (which, despite the best efforts of a corrupt an inefficient New Deal was the longest and worst economic period in the history of the United States) and half-assed now, which has the dubious distinction of being the second longest. So right now Keynes and his boys are batting 1.000, good for them.

1/25/2010 12:04:30 PM

Quote :

""The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.""

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/25/obama-administration-steers-lucrative-bid-contract-afghan-work-dem-donor/

1/25/2010 2:23:19 PM

Great who cares

Haliburton dwarfs the fuck out of that

why are you even complaining

1/25/2010 2:41:29 PM

Because I voted for Obama after being dismayed/annoyed at things like Haliburton.

1/25/2010 3:01:43 PM

I gave up on Obama a long time ago

1/25/2010 3:02:02 PM

Ok, there are a lot of substantive things to criticize the President on, but this is a legitimate style critique:




Teleprompters and a podium. In an elementary school classroom. Really? (IBFT My Pet Goat comments)

1/25/2010 3:22:35 PM

Now you're just being petty.

1/25/2010 3:58:17 PM

God, you know Obama has failed miserably if youre even comparing him to Bush.

1/25/2010 4:05:56 PM

Accepting the premise that style of presentation is critical in politics, and accepting the fact that BHO is generally masterful when it comes to giving a public speech with style, to crowd an elementary school classroom with a Presidential podium and two teleprompters is exceptionally poor style. It gives two impressions:

1) this dude is taking running for class President way too seriously
2) this guy cannot make a speech to a room full of students without a teleprompter.


Now, apparently there were no students present for this, but that doesn't detract from how ridiculous this really looks. Clinton a speech anywhere to anyone and making a connection. GWB was never eloquent, and occasionally sounded moronic, but he could generally connect with most of his audiences as an affable guy. BHO is having trouble connecting with anything other than supportive crowds and looks out of place in front of a small audience. That may be an inherent weakness of being an intellectual but his staff needs to be cognizant of this and keep him out of these situations.

Given his dismal performance in NJ, Va, and Massachusetts (going by results) and his tendency to go speak to go on the road and give cheer-leading speeches to supportive audiences when things in DC get difficult, he's beginning to look like a one trick pony.

But that could just be me measuring him against arguably the greatest political master of the last 40 years, William Jefferson Clinton.

1/25/2010 4:07:21 PM

I think he's just taking the job of the President very seriously, and he also knows that saying what he needs to say in the right way is very important, thus the need for a prompter.

This is why he's not a huge fuck-up like the last president, and why there aren't BOOKS that contain fuckups that he's said during speeches.

1/25/2010 4:13:34 PM

Jesus, will you ditch the "but GWB sucked more" bit? We all agree that he sucked, but that doesn't prevent / mitigate anything BHO might do to make things worse (which in my opinion, he is). You're beginning to sound like a one trick pony.


You might think he's taking the job seriously, but his inactivity when working with his own congress and lack of legislative accomplishment (despite having rather strong majorities in both houses) would indicate that he has not. A large number of politicos on the left have deplored his lack of leadership. Perhaps a moderating hand in the House and Senate might have brought a few more moderate Senate Republicans (and some Blue Dog Democrats in the House) over to support his health-care initiative . . . but I digress.

The other explanation of the TOTUS phenomenon might be that his staff is terrified of him going off message and speaking extemporaneously. He tends to say less than popular things when he does this ("spread the wealth around") and come across as more leftist than most Americans are comfortable with. That or he is a "blank screen upon which people project their hopes and dreams" with no real policy of his own.

I'm not saying he isn't a smart man. He is. I'm not saying he isn't a thoughtful man. He is. I'm not saying he doesn't have beliefs and ideas of his own. He does. What I am saying is, for some reason, his staff doesn't want him speaking off the cuff. That is something worth thinking about.

1/25/2010 4:37:22 PM

Imagine having a president capable of speaking "off the cuff." You know, someone that could go into an interview without seeing the questions ahead of time, and then answer those questions without consulting an advisor. I guess it's a bit much to expect that the president actually have principles that he openly admits to having and speaks about on a regular basis.

1/25/2010 4:46:53 PM

In this age of twitter, blogs, and 24 hour news media, I would never fucking say a word in public unless I had a prepared statement.

1/25/2010 4:50:47 PM

The 24 hour news media has existed since the early 1990s and it isn't like the President's staff is leaking shit he says on Twitter. This isn't shit he didn't see coming.

Again, he is the President of the United States and can't give a speech in an elementary school without a teleprompter. Spin it any way you want, we've still got a President who cannot / will not speak without prompting.


Again, this says something. Does it condemn him as a President? Not necessarily, but conspicuous use of aids to give speeches will get old over the course of 4 years.

1/25/2010 4:54:59 PM

But but but . . . . . .BUSH Reagan did it too!


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0617-06.htm

Quote :

"As his B-actor career faded, Reagan became a mouthpiece for General Electric, one of the world?s largest arms manufacturers. Reagan?s one clear talent was the ability to read a Teleprompter or memorize his lines on the glories of free enterprise. While his skills were sub-par by Hollywood standards, he was able to parlay bad acting into good politics. Reagan understood the uncritical nature of the American public and their appetite for neo-American hokum"

and

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/03/06/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4848259.shtml

Quote :

"Ronald Reagan was the same way. He was more at ease in reading his speech off the dual screens of a teleprompter than looking up and down at a speech text on his lectern"

but seriously I could care less what he uses to speak; I want some Damn RESULTS

1/25/2010 5:16:57 PM

^ I'm no fan of Reagan either but I'll buy that. I don't think anyone on here would argue, however, that Ronald Reagan was an intellectual powerhouse. I'm content to compare Obama to Reagan.

So while a mediocre actor was more effective at delivering teleprompter lines than the current POTUS, I don't feel it give Obama an automatic pass and it certainly does not detract from the ridiculousness of seeing the President give a speech to a 1st grade classroom from a podium and behind teleprompters. Tactically speaking, this should have been saved for at least an auditorium or in front of the school. The President being himself and "hanging" with kids on camera / off mic would have presented a much better image.



However, if more substantial criticism of President Obama is what you desire:

Quote :

"An obscure 2008 academic article gained traction with bloggers over the weekend. The article was written by the head of Obama's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Harvard Law Professor Cass Sunstein. He’s a good friend of the president and the promoter the contradictory idea: "libertarian paternalism". In the article, he muses about what government can do to combat "conspiracy" theories: ...we suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies ... will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. That's right. Obama's Regulation Czar is so concerned about citizens thinking the wrong way that he proposed sending government agents to "infiltrate" these groups and manipulate them. This reads like an Onion article: Powerful government official proposes to combat paranoid conspiracy groups that believe the government is out to get them...by proving that they really are out to get them. Did nothing of what Sunstein was writing strike him as...I don't know...crazy? "Cognitive infiltration" of extremist groups by government agents? "Stylized facts"? Was "truthiness" too pedantic?"

Stossel article here: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/18/stealth-propaganda/?test=latestnews

Original Sunstein article here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585


Is this anything particularly new? Nah, not really, federal agencies have been infiltrating extremist groups for a long time, but at least under the pretext that the groups promoted violence or criminal activity (KKK, Black Panthers, Weathermen, etc). Here, the President's regulatory Czar is suggesting that the government infiltrate organizations which simply do not agree with the story-board of the administration. That is some totalitarian shit there chief (Fascist or Socialist, take your pick)

1/25/2010 5:17:51 PM

^ The worst Reagan speech--especially so among the early ones--is more substantive than anything Obama has uttered.

One example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs

And the information you posted should come as no surprise to any informed individual--the Obama administration is rife with radicals.


[Edited on January 25, 2010 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2010 5:47:46 PM

Quote :

"he is the President of the United States and can't give a speech in an elementary school without a teleprompter. "

That is really embarassing. But I can see the need. If his handlers ever let him start speaking off the cuff again..they would end up with more PR headaches such as "spread the wealth around"

1/25/2010 6:53:12 PM

He’s not actually using the teleprompters in that video though… I guess they’re just there for backup.

1/25/2010 7:51:30 PM

^^seriously, what a nightmare it was too. Probably what directly lead to his defeat in the election.

what?

1/25/2010 10:25:47 PM

Quote :

"I'm content to compare Obama to Reagan."

LOL

1/25/2010 11:20:31 PM

Some of you have incessantly contended that handling of enemy combatants terror suspects is a civilian law enforcement matter. If this is the case, why weren't the heads of the relevant law enforcement agencies consulted?

Who authorized Miranda rights for Christmas terrorist?
Jan. 25, 2010

Quote :

"So who decided to treat Abdulmutallab as a civilian, read him the Miranda warning, and provide him with a government-paid lawyer – giving him the right to remain silent and denying the United States potentially valuable intelligence that might have been gained by a military-style interrogation? Recently that simple question – who? – became more complicated after several of the administration's top anti-terrorism officials testified on Capitol Hill. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, said he wasn't consulted before the decision was made. The Director of National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, said he wasn't consulted, either. The Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, said she wasn't consulted. And the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, said he wasn't consulted."

And there's this outrage:

Quote :

"'Isn't it a fact, that after Miranda was given ... the individual stopped talking?' Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions asked Mueller. 'He did,' Mueller answered. But Mueller declined to say who made the decision to grant Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent."

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/abdulmutallab-230865-decision-holder.html

Just fucking wow.

1/26/2010 6:13:41 AM

Is it a foregone conclusion that he would have revealed anything had he not been treated as a civilian?

Oh wait, it probably is. You know, after we torture the guy and he finally gives us completely unreliable and unactionable intelligence!

1/26/2010 7:16:25 AM

From the Obama administration:

Intelligence chief rips handling of accused plane bomber
The remark by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair was an admission that U.S. Justice Department officials squandered a chance to gather valuable intelligence after the failed attack.
January 20, 2010

Quote :

"'That unit was created exactly for this purpose,' Blair testified before the Senate Homeland Security Committee. 'We did not invoke the (High Value Interrogation Group) in this case. We should have.'"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010846748_congintel21.html

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 8:30 AM. Reason : What a colossal fuckup it was not to interrogate that terrorist. ]

1/26/2010 8:29:49 AM

Sounds like a decision that had nothing to do with Obama. Thanks for posting it in this thread.

1/26/2010 8:43:35 AM

^ Are you really that stupid?

1/26/2010 8:53:16 AM

New York Times columnist & liberal Bob Herbert is ready to post in the "Obama Credibility" thread....

Quote :

"Obama’s Credibility Gap January 25, 2010 Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park. Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map. Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it. Mr. Obama promised during the campaign that he would be a different kind of president, one who would preside over a more open, more high-minded administration that would be far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary working Americans. But no sooner was he elected than he put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation. They want to know who their president really is. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html

[Edited on January 26, 2010 at 2:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2010 2:04:31 PM

Obama's Approval Most Polarized for First-Year President
Shows much greater party differences than approval for any prior first-year president
January 25, 2010

Quote :

"PRINCETON, NJ -- The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125345/Obama-Approval-Polarized-First-Year-President.aspx

1/27/2010 7:18:42 AM

Quote :

"Rep. Marion Berry's parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994. But the jaw-dropper is Berry's claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out. The retiring Berry, who doesn't say when the remarks were made, now scoffs at Obama's 50-or-below approval rating: Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton: Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home. “I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.” [snip] “I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out,” said Arkansas’ 1st District congressman, who worked in the Clinton administration before being elected to the House in 1996... "I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and ’94. No one that was here in ’94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn’t a good feeling.”"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0110/Berry_Obama_said_big_difference_between_10_and_94_is_me.html?showall

1/27/2010 10:14:04 AM