hey, a rant!

Okay, so we all know about the decision of Kathleen Sebelius to block the Plan B morning-after pill from being sold over the counter to young teens.

Today the President was asked if he supported the decision, and he said he did.

So, everyone has their own position on this – some back the move, some are outraged by it.

It’s, obviously, a hugely important debate, and once you exclude the voices of the nutjobs whose ultimate fantasy is to control what women do with their bodies, the genuine opinions on both sides are fascinating to hear and read – not least for someone like me who is torn on the issue simply because children are involved. And that’s what, say, 12 or 13-year-old girls are: children. Just because they can have babies at that stage of their lives doesn’t make them adults. When I was a 12 or 13-year-old girl I had significantly less sense than a lump of wood, so, even then, would have laughed at the notion that I was an ‘adult woman’ capable of making big decisions.

Any way, some of the anger about this decision is coming from genuine people who just think it’s seriously wrong.

But then there are commentators like Rebecca Traister at Salon.

I know, I know, it’s ridiculous to give any thought to a post that appears on Salon these days, it’s a long, long time since you could take the site seriously. This, after all, is the home of my most loved comedian, the increasingly hysterical Greenwald creature, who has just become a caricature of a caricature of a caricature of himself, “OMG! I SO TOTALLY HATE OBAMA” the gist of what he writes all day, every day. Cutting edge journalism. And then there’s the embarrassment that is Arianna Huffington-wannabe Joan Walsh, not to mention Gene Lyons who so stylishly compared Melissa Harris-Perry to the KKK.

If they just renamed the place The Anti-Obama Diary they might get a few more hits. Crikey, at least us ‘Obots’ are honest about our affections, but Salon still bills itself as progressively righteous. As the young people say: LOL.

Any way, Rebecca Traister posted a fairly extraordinary article on Salon in response to the Plan B decision, which was a whole lot more about releasing some of her pent-up loathing of the President than it was about the actual issue.

The headline: “Obama’s woman problem – The president shamefully uses his daughters to justify limiting the healthcare options of America’s young women.”


“When will Barack Obama learn how to talk thoughtfully about women, women’s health and women’s rights?”

(Funny, I thought he spoke pretty thoughtfully about women’s rights as early as his first month in office when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. But, never mind. Maybe Rebecca was still recovering from the pain of seeing him inaugurated, so missed the historic occasion? And she probably skipped his appointments of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court too, that level of woman-hating was way too much to take.)

“Obama pooh-poohed the findings of the FDA, which had concluded that Plan B pills posed no medical hazard.”


This is what the President said today (see his full remarks here):

“…. as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore, should be able …. to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect …. It has been deemed safe by the FDA. Nobody is challenging that. When it comes to 12-year-olds or 13-year-olds, the question is can we have confidence that they would potentially use Plan B properly. And her judgment was that there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be used improperly in a way that had adverse health effects on those young people.”

So, no, the President didn’t poo-poo the findings of the FDA at all – on the contrary, he said that “nobody is challenging” their decision to deem the product safe. His argument, which was crystal clear – whether you agreed with it or not – was that there were concerns that “12-year-olds or 13-year-olds …. would potentially” use it “improperly in a way that had adverse health effects on those young people”.

Hey, by all means, dispute his argument, but why completely misrepresent what he said?


“But part of what was most disturbing about Obama’s statement was his reliance on language that reveals his paternalistic approach to women and their health. “As the father of two daughters,” Obama told reporters, “I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine.”

So, a father of 13 and 10-year-old girls expressing concern about their welfare is “disturbing”? And suggests his approach to women and their health is “paternalistic”?


Call me weird, I just thought he sounded like a father who cares about the welfare of his young daughters and girls of their age. Is that a bad thing now? Is it way more progressive for a father to say to his 13 and 10-year-old girls, ‘hey, go get pregnant, there’s always Plan B!’.

“…. as an American, I think it is important for my president not to turn to paternalistic claptrap and enfeebling references to the imagined ineptitude and irresponsibility of his daughters …. Obama is just laying down some Olde Fashioned Dad Sense …. he diminishes an issue of gender equality, sexual health and medical access. Recasting this debate as an episode of “Father Knows Best” reaffirms hoary attitudes about young women and sex that had their repressive heyday in the era whence that program sprang.”

Please forgive my language: what a load of complete ****ing bullshit!

I’ve been a fiery feminist all my friggin’ life, but this kind of crap is cringeworthy and just gives ammunition to enemies of women’s rights – it’s pitiful, lamentable, pathetic, whingy shit. Take your pick.

“….the imagined ineptitude and irresponsibility of his daughters….”

His daughters are 13 and 10!!!!! They’re not inept or irresponsible, and he never implied any such thing – they’re not “young women”, they’re CHILDREN!! That is why their father is protective of them, it’s what good, loving fathers do. Father might not always know best, but fathers loving and caring for their young daughters doesn’t make them enemies of women, it makes them decent human beings and great friggin’ Dads.

“When he says that he wants to “apply common sense” to questions of young women’s access to emergency contraception, he is telegraphing his discomfort with the idea of young women’s sexual agency, or more simply, with the idea of them having sex lives at all.”

Oh God. It’s hard to know where to start here, and it’s certainly hard to compete with her psychoanalysis of the President.

Again, Traister chooses to categorize children, as the law regards them, as “young women”.

Help me out here? Traister is saying that the President experiences “discomfort” at the notion of children “having sex”. Children maybe as young as 13 and 10? Does that make him a woman-hating freak? No, it makes him sound a bit like my late Dad, and every normal loving Dad. You know, the ones who become clinically depressed when their daughters first start using lipstick. Does that make them woman-hating monsters? No, it just confirms they are human beings who don’t want their beloved little girls to grow up. And the mere thought of their girls having sex nigh on drives them over the edge. Why? Again, because they’re human!

Which is why we love them, because they actually care. Is it more progressive to be a ‘deadbeat’ Dad who couldn’t give a shit if his 13-year-old daughter is risking becoming pregnant? Most daughters, especially fatherless ones, crave ‘Olde Fashioned Dad Sense’ – that kind of love is worth the price of gold.

So, who is the oddity here: the President or Traister?

“Moreover, Obama’s invocation of his role as a father is an insult to the commitments and priorities of those on the other side of this issue. Are we to believe that those who support the increased availability of emergency contraception do not have daughters? That if they do, they care less about those daughters than Barack Obama does about his? And that if they do not, they cannot possibly know better than a father of daughters what is best for young women?”

Right, at this point Traister has mislaid the plot. Completely.

By citing his love and concern for his daughters, the President was pissing on those who don’t have daughters?


And he insinuated that he cares for his daughters more than any other parent cares for theirs?


Hey, call me cynical, but methinks Traister heard what she wanted to hear today, her misrepresenting of the President’s comments laughably deceitful.

Then she went on to detail the President’s varying positions on late-term abortions over the years, just to beef up her argument that he doesn’t like women much.

You know, I truly envy Rebecca Traister’s glib and easy stance on “reproductive freedom”. She’s so lucky that it’s all so uncomplicated for her. For some of the rest of us it’s way more challenging than that, we actually have to stop and think. Some of us are passionately pro-choice, but are uneasy about late-term abortions. No, that doesn’t mean we hate women, or that we’re Rick Perry-ites, it just means we think about these things, unlike the ideologically pure, for whom every issue is a bumper sticker, rather than something that makes you pause.

Traister, though, excelled when she turned her attention to the President’s view of his wife.

“…. the president “often points out that he is surrounded by strong females at home,” an argument that not only mimics an old saw about how being henpecked by women is equivalent to respecting them, but reflects a dynamic as old as patriarchal power itself.”

Interesting. Traister assumes that the President saying he is surrounded by “strong females at home” automatically means he is “henpecked” …. does this not say a whole lot more about her assumptions than those of the President? Why does she take it that “strong females at home” automatically equals “henpecked”? Heck, maybe it just means….. they’re “strong females”?

Does Traister, you can’t but wonder, have a problem with the First Lady?

She reckons the President’s comments on The View in 2010 about his wife watching the show suggested she “just doesn’t have a head for news delivered by anyone other than Elisabeth Hasselbeck”.

Really? He suggested that? He implied his wife was an airhead?! Truly? And he’s never, ever pointed out that his wife watches this stuff for light relief, just to escape the relentless bile directed towards him on all the other channels, that she is Princeton and Harvard-educated, is way smarter than him, that she is his rock and the first person he seeks advice from – on a personal and political level? And next in line is his longest term advisor, Valerie Jarrett – a mere woman! Yep, the President is a misogynist.

“….  no one seems to have told him …. that the best way to address a question of women’s health and rights is probably not by making it about his role as a father.”

Really? Why is being a father to two young girls so inconsequential when discussing issues like these?

Why is a “role as a father” something not to be mentioned?

When he cites his daughters, in an attempt to explain how he is emotionally involved in an issue, he is exploiting them.

When he doesn’t ‘humanize’ an issue like this, he is an aloof, professorial robot.

Rebecca Traister’s Salon article was a whole heap of steaming crap, of the very worst dishonest and disingenuous kind.

Why? Who knows.

But, by the way, she was a diehard Hillary supporter in 2008 and really has never forgiven Barack Obama for beating her pick.

And that is what this is all about – along with a brand of demented feminism that regards with contempt any role, however benevolent, fathers try to play in their daughters’ lives.

Why did I even draw attention to her pathetic article? Good question!

I just did it to try and shine a little light, again, on the agendas of the President’s most bitter detractors on the so-called left.

The thing is, they sneer at us ‘Obots’, but at least we’re honest about where we stand – these people are deceitful to their core. There’s usually an agenda. As there was with Rebecca Traister’s piece in Salon – all she succeeded in doing was unveiling her bitterness, again.

By all means, while sticking to the facts, attack the President for his position on Plan B …. but attack him for his relationship with his wife and daughters? Ah, that’s when the professional left becomes indistinguishable from Limbaugh and Co.

And their core is just as ugly.

216 Responses to “hey, a rant!”

  1. 1 Judith Fardig
    December 9, 2011 at 1:01 am

    Very well said, Chips! As a former Certified Nurse-Midwife helping a lot of women make wise choices, I couldn’t agree more. The 12-15 year old girls I cared for were children, not women. Plan B isn’t vitamins!

    • 2 Elly in MD
      December 9, 2011 at 6:47 am

      “Plan B isn’t vitamins” – that is an excellent point. I have two girls, now in their 20’s, and I also would have misgivings about their access to Plan B at a younger age. As far as the Salon writer goes – it’s hard to explain why people on the left rant more fiercely against a Democratic president than people on the right rant against their own leaders (or that is my impression, maybe I’m just not hearing from the right). But there is something in their mentality that is rigid, uncompromising, feels only they know the truth, etc.

      I’m not losing sleep over this one.

  2. 4 Betsy
    December 9, 2011 at 1:01 am

    You are right Chipsticks, their core is as ugly as the GOP’s.

  3. 6 jacquelineoboomer
    December 9, 2011 at 1:07 am

    I’m with you all the way, Chips. Oh, and I’m with President and Mrs. Obama all the way, too!

  4. 7 africa
    December 9, 2011 at 1:11 am

    Excellent, Chips!

    • 8 anameti
      December 9, 2011 at 9:36 am

      Bravo Chips. Thanks for the pointed rebuttal of the Salon article. With PL, hatred of PBO is personal, has nothing to do with policy

  5. December 9, 2011 at 1:17 am

    This is not about the issues and hasn’t been for a long time. This is all about their blind Obama-hate. Bunch of “Liberal” racists, ugly professional left, selfish and hateful. They will say anything, make up anything, lie through their teeth. Maybe it’s because I’m so busy these days, or maybe it’s because I just learned to ignore them – But I don’t think I read even one piece any of them wrote in the last year. They can all burn in their purity hell.

    For the record, I totally support this decision. No 13 years old girl should have the option of going by herself to buy this pill. Hell, no 13 years old girl should even think about having sex in that age. It doesn’t make me any less Liberal.

    Big rant, Chip. Good for you.

    • December 9, 2011 at 1:33 am

      They hate him and try to use any argument to show their vile feelings. At this tender age these kids have no concept of what it means to be a woman. Over the years of working in the hospital i have seen enough shit with kids and their relatives. If it is consensual ,accident or rape then someone needs to be there to guide them thru this. Requiring to have a discussion with the doctor, pharmacist or nurse means they will get emotional support as well as an instruction. Even though it has been deemed safe by the FDA these kids are still growing and do you want these girls to take the pill without supervision lets every 3 months and therefore what are the long term effects compared to someone who only takes it once in a lifetime?
      There was a diary on Kos saying Potus is a coward for throwing Sebelius under the bus. See, President Obama is not a micro manager. can you imagine what his life would be if he was. He already has issues in dealing with kids from congress.

      • December 9, 2011 at 2:46 am

        How the heck did he throw her under the bus if he stood there and said he supported her decision?

        • 12 cuphalffull
          December 9, 2011 at 3:13 am

          It doesn’t have to make sense. Rush Limbaugh doesn’t either. One thing that I have learned since the President was elected was that there can be as much power over mentality on both sides of the left/right divide. To have power over other people one must hurt them. What this site and others have done is bring people together to resist that hurt. I think its called schooling.

        • 13 Vicky
          December 9, 2011 at 11:03 am

          Because when asked he said he wasn’t involved in the decision.

          He supported the decision she made, however. But, supposedly, he “threw her under the bus” because he said he wasn’t involved in the actual decision-making. Ergo, he left her exposed to all the blame.

          How could the man possibly be involved in every decision made by his administration? The knee-jerk response is absurd.

          Mother of five girls, grandmother of seven girls here. I support the decision.

          • December 9, 2011 at 11:38 am

            I still don’t understand their reasoning. She is the head of HHS so she gets the blame/credit for whatever happens there. They have no problem blaming Geithner or Summers for all of Pres.Obama’s economic decisions.

    • 15 Claire
      December 9, 2011 at 1:08 pm

      Agree 100%. I have seen more and more racists out themselves on the professional left. ‘Friends’ of mine have shown their true colors when it comes to this President. I have ‘left wing’ friends who have shown themselves to be a bunch of entitled, spoiled, privileged know nothing bigots. I no longer consider them friends. I support President Obama 110%. He is the best President in my lifetime. His decision about Plan B, is exactly as it should be.

  6. 16 eveingeorgia
    December 9, 2011 at 1:28 am

    Thank you for this point by point analysis of Traister’s article. I have to admit that I stopped reading Salon months ago, when I could not stand to see another Glenwald article. Your synopsis of Traister’s piece more than adequately vindicated my decision to stay away from there!

    I agree with Sibellius’ decision and President Obama’s backing of it. My agreement has nothing to do with the president or my political persuasion; I agree because it makes sense to me. Adolescent and pre-adolescent girls are children, they are not adult. They don’t think like adults, and do not reason like adults. If children had no need of guidance and protection they would not need parents at all.

    I was biologically able to have children when I was 8 years old. I’m glad I had a father and mother who walked me through that bewildering, scary time with compassionate guidance and wise parenting. I would have been the disaster waiting to happen had I not had that guidance.

    Why anyone would want pre-adolescent and adolescent girls to have easy access to this contraceptive is beyond me.

    As for the attacks on President Obama for referencing his daughters, (sigh), there is no rejoinder that I can give any better than yours. Chips. I’ll just say that Traister seems to be flailing around in the quicksand of her own unbridled hatred of the man who beat her candidate of choice.
    Somebody hand the lady a branch or something, puhleez.

  7. 17 Walking_on_ Sunshine
    December 9, 2011 at 1:29 am

    I heard the President’s response to the plan B decision. It was a response most parents, whether male or female would agree with. Since the decision was made by Katherine Sebelius I don’t know what everyone is getting so bent out of shape about. From what I understand the President was expressing an opinion in direct response to a question. It wasn’t his decision. I have very mixed feelings on this subject myself. The only thing I don’t like is having men decide what women can do with their bodies. The reason I trust the President on these issues is that he has always shown that he feels comfortable leaving these decisions to women. In this case we are talking about young girls.

    Maybe Rebecca Traister would be more comfortable voting for one of the Republican candidates. Good luck with that Rebecca.

    • 18 cuphalffull
      December 9, 2011 at 3:16 am

      Your comment is great. I particularly agree with “he has always shown that he feels comfortable leaving these decisions to women” and “in this case we are talking about young girls”.

    • 19 LunarSea
      December 9, 2011 at 7:33 am

      It was NOT the president’s decision. That is the irony here. He said & I’m sure Sebelius would agree that it was her decision. PBO was asked for his thoughts on it.

      So why isn’t Traister going after Sebelius for the decision? What is her take on Sebelius and her psychoanalysis on the person actually making this decision? And more importantly, what is Traister’s problem? Daddy woes? Is she fighting the effects of having a mom dominated by her dad and the men in their lives? Besides her blatant hatred for losing in the last general, this attack screams insecurities to me and I know there are Dr.s to help with that.

      To which I say, Rebecca Traister, get some help. Your slip is showing.

      ummm, Morning all. Am running out the door to work, but just had to respond. Thanks ChipsChica for saying what needed to be said and saying it so eloquently. Have a great day all. Hugz all around!

    • 22 Mel
      December 9, 2011 at 11:15 am

      My wife and I heard as well the President’s response to plan B and we totally agreed with the Presiden
      we are parentas of 3 boys 2 girls and grand parents to 2 girls we understand rebecca Traister can not
      tell us how to take care of our families specially waman, as a Parent and Grandparent I am more protected
      of my girlls sorry boys.

  8. December 9, 2011 at 1:34 am

    Protecting children, especially in *that* age range, should never be a controversy.

    I will refrain from commenting on the critics and their criticism.

  9. 24 Blackwaterdog
    December 9, 2011 at 1:34 am

    I will add that even if this is 100% political decision – I support it. We have bigger fights now. Obviously the PL wants to shift the focus. Tomorrow they’ll find something else.

    • December 9, 2011 at 2:28 am

      Bingo. The fucking loony left expects this president to walk into political buzz saw every day, so that their every fucking liberal fantasy will somehow come true.

      Fuck’em all. As a father myself, I fully approve of what sebelius and obama said in this matter,

  10. 29 Alycee (@jazziz2)
    December 9, 2011 at 1:40 am

    AMEN Chips. Heck, a child under 17 can’t buy certain cds, dvds and video games from the local Wal-mart, yet the PL is upset because they need adult supervision to obtain life/health altering drugs — spare me…

    • 31 Betsy
      December 9, 2011 at 9:16 am

      This! I teach 13 year olds and some of them are promiscuous and I would rather not allow them to get something that would let guys persuade them to have sex because she couldn’t get pregnant if she took this pill. People who criticize that decision do not work with teens or have a young daughter. The only way I can see is a problem for a young girl is if she’s been abused or raped and has no one to help her. If she could buy it herself, then she could avoid being pregnant. But then, how would she get the money to buy it anyway? I can see it from that side if that’s what they are concerned about, but this article sounds like it’s just another opportunity to bash President Obama.

      • December 9, 2011 at 12:05 pm

        In response to Betsy who says, “The only way I can see is a problem for a young girl is if she’s been abused or raped and has no one to help her. If she could buy it herself, then she could avoid being pregnant.”

        Then these so-called feminists should be pushing for increased counseling availability for abused children who cannot go to trusted relatives or friends for support, comfort and medical advice. While the Obama-haters want to label him as sexist and woman-demeaning, they ignore the fact that he appointed a woman to head this agency, it was a woman–and a parent–who made the decision, and he is supporting the decision made by a woman without consulting him. They don’t attack her because…?

  11. December 9, 2011 at 1:40 am

    I remember how I was when I was 12 and 13, and I really wouldn’t have understood how to use Plan B properly. I doubt that I would have understood that this was something to do rarely. At that age, kids really do need a doctor or nurse to answer questions and give reassurance and even counseling. Also, a lot of girls are still going through that transitional period while the hormones are kicking in. Hormones given without medical supervision could set girls up for unknown complications-i doubt there’s a lot of research on 12-17 year old girls on this subject. This is the sort of thing that can end badly for a girl, especially if she doesn’t have the medical care she needs.

    When I was a kid, there was an “Adolescent Clinic” that teenagers could go to for their medical needs. It was felt that teenagers were more than just smaller adults or bigger kids, and had special medical issues that doctors could overlook. There were school Nurses that a kid could go to for some medical advice. The battle over contraception and funding closed a lot of those places (school based clinics), meaning a lot of teenagers don’t get advice on everything from blood pressure and diabetes, and the screening that makes sure kids are healthy enough to take something like this. What if a kid has undiagnosed high blood pressure, diabetes, or some other medical issue, and dies? ‘

  12. December 9, 2011 at 1:44 am

    Thanks Chips for a thoughtful rant. Emilia on HoosLeft had a similar takedown of this particular act of Obama Derangement Syndrome. Plan B is still available ( under personhood amendments it would be illegal). 12 year olds are children and should get help from those older. If freely available girls could take them frequently, with significant side effects, rather than rarely as intended.

    • December 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm

      Yes, that was a terrific rant by Emilia as well. And similarly she points out the “Hillary Factor” re this quote from Katha Pollitt’s screed:

      The Obama administration values the Catholic bishops, the Family Research Council, Rush Limbaugh and the swing voters of Ohio more than the pro-choice Democratic women who make up way more than their share of his base – women who campaigned for him, donated to him, knocked on doors for him, left Hillary Clinton for him. He must be assuming that we are captive voters – we have no place to go. That may be true, but there’s trudging to the polls and there’s passion. Obama is never going to get passion from anti-choicers and swing voters. And it looks increasingly likely that he won’t get it from pro-choice women either.

      Their resentment is deep, unrelenting and blind—and racist! That “Black man” was chosen over that “White woman.”

  13. December 9, 2011 at 1:49 am

    Nice rant, and a great explanation of the President’s and the Secretary’s actions. But speaking as someone who is personally in favor of unrestricted abortion rights, I’d like to go out on a limb and ask what would be so terrible about making a decision that also has a “political” element, meaning that in a democracy it shows some respect for a substantial proportion of the population that has an opposing point of view. Why not be a little sensitive to the reality that if the Secretary had made a different decision, all we would be hearing from the other side is how President Obama is in favor of distributing abortion pills over the counter to 12 year olds. Do we really need that to be a campaign issue? And wouldn’t making that a campaign issue have the potential of undoing all the good work the administration is doing for women’s rights?

    • December 9, 2011 at 2:52 am

      Good points Joe. We don’t need to be a campaign issue especially since the right is so organized and passionate about this issue and will fight tooth and nail to get their way. Where as the left just waits for Pres.Obama or Democrats to do the work.

      There are some people who can’t see the forest for the trees.

      By the way, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Plan B birth control? it stops the egg from being fertilized so its not abortion. right?

      • December 9, 2011 at 3:13 am

        I would not call it an abortion pill. However, my understanding is that the morning after pill can prevent fertilization, but can also prevent a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterus. But however it works (and I am no expert) that wouldn’t stop the right from calling it an abortion pill. Facts have not dissuaded these people from employing scare tactics.

      • 39 Brook water
        December 9, 2011 at 7:53 am

        My understanding is Plan B stops implantation. Since so many of the anti abortion crowd saying life happens at conception they see Plan B as medical abortion because in their minds that fertilized egg is a person.

      • December 9, 2011 at 12:23 pm

        This information may be dated:

        How does the Morning-after Pill work?
        The morning-after pill will prevent or delay the release of an egg from the ovary if given prior to ovulation, or it will help prevent the egg from traveling down the fallopian tubes and implanting in the uterus if you have already ovulated. The morning-after pill reduces the chance of getting pregnant; it does NOT cause an abortion.

    • 41 nathkatun7
      December 9, 2011 at 3:23 am

      You know Joe the purity progressives don’t care. IMHO, their #1 goal is to see President Obama defeated. They share this goal with the teabaggers. PERIOD.

    • 42 L3
      December 9, 2011 at 7:26 am

      Joe you make an excellent point. PBO, as much as we love him, is still a politician and he is not stupid.

      Also, one of the many things I admire about PBO is he has kept the promise made election night to be the President of people who did not vote for him. I always felt W. acted as though he was President of Republicans only and did not give a damn what anyone else thought about anything. PBO, however, considers the views of everyone when making his decisions which is what the President of a country with a diverse citizenry should do. Thanks PBO.

  14. December 9, 2011 at 1:52 am

    Looks like the usual suspects on twitter tossing insults hiding behind a few people who feel differently than Pres. Obama.
    It must suck for them, that none of the talking heads ran with their fake outrage…..P.U.M.A. tracks all around today & back to “Obama is trying to hijack #OWS” next week…If they weren’t so obvious my feelings would be hurt.


    • December 9, 2011 at 2:03 am

      Hey Tigerfists,
      I thought OWS was apolitical and was not interesetd in President Obama so how come they are worried that the President would hijack their organisation? They have already shown there disrespect by MICchecking him. In addition I thought they have already been hijacked by that 1% (liberterian) Michael Moore and Ratigan ?
      When they refused John Lewis the torch bearer of MLK to address their general assembly and mic checked the president they lost me.

      • December 9, 2011 at 2:20 am

        The professtional left need to sell merchandise, like #OWS coats & wool caps, so it’s back to what they know playing the same tune…taking swings at POTUS.. Bunch of johnny one-notes..

      • 46 cuphalffull
        December 9, 2011 at 3:23 am

        I think OWS is a good thing (though there may be some players getting involved that are not well intentioned). I think it is a reflection of Van Jones’ Rebuild the Dream tenants. Those that have mutual mind sets, like Van Jones, will hopefully prevail over the bullies and keep this a movement to be proud of.

        • 47 Vicky
          December 9, 2011 at 11:08 am

          I support OWS. I DO NOT support, AT ALL, mike-checks of speakers at public events, regardless of the party they represent. That is interfering with the rights of speech and assembly of those who have already gathered. Protest outside, by all means. But such disruptions are going to backfire.

  15. 48 MJ
    December 9, 2011 at 2:00 am

    I posted this comment/link to an article below, but I’m re-posting here because it seems relevant to the distinction Chips is making about how some rabid liberals have a hard time respectfully disagreeing with this President w/o trying to rip him down.

    “African-American Liberals Know How to Love Their President,” By Keith Humphreys (who, by the way, is not an African-American)

    Please note that the article also cross posted at the Reality Based Community site:
    (But be aware that the emo poutrage in the comments is strong.)


    • 49 JoJothecat
      December 9, 2011 at 10:21 am

      Thanks MJ….this article is so true. I stopped listening to Thom Hartmann because of his constant bad mouthing of the president. We have only ONE liberal station and Thom is a very smart man but I can’t stand his purist stance. Thom has never run for anything and all the people he has on his show can hold a candle to PBO. He has Bernie Sanders on every Friday and whenever someone asks Bernie a question he has NO answers and can’t do squat but vote against the Dem President because it’s not perfect enough.

      P.S. I read the comments and someone mentioned TOD…sweet!

  16. December 9, 2011 at 2:12 am

    Atta GIRL!


    EXACTLY how I feel on this, so the whiners can swallow some STFU jizz.

    There are ADULTS who are too stupid to understand basic BIOLOGY (nevermind we’re talking about CHILDREN not being able to buy it over the counter, not be banned from taking it), evidenced here in this USATODAY article:

    “We in the pro-life movement are also concerned that Plan B can kill an unborn child in the earliest days of life by preventing implantation in the mother’s uterus. Many women would not choose to use Plan B if they knew it can cause an early abortion — but they’re far more likely to remain in the dark when they don’t even need a prescription to get this powerful drug.”


    Allow me to lay some FACTS on you: Uhm, NO IT CAN’T.

    1. The Plan B pill, PREVENTS OVULATION – PERIOD. So a non-existant egg, can not only NOT BE FERTILIZED by it’s sheer non-existant (still hanging out in Hotel Ovary) status, but it can, in no way be prevented from implanting it’s NON-EXISTANT SELF into the uterine wall BECAUSE IT DOESN’T EXIST IN THAT REAL ESTATE, OR ANYWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF UTERUSLAND, you stupid fucking idiot.

    2. SEE 1.^^ and please SHUT YOUR IDIOTIC PIE HOLE YOU ASSCLOWN, because you’re getting dangerously close to making Michelle Bachmann look smart.

    • December 9, 2011 at 2:14 am

      ADDING ON – And their fucking hypocrisy makes me want to spew because they have no problem WHATSOEVER with in-vitro fertilization, that throws out their insane definition of “unborn children” into the trash.

      SPARE. ME.

      • December 9, 2011 at 2:33 am

        Hi Tally..!! 😀

        it’s amazing how a few want PBO to run his Administration on a whim and just make shyt up as he goes…

        Lucky for them he is so patient, because the average person would’ve told them to run along & find a focking playmate, because i’m not it… 😆

      • 54 JoJothecat
        December 9, 2011 at 10:22 am

        Hi Tally!

        • 55 tally
          December 9, 2011 at 1:14 pm

          Hey JoJo – we need to go have cocktails or something one of these days.

          Or you need to allow me to drag you to a HOT MEN RUNNING match when the season starts next spring. 😀

      • December 9, 2011 at 11:36 am

        One thing I wish people would understand is that a very substantial number of fertilized eggs naturally never attach anyway — that’s just the biology. Whatever your political philosophy, there are biological facts to be borne in mind.

        • 57 tally
          December 9, 2011 at 1:11 pm


          That idiotic statement ““We in the pro-life movement are also concerned that Plan B can kill an unborn child in the earliest days of life by preventing implantation in the mother’s uterus.” is so ridiculous on it’s face it takes my breath away.

          NEWS FLASH FACTOID: The is no “CHILD in the earliest days of LIFE” because NO LIFE has begun without the uterine wall, PERIOD.

          Fertilized egg ≠ life form. Just STOP trying to change the FACTS of BASIC BIOLOGY.

          • 58 tally
            December 9, 2011 at 1:13 pm

            Even if they IGNORE the fact the egg in question is still hanging out in Fort Ovary where no sperm may enter.

            YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

  17. 59 Debz
    December 9, 2011 at 2:26 am

    Great rant Chips!!! These people put their hatred of our President above all else. Good thing most people in this country have never heard of these Obama haters.

  18. December 9, 2011 at 2:29 am

    I disagree with this decision and I have a young daughter– but this also seems like a reasonable decision. Not an extreme decision. President Obama was elected to be the President of all the people in this country, I’m pretty sure I’m going to disagree with things that he does sometimes.

    • December 9, 2011 at 2:54 am

      Right and you’re not dismissing his entire record on women’s rights and equating him with Bush.

      • December 9, 2011 at 4:41 am

        I totally agree with all of you on this decision. when the decision was made yesterday, I did not say anything because I did not want to offend anhyone. It is totally the right decision and I know PBO was thinking about his daughters. Does any of these complainers have daughters?

    • 63 nathkatun7
      December 9, 2011 at 3:39 am

      Neil, I appreciate your comment. That’s exactly the way any reasonable adult should respond. I also wish you would have shared with us detailed reasons why you disagree with the decision. I am willing to listen to any one who can rationally explain to me, without calling the President names and attacking his family, why it makes sense for young children, under 17 years, to have access to this drug without a physician’s supervision. Is this the only drug that has absolutely no side-effects? Is it not the case that women have to have a prescription in order to purchase other birth control pills?

      • 64 Chi
        December 9, 2011 at 4:40 am

        I’d love to hear it too Nath…

        I absolutely support President Obama’s stance on this matter…

        I don’t see how unfettered access to this pill is acceptable or some anti- woman expression…

        Like Chip stresses, these are not women we are talking about but kids…

      • 65 nospin
        December 9, 2011 at 1:54 pm

        I would like to understand the rational behind the disagreement as well. Why should children under 17 have access to this drug without a prescription?

  19. 66 jeff
    December 9, 2011 at 2:30 am

    Honestly I don’t even go to salon and really try to avoid Huffington Post and MSNBC. They are all a bunch of ego driven blogsters trying to portray themselves as journalists when I do stop by these sites I try and avoid looking at the political arena. What’s worse is that there is hardly a peep at Kathleen but rather its all directed at Obama. I understand he’s the president but its rather annoying that the media is mostly mum on this woman and her decision but rather at Obama himself. Its as if the media wants to set the tone all on Obama, no matter what.

    • December 9, 2011 at 2:58 am

      They don’t attack Kathleen because she’s a woman and its part of their effort to pain Pres.Obama as sexist. Notice how they never shy away from attacking Geithner and paint him as the aggressor in his relationship with the President? Geithner is the one calling the shots and Pres.Obama is getting punked but when it comes to his female cabinet members, Pres.Obama morphs from wet noodle to evil suppressor of women.

      • 68 cuphalffull
        December 9, 2011 at 3:27 am

        You have pointed out something I hadn’t thought about. Thanks.

      • 69 nathkatun7
        December 9, 2011 at 3:41 am

        Gobrooklyn, you absolutely hit the nail on the head!

      • 70 Lovepolitics2008
        December 9, 2011 at 10:01 am

        Astute comment. I hadn’t thought of that.

        Which makes me want to discuss a more general point… It seems to me that the core reason of this rage of the “left” towards President Obama is not racism, but more a question of personnality treats of those “lefties” . Anger issues not resolved, victim complex, insecurities, whatever. (To be clear, I’m not talking about people who occasionnally disagree vehemently with the president; I am talking about people who are constantly whining about everything and don’t change a bit of opinion even when faced with facts.) Those people seem to have the need to be in constant opposition to power. They always attribute the worst motives to a decision they don’t agree with. ( Greenwald and Hamster are good examples).

        We all have been in contact with these kind of people. At the parents/ teacher meeting, it’s the parent who whines disrespectfully and makes everyone else uncomfortable. At the city council, it’s the citizen who comes every week to complain on a different subject, and he does so in a way that implies the elected officials are completely incompetent and dishonest. In discussions, whether in political or social meetings, it’s the person who talks constantly and doesn’t listen to others.

        These people have always been very vocal in the political landscape. Every democratic president has had to deal with this. It may be worse right now because in difficult economic times, the level of frustration and insecurity is higher for everybody.

        • 71 Mae who love our CIC
          December 9, 2011 at 10:54 am

          you are wrong, racism period. AA’s experience it everyday of their lives. My daughter just had a conference with a fifth grade teacher who does not like AA students who are intelligent. It is not an isolated incident. Our next step is the school board. This young white female teacher does not need to be in the school system. just ranting myself.

        • December 9, 2011 at 11:46 am

          I’ve thought of this as well but I still believe a lot of it is race driven based on the words and phrases they use. Not to mention the fact that they let a lot of white Dems slide when they do or say the same things as POTUS.

      • 73 edp4bho
        December 9, 2011 at 10:44 am

        “They don’t attack Kathleen because she’s a woman”

        May I add also that she is a “white” woman. They seem to have no problem attacking the First Lady, who is not. Sorry, this is a bunch of attempted-hidden racism as well as sexism.

    • 77 Chi
      December 9, 2011 at 4:47 am

      It’s what they do…

      If it can be skewed negative, it’s all President Obama’s doing…

      If it’s a positive, it’s to every other persons credit…

      President Obama’s administrative order mandating countries who get aid from us to guarantee equal rights for gays, was suddenly hailed as Hillary Clinton’s idea and accomplishment…

      It is unbelievable…

      • December 9, 2011 at 9:42 am

        If the President, and his administration, were so intent on hampering access to contraception, why were these guidelines issued? And notice that Plan B IS covered as well.~

        U.S. health plans required to provide free birth control
        August 1, 2011 19:51

        The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidelines on Monday that will require health insurance plans to cover birth control without co-payments, deductibles or other charges.

        Contraceptives are part of a wide range of women’s preventive services that health plans starting on or after Aug. 1, 2012, must provide for free. The Affordable Health Care Act, the health reform legislation that became law in March 2010, generally bans co-payments, deductibles and other charges for preventive services recommended by expert professional organizations in order to promote their use, according to the New York Times.

        All birth control methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including birth control pills, voluntary sterilization and emergency contraception like ella and Plan B, must be covered, the federal government said.

        Other women’s preventive services that must be provided for free include screenings for domestic violence, gestational diabetes in pregnant women, H.I.V., the human papillomavirus (HPV); breastfeeding counseling and breast pumps; and annual wellness check-ups.

        “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a news release.

        “Today is a historic victory for women’s health and women across the country,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a press release. “Covering birth control without co-pays is one of the most important steps we can take to prevent unintended pregnancy and keep women and children healthy.”


        • 79 utaustinliberal
          December 9, 2011 at 10:25 am

          Hiya Creolechild. Thank you so much for this article. I’m having a twitter conversation with Rebecca Traister, the author of that Salon rant against PBO concerning Plan B. And I just sent her this article to counter her BS that PBO acts paternalistic towards all women, uses paternalistic language when talking to and about women & wants to hamper access to contraception for women.

        • 80 JoJothecat
          December 9, 2011 at 10:28 am

          The same assholes WON’T give PBO credit or write about THIS will they?

  20. December 9, 2011 at 2:31 am

    Well said chips. It was a morally a right decision and the concern trolls about 12 year olds can go suck an egg.

  21. December 9, 2011 at 2:32 am

    Bravo – what a nasty article from a woman who clearly has deeper issues. Thanks for breaking it down.

  22. December 9, 2011 at 2:40 am

    Agree with pretty much everything you said, Chipsticks. I think what gets me is the willingness for people to jump feet first into extremism to defend their need to be right and to create a villain out of people who happen to disagree with them. Now I happen to believe that all females should have access to birth control, BUT I also believe that minors need professional (medical) supervision and parental guidance when seeking it out. Why is that a problem to people who claim to be looking out for the well-being of women and girls? I posted this reply not too long ago on the POU forum:

    They’re engaging in such a dumb argument, all in the name of dogging PBO for something, ANYthing. The fact that they have the nerve to act upset that CHILDREN whose bodies are still developing, and who in the case of pregnancy may very well have been sexually abused by someone older, don’t have the right and privilege to buy the morning after pill without any questions, investigations, or parent/guardian knowledge? How weird and illogical. Do they not understand the legal and and mental/emotional differences between adults and children or minors? Are they not concerned with protecting kids from sexual exploitation and possible medical side effects from misuse? I wonder how these same feminists reacted to the recent story about a company marketing crotchless underwear for tweens…

    • 84 QuietObserver
      December 9, 2011 at 3:01 am

      And another thing: why should Plan B be given special preference for unlimited, unchecked access, when other medications and “adult” items are not? Ever try to buy NyQuil nowadays without being harassed by someone behind the counter? I’m damn near 30, and I can’t even buy a lighter at CVS without giving them my full name and birth date! Now, a lot can be said about pharmaceutical restrictions (some of which are getting ridiculous), but let’s not act like THIS is some kind of abusive move against women and girls by a male president, especially since it was not Obama who decided to drop the plan in the first place, but the female HHS secretary. Also, the decision does not restrict anything, it simply keeps the status quo (which is to get a prescription).

      • December 9, 2011 at 3:08 am

        And keeps the status quo so where was this level of outrage from january 20, 2009 to December 7 2011?

      • 86 Ann_T
        December 9, 2011 at 6:45 am

        I agree. I guess I don’t understand why this is being politicized. So it’s not OTC–many drugs are not. I think this opens the door for parents to talk to their kids (girls AND boys). Meanwhile, the GOP is busy trying to destroy the country just to remove the Best President Ever. While many on the left are bent out of shape about Plan B. I hope they have the common sense to vote for PBO In 2012. If they set back and allow the GOP to take over government, then we will all suffer the consequences. 😦

      • December 9, 2011 at 1:07 pm

        Yes, and there’s this. Do these youngsters who are ostensibly knowledgeable or desperate enough to get this pill on their own, know how to handle the possible side-effects? Should they be on their own before and after? There must be public services available for at-risk young people that don’t involve abusive adults, if indeed part of the criticism is based on the reproductive heath of young victims of rape or incest. Where is the energetic focus of these Obama disparaging so-called feminists on this issue?

        What are the most common side effects of the Morning-after Pill?

        irregular bleeding

        Women using the morning-after pill may experience a change in their next period. It may come early, on time, or be late. Most women will get their period 7 to 9 days after treatment. If your period has not occurred by 21 days after treatment, you should check this out with a pregnancy test.


        Half of women using this method will experience nausea and some will have vomiting. Take the morning-after pill with food to minimize this side effect. When vomiting occurs due to the morning-after pill it probably indicates that enough hormone has reached the blood stream to have its desired effect. There is no need to repeat the dose.

        ectopic pregnancy
        If the morning-after pill fails to prevent pregnancy, there is an increased chance it is a tubal pregnancy.


        Common side effects include breast tenderness, fatigue, headache, abdominal pain, and dizziness. Since the morning-after pill is a short-term treatment, these symptoms should resolve shortly after you complete the two doses.

    • 88 desertflower
      December 9, 2011 at 8:50 am

      “Funny” that you should bring up the point about sexual exploitation/molestation/abuse. I was listening to a radio station here yesterday, and the guy who’s show it is, is a Dr….a liberal. He said that he agrees with the decision, because the first thing he thought of was, what would happen if a child was molested? She could be forced to get this drug, over and over again, BY HER MOLESTER, and no one would be the wiser! THAT’S THE FIRST THING HE THOUGHT OF! That girl, could repeatedly be sexual abused or molested, go into the pharmacy, get the pill, and everything would be swept away….no one would ever know, giving the molester free reign to continue his despicable crime. Over and over again.

      It is NOT, NOT available…it just needs to be prescribed. Thus the need to TELL SOMEONE about the abuse that has taken place.
      Why aren’t these people the slightest bit upset by the fact that. according to the LAW, sex with someone of that age, IS RAPE!

      If they are so feminist in their thoughts, wouldn’t you think that they would be screaming from the rooftops to protect THESE CHILDREN, and give them guidance and support? I was the one that asked about this the other day when I first heard about this decision by Sebelius, and I said that I wasn’t happy, but the more I’ve heard, the more I’ve read,I feel totally comfortable with this…all the way around.I spoke with a coworker who is VERY prochoice(as am I) and she is totally ok with this as well. My guess,as well as all of yours…is more manufactured outrage. What else is new?

      If they ever once, thought about an issue, any issue, from ALL POV, except their own narrow, righteous one….well….that will never happen in this lifetime. Why bother.

      Thanks, for this Chips. Common sense rant if you ask me. That’s another deep question for another day…Why in the hell do they call it “Common Sense” when it is anything BUT COMMON?

      • 89 JoJothecat
        December 9, 2011 at 10:34 am

        Good point desertflower…that person had a very valid point, I never thought about that and maybe someone in Kathleen Sebelious team thought about that too and wanted to protect children under 17 who could void being in this very situation due to her actions.

      • 90 edp4bho
        December 9, 2011 at 10:53 am

        Outstanding point. I’m sure there are many angles to consider on this issue, if only “responsible adults” (the “adult” needs emphasizing) would have a real talk with themselves before they put their foot in their mouth.

      • 91 QuietObserver
        December 9, 2011 at 12:51 pm

        Excellent points! And I believe that at the root of all this, there is simply a desire for many people in our society to avoid talking to our children about tough and personal issues, including sex. Some would rather give kids access to all the ways to prevent or end pregnancy as long as they (as adults and parents) never have to know about it. Even if it means never knowing about sex abuse or physical anomalies or secret mental anguish of the girls…they figure it’s easier to let them raise themselves. It’s part of the disconnect we have in our society. Why is everyone afraid of comprehensive sex education? Have you read the great blog post by Emilia? : http://emiliawahoo76.blogspot.com/2011/12/pissing-on-president-joan-walsh-katha.html She covers some important points about the difference between education and access. Ironically, as “liberal” as some people claim to be, there is still a deep-rooted discomfort and shame surrounding sex, and they’d rather avoid their own feelings on the subject and let young girls deal with it alone.

  23. 92 SueBee
    December 9, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Thank you soooo much Chips! This is not an issue of science or politics, its about parenting and fricken common sense!

  24. December 9, 2011 at 3:05 am

    Bravo Chipsticks, Bravo! There was another disgusting article at the Nation claiming Pres.Obama only cares about the votes of Rush Limbaugh listeners, Ohio swing voters and Catholic Bishops. It was unbelievable what she said. Then she made the assumption that all pro-choice Dem women think the same when that is far from the truth. You can be pro choice and pro reproductive rights for the whole but may not make that decision for yourself or your child.

    If HHS had allowed wider access or eventually reverses her decision, I would still object to young teens being able to get access to birth control w/o a prescription but I wouldn’t light up my twitter time line with accusations that the president think its ok for young teens to have sex or have abortions all willy nilly. But that’s just me. I think we have bigger fish to fry.

  25. December 9, 2011 at 3:10 am

    You know what? There are people on the left like Traistor who look at President Obama and see Herman Cain. Herman Cain is the image they have of either Black men or men in general and nothing Pres.Obama says or does will change that. And yeah he stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton. She got over it, so can her supporters.

  26. 99 nathkatun7
    December 9, 2011 at 3:15 am

    “By all means, while sticking to the facts, attack the President for his position on Plan B …. but attack him for his relationship with his wife and daughters? Ah, that’s when the professional left becomes indistinguishable from Limbaugh and Co.

    And their core is just as ugly.”

    From the bottom of my heart, I thank you, Chipsticks, for this well reasoned and righteous rant. What I also found fascinating was that Rebecca Traister completely ignored HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelious, the person who made the decision, and just unleashed her vicious attacks on the President and his family. Just as you surmised the so called purity progressive’s “core is just as ugly,” as that of vicious right wingers like “Limbaugh and Co.”

    • 100 SueBee
      December 9, 2011 at 3:21 am

      I agree! I couldn’t finish reading Traister’s article, because she got personal. She borderline called him a sexist, because of a comment he made about Michelle on The View maybe 2 or 3 yrs ago. My goal for 2012 is to keep these hateful people behind me and work hard to get this president re-elected. Obama2012

  27. 101 Obama Grandmama
    December 9, 2011 at 4:20 am

    Wow! Traister’s article is way beyond an attack. I think you nailed it correctly, Chips. I liked that you broke it down succinctly.

    I know one of the reasons I changed many of my former views after reading Audacity of Hope was because Barack Obama had respect for both sides of the abortion issue and validated how I felt at that point of time that abortion was killing an unborn baby. He also gently presented his view that women have the right to consult with their partner, clergyman, doctor, parents and whomever is an important part of their life to make the decision whether to continue the pregnancy or not. This had been a real sticking point for me until I read his views and they made sense to me. I am evolving in my own personal thoughts on this and I do think most people evolve about many issues so Traister using an evolving point as being dishonest is not a fair argument. Another incident I picked up on during the 2008 Primary campaign was an early on rally where Barack was very respectful and gentle quieting an audience ready to boo an interrupting prolife group. BO expressed their right to speak out and that they had a legitimate side of the issue and that it was a hard issue with different viewpoints on it. I also liked his point that birth control, adoptions, maternity care and child care issues needed to be addressed to cut down on the need for abortions.

    As a mother of four, two being females and a retired elementary teacher having worked with many eleven year olds, I agree with Sebelious’ decision. Friends could easily convince a young girl to take the over the counter pill and later in life she could regret that decision. It could be a mental health issue down the line rather than the physical threat that was inferred. This decision did not disallow the pill only made it not be an over the counter choice.

    • December 9, 2011 at 10:27 am

      ObamaGrandmama, I agree with everything you’ve written. I too like the way the President gentlely explained his take on the different sides of the abortion issue in his book The Audacity of Hope. Very few politicians seem opened-minded enough to go to such extent in order to explore how a particular issue affects ALL parties involved.

      In reference to Chips’ rant, I agree with what Chips and most of us here at TOD seem to be saying–that is, Sec. of HHS Seblius made the right decision and President Obama hit all the right notes in his explanation of why he supports that decision. In addition to being an extraordinary and exceptional President, PBO is also a wonderful dad and just an all-around beautiful human being. I continue to be so proud that we elected him as our President. We must make sure he has another four more years–for the sake of this country.

      • 103 JoJothecat
        December 9, 2011 at 10:40 am

        Obama Grandmama…I heard the president say that in one of his speeches and I had just come to that conclusion as well. Abortion should be rare and more should be done for children who are already here like better and affordable daycare, excellent schools in ALL communities and places where children can be safe.

  28. December 9, 2011 at 4:55 am

    My big question is- how does all these systemic issues come to bear during this administration?
    I mean, from clean air/water rules to FAA rules to health issues etc.
    You mean to tell me that all of these issues were just waiting in the wings until this President took over? How long have we had dirty air and water, lousy bank regulations and health regulators?
    This is something I shall like to ask the President at a Townhall!
    Sure seems that way.

    • 105 edp4bho
      December 9, 2011 at 11:01 am

      Exactly, Jovie. The election of PBO apparently awakened people to the possibility of real change, yet some can’t handle simple truths.

  29. December 9, 2011 at 5:12 am

    Ot- Martin omalley time-

    LOS ANGELES — Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley labeled leading Republican presidential hopefuls here this week as narrow-minded ideologues. He cast the tea party as more “Alice in Wonderland” than of the Boston variety and challenged Democratic governors to “courageously” support greater government spending for the sake of the country’s future.

    “I think people have arrived at a different point in our collective discussion about our economy,” O’Malley (D) told nearly a dozen fellow governors, party strategists and hundreds of major Democratic donors. “The genius of our country has been capped, sold short and grossly undercapitalized in the name of concentrating wealth in the top 1 percent . . . we need to focus on the 99 percent when we make policy — we are all in this together.”

    His statements followed his rare re-election here Tuesday to a second year leading the Democratic Governors Association. They were a preview of O’Malley as national Democratic message man and party pit bull, roles he acknowledged he will relish in 2012.


  30. 108 fanoTOD
    December 9, 2011 at 5:27 am

    Thank you, Chipsticks, for your thoughtful rant. Thank you, all, for everything you added to this discussion.
    My heart aches for any truly loving father who has to make any decision that requires him to evaluate matters for sexually active minors. There is no reasonable outlook possible when one is evaluating the heartbreakingly unimaginable. We can not ever hope that a father can envision his own minor daughter as the victim of rape, statutory or otherwise.
    They entrapped out President on this one.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t there pharmacist assistance for “over the counter” medicines, vesus on the shelf medicines? You know how they now put some cold medicine behind the counter, that still are not prescription? Do you think that would be a possiblility for this dilemma, where the main concern expressed by President Obama and Secretary Sebelius is there not being guidance given?
    Thank you, all, again! I adore The Obama Diary!

  31. December 9, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Well done, Chips. My sentiments exactly. The Traister’s opinion isn’t rational considering the actual actions of the man she so obviously loathes. As a mom, and I think even if I were a dad, want to reserve my right to determine what prescriptive drugs go into my child’s body.

    Salon has found a way to franchise and sell their toxic brew of hatred to the most willing purveyors of hate. They’re really just angry that this President makes them look so obvious and ridiculous doing it.

  32. 111 Bill
    December 9, 2011 at 5:58 am

    Chips, your “rant’ is as well written and as well argued as anything I have read in the “liberal’ media in a long time. Bravo.

  33. December 9, 2011 at 6:05 am

    Credit rating agency Moody’s has downgraded France’s three big banks due to their difficulty borrowing money.

    The agency cut Credit Agricole and BNP Paribas from Aa2 to Aa3, and Societe Generale from Aa3 to A1.

    The move follows a previous rating cut by Moody’s for Credit Agricole and Societe Generale in September.

    “Liquidity and funding conditions have deteriorated significantly” for each of the banks, Moody’s said, adding that the problem was likely to worsen.

    “The probability that the bank will face further funding pressures has risen in line with the worsening European debt crisis,” the rating agency said of each of the three.

    It also assigned a negative outlook to all three banks’ ratings, warning that it will continue to monitor the European bank debt markets, and would downgrade them again if conditions look set to worsen.

    Markets shrugged off the news, with share prices in all three banks rising, led by a 3.3% surge in BNP Paribas in early Friday trading.


  34. 114 CTGirl
    December 9, 2011 at 6:14 am

    I am with you on this Chips. With all this outrage you would think he is preventing the pill from being sold.

  35. December 9, 2011 at 6:25 am

    On the over the counter plan b pill, the president and Sebilious got it wrong. Make no mistake, I support the president, and if he made this decision to support Sebilious for political reasons, fine. I believeuld be reelected. But this decision, as much as it pains me to say it, is a slap in the face to women’s health care and decisions about their body.

    • 116 nospin
      December 9, 2011 at 2:06 pm

      Pamela – how is getting a prescription a slap in the face of women’s health care and decisions about their body? We aren’t talking about women. We are talking about kids. under 17. babies.

      Children + under age sex = rape.

      The President and Sebilious got it right. Underaged babies should receive a prescription for the morning after pill.

      Those same underaged children will still have access to the pills but it simply requires a prescription. If they are grown enough to play, they are old enough to pay. Request a prescription. This allows parents (like me) to be aware of what is going in in my child’s life and what she is putting into her body.

      When she grows up, her decisions are her own and she is responsible. Until then, according to the law, I am responsible.

      They got it right.

  36. 117 No Child Left Behind
    December 9, 2011 at 6:53 am

    I rarely post but this rant from the PL requires a comment.

    I side with the President and agree with Chipstick’s view. Teenage girls should be encouraged to have good friends and not to engage in sexual activities then rush to the corner pharmacy to pick up Plan B pills. Since when child-bearing girls stoped being children? Some girls have their first period at 9, should they engage in sexual activities because of that? I just don’t know with this extreme view on women’s choice.

  37. December 9, 2011 at 7:00 am

    As Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney prepare to take center stage Saturday in the ABC News Iowa presidential debate, Democrats are honing a new line of attack against Gingrich’s leadership while intensifying their months-long offensive against Romney’s character.
    The move – coming through a series of Web videos, press conferences, and television interviews – signals an attempt by supporters of President Obama to aggressively define his two most likely challengers and, in doing so, fan the flames of an internal GOP debate.
    “The Republican Party has split into two parties: the tea party and the martini party,” chief Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod told Bloomberg this week, offering his spin on the Gingrich-Romney divide. Axelrod said the dynamic could mean a protracted primary fight, which many say could be advantageous to Obama.


  38. 120 utaustinliberal
    December 9, 2011 at 7:11 am

    Absolutely and unequivocally 100% agree with your rant Chips. Because you framed it in a LOGICAL manner; unlike that childish, juvenile, and downright ugly personal rant by Traister against President Obama. The decision HHS Sebelius made and PBO supported can be scientific as well as personal. When women take the birth control pill; they consult with a doctor first and obtain a prescription because even though they are legally women, they and their doctors know that the pill with its own high level of hormones in contact with the hormones in your body must be carefully taken and carefully watched. 11 and 12 year olds are children no matter how much the emoprogs and pro-left try to paint them as adults. Grown women sometimes make mistakes taking their pills or accidentally skipping them and we want children to have unrestricted access to the pill? Plan B isn’t some jelly beans that you can pop at will; the levels of progesterone in that pill is a lot and children having unprotected sex and thinking they can just pop Plan B everytime is not a good thing to promote. What are the long term consequences of that? What does it do to their developing bodies? Have people like Traister who claim to know everything about women and assign PBO the mantle of women hater thought about this?

    Plan B isn’t banned; if one is under 17, one needs an older sibling to obtain one for her or needs a prescription. I’m okay with the fact that they need a prescription to obtain Plan B because yes the sex may have been consensual but what if it wasn’t? What if they were assaulted or raped? Even if the sex was consensual, it’s a good thing to sit down with a doctor or nurse and discuss the physical and emotional consequences. Having unprotected sex doesn’t just have to concern becoming pregnant, what about the very real risks of sexually transmitted infections/diseases? Do emoprogs like Traister think herpes is fun? Do they think gonorrhea, chlamydia, and other STIs are fun?

    In this country when one is under 18 you are not allowed to purchase alcohol, cigarettes, cough medicine, NiQuil, and porn. Heck I’m in college and I get carded EVERYTIME I purchase NiQuil and cough medicine with a round of questions by clerks about this and that even after I’ve proven that I’m over 18. Yet no one thinks anything is wrong with that (rightfully so) because those are powerful drugs; but we’re supposed to be casual about letting 11 and 12 year olds having unrestricted access to Plan B? Is that not a drug too?

    Emoprogs like Traister (an original PUMA) are so blind with poutrage towards President Obama, that they fail to give due seriousness to a very important issue.

    • 121 utaustinliberal
      December 9, 2011 at 7:32 am

      PS: People like Traister keep ranting about the fact that children are women and should be treated as such and they hold themselves up as uber feminists. Well an uber feminist like herself should be outraged that young boys who are having sex have no thought of protection. Why should it only fall to the 11 or 12 year old girl to deal with the consequences of unprotected sex by popping Plan B? Why isn’t there a concerted effort to educate 11 or 12 year old boys about using condoms before having sex? To protect themselves and their partners from an accidental pregnancy and STI? Why must it only fall to the girls to be responsible on all forms of protection? Nooooo… Traister just attacks rabidly and blindly.

      • December 9, 2011 at 7:45 am

        Great point ut. It’s always the girls/women on whom the burden falls. A true feminist would consider this and fight for equal responsibility.

      • 123 desertflower
        December 9, 2011 at 9:07 am

        Thank you, UT for saying so succinctly the very thoughts that were in my head. I can’t say it any better than you just did. Great job! Agree. 1,000,000% !

        • 124 desertflower
          December 9, 2011 at 9:17 am

          The question becomes: Does this protect the girl, or further embolden men and boys to NOT have to take responsibility for an illegal sexual encounter with a young girl? Grown MEN don’t take their share of responsibility NOW, why would be expect any differently?

      • December 9, 2011 at 9:32 am

        I’m continually shocked at how the use of condoms is lacking in this discussion given the extent of unsafe sex that happens at all age ranges but particularly with young teens. That should be the focus, really.

    • December 9, 2011 at 7:58 am

      You’re so smart Utah! I have to show my drivers license and sign for Mucinex and Sudafed that is behind the counter, and I cannot buy both at the same time. Isn’t it Psych 101 that taught us when in doubt, suspend judgment? Just because the FDA says it is safe, they do not have the perfect record of success.

  39. 127 anniebella
    December 9, 2011 at 7:16 am

    I don’t have a problem at all with the decision made concerning Plan B pills. This attack is something which was in that witch all along and she just used this issue to bring it out. Which really is no issue.

  40. December 9, 2011 at 7:25 am

    The White House has a message for federal agencies still jittery about security in the cloud: FedRAMP has officially arrived.

    Roughly one year after industry players sent a Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program draft back to the White House as overly stringent, the Obama administration’s top tech officials Thursday unveiled a policy memo with details on how the program will work.


    Good deal!

    • December 9, 2011 at 8:47 am

      Ummmmmm. I don’t get the whole cloud thing and am very suspicious of it in general. I still haven’t synced my I-products to apple’s cloud because it just seems too creepy and weird that my info is just out there in a huge, unknown thingie/ place. Since I don’t trust or understand the whole “cloud” concept for myself, I am triply uncomfortable with the government using it. Ugh! 😐
      Ps- I’m pretty sure if I understood the concept and process more, I still wouldn’t do it. No thanks.

      • December 9, 2011 at 11:43 am

        I’m careful about what I put in the cloud: non-sensitive documents only. It’s a great way to back up data that I can access from any computer anywhere with internet. It’s excellent for research.

  41. 131 Me4obama (@Me4obama)
    December 9, 2011 at 7:43 am

    Thank you Chips, after I sent @joanwalsh a few rant tweets yesterday I still didn’t feel better, now I have this big rant, I will go and send tweet her and that crazy woman who am hearing about for the first time. BRAVO.

  42. December 9, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Among all the other idiocies of the Traister rant, I would like to point out that any president who would openly defy a member of his cabinet would be rightly vilified and guilty of disloyalty and grossly poor mismanagement. I agree with Sebelius’s decision regarding children and I’m sure the president expressed his true feelings on the issue. But imagine the stir he would have caused if he had slammed his respected Secretary of HHS by publicly saying she was wrong. I think even the dumbest of the dumb presidents would have been too smart to fall into that trap.

    A good decision was made by an honorable Secretary whose business it was to do so. In the meantime, the president has the HUGE headache of working with a hateful Congress to get the tax cuts and the UI extension passed before the end of the year. He knows that he and the nation must focus on that single issue right now. The critics are trying hard to get him off his game, but he, at least, isn’t going to give them any stupid fodder.

  43. 134 donna dem 4 obama
    December 9, 2011 at 8:01 am

    Righteous Rant Chica!

    I heard about this driving home from work on the radio Wednesday night and listening to the very unbiased explanation it makes perfectly good sense to me. I know some don’t agree with this decision and I respect that but I have family members in the 10-15 year age range and they are children who still have to be told to put on a coat when they go out side in the cold. Allowing them to make these types of decisions on their own at this age just doesn’t seem rational to me. Call me old school but I champion the Sec. decision.

    • December 9, 2011 at 8:25 am

      I don’t comment on here very often, but wanted to thank you for this rant. Yesterday, I had a run in with a women regarding this issue along with the fact that she was “very disappointed in President Obama”. She couldn’t understand why I wasn’t disappointed and told me that “strong democrats” feel that he has no backbone. I let her have it on that one. However, the next statement out of her mouth explained it all to me. She said, “Hillary would know how to negotiate and stand up for women, blah, blah, blah”. For some reason this run in bothered me all day/night (usually I can shake this off, but I’ve been hearing this more as I’ve been working on the recall Walker campaign in WI). Then I came here this morning and saw all the wonderful comments, etc. to support what I was thinking. So again, thank you. I’m feeling much better!!!

      • 136 JoJothecat
        December 9, 2011 at 10:52 am

        I’d tell her “I am sure PBO is disappointed in you for giving the keys back to the GOP, now the state of WI is spending time UNDOING the damage they did to themselves to “teach” the president a listen”. If they are such “strong democrats” why you let a dumbass republican get into office and let a “strong democratic” senator, Russ Feingold get defeated? Sounds like WI is going to do another dumb thing and not vote for PBO, they better stop voting against their own best interest because they can’t recall the President.

  44. 138 Linda
    December 9, 2011 at 8:12 am

    Good Morning.

    On the TeaNN crawl this morning there was something about Rick Santorum getting an endorsement. Could that be his 6 PM announcement ?

  45. 142 Linda
    December 9, 2011 at 8:17 am

    Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.) today fired three legislative aides who spent their days boozing it up in the office, destroying government property and badmouthing their boss — and obliviously bragged about it on Twitter.

    Legislative aides Seth Burroughs and Elizabeth Robbee and legislative correspondent Ben Byers were terminated as a result of the Northwest Daily Marker story chronicling their baffling display of bureaucratic bravado. The article included screen grabs of since-deactivated Twitter posts in which Burroughs (@therocketship1) and Robbee (@betsysbites) openly banter back and forth about trashing a government-supplied Blackberry, taking shots of Jack Daniels at their desks and watching music videos on YouTube during work hours.


    Good for Congressman Larson….

    • December 9, 2011 at 11:49 am

      And people think teenagers are smart enough to take a pill unsupervised? These are supposedly adults and they shouldn’t have required supervision. This is not going to look good on a resume’ and Rep Larsen needs to fire whoever it was that hired these reckless fools.

  46. December 9, 2011 at 8:24 am

    You can add North Carolina to the list of states where the Newt surge is good news for Barack Obama’s reelection prospects. He leads Gingrich by a 47-43 margin there.
    Obama would have considerably more trouble with Mitt Romney, who fights him to a 46-46 tie in the state. There has been an amazing degree of consistency in PPP’s North Carolina Obama/Romney polling- over the course of 14 monthly surveys the result has always been something between a 1 point Romney lead and a 3 point Obama advantage. Obama has fallen into the 44-47% range every time and Romney has come in somewhere between 42-46% each time. There’s a little doubt a contest between the two would be a hard fought toss up race.
    Gingrich and Romney post virtually identical numbers against Obama with both Republicans and independents. But the key to winning statewide in North Carolina as a Republican is to peel off a lot of conservative Democrats- roughly 20% of the registered Democratic vote- and Romney is much better positioned to do that than Gingrich.
    Obama leads Romney 79-16 among Democrats, a 63 point margin identical to the one we found on our final 2008 poll when he led John McCain 81-18. McCain flips that to an 80-19 Obama advantage with Democratic voters and he wins the state. Against Gingrich though Obama builds on the size of his 2008 win with Democrats, leading by 69 points at 83-14. North Carolina is just one of several important states where Democrats have a large registration advantage and Republican victory is dependent on getting significant crossover support- at this point Gingrich does not appear well positioned to do that.


    • 146 Lovepolitics2008
      December 9, 2011 at 10:35 am

      A Gingrich candidacy would certainly help GOTV operations for democrats. You just can’t let that corrupt bully win. He would make the Bush presidency look good in comparison.

  47. 147 terim
    December 9, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Bravo, Chipsticks!!!

  48. 148 rikyrah
    December 9, 2011 at 8:39 am

    thank you Chipsticks

  49. December 9, 2011 at 8:40 am

    I was lurking on a Balloon Juice thread on this topic and someone actually said that Elizabeth Warren would have had the guts to back the FDA. I could not understand for the life of me how Warren got into this topic.

  50. December 9, 2011 at 8:48 am

    I read your “rant” late last night.. and I am so impressed with your writing skills Chips.. I knew you were good, but this is such a clear-eyed, sensible take down of the pathetic attacks on President Obama’s character. These folks who ‘write’ this stuff in supposed support of one issue or another are merely masquerading imo.. their sole goal is to get him with a thousand cuts. When they attack his stance regarding women’s rights, his personal feelings as a father, his children & his wife.. they aren’t talking about an ‘issue’ they disagree on – they’re showing their hatred for him.. something they’;ve been brewing and stewing at for 3 years now… and there are no limits to the lines they’ll cross in their attacks.

    So many good comments here too today- especially practical is: It is Sec Sebillius who made this decision, and yet no attacks on her.. only on the President for supporting her decision… which again, blows big fat holes in their theory that the “issue” is where their concern lies.

    Now regarding the plan B decision… I’m so outta the loop I hadn’t even heard of the plan B pill ‘issue’. I didn’t raise any daughters, but do have very very young granddaughters.. and so can’t say that this effects me on a personal level. From what I’m gathering, nothing changed, the pill wasn’t available to girls under the age of 17 and still won’t be, without a prescription.. or having someone over 17 buy it for them. I have read everyone’s comments and must agree that when one can’t even buy certain over the counter cold meds without being 18 years old.. or get birth control without a doctor’s prescription.. this ‘decision’ by Sebillius is just not terribly significant in the scheme of things, imo.

  51. December 9, 2011 at 8:56 am

    Thank you for speaking some truth. Your rant was right on time and people better wake up to what they are doing before it is too late. The hate w/them runs deep

  52. 154 rikyrah
    December 9, 2011 at 9:02 am

    We all need to thank little Newton Leroy for his surge.

    It has forced WILLARD to claim ownership of Goober Ryan’s Vouchercare program…something the MSM let him weasel out of for months…

    but, now, he’s all on board…


    • December 9, 2011 at 9:14 am

      Paul Ryan sent out an email to his donor list to vote at politifact to make the “Dems said Ryan Plan ends Medicare” as their “Lie of the Year” – so you know they’re setting up a deflection point by saying “Politifact called it their lie of the year that the Ryan Plan ended Medicare”…

      • December 9, 2011 at 11:53 am

        They’ve been dancing as fast as they can to get out from under their votes for the Ryan budget and the way the Dems have framed it as ‘Ending Medicare as we know it.” Which puts lie to politifact’s lie of the year. They leave out the part: AS WE KNOW IT. Damages their credibility if indeed they had any.

  53. December 9, 2011 at 9:11 am

    I hope none of these folks have children that are 11-15 years old because I can only imagine how they’re raising them if they believe they are wise enough to be able to purchase hormone altering drugs OTC. I think it maybe should be a couple years younger, but also understand that 15/16 yr olds will likely have 17 yr old friends they can ask to get the drug for them, and in the very least open a dialog with this 17 yr old that might educate them on safe sex practices and make sure the 15 yr old is in a healthy relationship. If the OTC age was set at 15/16 I think it would basically make it available to 12-13-14 yr olds as they’d have 15 yr old friends who could buy it for them.

    I know a 13-14 yr old who is having sex isn’t about to go to their parents or any adult, but even going to a 17 yr old would be a good thing in that they’ll likely at least get some education and sense talked to them and have somebody making sure they’re being safe and that the boy isn’t taking advantage or anything like that.

  54. December 9, 2011 at 9:11 am

    I’m coming to this argument late but, seriously? Parents don’t have a “choice” about parenting, it is an OBLIGATION, a responsibility to consciously guide their children. To call that “paternalism” as some sort of negative attribute when applied to children 16 and under IS JUST ABSURD. Fathers are paternal and mothers are maternal, as it should be. And to say that a girl of 10 or 13 has the ability and the right to buy Plan B without medical instruction or consultation in any circumstance is total BS. I’m proud to hear that a man actually gets it. Many years ago when I thought I wanted to be a clinical psychologist I volunteered as a counselor at a women’s health center. It was an eye opener in terms of what both young girls and women know and don’t know about the mechanics of reproductive health. EDUCATION and counseling are never a bad thing. The choice is then up to the client or patient and their guardian, where appropriate. To fight for less parental authority precisely at a time in a child’s life that screams out for more is ludicrous at best. And if, as some argue, a young child is being sexually abused and can’t turn to a parent, then all the more reason to get the medical profession involved. It’s not rocket science. Turning a blind eye to this doesn’t help children.

    Why does Traister throw Sec. Sebelius under the bus? Why does she render her incapable of making up her own mind in the fulfillment of her duties, independent of the President? PBO entrusts his cabinet with duties and responsibilities to manage their portfolio precisely because they are eminently qualified. Traister infantilizes Sec. Sebelius with her demeaning assumptions. She is blindly and transparently looking for her preferred target.

    I don’t read crap from Salon, HuffPo or DKos because they have demonstrably gone off the rails ever since 2009. It’s their cottage industry to rant about PBO and pays their bills. It’s garbage of the worst order.

    Chips, this was an epic rant from you and I’m so grateful for your extraordinary intelligence and good sense. I love this place and the expression you and everyone else bring to it. THANK YOU.

    • 159 edp4bho
      December 9, 2011 at 12:28 pm

      “Why does Traister throw Sec. Sebelius under the bus? Why does she render her incapable of making up her own mind in the fulfillment of her duties, independent of the President? PBO entrusts his cabinet with duties and responsibilities to manage their portfolio precisely because they are eminently qualified. Traister infantilizes Sec. Sebelius with her demeaning assumptions. She is blindly and transparently looking for her preferred target.”

      See, this is why Chips has so many hits. You all are such good thinkers, always with probing arguments, and the intelligence to allow a real discussion. Your comment, Meta, makes just too much damn sense for the average emo-anything, because they don’t operate from common sense. Something is seriously wrong with those who follow them as truth-bearers.

  55. 160 edp4bho
    December 9, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Excellent rant Chips. One correction though:

    “There’s usually an agenda…..”

    No, there’s ALWAYS an agenda with these non-comiittal, unforgiving, bobble-headed, and yes, racist nyncompoops !

  56. 161 rikyrah
    December 9, 2011 at 9:15 am

    A February Surprise?
    Rhodes Cook thinks that “another establishment Republican could enter the race in early February and still compete directly in states with at least 1,200 of the 2,282 or so GOP delegates.” Bill Kristol salivates at the thought. Jonathan Tobin blows up his fantasy:

    It’s fair to ask why if Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio or Mr. or Ms. Unknown chose not to run back in the summer when they could have entered every primary (the filing dates for many states has already passed), they would do so now? Let’s just say if they had really wanted to run, they already would have. … As crazy and unpredictable as this race has been, the idea of a Valentine’s Day surprise says more about the unfulfilled hopes of GOP activists for a better candidate with which to oppose President Obama than it does about the actual chances of another Republican getting into the race.


    • December 9, 2011 at 9:31 am

      Yeah, it’s impossible. Feb 14th would cause this fantasy candidate to have missed either the actual primary or the filing deadline in at least 26 states. Here is the FEC table on the Presidential primary filing deadlines – http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2012/2012pdates.pdf – from looking at this list ad the Feb 14th “deadline” for this fantasy candidate they would have already missed Alabama, Arizona, DC, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, S. Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

    • December 9, 2011 at 9:35 am

      Grasping at teeny tiny wispy little straws.

  57. December 9, 2011 at 9:15 am

    I’ve been trying to find the answer to two questions. 1) The constitution seems to allow the president to call a special session of Congress and a joint session. If the House recesses, can the pres call them back? Can Harry Reid force the House to stay in town? 2) I know the middle class tax cuts expire on Dec. 31, as does the unemployment insurance extension. But IF the Congress were to agree on these early next year, could they be retroactive. This won’t help the unemployed who can’t pay for food retroactively, but I just wondered if it was possible.
    I’m also curious what constitutes a reason for calling a special session of Congress. Sorry if these questions have been addressed before, but I couldn’t find the answers.

    I think we should all start saying, “If you’re paying a $1000 more in taxes in 2012, thank a Republican.” “If you’re unemployed and can’t pay for food and housing, thank a Republican.” “If you’re glad someone is fighting for your interests, thank a Democrat.”

  58. 165 rikyrah
    December 9, 2011 at 9:24 am

    For Republicans, It’s Time to Panic
    by BooMan
    Thu Dec 8th, 2011 at 10:28:00 PM EST

    At this point it is no surprise that David Frum is bad-mouthing Newt Gingrich. Frum has gone over to the professionally disgruntled and alienated. But Michael Gerson is also talking in awfully harsh tones. This is the kind of stuff you can’t take back later if Gingrich actually winds up being the nominee.

    Gingrich’s language is often intemperate. He is seized by temporary enthusiasms. He combines absolute certainty in any given moment with continual reinvention over time.
    These traits are suited to a provocateur, an author, a commentator, a consultant. They are not the normal makings of a chief executive.

    Everyone deserves forgiveness for the failures of their past. But the grant of absolution does not require the suspension of critical judgment. Gingrich’s problem is not the weakness of a moment, it is the pattern of lifetime.

    It’s understandable that all the people who both dislike Gingrich and have a big megaphone are going to speak up over the next four weeks and try to help some other candidate. But there are different ways to go about that. You can explain why Romney or Paul or Perry or Bachmann are more conservative or more electable or have better temperaments. But you don’t have to say Gingrich is totally unfit to be president. You don’t have to provide ammunition for the Democrats. Yet, Frum is probably right:



  59. 166 rikyrah
    December 9, 2011 at 9:28 am

    December 09, 2011 8:40 AM

    Desperate Romney PAC panics, unloads on Newt
    By Steve Benen

    It’s probably safe to say the gloves have finally come off.

    Late yesterday, Mitt Romney’s Super PAC, Restore Our Future, unveiled a new ad blasting Newt Gingrich on a wide variety of fronts. It’s arguably the most brutal spot of the campaign to date, and it reflects the panic setting in among Romney and his team.

    The ad was removed from YouTube soon after it was posted, and PAC officials said the “unfinished” commercial was unveiled prematurely by mistake. (This is probably untrue. It’s more likely the PAC leaked this, hoped to generate buzz for free, and then pretended it was an accident.)

    But what I found truly remarkable was the message Romney’s allies put together. Consider the areas of attack: foreclosures, flip-flops, immigration “amnesty,” climate change, and finally, “Newt supported a health care mandate … the centerpiece of ‘Obamacare.’” The spot then relies on a George Will column.

    This is just astounding. Does Mitt Romney’s Super PAC know anything about Mitt Romney? He supports foreclosures; he’s the most shameless flip-flopper in a generation; he’s too big a coward to take a stand on immigration; he used to believe in climate change and supported cap and trade; and George Will thinks Romney is “a recidivist reviser of his principles,” who seems to “lack the courage of his absence of convictions.”


  60. 168 utaustinliberal
    December 9, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Chips. I sent a few tweets to Traister about her illogical article and I was respectful and also sent her emilia wahoo’s article about the plan B decision and lo and behold Traister sent me back a couple of tweets. So yes, TOD tweeters, these journos really do read your tweets.

  61. 169 rikyrah
    December 9, 2011 at 9:34 am

    December 09, 2011 8:00 AM

    ‘It’s going to be pointless’
    By Steve Benen

    The way the fight over the payroll tax break is going, lawmakers, their aides, White House staffers, and reporters should probably start revisiting their holiday travel plans. At this point, there are really only two points of agreement: (1) policymakers need to succeed by the end of the month; and (2) they’re nowhere close to an agreement.

    Senate Republicans have now voted down four tax-cut bills in two weeks. In the House, matters are arguably worse.

    Pivoting to challenge President Obama and Senate Democrats, House Republicans said Thursday that they would forge ahead with a payroll tax holiday bill that includes an oil pipeline opposed by the president and that looks to changes in social programs to pay for the tax cut and added unemployment benefits.

    In a sharp answer to several failed bills produced by Senate Democrats that would cut an employee’s share of the payroll tax and impose a new surcharge on income over $1 million, the House Republican bill would pay for the extension through a mix of changes to entitlement programs and a pay freeze for federal workers.


  62. 170 FiredUpInCA
    December 9, 2011 at 9:39 am

    This is why I identify primarily as a member of the Obamacratic party, rather than any other party:

    Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) suggested Friday that he would be willing to trade approval of the Keystone pipeline for an extension in the payroll tax cut.

    “I do think that if I had one minute to vote, I probably would vote to accept the deal, but it’s not good government,” Cleaver said on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “I think most members on the Democratic side are going to look a little suspiciously at that. However, we’ve got to get a deal done, and if the president was serious about vetoing that, then I have a feeling we’re going to probably be here during the Christmas holidays.”

    Cleaver did stress, however, how the Keystone project’s approval would be a hard pill to swallow.

    “It’s not an easy vote for people like me, who are considered to be environmentalists. I consider myself to be that,” said Cleaver, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. “I think what we’re seeing is desperation now.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70174.html#ixzz1g33TgkkU

    • December 9, 2011 at 9:49 am

      ARGHHHHH. Why in the world is he even saying crap like that? OMG, I swear this crop of Congressional Dems are pathetic.

    • 172 Linda
      December 9, 2011 at 9:50 am

      Will he call it a Satan Sandwich and blame President Obama like last time ?

    • December 9, 2011 at 10:07 am

      Is this the Satan Sandwich guy? LOL..for heavens sakes.

    • 174 Lovepolitics2008
      December 9, 2011 at 10:53 am

      Wow… I honestly don’t know how President Obama can keep his cool in dealing with such a party of knee-cappers.

    • December 9, 2011 at 11:00 am

      And he can say this because it’s not his call. It’s completely the President’s call on the pipeline. Congress doesn’t even vote on it.

    • December 9, 2011 at 11:46 am

      What a loser – he calls himself an “environmentalist”, but he’ll vote for a pipeline that will put millions in the pockets of a few in exchange for the health of local Americans? He would vote for the bill so he can get home for the holidays, instead of insisting that the GOP cooperate, and allowing the pipeline evaluation to proceed as planned? He’d vote for the pipeline, even though he says it’s bad government – knowing that the President has asked for Democratic support to hold steady? Wow.

      • 177 Chi
        December 9, 2011 at 8:22 pm

        Cleaver is a Clinton boy…

        Some of the key lobbyists for the Keystone XL project are former Clinton aides…

        I suspect they’ve been lobbying the shameless pay-to-play Cleaver…

  63. December 9, 2011 at 9:44 am

    The chairman of the Black caucus Mr. cleaver said on morning Joe that he will vote yes on the republican pipe line bill they attach to the middle class tax bill, even after hearing Obama said he will veto it. Mr. Cleaver is a Democrat and chairman of The Black caucus and Black so he know all the problem first hand this President goes through and yet he going along with the Republican and not the President. He stated he will vote yes for the bill on national TV even after the President say he will veto it on national TV. WTF. So he is telling the President to FU, WHY? Don’t forget that Sander is going around trashing the President and voting no on the President bill that will be payed for by taxing the rich, Obama bill will not touch SS but Sander going around on TV as a Democrat saying it will, Do you know how confusing this is to people, Mess like this is the reason the Healthcare bill was/is confusing. You had Republicans and Democrats Saying the HC bill was not good, That make people think Obama trying to pull something over on them. You got important democrat, members of the black caucus, the PL, voter suppression, the media,and the Republicans all campaigning against this President. Is there still HOPE?

  64. 180 JojoRaze
    December 9, 2011 at 9:45 am

    It was 100% political and I agree with it. Why give the right a big issue to campaign on when they have nothing? Also, the Prez would have gotten Dukakis’d. People would ask him how he would feel if Sasha or Malia took Plan B and then it would be nonstop “The president supports 10 year-olds having sex.” “The president is intruding in your relationship with your children!”

    The left angst over this is a caricature of how people on the right view the left–uncaring about childhood, empowering children over their parents. If you are pregnant at 10 or 13, you need to talk to a health care professional any way you can. Dispensing Plan B like Chiclets to 10 year olds or 13 year olds is not the way at all.

    Also: I’m loving how the PL, which mistrusts greatly big PHARMA are now saying that the manufacturer did rigorous, scientific studies to show this drug is safe for use for 12 year olds. Huh? You believe a drug manufacturer who would love to get its product out to kids?

  65. 182 Jessica
    December 9, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Thank God I’ve come to a place with people who see both sides. I agree with Sebelius and Obama not just because I’m a supporter but because I believe it’s the right decision. This isn’t a women’s rights issue (or even a minor’s reproductive rights issue), it’s a parental issue. If they had agreed with the FDA and made this available to girls of any reproductive age it’s opening up a serious can of worms (not politics wise). Parents want to be involved in their kids life, they want their kids to come to them and talk about their feelings and issues. If they were to allow this you could be erasing parents from the right to know if their daughters are taking hormone-filled drugs. You have to get a prescription to get regular birth control why should Plan B be any different when it’s a highly condensed version of the same thing. I got into an exchange with someone on Twitter and her reasoning was that 11, 12 year-olds won’t take it is because it’s $50. Umm, get your head out of the clouds. I know middle school kids with Credit and debit cards. Gtfoohwtmfbs.

    Now from the other point of view I do think at least a 16 year-old (maybe even 15) should be able to buy it but absolutely no lower then that. And in instances of rape and abuse I see their argument that they might not have an adult to go to but having access to these pills will not solve the problem. It’s just a quick fix for a bigger problem. It’s like putting a band-aid on a gushing wound. If a 11-16 is getting abused they need to seek help from authorities and medical professionals anyway and not use these pills to cover up the problem.

    I could go on and on but you catch my drift. I know grown women who pop these pills like candy imagine if young girls start doing.

  66. 183 Wanda N VA 4 Obama
    December 9, 2011 at 9:48 am

    I lurk daily but don’t post often. But I have to say Bravo to Chips on this subject. I am pro choice and I’m a grandmother of 2 girls. I agree whole heartedly with Sec Sebelius’s decision and Pres Obama for having her back.

    • December 9, 2011 at 10:19 am

      Welcome, Wanda. I lived in NOVA for 17 years. Obviously, in TN now. We were up there for Thanksgiving. Love seeing our friends but DO NOT MISS THE TRAFFIC and CONGESTION!!! This blog is my lifeline!!!!

  67. December 9, 2011 at 9:51 am

    45 GOP Senators Filibustering Consumer Protection Nominee Have Received Millions From Wall Street This Year
    By Pat Garofalo on Dec 8, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Forty-five Republican senators have pledged to block any nominee until structural changes are made to the Bureau that would undermine its effectiveness. Wall Street banks have been fighting the new agency tooth and nail, and as it turns out, the 45 Republicans who have vowed to block the agency’s director have been lavished with donations from the financial services industry, as the Public Campaign Action Fund noted:

    The 44 Senate Republicans who signed a letter in May pledging to filibuster any CFPB nominee (plus Sen. Dean Heller who later added his name once appointed to the Senate) have received over $6.5 million from the financial industry in 2011 and nearly $125.6 million over their careers.



  68. 186 utaustinliberal
    December 9, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Thanks for this rant Chips. Thanks to you; I’m having a twitter conversation with her right now & she’s trying to justify that BS about calling PBO hen pecked.

  69. December 9, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Children are children and should be treated as such,plus sex so young is not something to push for. Why is society fast tracking them and encouraging them to ‘forceripe’ ( as we say here in Trinidad) before their time? Girls, not women! The consequence of all this is the’ ‘babies making babies’ story ‘ which leads to all sorts of problems later on,with these same misdirected set, griping about ill-discipline,the poor,who is on welfare, etc. .
    The priniciple here is to encourage children to savour their youth with productive and positive endeavours, on their journey to womanhood,not make them little women before they are ready. Um, the Obama fixation has become a sickness with this lot,who are still singing the same old memes fighting and struggling hard with the fact that this President is strong,articulate,sharp and his own person,which leads me to think 3 years later,that ‘they’ just don’t get it and ‘they’ are stuck!

  70. 189 Don
    December 9, 2011 at 9:53 am

    Chips, your rant was very thought provoking about a subject that is very emotional on whichever side you come do on. But the difference between an “Obamabot” and a “PL’r” is that we can see both sides of the issue and although we may disagree with the President, we don’t take his decision as some sort of a double-crossing appeasement and capitulation to whatever rightwing talking point of the day is. In other words, we may disagree with our President, but we know he still has our wellbeing in mind.

  71. December 9, 2011 at 9:55 am

    Machinists approve Boeing contract
    Samantha StainburnDecember 8, 2011 18:08

    Members of the machinists union at Boeing Co. have approved a new four-year contract that will raise workers’ healthcare expenses, but keep work in Seattle. About 74 percent of the 31,000-member union voted to accept the contract yesterday, Bloomberg Businessweek reported.

    According to The Associated Press: Boeing promised that if workers approved the pact, the company would build the new version of the popular 737 in the Puget Sound region, while the Machinists said they’d drop their allegations that Boeing opened a nonunion assembly plant in South Carolina in retaliation for previous strike.

    Other incentives to accept the contract, according to Bloomberg Businessweek: annual wage increases of 2 percent, cost-of-living adjustments, an incentive program designed to pay bonuses between 2 percent and 4 percent and a ratification bonus of $5,000 for each member.



  72. December 9, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Facts on American Teens’ Sexual and Reproductive Health
    August 2011


    • Although only 13% of teens have ever had vaginal sex by age 15, sexual activity is common by the late teen years. By their 19th birthday, seven in 10 teens of both sexes have had intercourse. [1]

    • On average, young people have sex for the first time at about age 17,[2,3] but they do not marry until their mid-20s. [4] This means that young adults are at increased risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) for nearly a decade.

    • Teens have been waiting longer to have sex than they did in the recent past. In 2006–2008, some 11% of never-married females aged 15–19 and 14% of never-married males that age had had sex before age 15, compared with 19% and 21%, respectively, in 1995. [1]

    • However, after substantial declines in the proportion of teens who had ever had sex between 1995 and 2002, the level did not change significantly from 2002 to 2006–2008. [1]

    • In 2006–2008, the most common reason that sexually inexperienced teens gave for not having had sex was that it was “against religion or morals” (42% among females and 35% among males). The second and third most common reasons for females were “don’t want to get pregnant” and “haven’t found the right person yet.” [1]

    • Among sexually experienced teens, 72% of females and 56% of males report that their first sexual experience was with a steady partner, while 14% of females and 25% of males report a first sexual experience with someone whom they had just met or who was just a friend. [1]

    • Seven percent of young women aged 18–24 who had had sex before age 20 report that their first sexual experience was involuntary. Those whose first partner was three or more years their senior were more likely to report this than were other women in that age-group. [1]



  73. 193 Pamela
    December 9, 2011 at 10:07 am

    Thank you, Chipsticks, for the well-written and pointed argument. I, too, no longer try to fathom what these people are saying, but that won’t mean many others will listen, and thinking there is credibility, be influenced by a distorted mentality such as this Salon contributor. I guess we could always lower the drinking age to 13, or heck, 10, if these modern youngsters are so ca able and mature! Well? But it occurred to me while reading some of the comments, if this bill were to pass, and that ill becomes available, chances are statistics will prove it will be most heavily sought after in Texas, where, after all, abstinence is the fool proof method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies! Just sayin’…….

  74. 194 ChristiMtl
    December 9, 2011 at 10:09 am

    I read so many disgusting things yesterday, thanks for the rant Chips!! I feel the same way.

    Yesterday I read Katha Pollit’s article in the Nation that was linked on Twitter,

    ”This is politics. Pure politics. The Obama administration values the Catholic bishops, the Family Research Council, Rush Limbaugh and the swing voters of Ohio more than the pro-choice Democratic women who make up way more than their share of his base – women who campaigned for him, donated to him, knocked on doors for him, left Hillary Clinton for him. He must be assuming that we are captive voters – we have no place to go.”

    ”left Hillary Clinton for him”…..this is BS.

    They are PUMA, they never got over it…..they hate the President.

    It takes maturity to get over a disappointment….they have none, they are ego driven and extremely immature. How many times did this happen? Over and over and over again………they have been bashing the President from day one….depending what the outrage of the day is.

    I can’t stand them…vile hypocrites.

    • December 9, 2011 at 11:32 am

      They keep wanting him to prove himself to them. They conveniently forget his record, and look for any reason to freak out. They ignore the fact of Lilly Ledbetter, the Office of Women and Girls, the two female Supreme Court Justices, the defense of abortion rights – there’s a whole slew of achievements for women, and an obvious respect for women from this Administration, and it offends me to hear this nonsense from the PUMA’s. It’s a distortion of the truth, and it displays a complete lack of virtuous conviction for the actual cause of women’s health and protection of girls. The issue isn’t about forcing children to need adult intervention to obtain a massive dose of hormones to prevent a pregnancy. The real issue is that a child would need to.

      Exactly where do is this place that she’s threatening they will go – freeing them from captivity? To the third party candidate, who will somehow rewind the clock and usher in a Hillary presidency? I was a Hillary fan, too, but once I educated myself on Barack Obama, and after watching him for three years as President – I have no doubt that the right person is in the Oval Office and the right person is the Secretary of State.

  75. December 9, 2011 at 10:10 am

    Israeli airstrike kills 1 civilian, injures 25: Gaza official
    Associated Press, Updated: December 09, 2011 17:04 IST

    Gaza strip: Israeli aircraft fired missiles at militant facilities in the Gaza Strip early on Friday, killing a Palestinian civilian and wounding 25 other people, Gaza officials said, as a new round of violence in the area threatened to escalate into a wider confrontation.

    The airstrikes, confirmed by the Israeli military, followed Israeli air attacks a day earlier that killed two Islamic militants and touched off rocket fire from Gaza on southern Israel. The rockets caused no casualties but further increased tensions.

    Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/israeli-airstrike-kills-1-civilian-injures-25-gaza-official-156711?pfrom=home-world&cp

  76. 197 debbyeOh
    December 9, 2011 at 10:13 am

    Good morning Chips! You hit this one out of the park! I am a proud Obot, like you said we are honest about our feelings and we support the President. I’m gonna bookmark this one. Thank you!

  77. 198 Me4obama (@Me4obama)
    December 9, 2011 at 10:14 am


    That’s a RW blog but I just wanted to pass on the Good Coverage the “Ask Osama Bin Laden” got from the Evening News. Bravo Mr. President.

    • 199 Me4obama (@Me4obama)
      December 9, 2011 at 10:25 am


      John King did a good Job on the “Ask Osama Bin Laden Quote” it’s a RW blog but it is worth it. Don’t read the comments.

      • December 9, 2011 at 11:20 am

        I love it! And, for once, John King actually did a balanced, fair, honest assessment of the situation. Although, I’d like to know what this “long list” of failures in foreign policy would be – that’s a crock. And as for the economy being a weakness for President Obama – can anyone honestly say that they trust those GOP yahoos to be able to fix the economy for anyone except the very rich, who are already well out of recession and enjoying record profits? Anyone thinking that the state of the economy should drive voters to the GOP, who have offered ZERO solutions, must think very little of the American people. I hope Americans prove them wrong.

    • 201 halo
      December 9, 2011 at 10:34 am

      The teabaggerson that blog are so frustrated because they can’t blieve that OUR GUY did what they had 8 years to do.

  78. 202 Linda
    December 9, 2011 at 10:16 am

    In 2008 Gingrich said that Bush should have allowed a few terrorist attacks to happen just to ” remind us ” they were keeping us safe.

    • 203 lovingandlaughing
      December 9, 2011 at 11:01 am

      ah, now that is scary!

      • December 9, 2011 at 1:13 pm

        Wow… I agree that he should be automatically disqualified for this remark. He’s not just a egotistical loon, he’s a scary one.
        Btw, righteous rant Chip. They made the right call on plan B in regards to minors.

    • December 9, 2011 at 11:13 am

      This needs to go viral – and should immediately disqualify him for the Commander-in-Chief position. What a disgusting thought – it says a lot that he felt he could express this publicly. These people don’t regard American people as humans; just vehicles for making more money or getting more power.

  79. December 9, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Misleading Wisconsin Form Asks Residents For Photo ID To Get A Birth Certificate, Which Is Needed To Get A Photo ID
    By Scott Keyes on Dec 7, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    When Wisconsin citizens go to the polls next year, they will be asked to provide photo identification for the first time in the state’s history. If they don’t have an acceptable form of photo ID, they will not be allowed to vote. Because many residents lack photo IDs, especially poorer and rural citizens, over 3 million people could be disenfranchised in the 2012 election, according to a nonpartisan Brennan Center study.

    Though Wisconsin offers a “free” photo ID to its residents, a birth certificate is necessary in order to obtain it, copies of which cost at least $20. This requirement creates a major barrier for many citizens, including Ruthelle Frank, an 84-year-old Wisconsin woman who, because of a difficult home birth, doesn’t have an official birth certificate and now must pay as much as $200 to get one simply to satisfy the “free” photo ID requirements. However, if Wisconsin residents like Frank go online to print out the birth certificate application, the form asks at the top for “CURRENT VALID PHOTO ID” and “PHOTO ID NUMBER”.

    In other words, citizens simply looking to vote are led to believe they are caught in a catch-22: you need a birth certificate to get a photo ID, but you need a photo ID to get a birth certificate. On the explanatory page attached to the application, it clarifies that a photo ID is indeed not required to get a copy of one’s birth certificate. However, this fact is obscured at the bottom of a long page of text and located far from the original request for photo ID.

    It is no stretch to imagine that the average Wisconsinite will read the topline demand for a current valid photo ID and, because she lacks one, will assume she is unable to get a birth certificate and unable to vote. Wisconsin officials are aware of the problem, yet appear in no hurry to remedy it.



  80. 207 halo
    December 9, 2011 at 10:32 am


  81. 208 dotster3
    December 9, 2011 at 10:38 am

    As a mom of 3 daughters, agree with Chips rant wholeheartedly.

  82. 209 utaustinliberal
    December 9, 2011 at 10:44 am

    I love it when I can point out truth to emoprogs & PUMAs like Traister & shut her BS up. Thanks for the rant Chips. I used it in a loooooong twitter conversation with @rtraister to point out how full of crap her article aka personal rabid rant was. Another day; another emoprog BS shut down. 😀

  83. 211 24Sass
    December 9, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Excellent rant Chips. I agree with the President’s thoughtful comment on Plan B. If he had said Sebelius was wrong the same ones screaming today would be screaming in the opposite. They outed themselves long ago.

  84. December 9, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Brilliant rant, Chips. Your writing was a joy to read. When I read the quotes from this woman I immediately recognized the extremist feminism that I remember so well from the seventies. I see it today in women who gravitate to ‘women’s groups’ and try to dominate the groups with their authoritarian and irrational outlook. These same women tend to be bullies and pick one or two women who might disagree with them to harass out of the group with gossip and backbiting. Ugly indeed.

  85. December 9, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Hi everyone, thanks a million for all your replies, really enjoyed reading them, you made so many great points I didn’t even think of. Enjoyed the ‘chat’ so much, thanks again.

  86. 214 Julie
    December 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Thank you for that well thought out post. Very well done, very smart. You folks here at TOD are sanity savers and I love you guys!

  87. December 9, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    Hi Chips. Thanks for making my day(you make it all the time). I totally concur with your great rant!!!!!!! This is why I love you and my TOD Family!!!!! Lying here taking it all in. (My nurse sits on the computer.) Very professional and caring nurse, however.

    DO NOT Worry, Chipsticks and my wonderful family. Taking it easy after a very serious bout. I pray, meditate ,and try to be quiet. I will make it.

    I miss you all so very, very, very much, but I did not want Chipsticks and my family here to worry. I will be in when I get permission.

    I love you all soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo very much!!!!!!!!!!!((((((((((((((((((( HUGS))))))))))))))))))))HZ

  88. 216 sjterrid
    December 10, 2011 at 4:59 am

    HZ, you are in my thoughts and prayers. I hope you recover soon.

Comments are currently closed.







Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email.



RSS Obama White House.gov

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS WH Tumblr

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Steve Benen

  • 'We simply cannot afford to leave people behind,' says House member
  • Joe: When you follow Trump, he'll take you into the sewer and keep you there (as long as it suits him)
  • Aly Raisman discusses difficulty of 'healing in her private moments' while trauma is so public
  • 'There is no executive privilege for sedition': Joe's message to Trump on Jan. 6 subpoenas
  • Psaki: GOP could raise debt limit tomorrow. Instead, they ‘play games with our economy.’



Blog Stats

  • 43,104,567 hits
December 2011

%d bloggers like this: