---
Saber rattling by Iran's leaders? I believe so in order to take attention from mounting economic plight.
If, in fact, war breaks out and Israel is attacked and rocketed from all sides I would not be surprised if it escalated into a nuclear response.
Is Obama ready to initiate a surprise for re-election purposes, ie. don't change horse in mid stream kind of thing? You decide. Time will tell. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Then there is that loose cannon - Mofaz. (See 2b below.)
---
Morsy and Peres have become pen pals? (See 3 below.)
--
Op Ed writer, Holman Jenkins, joins me in writing 'Obama is beating himself.' (See 4 below.)
Also Josh Kraushaar and Charles Hurt on Obama and the sinking ship. (See 4a and 4b below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Hillary Clinton: America's Worst Secretary of State
By Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison
The scene could hardly have been more bizarre: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's motorcade was pelted with rotten tomatoes and shoes as she was being driven to the opening of a U.S. Consulate General in the ancient Egyptian city of Alexandria. The mob chanted "Monica, Monica" to taunt the former first lady with the name of the woman with whom President Bill Clinton told us "I did not have sexual relations."
Egyptian journalist Mohammed Wahby warned us back then that this affair could have dangerous ramifications in his part of the world. Wahby told PBS's Jim Lehrer News Hour that Bill Clinton's scandal would inflame Islamists in his part of the world. Clearly, it has had lasting repercussions.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's ostensible reason for being in Alexandria was to take part in the flag-raising ceremony for our Consulate General. This is a disgrace. Alexandria was once home to a flourishing Jewish community. Jews flourish there no more. Her symbolic presence there embodies everything wrong about this administration's foreign policy.
Until recently, it was hard to say that Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of state in U.S. history. After all, it was Sec. of State William Jennings Bryan who resigned in 1915 when President Wilson typed a too-one-sided note to Germany following the torpedoing of the Lusitania. Bryan thought Germany was being ill-used by the dithering Woodrow Wilson.
Then there was Sec. of State Cyrus Vance. He quit President Jimmy Carter's Cabinet in the wake of the failed effort to rescue our 52 hostages in Iran. The crash of two helicopters and the deaths of a number of U.S. soldiers dashed the hopes of millions. But Vance quit not because the rescue attempt failed. He quit because it was made.
How can you top, or bottom, such egregious records? Hillary Clinton has managed to do it. She hailed the election of Mohamed Morsi as Egypt's president. This Muslim Brotherhood candidate has pledged to be president of all Egyptians. Tell that to the Copts. And the Evangelicals. He doesn't consider them part of Egypt's polity. Sharia is his program. Jihad is his way. For confirmation, consult the Muslim Brotherhood's own founding documents and its unswerving statements.
Worst of all in the performance of this worst of all secretaries of state is her lashing of Israel. She is complicit in this administration's "counting Jews in Jerusalem." Now, as EMET's Sarah Stern points out, she stands by, mute, as Egypt's new foreign minister radically reinterprets that country's 33-year-old treaty with Israel. Foreign Minister Amr, quoting the new Muslim Brotherhood president, claimed that the treaty should stand only if based on the pre-1967 borders of Israel. In brief, that means Israel shrunken to nine miles at the narrowest point -- a wholly indefensible border.
Madame Secretary is not just a disaster throughout the Mideast. Her Russian policy has been a catastrophe. She sternly warns the Russians (and the Chinese) that they "will pay a price" for their vetoes of U.N. sanctions against Syria's Alawite regime.
The old schoolyard taunt applies here. "You and what army?" This administration is headed toward sequestration of our defense budget. The cuts envisioned will take America's army back to pre-Pearl Harbor strength. The Navy will see more ships lost than at Pearl Harbor.
Clinton's toothless threats to make Russia pay a price must evoke laughter in the Kremlin. This is the same Russia to which she gave a pass with her infamous red "Reset" button in 2009. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was not amused at her adolescent gesture. He pointed out that she hadn't found the right Russian word for "reset" (it translated to "overcharge"), and the button was not even in Cyrillic characters.
Madame Secretary was only too happy to send ten Russian spies home in first class. She didn't want to let anything disturb President Obama's "Hamburger Summit" with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. What an act of weakness! And the Soviets -- er, excuse me, Russians -- would not be slow to feel the slack in our foreign policy line.
Under Hillary Clinton, we no longer have a "special relationship" with Great Britain. She has echoed Barack Obama's use of the Argentinian name for the Falkland Islands. Britain had to go to war with the military junta that ruled Argentina in 1982 to protect the right of Falkland Islanders to self-determination. President Ronald Reagan staunchly backed Britain and his stalwart ally, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But no more. Madame Secretary refers to the Falklands as "Las Malvinas." (At least she didn't compound the gaffe by calling them the Maldives, as Mr. Obama did!)
We recognize that our fellow Americans give Hillary Clinton high marks. But that is doubtless attributable to buyers' remorse. If only Hillary had been elected president, many feel, we might at least have Bill Clinton-era prosperity.
In her chosen field of foreign policy, however, Hillary Clinton has racked up a terrible record. And it should not go without mention that she has pushed an agenda of abortion and homosexuality worldwide. None of this makes Americans safer or more esteemed in the world.
Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison are senior fellows at the Family Research Council.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)-Khamenei Warns Iran’s Top Leaders: WAR IN WEEKS
On July 27, just before Friday prayers, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei summoned top Iranian military chiefs for what he called “their last war council.”
“We’ll be at war within weeks,” he told the gathering,
Present were Defense Minister General Ahmad Vahidi, Khamenei’s military adviser General Yahya Rahim-Safavi, Armed Forces Chief Major General Seyed Hassan Firuzabadi, Revolutionary Guards Corps commander General Mohammad Ali Jafari and Al Qods Brigades chief General Qassem Soleimani. The commanders of the air force, the navy and ground forces were also there.
Each of the participants was tapped to report on the readiness of his branch or sector for shouldering its contingency mission.
While retaliation had been exhaustively drilled in regular military exercises in the past year, Khamenei ordered the biggest fortification project in Iran’s history to save its nuclear program from even the mightiest of America’s super-weapons. Rocks are being gathered from afar, piled on key nuclear installations, covered with many tons of poured concrete and finally plated with steel.
That same Friday, the US Air force unveiled its new Massive Ordnance Penetrators. Each bunker buster weighs 30,000 pounds and is able to penetrate 60 feet of reinforced concrete.
Turning to retaliation, the war council endorsed a battery of paybacks for potential US and/or Israeli pre-emptive strikes against its nuclear program. They would start by announcing enhanced uranium enrichment up to 60 percent - that is close to weapons grade.
Oft-tested ballistic missiles, Shehab-3, would be loosed against Israel, Saudi Arabia and American Middle East and Gulf military installations.
Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas and Jihad Islami in Gaza stand ready to pitch in against Israel with attacks from the north and the southwest.
Saudi oil export terminals would be blown up and mines sown in the Strait of Hormuz to impede the export of one-fifth of the world’s oil.
Khamenei put before his war council a timeline of weeks for the coming conflict – September or October.
2a)PM: Time running out to resolve Iran standoff peacefully
PHOTO: MOSHE MILNER / GPO
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that time was running out to resolve the conflict with Iran over its nuclear program peacefully.
Netanyahu made his remarks at the opening of his meeting with visiting US Secretary of Defense Leon Panett
The prime minister said that Iran believed that the international community was not actually serious or committed in trying to stop it from obtaining nuclear weapons.
He added that with time running out on a peaceful solution, the world must convince Iran very soon that it is serious and that Iran will face unacceptable consequences if it keeps building its nuclear weapons program.
Earlier Wednesday, Panetta hinted that the US is prepared to use military force to stop Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Panetta made the remarks during a visit to an Iron Dome counter rocket defense system outside the city of Asheklon together with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
"If they continue and if they proceed with a nuclear weapon ... we have options that we are prepared to implement to ensure that that does not happen," Panetta said.
While expressing skepticism that sanctions would succeed in stopping Iran - on Tuesday President Barack Obama announced two new rounds of sanctions against Iran's envy and banking sectors - Barak hailed the Israeli-US alliance, even while admitting that there were disagreements on Iran.
"There are disagreements but this does not affect the profound depth of our ties and we plan to keep it that way," Barak said.
Also earlier, Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised Panetta for his role in enhancing security ties between the US and Israel as the two met in Tel Aviv on Wednesday.
"Ties between Israel an the US in the security realm are as strong and close as they have ever been, and without a doubt, a substantial part of the credit belongs to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta," Barak said.
Calling Panetta "not just a personal friend for many years, but a friend of Israel," Barak went on to say that "The US and Israel see reality in much the same way, and there is much to discuss, as the regional problems are serious and numerous."
Speaking before the meeting, Panetta said, "Our countries have a strong bond, not only of friendship but of security."
"We will do everything we can to defend both of our countries," he added.
Ahead of Panetta's arrival in Israel on Tuesday night, Israeli officials said they expected him to press Israel to give more time for sanctions before launching a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Speaking at a press conference in Cairo shortly before departing for Israel, Panetta said he would be talking about “various contingencies,” but said specific military plans would not be put forward.
“I think it is the wrong characterization to say we are going to be discussing potential attack plans,” he said. “What we are discussing are various contingencies and how we would respond.”
Asked whether these included military options, he said: “We obviously continue to work on a number of options in that area, but the discussions that I hope to have with Israel are going to be more about what is the threat that we’re confronting and to try to share both information and intelligence on that.”
The US has said it is determined to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but has called on Israel to give more time for increasingly severe economic sanctions to work.
“Both of our countries are committed to ensuring that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon and to that extent we continue to work together in the effort to ensure that Iran does not reach that point of developing a nuclear weapon,” Panetta said.
Yaakov Katz and Reuters contributed to this report.
2b)Mofaz: PM tries to deflect criticism with Iran talk
PHOTO: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM / THE JERUSALEM POST
Opposition Leader Shaul Mofaz on Wednesday accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of using the Iranian nuclear issue to deflect criticism of his policies on the economy and the Tal Law.
In an interview with Israel Radio, Mofaz said that the prime minister was concerned about opposition to tax increases and spending cuts, including a notable increase to gas prices.
With the Tal Law's expiry, the law reverted to vestiges left over from Israel's founding and before, meaning that, in principal, nothing should prevent the government from drafting haredim. In practice, however, the Defense Ministry has not yet decided on an official mechanism, and is unlikely to increase the haredi draft on its own.On Tuesday, Netanyahu hit the airwaves, giving interviews to four major evening news shows in which he reiterated that Israel would control its own decisions about attacking Iran. Responding to Netanyahu's interviews, Mofaz told Israel Radio that the prime minister had lost confidence and was stressed about the widespread criticism of his inability to replace the Tal Law on haredi enlistment before itexpired on Tuesday night.
Environmental Minister Gilad Erdan hit back at Mofaz on Wednesday, stating that Mofaz's criticism was "ridiculous," Israel Radio reported.
Erdan said that the media had fanned the flames of the Iranian issue, that Netanyahu's interviews on Tuesday were merely a response and that Mofaz should not criticize Netanyahu for responding to inaccuracies being reported in the media.
The minister said that over four years ago, Mofaz himself said attacking Iran would be unavoidable.
Erdan added the prime minister would clearly prefer the US to lead any attack on Iran, but that it was still important to make it clear to the world that Israel always reserves the right to act unilaterally to defend itself.
Addressing the Iran question himself, Mofaz said that the US must lead the fight against its program. Iran, he said, poses a threat to the whole world, not just to Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)
| President Peres receives letter from Egyptian PresidentMorsy |
President Morsy: I take this opportunity to reiterate that I am looking forward to exerting our best efforts to get the Middle East Peace Process back to its right track in order to achieve security and stability for all peoples of the region, including the Israeli people. (Communicated by the President’s Office) President Shimon Peres received today (Tuesday, 31 July 2012) a first official letter from Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy. In his letter, President Morsy writes: “It was with deep thanks that I received your congratulations on the advent of the Holy Month of Ramadan. I take this opportunity to reiterate that I am looking forward to exerting our best efforts to get the Middle East Peace Process back to its right track in order to achieve security and stability for all peoples of the region, including the Israeli people.” President Peres has previously sent two letters to the Egyptian president. The first was sent upon his election as president and the second was sent on the occasion of the month of Ramadan. In his first letter, President Peres congratulated President Morsy for winning the elections, emphasized the importance of peace between Israel and Egypt and expressed his hope for the continued cooperation between the two nations. In the letter, dispatched on 28 June, President Peres wrote: “As a person who participated in the process that led to the establishment of the peace agreement between your country and mine, I know that both Egypt and Israel attach supreme importance to the peace and stability that serve the interests of all peoples in the region. All of us in Israel respect both Egypt and the Egyptian people, which served as the pioneer that outlined the path to peace and reconciliation in the region. We know that the work is not yet finished. The people of Israel congratulate you on the democratic elections and hope that under your leadership Egypt will meet the complex challenges facing your nation. We look forward to continued cooperation with you, based on the peace agreements that were signed more than 30 years ago. It is our duty to preserve and nurture these agreements for the benefit of both our peoples. Peace has saved the lives of countless young people in Egypt and in Israel. Our commitment to the younger generation will always be valid. Unlike war, peace means victory for both sides.” Prior to the Ramadan holiday, President Peres sent an additional letter of greeting to the Egyptian president, in which he expressed his holiday blessings to President Morsy and the Egyptian people. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4)Jenkins: Is Obama Beating Himself? With "you didn't build that" going viral, the president's campaign is reportedly looking for a positive message. But what message?For some reason President Obama has us thinking of Marissa Mayer, Bill Ackman and Mark Zuckerberg.
"You didn't build that," Mr. Obama explained to the nation's entrepreneurs, and has been explaining ever since. He only meant to say we need government as well as private initiative, and who could disagree? This argument is anodyne, dispositive of nothing that is in dispute.
Of course, it also comes as a defense of policies that all run in one direction: bigger government, higher taxes. It comes against the background of a re-election campaign whose calculated aim is to portray a respected business leader as a criminal.
Ironically, it came in the same week his party in Congress was admitting paralysis to do anything for economic growth and demanding adventurous new actions from Ben Bernanke to reawaken the risk appetites of America's entrepreneurs and consumers.
We're a lucky country, and not just because we have a treasure like Mr. Obama. Behavioral economics tells us that people are more risk averse than they should be. In France, the best and brightest aspire to sinecures in government-controlled corporations. Even with their many complaints about the U.S., foreign leaders are constantly telling us they envy America's entrepreneurial prowess.
Let's not overstate things, but in other nations people would think Ms. Mayer was crazy to leave a prestigious and lucrative job at Google for the unappealing task of trying to succeed at Yahoo where so many have failed.
Bill Ackman, instead of mau-mauing Procter & Gamble from outside as an activist investor, would be golfing with the leadership of Procter & Gamble.
Facebook wouldn't be Facebook. It would be Minitel—the pioneering French online service that was just shut down last month after 30 years.
Reuters
The president delivers his "You didn't build that" speech in Roanoke, Va., July 13.
Of course, it's healthy not to be overawed by the successes of others, and to remember the American institutions and policies that let entrepreneurship thrive. But if Mr. Obama lost the point in the soundbite that so bedevils his campaign, it's because his campaign doesn't have a point.
Mr. Obama himself chose to lash his re-election bid to his tax hike for the rich. His tax hike isn't valuable to him because of the revenue it would raise (which isn't much). It isn't valuable to him because it somehow fits into his green-eyeshade management of the budget (neither he nor his party in Congress have shown much interest in managing the fisc).
His tax hike is only valuable to him because it nominates a villain for the campaign season—the greedy, undeserving, unpatriotic rich. It's valuable because it affords a rhetorical escape route when the subject of unsustainable spending comes up. He can talk about making the rich pay their "fair share," not about the chasm that would persist between spending and revenues, with or without his score-settling tax hike.
Hostility to the rich is a free-floating theme, one the Krugmanites tie themselves in knots trying to reconcile with their own policy agenda. After all, the Keynesian prescription for today's ills certainly isn't higher taxes. Just the opposite: It's bigger deficits in pursuit of stimulus.
Team Obama can also have no illusion about the purpose of its campaign strategy. It doesn't kid itself that its attacks on Mitt Romney and Bain Capital will cause voters to flock to Obama. If anything, Mr. Obama knows his tactics cost him donor and voter enthusiasm on his own side.
The goal is to drive up Romney negatives. The payoff the campaign hopes for is that voters who would never vote for Mr. Obama will prefer to stay home rather than vote for that rich so-and-so Romney. The White House strategy is a "shrink-the-electorate" strategy. Team Obama will play the Mormon card at some point too. Count on it.
In the real world outside of the campaign, many Democrats like business and "the rich"—because they generate the money Democrats want to spend. House Democrats especially are rooted in communities back home where local business owners and phlegmatic taxpayers neither "get" Mr. Obama nor feel much warmth toward him. One wonders how these Democrats are enjoying the ride so far.
With "you didn't build that" going viral, Team Obama at least senses trouble and reportedly is looking for a positive message. But what message? Stay the course? What course? For and against gay marriage? For and against fossil fuels? More Solyndras? More trillion-dollar deficits? A recovery more halting and uncertain the longer Mr. Obama presides over it?
Mitt Romney has been getting a lot of advice: Don't just stand there, do something (preferably not utter a gaffe). But maybe Mr. Romney is being shrewd. Maybe, given his own less-than-scintillating public-relations skills, just standing there is the right strategy as Mr. Obama flails after a theme for his presidency all the way to Election Day. Maybe the cool, sure-footed Mr. Obama is capable of beating himself after all. Could it be that in selecting Mr. Romney, with his very particular kind of baggage, Republicans picked exactly the candidate best suited to bring out the worst in our president.
4a)Elizabeth Warren: Obama's Convention Gamble
By Josh Kraushaar
AP PHOTO/CHUCK BURTON
Elizabeth Warren
For all the attention being paid lately to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s verbal miscues, President Obama made a pretty devastating blunder of his own in a speech in Roanoke, Va., last month when he ad-libbed a riff straight from Elizabeth Warren’s Senate campaign rhetoric.
Obama made the case for an active government role in the economy, and criticized those individuals who thought their business success was entirely attributable to hard work and smarts. He’s gotten the most scrutiny over his “you didn’t build that” line, but reading the speech with full context, it’s clear that he’s making a case against an unfettered free market while downplaying the individual efforts of entrepreneurs.
It was a declaration of the Warren Doctrine, the viral comments made by the Massachusetts Democrat last year in which she argued that “part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” Obama’s tone (and Warren’s) was as significant as the content. Read the remarks in full, and it’s not hard to detect a cavalier dismissal of individual enterprise.
Since then, the Obama campaign has tried to clarify what he said, with the president himself explaining in an advertisement that his remarks were misconstrued and that he’s all for small businesses. It’s clear the president’s team recognizes how politically sensitive his comments were to a public already skeptical of his economic credentials, which is why it quickly cut an ad attempting to defuse the blowback.
But while the president’s team understands the political risk of sounding unsympathetic to small business, the campaign is going all-in for its messenger, tapping Warren to give a prime-time address on the Wednesday of the convention. It’s the latest sign that the campaign is placing all its bets on drawing sharp contrasts between Romney’s wealth and Obama’s message of fighting for the middle class.
What’s unclear is whether Warren is the ideal surrogate to deliver that red-meat rhetoric in front of a national television audience. She’s lined up behind former President Bill Clinton, who notably praised Romney’s background running Bain Capital and developed close ties to Wall Street during his presidency.
Warren is clearly a hit with the Democratic base, as demonstrated by her record fundraising numbers and rock-star appeal among liberals. But fundraising and base enthusiasm don’t necessarily translate into political support. She’s locked in a neck-and-neck battle with Republican Sen. Scott Brown, but polls showabout one-quarter of Obama supporters in Massachusetts are supporting Brown — the highest crossover total seen in any competitive Senate race this cycle. Many of the defectors are working-class Democrats who don’t naturally connect with her personally. As one senior Democratic strategist put it to me, she’s struggling among the Democrats who are “liberal, but don't know it.”
That “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” sentiment goes to the heart of the demographic paradox that has defined the 2012 presidential campaign. Obama is positioning himself as a protector of the working class, even as blue-collar whites are showing historically low support for him. Likewise, Warren’s rhetoric appealing to the working class resonates predominantly with some of the wealthiest liberal Americans, who have donated generously to her campaign. But it’s been a challenge for her to connect with many of the average Joes, in part because her background as an academic and government official. Unlike Romney, Brown has a well-worn reputation for connecting with those folks.
Perhaps Romney will be a much easier foil than Brown on the convention stage. Democrats are confident about using the convention to cast Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat and believe Warren’s background advocating for consumers in her brief role with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau makes her an ideal prosecutor. In a best-case scenario for Democrats, Warren could emerge as a hit among the “Walmart moms,” that oft-cited swing demographic who could play a decisive role in a close election. Several Democratic operatives pointed out that the speech will coincide with the NFL season opener, making it likely the audience would be more female and more in Warren's sweet spot.
But in a worst-case scenario, sounding too strident could risk a Democratic version of Pat Buchanan’s infamous 1992 convention speech, in which he argued there was “a religious war going on in our country for the soul of America.” It was a hit in certain conservative circles, but a total flop with average voters. Democrats scoff at the comparison, even as they have been using similar hard-edged rhetoric to make the point that Republicans are “waging war” against the middle class. They would be wise to remember, though, that rhetoric that appeals to the base often doesn’t resonate with voters in the middle.
Warren learned that lesson the hard way when Obama failed to appoint her to serve at the agency she conceived and set up, out of concern that her outspoken views wouldn’t pass muster in the Senate or with the public. He’s aiming for a do-over this time around, but the political environment is the same as it ever was.
4b) The smallness of the new Obama
By Charles Hurt
It has become the disappearing presidency.
He went from peddling the “audacity of hope” to sheer hopelessness. From promising change to — literally — begging for change. Any spare change.
One of the latest depressing pitches came from Ann Marie Habershawinside President Obama’s campaign.
“Hi,” it begins, as if we are friends. Which is really kind of creepy. And sad. We certainly are not.
“Yep, me again,” she goes on, trying to make light of the fact that she has clearly become a pest.
“Surprise: I’m here to ask you for money.” Really, that is what she actually wrote. Beyond depressing. Sad, pathetic, and she knows it. And she even knows that she better beat people to the punch by going ahead and broadcasting what a broke and pathetic stalker she sounds like.
Goes on to explain that July 31 would be the next big fundraising deadline.
“To be frank, we’ve gotten our behinds handed to us,” she says of the past two deadlines. She asks for $3.
It might be “crass,” she pretends to worry, but says the campaign is desperate for money — “a whole lot of it.”
These degrading pleas for money have come from campaign hacks, Joe Biden, Hollywood actresses. Even from his wife, begging people to donate money for Mr. Obama’s birthday.
Even Mr. Obama has made some of these sad entreaties, going so far as to announce yesterday that he himself was donating to his own campaign — a symbolic gesture, he explained, of just how much he expects all of us to pony up for his re-election.
That must have been one tough call from such a towering ego as Barack Obama.
It is all so sad because this money-grubbing and vote-pandering has forcedMr. Obama to undo one of the sterling accomplishment of his 2008 campaign.
For decades, Democrats could win elections by cobbling together disparate special interests and factions such as unions and black voters. In 2008, Mr. Obama reached beyond those petty borders and found support across a broader spectrum than any Democrat in recent times.
But in his desperation to win again after making such a mess of things, he has resorted to those old, small tactics such as flipping his position on gay marriage to woo that faction. Or granting amnesty to illegals in hopes of rounding up Hispanic votes.
He’s become like an old, washed-up rock star, playing to small and smaller crowds but never quite able to get that old magic back.
And we are not talking Mick Jagger. We are talking Meat Loaf, all sad and sweaty and crashing around the stage, desperate to get one little flicker of his old fleeting glory days back again.
This was the guy who promised to bring peace to the world, prosperity to the poor and calm the raging seas.
He accepted the Democratic nomination at Mile High Stadium in Denver, the symbolic apex that his 2008 campaign was.
The soaring heights of his campaign promises mirror the low, desperate valleys of his actual presidency. This year’s nomination will be accepted in the muggy little city of Charlotte, N.C. Elevation: 751 feet.
That’s a 4,529-foot letdown. No wonder so many Democrats are scrambling not to go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
No comments:
Post a Comment