Obama leads in several key states

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Stark Contrast: Obama Working to Create Jobs While Snyder and GOP Working to Destroy Jobs

Just you wait my millionaire friends
will create jobs any day now.

From Michigan Democratic Party

GOP’s Elimination of Alternative Energy Credits Hurts Job Creation

LANSING – President Barack Obama visits Michigan today to tout the success of the job-creating advanced battery federal tax credits. Federal credits and grants have helped to create thousands of good-paying jobs in Michigan and have made the Great Lakes State the nation’s leader in the fast-growing auto advanced battery sector.

“President Obama and state and federal Democrats are working to create good-paying jobs in Michigan while Governor Snyder and the Republicans are working to destroy jobs,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “These federal tax credits and grants have been a proven success – helping to lure new businesses and thousands of good-paying jobs to Michigan.”

“Governor Snyder and legislative Republicans have chosen to eliminate credits like these which will cost Michigan jobs,” added Brewer. “President Obama is working to fix our economy while the Republicans seem dead set on destroying it.”

A new study shows that Michigan leads the nation in “green” auto jobs with nearly 40,000 workers. The study also concludes that Michigan has great growth potential. You can read the study here (http://detnews.com/article/20110810/AUTO01/108100361). Other studies have shown the job-creating potential for renewable energy in Michigan. You can read about that study here (http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/clean-energy-investment-would-5323.html#.Tibvsgx9nwc.twitter).

Right-Wing Media Launches Kitchen Sink Attack On Obama's Afghanistan Speech

From Media Matters

The right-wing media reacted to President Obama's address on troop withdrawals in Afghanistan by dredging up familiar, petty attacks, such as criticizing the number of times Obama referred to himself, and claiming the address was a "campaign speech" instead of a "war update." This follows a long history of the right-wing media launching frivolous attacks over speeches Obama makes on all manner of issues.

Attack: Obama Said "I" Too Many Times

Hannity: "I Heard The President Mention Himself, 'I, I, Me, I, I, I,' I Think About A Dozen Times."On the June 22 edition of Fox News' Hannity, host Sean Hannity said, "The one thing -- I don't know if you noticed this -- I didn't hear General Petraeus' name. I heard the President mention himself, 'I, I, me, I, I, I,' I think about a dozen times. I didn't hear him mention General Petraeus in this speech. That was an omission? How is that possible?" [Fox News, Hannity, 6/22/11, via Media Matters]

Fox & Friends Counts The Number Of Times Obama Said "I" During Speech. The June 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends edited Obama's speech to isolate the number of times Obama said "I." The segment featured a running counter in the corner of the screen. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/23/11, viaMedia Matters]

Attack: Address Was A "Campaign Speech"

FoxNews.com: "The President Chose To Use The East Room Of The White House To Offer ... A Campaign Speech." In a June 22 FoxNews.com op-ed, DC International Advisory President and former aide to Dick Cheney Stephen Yates wrote:

Americans can be forgiven for wondering what exactly was offered up by their president as he announced his timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan Wednesday night. Quite naturally they would anticipate an update on progress made in the year and a half since he announced deployment of the surge - albeit half of the forces requested by his battlefield commander.

On that count, President Obama delivered as expected, reporting success and announcing the withdrawal of surge forces over the next year. That 30-second bit of information could have capably been delivered from the White House press podium or in a brief televised update from the Oval Office (which this president -- unlike all recent predecessors -- oddly seems to avoid).
Instead, the president chose to use the East Room of the White House to offer a fairly simple campaign speech, not a war update or national security strategy. [FoxNews.com,6/22/11]

Fox Nation: "In Afghanistan Remarks, Obama Offers A Campaign Speech Not A War Update Or National Security Strategy." Fox Nation linked to the Fox News op-ed under the headline, "In Afghanistan Remarks, Obama Offers a Campaign Speech Not a War Update or National Security Strategy." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 6/22/11]

Attack: Obama Shouldn't Have Mentioned Jobs Or Clean Energy

Obama: Instead Of War, "We Must Invest In America's Greatest Resource - Our People." From President Obama's June 22 speech:

Above all, we are a nation whose strength abroad has been anchored in opportunity for our citizens here at home.  Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war, at a time of rising debt and hard economic times.  Now, we must invest in America's greatest resource -- our people.  We must unleash innovation that creates new jobs and industries, while living within our means.  We must rebuild our infrastructure and find new and clean sources of energy.  And most of all, after a decade of passionate debate, we must recapture the common purpose that we shared at the beginning of this time of war.  For our nation draws strength from our differences, and when our union is strong no hill is too steep, no horizon is beyond our reach.

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home. [WhiteHouse.gov, Remarks by the President on the Way Forward in Afghanistan, 6/22/11]

Power Line: "The Promotion Of 'Green Jobs' Doesn't Really Belong In This Speech." In a June 23 post on Power Line, blogger Scott Johnson wrote, "Speaking of unintended humor, the promotion of 'green jobs' really doesn't belong in this speech. It may be time to rewrite Samuel Johnson to say that 'green jobs' are the last refuge of a scoundrel." [Power Line, 6/23/11]

Fox Nation: "Obama Pushes Green Energy In Afghan Speech." A June 23 post on Fox Nation linked to the American Spectator blog under the headline, "Obama Pushes Green Energy in Afghan Speech." From Fox Nation:

[Fox Nation, 6/23/11]

Attack: Speech Was Obama's "Mission Accomplished" Moment

Ace Of Spades: "Obama's Mission Accomplished Speech." On his blog Ace of Spades, blogger Ace titled a short post on Obama's address "Obama's Mission Accomplished Speech" and went on to write, "We fought this war, but I made all the right decisions." It was posted two minutes after President Obama began speaking. [Ace of Spaces, 6/22/11]

Red State: "Mission Accomplished - Just [Don't] Ask How." A June 22 post on the conservative blog Red State had the subtitle, "Mission Accomplished - Just Don\'t [sic] Ask How." The post went on to state, "Whatever you do, though, don't forget tonight's declaration of success in a war whose purpose most Americans have long forgotten -- just don't ask how that success was achieved, how it's being defined, or how long it can be expected to last." [Red State, 6/22/11]

WSJ: "We Half Expected To See A 'Mission Accomplished' Banner Somewhere In The Background." A June 22 Wall Street Journal editorial stated:

President Obama delivered a remarkable speech last night, essentially unplugging the Afghanistan troop surge he proposed only 18 months ago and doing so before its goals have been achieved. We half expected to see a "mission accomplished" banner somewhere in the background. [Wall Street Journal, 6/22/11]

Fox & Friends Text: "Mission Accomplished?" The co-hosts of Fox News' Fox & Friends discussed Obama's speech several times during the June 23 edition of the show. During one segment, the following text aired on screen:

[Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/23/11]

Nothing New Here: Right-Wing Media Consistently Attack Obama's Speeches

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's 2009 Cairo Address. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked President Obama's 2009 address in Cairo, Egypt on relations with the Muslim world.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's Cairo speech, SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's Address On Libya. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked Obama's address on military actions in Libya.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's Libya speech, SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's 2011 State Of The Union Address. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked Obama's 2011 State of the Union address.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's 2011 State of the Union address,SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's 2010 State Of The Union Address. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media also attacked Obama's 2010 State of the Union address.

For more information about the right-wing media's attack on Obama's 2010 State of the Union address,SEE HERE.

Right-Wing Media Attack Obama's Memorial Address Honoring The Victims Of The January 2011, Tucson, AZ Shooting. As Media Matters has noted, the right-wing media attacked Obama's memorial speech following the January 2011 shooting in Tucson, AZ.

Right-Wing Media Claim Obama "Lost Egypt," But Can't Agree On Why

From Media Matters:

Right-wing media outlets have begun claiming that President Obama has "lost Egypt" due to his reaction to the unrest in that country. But they do not agree on whether Obama lost Egypt because he is too supportive of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak, is not supportive enough, or is doing something else wrong. Right-Wing Media Rush To Attack Obama For Supposedly Losing Egypt Dick Morris: Obama Should Be Standing With Mubarak. From Dick Morris' January 30 syndicated column: In the 1950s, the accusation "who lost China" resonated throughout American politics and led to the defeat of the Democratic Party in the presidential elections of 1952. Unless President Barack Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the modern equivalent of the 1952 question: Who Lost Egypt? The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led former President Jimmy Carter to fail to support the shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran. The United States has enormous leverage in Egypt -- far more than it had in Iran. We provide Egypt with upwards of $2 billion a year in foreign aid under the provisos of the Camp David accords orchestrated by Carter. The Egyptian military, in particular, receives $1.3 billion of this money. The United States, as the pay master, needs to send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead, Obama has put our military aid to Egypt "under review" to pressure Mubarak to mute his response to the demonstrators and has given top priority to "preventing the loss of human life." Obama should say that Egypt has always been a friend of the United States. He should point out that it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. He should recall that President Anwar Sadat, who signed the peace accords, paid for doing so with his life and that President Hosni Mubarak has carried on in his footsteps. He should condemn the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood extremists to take over the country and indicate that America stands by her longtime ally. He should address the need for reform and urge Mubarak to enact needed changes. But his emphasis should be on standing with our ally. [Newsmax, 1/30/11] Fox's Ralph Peters: Obama Risks Being On the Wrong Side Of History By Standing By Mubarak. In contrast with Morris, Fox News contributor Col. Ralph Peters (ret.) attacked Obama for not supporting anti-Mubarak protestors sufficiently. Peters urged Obama to get "on the right side of history": PETERS: As far as empowering the Islamists, it's not Al Jazeera. They are just rebel rousers and opportunists. By continuing to support dictatorships in the Middle East, for short -- short-term stability, we -- we -- we will -- we kill ourselves long term because to talk -- to talk about yesteryear, the Shah always falls. The dictator always comes down. And you want to be on the right side of history. Right now we're not. O'REILLY: Yes but sometimes, Colonel, sometimes there is no right side. And -- and I think back to the El Salvador war that I covered in the early `80s. There were no good guys. Both sides were bad. In Iran there were no good guys. You had the Ayatollah who has turned that country into -- probably the worst country on earth and you had the Shah, who is a human rights abuser. So sometimes there isn't anybody to support. And I think that's what all the presidents from Richard Nixon on up have thought about Egypt after Sadat was killed. And Sadat, you know, he was a nut crazy guy, Mubarak took over and every president, liberal Jimmy Carter, liberal Barack Obama, ok, they have to play ball with them because the alternative is Islamists, that's who is in the wings. PETERS: No, no that's who is in the wings, but whether or not the Islamists get the center stage depends on, partly on our actions. And Obama needs to get out front and center on this. He can't let his henchman Hillary Clinton or Robert Gibbs state it. The Arab world and the Egyptians are listening. And Obama can't split the difference. This guy always wants to split the difference. There is a right side; that's the winning side. (CROSS TALK) O'REILLY: Ok but - PETERS: And the winning side of history is the people. And we need to get on it. [Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, 1/28/11, accessed via Nexis] Washington Times Attacks Obama For Not Taking "Action" On Egypt Situation. From a Washington Times editorial: The Obama team clearly was not ready for the events of the last few weeks and has abrogated any leadership role in resolving the turmoil in Egypt. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton summed up the feckless administration stance when she said Sunday, "We're not advocating a specific outcome." This is a lose-lose position for Mr. Obama. If the opposition takes over, it is no thanks to him, and America will have no legitimacy dealing with the new government. If Mubarak stays in power, his regime might rethink its ties to a faithless ally in Washington. Apparently incapable of shaping events, the White House is making a virtue of necessity. When the time calls for action, Mr. Obama sits on his hands. Islamic extremists are giddy over the possibility of the region's largest pro-American domino falling. Liberal oppositionists are calling for a united front government with the Muslim Brotherhood, a compromise measure that will surely prove fatal when the current regime collapses and the moderates are left to face off with the extremists. Given the precedent set in Iran - as well as in the Russian and French Revolutions - the liberals will not last long. At that point, Mr. Obama will be even less capable of dictating a "specific outcome," even if he cared to try. The future could witness al Qaeda No. 2 and former Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood stalwart Ayman al Zawahiri making a triumphant return to Cairo. The administration should immediately draw down the number of personnel in the U.S. embassy in Cairo. A hostage crisis may be the only part of this Carteresque rerun Mr. Obama can avoid. [Washington Times, 1/30/11] Weekly Standard's Hayes: Obama Could Be "On The Wrong Side Of History" If He Backs Mubarak. On Special Report with Bret Baier, Weekly Standard senior writer Steve Hayes stated: HAYES: It's a tough line the White House has to walk because the prospect of Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt is certainly discouraging. There is a risk the White House could end up being on the wrong side of history here with President Obama's remarks seeming to get the back of Mubarak even with his word about the protesters. And just yesterday as the region is turning toward a messy democracy, you have the United States ambassador to sierra presenting his credentials to Basher Assad. [Fox News' Special Report, 1/28/11, accessed via Nexis] Fox Nation: "Obama Will Go Down In History As The President Who Lost Egypt." Fox Nation posted a headline stating "Obama Will Go Down in History as the President Who Lost Egypt": [Fox Nation, 1/31/11] Fox Nation linked to a Haaretz article with the same headline. From the article: Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as "the president who lost Iran," which during his term went from being a major strategic ally of the United States to being the revolutionary Islamic Republic. Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who "lost" Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America's alliances in the Middle East crumbled. The superficial circumstances are similar. In both cases, a United States in financial crisis and after failed wars loses global influence under a leftist president whose good intentions are interpreted abroad as expressions of weakness. The results are reflected in the fall of regimes that were dependent on their relationship with Washington for survival, or in a change in their orientation, as with Ankara. [...] The street revolts in Tunisia and Egypt showed that the United States can do very little to save its friends from the wrath of their citizens. Now Obama will come under fire for not getting close to the Egyptian opposition leaders soon enough and not demanding that Mubarak release his opponents from jail. He will be accused of not pushing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hard enough to stop the settlements and thus indirectly quell the rising tides of anger in the Muslim world. But that's a case of 20:20 hindsight. There's no guarantee that the Egyptian or Tunisian masses would have been willing to live in a repressive regime even if construction in Ariel was halted or a few opposition figures were released from jail. [Haaretz, 1/30/11] Fox's Kelly: "There Is Concern" That Obama "Could Go Down In History As The President Who Lost Egypt." Introducing a panel discussion on the situation in Egypt, Fox News host Megyn Kelly stated: KELLY: Well the chaos in Egypt is creating a diplomatic dilemma for the United States. There is concern today that Mr. Obama could go down in history as the president who lost Egypt, a critical ally of ours in the Middle East, some comparing him to President Jimmy Carter who saw a pro-Western government in Iran fall to radical Islamists on his watch. Joining me now: K.T. McFarland, a Fox News national security analyst; Walid Phares, Middle East expert and author of The Coming Revolution: The Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East; and Bernard Whitman, former Bill Clinton pollster and a Democratic strategist. Panel, thank you so much for being here with me. BERNARD WHITMAN (Democratic strategist): Thank you. KELLY: So that -- I want to start with that, Walid, the question of could President Obama go down in history as the man, the president who lost Egypt, and what does that mean? [Fox News' America Live, 1/31/11] Investor's Business Daily: "Obama Sure Picked A Foolish Place To Give A Community-Organizing Speech." From an Investor's Business Daily editorial headlined "Will Obama Lose Egypt?": In 2009, the Egyptian daily Almasry Alyoum reported that President Obama secretly met in Washington that year with representatives of Egypt's jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas ally that, while banned, dominates the opposition in the country. Obama also chose Egypt as the locale for his ill-conceived Muslim outreach speech in June 2009. As Newsweek's Jonathan Alter points out in his White House-friendly book on the president's first year, "The Promise," "Obama never said the words 'terrorism,' 'terrorist,' or 'war on terror'" in the speech, because "the t-word had become inflammatory to Muslims" and the "faster way to the hearts and minds of a Muslim audience was to talk about the tensions between Islam and the West in a different key." Bet the president didn't think he was planting the seeds of today's protests in Egypt. But what does he expect when he goes to a country in a decades-long police-enforced state of emergency, with tens of thousands of political prisoners, and announces that "you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion"? [...] Embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was as afraid of real capitalism as of political dissent. The Heritage Foundation's latest Index of Economic Freedom gives Egypt poor marks despite recent "incremental reforms to liberalize the socialist economy." Egypt's GDP growth fell markedly in the wake of the global financial crisis, and government corruption and the lack of a dependable rule of law in the economic sphere are factors that have kept poverty and unemployment painfully high -- poisonously mixed with political repression. Even so, should Mubarak fall, there is real danger of the Islamic Brotherhood imperiling this U.S. ally. Barack Obama sure picked a foolish place to give a community-organizing speech. [Investor's Business Daily, 1/28/11] Other Conservative Figures Praise Obama's Handling Of Egypt Politico: Boehner And McConnell "Are Backing Obama's Cautious Approach." From a January 30 Politico article: After months of pounding President Barack Obama on every front, Republican congressional leaders finally have found a reason to praise him -- his handling of the fast-moving crisis in Egypt. But while House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) are backing Obama's cautious approach, rank-and-file lawmakers are increasingly concerned about the U.S.'s stance. [...] "The administration, our administration, so far has handled this tense situation pretty well," Boehner said. "Clearly, reforms need to occur in Egypt." While Boehner was not asked directly about whether he would support Mubarak's replacement, an aide said he would have repeated the White House line -- now is not the time for American officials to be calling for a new leader. [Politico, 1/30/11] John Bolton: Obama Administration Officials "Have Stated The Correct Position." John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the Bush administration and a possible candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination stated on Fox News that the Obama administration has "stated the correct position" on Egypt. From the January 31 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom: BILL HEMMER (co-host): How did you think the administration handled this over the weekend? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was on all the talk shows on Sunday. How did she do? BOLTON: Well, I think they've stated the correct position. It is a real mistake to believe we can toss aside a long-term ally that has brought peace and stability with Israel, a cornerstone of our strategic policy in the Middle East and not pay the consequences for it. By and large, I'd say the less said the better at this point. It's a very uncertain situation. I think the real work is going on behind the scenes. [Fox News' America's Newsroom, 1/31/11] M.C.L Comment: There should be a contest to see who's the dumber news model on Fox News Megyn Kelly or Gretchen Carlson.

"They Couldn't Help It": Right-Wing Media Strain To Find Ways To Attack Obama's Memorial Speech

From Media Matters: Following Obama's widely praised address at the memorial for the victims of the Tucson shooting, the right-wing media have nonetheless strained to find ways to attack him. Their attacks have included the presence of T-shirts at the event -- which were reportedly handed out by the university -- the "pep-rally" atmosphere, and the timing of Obama's speech, among other things. Right-wing Media Invent Absurd Attacks On Obama's Memorial Speech Hoft Falsely Claims Obama "Fibbed" About Giffords "Opening Her Eyes For The First Time." In a January 13 post on his blog Gateway Pundit, blogger Jim Hoft linked to a cached article from the blog the Sonoran Chronicle, which misquoted Chief Trauma Surgeon Dr. Peter Rhee as having said in a press conference, "Giffords can open her eyes but because she is on a ventilator she can't speak." The Sonoran Chronicle post itself had been removed at the time of Hoft's posting. Yet, nonetheless, Hoft took the cached article as evidence that it "Looks Like Obama Fibbed About Giffords 'Opening Her Eyes for the First Time'" in his speech last night, and that it was a "very emotional moment" but "unfortunately it was not true." In fact, Rhee actually said in his January 9 press conference that Giffords "can't open her eyes at this point." From the press conference (emphasis added): RHEE: No, we can't get into too much more detail than what we already have. But I can tell you right now with the type of surgery, her eyes, she can't open her eyes at this point, mechanical standpoints, and she's also on the ventilator, so she can't speak at this time. [Gateway Pundit, 01/13/11; CNN, State of the Union With Candy Crowley, 01/09/11] Hoft: "They Couldn't Help It... Team Obama Hands Out T-Shirts at Pep Rally Memorial." In a January 12 Gateway Pundit post titled "They Couldn't Help It... Team Obama Hands Out T-Shirts at Pep Rally Memorial," Hoft wrote "Maybe it's something new? T-shirts at a pep rally memorial...Every memorial needs a special T-shirt. Doesn't it?" [Gateway Pundit, 01/12/11] Hoft: "It's A Pep Rally." In a January 12 Gateway Pundit post, Hoft wrote, "It's a pep rally...The screaming in the stands by the kids was a little annoying though. They need to discuss this at the next SEIU meeting." Hoft added that despite this, he felt it was "the best speech Obama has ever given." [Gateway Pundit, 01/12/11] Ace of Spades: "While I Have No Evidence [The T-Shirts Are] Obama's Fault I'm Sure He Is Just The Same." In a January 12 Ace of Spades post, Ace posted a picture of a volunteer laying the "Together We Thrive" T-shirts on the back of chairs and wrote "This has nothing to do with photo-ops. All memorial services and funerals have their own slogans and t-shirts these days. Didn't you know that?" Ace also claimed: Unfair: Actually, I don't have any evidence the t-shirts were put out by Obama's people. I suspect they were, but it could have been Brewer's people. It could also have been Giffords' family or supporters. For all I know Obama is just going along with this and might even have objected himself by saying, "T-shirts? Really?" But while I have no evidence it's Obama's fault I'm sure he is just the same. I learned that from the [mainstream media]. [Ace of Spades HQ, 01/12/11] Malkin Complains About Speech's "Timing" And "The Hooting, The Hollering, The Incredibly Inappropriate Tone." On the January 13 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor and blogger Michelle Malkin said the speech was at "the wrong time" and criticized the president for "waiting several days." She continued, "[Y]ou do have to question the timing of it, and as so many of my readers and viewers of that supposed memorial event reacted last night, the hooting, the hollering, the incredibly inappropriate tone and setting for something that should have been uniformly a somber occasion." Later in the interview, co-host Steve Doocy played video of Rep. Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), who was in attendance at the rally and said, "It wasn't a pep rally." Doocy said, "At our house ... we were expecting something very somber ... but it seemed like a political rally or a pep rally at some times." Malkin responded: MALKIN: Yeah. The University of Arizona put on this event and it even had a branding and a slogan of "Together We Strive" -- DOOCY: T-shirts. MALKIN: -- and blue T-shirts that were handed out to everyone as souvenirs, and it had a circus-like atmosphere from the very opening, with the opening prayer that seemed to ramble from the Native American speaker, and then all of the hooting and hollering, as I mentioned. And with all due respect to Congressman Wasserman-Schultz, I don't know what planet she was on because you could see it, you could hear it. [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 01/13/11] Malkin Calls Speech A "Bizarre Pep Rally," Complains About T-Shirts. In a January 12 post on MichelleMalkin.com, Malkin claimed she was "liveblogging the bizarre pep rally." Malkin's updates frequently cited "whoops and hollers" from the crowd and later called the performance of "Simple Gifts" by the choir "a rare moment of solace in the program." Malkin also complained about the presence of T-shirts and slogans featuring the "Together We Thrive" logo, claiming, "Yes, the Tucson massacre is being branded" (emphasis in original). Malkin continued: Attendees at the memorial tonight report that they are being handed out the blue and white t-shirts as they enter the venue. A reader in attendance tells me via Twitter that volunteers will be wearing red-and-white shirts. He's going to try and upload a photo. [...] Will there be giant foam fingers and blue cotton candy, too? Isn't the churning of the instant messaging machine a bit, well, unseemly? Can't the Democrat political stage managers give it a break just once? [Michelle Malkin, 01/12/11] Later, in an update, Malkin wrote: As noted above, the University of Arizona announced the Together We Thrive event -- and a few readers write in to say that the campus initiated the logo/campaign. Given U of A president Robert Shelton's embarrassing, thinly-veiled partisan cheerleading for Obama tonight, it may indeed be a 100 percent-campus-initiated campaign. Given the Obama White House's meticulous attention to stage prop details, however, I would say the odds of involvement by Axelrod/Plouffe & Co. are high. [Michelle Malkin, 01/12/11] Fox Nation: "Disrespectful: Memorial Turns Into Campaign Rally In Tucson." On January 13, Fox News' blog Fox Nation linked to a KTBS editorial under the headline "Disrespectful: Memorial Turns Into Campaign Rally in Tucson." From Fox Nation: [Fox Nation, 01/13/11] Disrespectful Obama speech FN NewsBusters Attacks "Here We Place Our Hands Over Our Hearts" Line From Speech. In a January 12 NewsBusters post, blogger Mark Finkelstein wrote: Concluding his remarks at the service in Tucson this evening for the victims of the recent shootings, Pres. Obama proclaimed: "here on this earth, we place our hands over our hearts." Which made me wonder: since when, Pres. Obama? Weren't you the man who ostentatiously declined, during the presidential campaign, to put your hand on your heart during the National Anthem while everyone else on the stage was doing so? [...] Will the MSM note the glaring discrepancy between Pres. Obama's current words and recent deeds? The post continued, "So Pres. Obama goes out of his way to talk of hand over heart. And his two cabinet officers preceding him at the podium quote the Bible at length, with Eric Holder mentioning Jesus. Some repositioning toward the traditional middle with 2012 in mind?" [NewsBusters, 01/12/11]

Rep. Lamar Smith Hints At Impeaching Obama Over Immigration: He’s ‘Close’ To Violating His Oath Of Office

By Amanda Terkel Since the Justice Department sued Arizona over SB-1070, its harsh new anti-immigration law, Republicans have been blasting the Obama administration, saying officials are showing “contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona’s efforts.” Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and David Vitter (R-LA) have even introduced an amendment that would prohibit the federal government from “participating in lawsuits seeking to invalidate the recently enacted Arizona immigration law.” On Wednesday, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) was on Lou Dobbs’ radio show and went a step further. He agreed with Dobbs’ statement that President Obama is “awfully close” to violating his “oath to protect the Constitution of the United States” by not completely securing the border: DOBBS: The fact that we’ve witnessed both the Bush administration and now the Obama administration…refuse to secure the borders, refuse to enforce immigration law — at what point does this rise to the level of a breach of oath to protect the Constitution of the United States? SMITH: I think we’re on the verge of being there right now. … Whatever law they’re not enforcing, I think it comes awfully close to a violation of their oath of office. Listen here: Neither Dobbs nor Smith mention the word impeachment, but in the past, a violation of the oath of office has been cited as grounds for such a procedure. During President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999, Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) said: The debate about impeachment during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 makes it clear that the Framers of the Constitution regarded impeachment and removal from office on conviction as a remedy for a fundamental betrayal of trust by the President. The Framers had invested the presidential office with great powers. They knew that those powers could be — and would be — abused if any President were to violate, in a fundamental way, the oath he had sworn to faithfully execute the nation’s laws. For if the President did so violate his oath of office, the covenant of trust between himself and the American people would be broken. Is Smith really therefore interested in impeaching Obama over the immigration issue? M.C.L comment: For all the illegal things they co-signed on when Bush was president Republicans should keep their mouths closed.

Inhofe slams Obama’s response to the oil spill: Bush’s ‘leadership’ during Katrina ‘looks pretty good right now.’

By Tanya Somanader In an interview last night with Newsmax, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) chided President Obama for his response to the BP oil disaster, stating that Obama “hasn’t made a good decision yet on that whole cleanup.” Claiming that Obama had “flunked” the test of presidential leadership, he saw President Bush’s handling of Hurricane Katrina as a

success story:

Remember the criticism George Bush got during Katrina? They said it was a lack of leadership. Let me tell you, that leadership looks pretty good right now.

This is the first time he’s had a really tough test and he flunked. It’s not just me that is saying he’s provided no leadership.

Inhofe’s comparison does in fact echo other top conservatives leaders’ enthusiasm to call BP’s oil spill “Obama’s Katrina.” But as Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum has pointed out, “Other than proximity to the Louisiana coast, this catastrophe has nothing in common with Hurricane Katrina: That was an unstoppable natural disaster that turned into a human tragedy because of an inadequate government response. This is just an unstoppable disaster, period. It will be a human tragedy precisely because no government response is possible.” A reminder here of how Bush delayed paying any real attention to Katrina for days.

President Obama at Michigan Commencement

Republicans Plan To Protest Obama By Firing Bullets ‘Into A Beat-Up Car Bearing Anti-Freedom Policy Ideas’

By Igor Volsky From tea bags to death panels, from thick thousand-page binders to “don’t tread on me” signs, Republicans have developed some creative ways to visually represent their opposition to

health care reform. Now, a conservative group has conceived a new novel way for angry Republicans to express their opposition to ObamaCare.

The Commonwealth Foundation is inviting Pennsylvania candidates for Senate and the governorship “to a shooting range to fire bullets into a junker that represents policy ideas it opposes.” The conservative foundation is billing its FreePA event as a “celebration of the freedoms we enjoy but are under attack by Harrisburg and Washington.” They argued the event embodies both “a healthy love for the right to keep and bear arms and CF’s habit of welcoming debate on the issues”:

The truth is that the opponents of our principles are the ones who refuse to engage in civil discourse about our pressing public policy problems. They know that their anti-freedom agenda is being rejected by the general public, so they won’t show up to public events like LiveFreePA and explain why they want to take away your rights and monitor your behavior, and then tell you and your family how to live your lives. Not only that, now they’re talking to the newspapers proclaiming how you should spend your Saturday on May 8th.

You know what? If I were a nanny-stater, I wouldn’t show up either. And I sure wouldn’t want you to come, have a good time, and show these politicians what gun safety and a sense of humor look like, and be encouraged to keep fighting for freedom. That’s why I hope you’ll join us May 8th to pump a few rounds (or fire a cannon…) into a beat-up car bearing anti-freedom policy ideas like “ObamaCare,” “Card Check,” “Cap and Trade,” and other failed, wealth-redistributionist ideas.

The group has invited “10 Republican and Democratic candidates to the May 8 event at a Lancaster County shooting range,” and so far all four Republicans and one Democrat, Jack Wagner, have confirmed that they’re attending. Admission is $65 for shooters and includes breakfast, lunch, beer, shooting activities and cigars!

Bachmann: ‘We’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed.’

By Matt Corley

Before President Obama took office in January 2009 in the midst of an economic crisis, Rush Limbaugh was rooting for his failure, declaring “I hope Obama fails.” Though some GOP leaders claimed that “no one wants” Obama “to fail,” Limbaugh’s comments were endorsed by many leading conservatives. In an interview with radio host Scott Hennen yesterday, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said that conservatives were hoping “that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed”:

HENNEN: I’m proudly accepting that label of rooting for failure for his policies, not for any one personal individual or anything else, but, I mean, should we, is that what Republicans are doing? Are we rooting for failure? Is David Axelrod right?

BACHMANN: We’re, we’re, we’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed, exactly as you said. And of course, David Axelrod unfortunately seems to be wanting to smear people who disagree with the president. We’ve seen that over and over at Tea Party events, at gatherings where people say, “look, I don’t like this idea of out of control spending and accumulating deficits that our kids have no possibility of paying back.” And to think that those of us, we who disagree with that very ill-thought out idea are being smeared, I think that’s really wrong.

Listen here:

Bachmann is free to disagree with Obama’s policies, and it’s not surprising that she thinks they are the wrong policies to pursue. But considering that the goal of something like the stimulus is to create jobs and help the economy recover, it’s odd that Bachmann would actively want Obama’s policies to fail. She might think it will fail, but why would she want it to fail in creating jobs? Media Matters’ Eric Boehlert has argued that because of “the right-wing’s obsessive campaign against Obama,” they “latch onto this idea that the economy is being driven off a cliff, which means that basically” they are “now rooting for bad news.”

M.C.L Comment:Do you guys remember the response from the right anytime a person made valid point against George W. Bush? If you don't here's a quick recap they were called anti-American, they were accused of siding with the terrorist and they also accused those Bush critics hating Bush so much you rather see the United States to crash and burn. Did they have any quotes to back up those claims? Hell no they didn't.

Yet the same people who accuse those of wanting the president to fail are now hoping the current president to fail.. Now they're trying to spin wanting the country crashing and burning are now saying "um well we mean his polices" that's like someone saying I don't want you to get hurt but here's a bottle of Jack and the keys to a sports car.

Even dim fembots like Michele Bachmann know if President Obama succeeds the Republicans have no shot of winning anything significant that's why they're hating the improving economic numbers because they have nothing to run on. Go to Mike Cox and Mike Bouchard and ask them what their plans for if they win the governorship and listen for the crickets.. They have nothing other than giving the elite in the state more tax breaks and they hope conditions worsen for they become an attractive alternative even tho they have no ideas.

Business Week: Public wrong, markets right, Obama plan working

By Ron Brynaert Never mind the polls, Mike Dorning seems to be suggesting in an article for Business Week which analyzes Obama administration's economic policies.

In a shorter version of the article for Bloomberg News, Dorning writes, "Americans believe, by an almost 2-to-1 margin, that the economy has gotten worse rather than better during the past year, according to the March Bloomberg National Poll. The market begs to differ, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports in its April 19 edition. While President Barack Obama’s overall job-approval rating has fallen to a low of 44 percent, down 5 points from late March according to a CBS News Poll, the judgment of financial markets has turned positive."

The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is up about 75 percent from its recession low in March 2009. Corporate bonds have been rallying for a year. Commodity prices have surged. International currency markets have been bullish on the dollar for months, raising it by about 10 percent since Nov. 25 against a basket of six major currencies. Housing prices have stabilized. Mortgage rates are around 5 percent, down from more than 8 percent in 2000, according to data from Freddie Mac, the McLean, Virginia-based mortgage buyer.

The article includes some favorable reviews of Obama:

"We've had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board," says Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak + Co., an institutional trading firm in New York. "If Obama was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the President. There is more business confidence out there," says Boeing (BA) CEO Jim McNerney. "This Administration deserves significant credit."

....

"When you take it all together, the response was massive, unprecedented, and ultimately successful," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com (MCO). Even Obama critics like Phil Swagel, assistant Treasury secretary for economic policy under George W. Bush, acknowledge that White House policies have been successful. "They could have done a better job" by spending more of the stimulus on corporate tax cuts to boost hiring and investment, says Swagel, now an economics professor at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. "But their economic policies, including the stimulus, have helped move the economy in the right direction."

"The reigning economic approach in Democratic circles for most of the past two decades has been Rubinomics, a term coined to describe a set of priorities fashioned in the 1990s by then- President Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin, the former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in New York," Dorning writes, in comparing Obamanomics to Rubinomics.

Martin Baily, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton administration, said he believes Rubin and the rest of the Clinton economic team would have made similar decisions -- on bailouts, fiscal stimulus and deficit spending -- had they faced a meltdown of similar magnitude.

“I think we would have gone the same way,” he said.

....

“A lot of people on the left were urging them to nationalize banks,” Baily said. “Instead they injected capital, and now they’re pulling capital out. That looks more like Rubinomics than a set of socialist or left-wing economic policies.”

The Obama economic team looks a lot like Rubin’s, too. Three of its most prominent members -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Chairman Lawrence Summers and White House budget director Peter Orszag -- are Rubin protégés.

At Common Dreams, Eamons Javers notes, "Behind the scenes, Rubin still wields enormous influence in Barack Obama's Washington, chatting regularly with a legion of former employees who dominate the ranks of the young administration's policy team. He speaks regularly to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who once worked for Rubin at Treasury."

"According to Geithner's public calendar, the Treasury Secretary spoke or met with Rubin at least four times in the first six months of Geithner's tenure," Javers continues. "Three of those chats, including an hour-long session in Rubin's New York office, came before President Obama released his Wall Street regulatory reform proposal in June of 2009."

Javers notes that Rubinomics is viewed by many of the Democractic "party's liberals as too pro-market and too anti-worker."

Weeks after beating McCain in November of 2008, The New York Times reported that "that as President-elect Barack Obama fills out his economic team, a virtual Rubin constellation is taking shape."

Another Times article from November of 2008 added, "Instead of deregulation, Mr. Obama has sworn to usher in a period of re-regulation, to avoid the freewheeling risks that Citigroup and the rest of the financial industry undertook after Mr. Rubin, with Mr. Summers, helped tear down the regulatory walls between banks, brokerages and insurance companies, and freed them to trade in unregulated and little-understood derivatives worth trillions of dollars. Mr. Geithner spent his first years as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York seeking ways to at least monitor those markets better."

Some liberals began to reconsider Rubinomics, the Times reported.

“Everyone recognizes that we’re looking at deficits of considerable magnitude,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “Whether it’s Bob Rubin, Larry Summers or the most conservative economist, that is a widely shared recognition.”

Liberals like Mr. Bernstein had long had an aversion to the kind of centrist economic policies of the Clinton years, which they felt were too concerned with deficit reduction and not focused enough on investment programs for labor and the middle class.

But Mr. Bernstein’s past differences with Mr. Rubin have so softened that the two men recently wrote a column together about their new common ground on spending, regulation and trade protections for workers.

Bloomberg's Dorning predicts that the public will catch up to the market view.

"With seven months to go before midterm elections, and more than two years before Obama reaches his own reelection day, there's still time for the President's policies to swing to his political advantage," Dorning writes. "Again, follow the money: Consumer spending has been rising for five straight months. That may not last, but it suggests Obama is already on the right track with voters' wallets. If the Clinton Administration is a trustworthy precedent—and job growth continues—their hearts and minds could follow."

M.C.L comment: What's good for America is bad for Republicans..

Obama hits critics who are rushing to call health care reform a failure: ‘It’s only been a week!’

By Ben Armbruster

Today during a speech in Portland, ME, President Obama made fun of the naysayers who have been spreading “misinformation” and “fearmongering” about the historic health care reform legislation that he signed last week. Referring to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s (R-OH) claim that reform is “Armageddon,” Obama said that after he signed the bill, “I looked up at the sky to see if asteroids were coming. … You know what? It turned out, it was a pretty nice day!” He then took a jab at pundits and reporters in DC who have been touting polls that show Americans are still divided on reform:

OBAMA: You have to love some of the pundits in Washington. Every single day since I signed the reform law, there’s been another poll or headline that said, “Nation still divided on health care reform.” “Polls haven’t changed yet.” Well, yeah. It just happened last week! It’s only been a week!

Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm? You’d planted some seeds and they came out the next day and they looked. “Nothing’s happened! There’s no crop! We’re gonna starve! Oh no! It’s a disaster!”

It’s been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place! Just a thought.

Watch it:

VIDEO: Bret Baier Interviewing Obama Vs. Bret Baier Interviewing Bush

By Amanda Terkel

Yesterday, Fox News anchor Bret Baier aired his 19-minute exclusive interview with President Obama, where he frequently interjected and interrupted the President. (Raw Story counted 16 such instances.) The right wing gave Baier kudos for the interview, saying he “showed us how a genuine professional TV journalist works.”

Baier’s tenacity, however, seems reserved only for Democratic presidents. His interviews with President Bush were far friendlier, with questions like, “What are you reading now?” and “Do you believe that there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil in more than seven years because of the policies your administration has implemented?”

Today on Fox News, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace defended Baier’s technique, saying that he needed to get in more questions and prevent Obama from “giving talking points.” But Baier had no problem with allowing Bush to give talking points in interviews. ThinkProgress has compiled some moments of Baier’s final interview with Bush versus his recent interview with Obama. Watch it:

This compilation doesn’t even include Baier’s infamous January 2008 documentary “George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish,” on which he remarked:

We talked a lot about President Lincoln. And there’s going to be a lot of people out there who watch this hour and say, is he trying to equate himself with Lincoln?

I tell you what — he thinks about Lincoln and the tough times that he had during the Civil War. 600,000 dead. The country essentially hated him when he was leaving office.

And the President reflects on that. This is a President who is really reflecting on his place in history.

Note that despite Baier’s attempts to back up Bush’s delusional comparison, Lincoln wasn’t “hated” when he left office; he was assassinated just after being re-elected by an overwhelming margin.

M.C.L Comment: I wonder how would Chris Wallace and the other whores on Fox News would have reacted if Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell or whomever on MSNBC conducted a interview with President Bush in the same matter as Bret Baier did with President Obama?

I guarantee Fox News and the various right wing media will get their mindless drones to flood the MSNBC mailbox or burn up their phone lines with complaints and those emails or calls will start with "how dare so and so disrespect the President of the United States by cutting him off in mist of answering a question , rather you agree with him or not show him respect" But in the conservative world view presidents that have (R) after their names they get automatic respect, Democratic presidents you can talk them like a dog and that's ok.

Obama ‘wins showdown’ with Republicans as the Senate confirms 27 of his high-level nominees.

By Amanda Terkel

At the beginning of this week, the Senate was sitting on 63 of President Obama’s nominees because of holds placed on them by one or more senators. In a bipartisan meeting with congressional leaders on Tuesday, Obama warned Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that he would be forced to make a large number of recess appointments if Republicans didn’t stop their politicking and help break the “unprecedented” logjam before the Senate’s Presidents’ Day recess. Today, the Senate finally confirmed 27 of these nominees. From Obama’s statement:

While this is a good first step, there are still dozens of nominees on hold who deserve a similar vote, and I will be looking for action from the Senate when it returns from recess. If they do not act, I reserve the right to use my recess appointment authority in the future.

Politico has a full list of the confirmations here. One person still outstanding is Marisa Demeo to serve on the D.C. Superior Court. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has been blocking this openly gay Latina from receiving an up or down vote because of concerns over her “leftist activism.” Republicans are insisting that Obama didn’t win this “showdown” because they “blinked,” but rather that this large number of confirmations is just “what happens before a recess.”

The conservative media's increasingly lame attacks

By Jamison Foser/Media Matters for America

For all the hype about energized Republicans and independents abandoning the Democrats and town-hall outrage over President Obama's agenda and tea-party protests, if you look closely, it seems the conservative media are getting a little timid.

Just a few months ago, they were convinced they had Obama and the Democrats on the run. They had suckered (or intimidated) the rest of the media into endlessly reporting the temper-tantrums thrown by a few town hall attendees, treating those tantrum-throwers as representative of the nation as a whole, and ignoring the obvious falsity of the tantrum-throwers' claims. They spread lies about "death panels" and went on and on about rationing and the horrors of government bureaucrats (who needn't worry about profits) replacing insurance company bureaucrats (who are quite concerned with profit) in the health care decision-making process. And they had suckered (or intimidated) the rest of the media into taking seriously their fantasies that millions of people had descended on Washington, D.C., to express their disapproval of President Obama.

They did such a good job of convincing the Beltway media that Barack Obama was on the ropes, they seemed to have bought into it themselves, and went for the political knockout punch. Led by the deeply disturbed Glenn Beck (who announced that his goal was to "take the administration down"), they launched some of the harshest attacks imaginable.

Barack Obama, they told us, was a racist and a socialist. A Stalinist. A Marxist and a Maoist. They claimed he reminded them of Mussolini and of Nixon (even getting a bunch of legitimate reporters to buy into that one). Not only that: He is just like Hitler.

But Godwin's Law is not to be trifled with. Comparisons to Hitler tend to blow up in the speaker's face, and this was no different. The constant barrage of off-the-wall claims -- like the suggestion that Barack Obama was history's greatest monster for urging kids to stay in school -- began to drive home a basic truth about the conservative media who were behind them: These people aren't right in the head.

So some on the right seem to be trying to dial things down, to dissociate themselves from the foaming-at-the-mouth fringes who have come to define their movement. And their criticisms of Barack Obama have become increasingly, well, lame.

Take, for example, the effort by The Washington Times, Fox News, and Matt Drudge to stir outrage over the White House's alleged failure to invite any Republicans to last month's state dinner. In fact, several Republicans had been invited, including the House and Senate minority leaders. But the whining over not being invited over for dinner would have been pathetic even if it were true. This isn't seventh grade. Surely there are more important things to worry about than who hangs out with whom after school. In the meantime, if Republicans want to eat in the White House, they should elect a Republican president.

Then there's the recent complaint that the Senate was going to vote on health care reform after only 10 hours of debate. Or, the right-wing blogger Gateway Pundit put it, "Senate Dems Will Only Deliberate 10 Hours Before Vote to Nationalize Health Care."

What's wrong with that criticism?

Well, for one thing, it isn't true. The vote in question was not on passage of health care reform (which, in any case, would not "nationalize health care"). No, the vote was to begin debate on the bill. In other words: the Senate was debating for 10 hours about whether to debate health care reform. Under the guise of supporting debate on health care reform, Gateway Pundit was actually complaining about the Senate voting to debate health care reform.

Finally, it isn't like the Senate -- and the country -- hasn't been debating health care reform for almost a year. (Or, depending on your point of view, for several decades.) And it isn't like the Senate "debate" over the bill is actually a deliberative process, as Gateway Pundit claims. Floor "debates" tend to be more explanatory than deliberative, with members explaining their votes rather than determining them. The Senate could schedule one hour of "debate" prior to voting on passage, or 30 hours, and it wouldn't have much impact on how thoroughly members have considered the issue at this point.

Then there's Fox's let's-throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks effort to raise a fuss over President Obama's use of the word "unprecedented." The less said about that one, the better. Even Glenn Beck suddenly feels the need to announce that he isn't crazy enough to believe the nonsense he's spewing.

Finally, take a look at conservative reaction to President Obama's Afghanistan speech this week. Here's Charles Krauthammer: "It's not exactly the kind of speech that you would have heard from Henry V or Churchill."

Ooooh ... burn.

But the right-wingers apparently thought this really was a deeply damaging assessment, for they quickly piled on:

• Bill O'Reilly: "I did not see a Winston Churchill-type performance. ... [it was] OK, but not exactly the Gettysburg Address."

• Sean Hannity: "I didn't hear Winston Churchill."

• Victor Davis Hanson: "[N]ot Winston Churchill."

• Nile Gardiner: "Barack Obama badly needed to display some Churchillian grit, but there was none on offer."

Coming after so many months of comparisons of Barack Obama to Hitler and Mao and Stalin, a bunch of conservatives saying that he's no Winston Churchill can only be viewed as praising with faint damnation.

Or maybe Pat Buchanan finally convinced his friends on the Right that comparing someone to Hitler is a compliment.

WND falsely claimed alleged Fort Hood shooter "advised Obama transition"

From Media Matters

WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan "advised Obama transition" in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a "participant" in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University's Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events.

WND article featured false headline "Shooter advised Obama transition"

From the November 6 WND article:

WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself

Corsi: No evidence "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition." In his article, Corsi wrote: "While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition, other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi uses to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, "in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."

According to HSPI, Hasan not a Task Force member, listed because he RSVP'd for groups' open events. In a November 6 blog post, Gawker reported:

FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences."

Hasan was listed in the group's report as one of roughly 300 "Task Force Event Participants."

Motor City comments: The mouth breathers that make up the right wing media has once again outdone themselves. Trying to link the Fort Hood shooter to President Obama proves those on the right have lost their collective minds. I know I'm repeating here but again I'm forced to remain you guys and the few right winger lurkers the different rules we're operating with here during the Bush regime if you voiced any type of criticism of George W.Bush right wing talk radio and websites like World Net Daily lead the charge to make those people pay. Leap ahead to 2009 those same forces who claimed those who disagree with the president sided with the terrorist are now saying the president sides with terrorist.

I wonder what would happen if I make the claim that Osama Bin Laden bookmarks World Net Daily because that's one of his favorite sites? We all know what would happen they would threaten me with a lawsuit.