What made him feel a bit better was that Elie Wiesel (the Holocaust survivor) went with Obama and spoke at the memorial. I, then, reminded him that Elie Wiesel, with all sincere respect, is not the best judge of character, recently having lost all his money to Bernard Madoff, the "Obama" of the investing world.

"Current Leftist vogue is to state support for Israel. It's only when you dig down a little that you find out it's support for Israel, but not as a Jewish state meaning full right of return..."

Because being a Jewish-only state would make it "racist." In a Leftist world, they split people into two groups: "racist" or "not racist." That's why Obama was the perfect candidate for the Left. If you didn't vote for him, somehow, somewhere you were a racist. (Jeanne Garafolo basically said that on Olbermann a few months back.) By supporting Obama, the Leftists proved to themselves that they weren't racists, which is important to their self-worth. Today, this phenomena takes it's form in the nomination of Sotomayor as if to say, "See, we're not racists!" It explains their over-the-top volunteerism for all-things "African" as well, i.e., "Darfur."

"linking the Holocaust to the current plight of the Palestinians. I am sorry, but these events are not comparable."

The Left's approach to "history" is basically to ignore it and replace it with a policy of self-esteem. It explains the beyond insulting and deeply disturbing comparison of the systematic murder of six million Jews (the equivalent today would be 600 million Muslims) with the current, self-imposed destitution of the Palestinians.

But, don't be fooled. You can still go to that silly site and read comments from the Leftists: they drip with hatred. You rarely see this on Conservative sites. Just a fact. Yet, our anti-free speech government issues a report saying that "right wing extremism" is on the rise and we must be on the lookout for it. This is code for "we hate Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and anything Right, and we're attempting to demonize it." They already tried demonizing Rush in February. A lot of good it did them.

It doesn't matter to the Left that they won the election, as they are wont to remind everyone, everyday: their deep-seated, childish anger is even greater! Now, even Dana Milbank sees what I've known for a long time:

Next Choler, Please
By Dana Milbank
Sunday, April 19, 2009

Dear Reader:

I wish to apologize to you for my behavior last week.

On Tuesday, I learned that I am a right-wing hack. I am not a journalist. I am typical of the right wing. I am why newspapers are going broke. I write garbage. I am angry with Barack Obama. I misquote Obama. I am bitter. I am a certified idiot. I am lame. I am a Republican flack.

On Thursday, I realized that I am a media pimp with my lips on Obama's butt. I am a bleeding-heart liberal who wants nothing more than for the right to fall on its face. I am part of the ObamaMedia. I am pimping for the left. I am carrying water for Obama. Lord, am I an idiot.

I discovered all this from the helpful feedback provided to me in the "reader comments" section at the end of my past four columns on washingtonpost.com. I undertook this exercise on the advice of former washingtonpost.com editor Doug Feaver, who wrote on these pages recently that journalists need to take the comments seriously ["Listening to the Dot-Comments," op-ed, April 9]. Further, he added in his blog, "those who don't are making a mistake."

Now, I may be a pimp and an idiot -- but I did not want to make a mistake. So I reviewed all 1,800 comments posted on my columns over the course of a week. As a sociological experiment, it was fascinating.

The comments are naturally an unscientific indicator, but the impression I got is consistent with what I've heard from colleagues: The vitriol of last year's presidential campaign has outlasted the election. For the right, this isn't terribly surprising; their guys lost the White House in 2008 and control of both chambers of Congress in 2006, so lashing out in frustration is to be expected. The left, however, is more difficult to explain. It made sense for them to be angry when George W. Bush was in the White House. But now, even under Obama, the anger on the left is, if anything, more personal and vitriolic than on the right.

A reader in an online chat brought this to my attention a couple of months ago, noting the animosity in the comments following a column. "Did you torture their cats and grandmothers? Most of the truly unhinged comments appear to come from Democrats, who apparently think you're Cindy McCain in reverse drag."

I replied that, to keep my blood pressure under control, I don't read the comments, and that I did, in fact, torture their cats.

Well, last week I read the comments. On April 10, I wrote a column about an Obama appearance urging Americans to refinance their mortgages -- a fairly gentle piece pointing out that the president sounded like a LendingTree.com pitchman. The comments compared me to Bernard Goldberg and Glenn Beck. One complained that "I gave Bush and the Republicans a pass."

Actually, a National Review column called me "the most anti-Bush reporter" in the White House press corps, but never mind that. "Uh oh, Milbank," wrote commenter "farfalle44." "Now the Obamabots have labeled you an Obama hater -- watch out!"

For Thursday's column, I criticized the "tea party" outside the White House. Conservatives left hundreds of indignant comments -- I was an Obama "lap dog" and "licking Obama's shoes" -- but that didn't buy me credibility with the left. "You do a real good job of attracting all the ill-informed, mathematically challenged, left-wing haters," said one reader. "I bet ya mom's really proud!"

So why is the left so angry? I don't know (I'm an idiot), so I put the question to the readers in my weekly online chat on Friday.

A reader from Rockville described it as a "sore winner" phenomenon. "People get used to being angry and when things change, they don't. So they find stuff to be mad about." Another said that some on the left "feel obligated to stay in the fight" because of the harsh treatment of Obama by the right.

But many focused on a frustration on the left caused by Obama's centrism -- his opposition to prosecuting those involved with torture, for example. "I am angry because the whole Republican party has not been rounded up and thrown into a black site," one wrote. A reader in Evanston, Ill., took a similar view, that true believers on the left don't want "b.s. rhetoric about looking forward." Okay, but why wouldn't this be directed at Obama? Readers explained that some of it is. But, "if we yell obscenities at Obama," replied a reader in Dunnellon, Fla., "we get a visit from the Secret Service. Yelling them at you is worry-free."

So the angry left should thank me: I'm taking one for the team.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/17/AR2009041702639.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

I arrived in Austin, Texas, one evening recently to give a speech about academic freedom at the university there. Entering the hall where I was to give my speech, I was greeted -- if that's the word -- by a raucous protest organized by a professor and self-styled Bolshevik, Dana Cloud. Forty protesters hoisted placards high in the air and robotically chanted "Down With Horowitz," "Racist Go Home," and "No More Witch-hunts."

Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with arrest if they continued on this course. (The threat was administered very carefully, with three formal warnings before any action could be taken.) This quieted the crowd enough that I could begin my talk, which proceeded without further serious incident.

Even so, there were occasional heckles and demonstrative cheers from the group when I mentioned the name of Sami Al-Arian ( whose organization, Palestine Islamic Jihad, is responsible for the deaths of more than 100 innocent victims in the Middle East), Black Panther Huey Newton (convicted of killing an Oakland police officer in 1967, although he was eventually released on a technicality), or when I uttered the word "communist" -- even though I did so to remind the audience that communists killed 120 million people in the last century trying to implement Marx's ideas.

Among the organizations participating in these outbursts were the International Socialist Organization, whose goal is the establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the United States; Iranians for Peace and Justice, supporters of Hezbollah and Hamas; and Campus Progress, the unofficial college arm of the Democratic Party.

One of the local members of Campus Progress had written a column in the campus newspaper attacking me in advance of my talk, and defending Sami Al-Arian as a victim of political persecution. The conservative students who invited me to the University of Texas told me that organizations such as the Muslim Students Association routinely join with College Democrats in protests against the state of Israel.

At the end of the evening, Prof. Cloud stepped up to the microphone to ask a question, which was actually a little speech. Even though the protocol for such occasions restricts audience participants from making their own speeches, I did her the courtesy she tried to deny me by letting her talk.

She presented herself as a devoted teacher and mother who was obviously harmless. Then she accused me of being a McCarthyite menace. Disregarding the facts I had laid out in my talk -- that I have publicly defended the right of University of Colorado's radical professor Ward Churchill to hold reprehensible views and not be fired for them, and that I supported the leftist dean of the law school at UC Irvine when his appointment was withdrawn for political reasons -- she accused me of whipping up a "witch-hunting hysteria" that made her and her faculty comrades feel threatened.

When Ms. Cloud finished, I pointed out that organizing mobs to scream epithets at invited speakers fit the category of "McCarthyite" a lot more snugly than my support for a pluralism of views in university classrooms. I gestured toward the armed officers in the room -- the university had assigned six or seven to keep the peace -- and introduced my own bodyguard, who regularly accompanies other conservative speakers when they visit universities. In the past, I felt uncomfortable about taking protection to a college campus until a series of physical attacks at universities persuaded me that such precautions were necessary. (When I spoke at the University of Texas two years ago, Ms. Cloud and her disciples had to be removed by the police in order for the talk to proceed.)

I don't know of a single leftist speaker among the thousands who visit campuses every term who has been obstructed or attacked by conservative students, who are too decent and too tolerant to do that. The entire evening in Texas reminded me of the late Orianna Fallaci's observation that what we are facing in the post-9/11 world is not a "clash of civilizations," but a clash of civilization versus barbarism.

Mr. Horowitz is the author, most recently, of "One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America's Top Colleges Are Indoctrinating Students and Undermining Our Democracy" (Crown Forum, 2009).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124000847769030489.html

Netanyahu didn't take acid in the 60s, so his brain isn't addled by delusional thought. If (I should say "when.") nothing substantive changes in Iranian BEHAVIOR by October, expect a completely justified (Wanting to survive is justifiable, now wouldn't you say?) all-out attack on the Iranian sites. America will pull it's monetary aid for Israel as a show of solidarity with the Muslim world and they will have to wait out the rest of Obama's term.

Israel will get through this, but without any help from the back-on-again Durban II-supporting, American administration.

Fortunately, we have Keith Olbermann to point out that Rush Limbaugh did not accurately quote the preamble to the Constitution in his CPAC speech last weekend. I'm not sure what scam Olbermann imagined Rush was trying to put over on the American people by saying conservatives believed in the "preamble to the Constitution" and then quoting words from the Declaration of Independence -- but Olbermann put an end to that cruel deception!

These small-time opportunities to show off by correcting someone else's teeny-tiny mistakes are the lifeblood of Olbermann's MSNBC show, "Countdown." Olbermann is no more capable of not correcting Rep. Charlie Rangel when he said "inferred," but meant "implied," than an obsessive compulsive could pass a sink without washing his hands.

There is utterly no purpose to these lame "gotchas," except that Olbermann is so desperately insecure that he is willing to waste valuable airtime in order to convince other status-conscious idiots that he is, like, scary-smart.

Olbermann relentlessly attacked low-level Bush administration employee Monica Goodling for not going to a name-dropping college, saying -- approximately 1 million times -- that she got her law degree "by sending 100 box tops to Religious Lunatic University."

I would venture to say that the students at Goodling's law school at Regent University are far more impressive than those at the Cornell agriculture school -- the land-grant, non-Ivy League school Keith attended.

I wouldn't mention it, except that Olbermann savages anyone who didn't go to an impressive college. As it happens, he didn't go to an impressive college, either.

If you've ever watched any three nights of his show, you know that Olbermann went to Cornell. But he always forgets to mention that he went to the school that offers classes in milking and bovine management.

Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent "Ivy League" education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: "My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class."

Except Keith didn't go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.

The real Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences (average SAT: 1,325; acceptance rate: 1 in 6 applicants), is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (average SAT: about that of pulling guards at the University of South Carolina; acceptance rate: 1 of every 1.01 applicants).

Olbermann's incessant lying about having an "Ivy League education" when he went to the non-Ivy League ag school at Cornell would be like a graduate of the Yale locksmithing school boasting about being a "Yale man."

Among the graduates of the Ivy League Cornell are Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Thomas Pynchon, Paul Wolfowitz, E.B. White, Sanford I. Weill, Floyd Abrams, Kurt Vonnegut, Douglas Ginsburg, Janet Reno, Henry Heimlich and Harold Bloom.

Graduates of the ag school include David LeNeveu of the Anaheim Ducks, Mitch Carefoot of the Phoenix RoadRunners, Darren Eliot, former professional hockey player, and Joe Nieuwendyk, multiple Stanley Cup winner.

One begins to understand why Harvard students threw a chicken on the ice during Cornell's famous rout of Harvard at a 1973 hockey game.

If you actually want to pursue a career related to agriculture, there is no better school than the Cornell ag school. I have nothing but admiration for the farmers and aspiring veterinarians at the ag school. They didn't go there just to have "Cornell" on their resumes.

In addition to the farmers, there are some smart kids who go to the ag school -- as there are at all state universities. But most people who majored in "communications" at an ag school don't act like Marshall Scholars or go around mocking graduates of Regent University Law School.

The sort of insecurity that would force you to always say "trebled" instead of "tripled" could only come from a communications major with massive status anxiety, like Keith. Without even looking it up, I am confident that Harvard, Yale and Princeton do not offer degrees in "communications." I know there is no "communications" major at the Ivy League Cornell.

"Communications" is a major, along with "recreation science," most commonly associated with linemen at USC. But at least the linemen can throw a football, which Keith cannot because his mother decided he was not physically robust enough to play outdoors as a child.

It may seem cruel to reveal the true college of someone who already wakes up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat worried that he's a fraud. But I believe that by pointing out that Olbermann actually is a fraud, I am liberating him.

You may not realize it now, Keith, but you will look back on this day and say, "That was the best thing that ever happened to me!"

Finally, you can stop pretending that you went to the hard-to-get-into Cornell.

Now you won't have to quickly change the subject whenever people idly remark that they didn't know it was possible to major in "communications" at an Ivy League school.

No longer will you have to aggressively bring up Cornell when it has nothing to do with the conversation.

Relax, Keith. Now you can let people like you for you.

Anyway, that's how I feel about the endlessly morphing supergovernment hero battling the planet-swallowing economic crisis. Back in September, we were told to put our faith in Bailoutman. Then in January, Bailoutman went to his tailor, had the long underwear redesigned, and relaunched himself as Mister Stimulus. A few weeks later the Obama crowd noticed that "stimulus," like "bailout," had become a cheap punch line, and decided the approved term was "recovery." So Captain Recovery swung into action.

In fairness to Ant-Man, he got very small, and then he got big, and then he got small again, and then he got super-big, and for a while he was both small and big, in a superheroically bipartisan way. But Bailoutman started out as a huge staggering behemoth and has inflated from there. Once upon a time he was as a meek, mild-mannered trillionaire, but a mere five months later he was a meek, mild-mannered multi-trillionaire.

If you find it hard to keep track of these all these evolutions, the President in his address to Congress finally spilled the beans and unveiled our new hero in his final form: the Incredible Bulk, Statezilla, Governmentuan, a colossus bestriding the land like a, er, colossus. What superpowers does he have? All of them! He can save the economy, he can reform health care, he can prevent foreclosures, he can federalize daycare, he can cap the salary of his archenemies the sinister Fat Cats who "pad their pay checks and buy fancy drapes." No longer will the citizenry cower in fear of fancy drapes: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! With one solar panel on the roof of his underground headquarters, Governmentuan can transform the American energy sector and power his amazing Governmentmobile, the new environmentally friendly supercar that soon we'll all be driving because we'll be given government car loans to buy the government cars! He'll have hundreds of thousands of boy sidekicks, none of whom will ever be allowed to drop out of high school because (in the words of his famous catchphrase) "that's no longer an option!" "Gee, thanks, Governmentuan!" says Diplomaboy the Boy Wonder, as he goes off to college to study Gender As A Social Construct until he's 34.

And our hero can do this all without raising taxes on any family earning under $250,000!

Look -- up in the sky: Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Is it a sudden eclipse plunging you and three adjoining states into total darkness? No, it's the Incredible Bulk flailing through the air, fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. Well, actually, it's more like the European way. But Americans will get used to it after a while.

Of course, when Barack Obama is accused of creating his Six-Trillion-Dollar Man "because I believe in bigger government" he denies it: "I don't," he says flatly. This is like Clark Kent telling Lois Lane he's not Superman: They just look a bit similar when he removes his glasses. Likewise, any connection between Obama and a Big Government behemoth swallowing everything in sight is entirely coincidental.

Do you ever go back to the first issue of this comic book and try to figure out what the plot's all about? Wasn't it something to do with subprime mortgages and two strange creatures called Fannie and Freddie? And then it became something to do with saving banks, wasn't that it? And somewhere along the way the Big Three auto makers got involved? And now it's about everything. Obama is going to do everything. So he needs to be able to spend everything. Only we don't call it "spending" anymore. Everything government "spends" is now deemed an "investment." Government will "invest" in "more efficient cars," it will "invest" in daycare, it will "invest" in a new Federal Regulatory Agency of Fancy Drapes and Window Treatments. It will "invest" in an impact study group that will study the impact of recalling every edition of Webster's and pasting in it a little Post-It note on the page defining "spend" saying "obsolete -- see 'invest.' "

If you're feeling a sudden urge to "invest" in a gallon of tequila and a couple of hookers and wake up with an almighty hangover and no pants in a rusting dumpster on a bit of abandoned scrub round the back of the freight yards, it may be because you're one of that dwindling band of Americans foolish enough to pursue his living in what we used to call "the private sector." You were never exactly Giant-Man, more like Average-Sized Man. But you have a vague sense that you're gonna be a lot closer to Ant-Man by the time all this is through. Noting the president's assurance that the 250-grand-and-under crowd won't pay "a single dime" more in taxes, the Wall Street Journal calculated that if you took every single dime -- that's 100 per cent -- of the over-250K crowd, it barely begins to pay for this program, even before half of them flee the the country. The $4 trillion Congress is planning on spending next year (2010) could just about be covered if you took every single dime of the taxable income of every American earning over $75,000.

But it doesn't matter. Because Big Government is the ultimate hero, and the private sector is merely a supporting role. Last week, the president redefined the relationship between the citizen and the state, in ways that make America closer to Europe. If you've still got the Webster's to hand, "closer to Europe" is a sociopolitical colloquialism meaning "much worse."

Is the new all-powerful Statezilla vulnerable to anything? Unfortunately, yes. He loses all his superpowers when he comes into contact with something called Reality. But happily, Reality is nowhere in sight. There are believed to be some small surviving shards somewhere on the planet -- maybe on an uninhabited atoll somewhere in the Pacific -- but that's just a rumor, and Barack Obama isn't planning on running into Reality any time soon.

2. Are we on surer footing in the financial markets now or before Obama? I'd say, seeing as the Dow's has continued to decline since Obama took office, a trillion dollar spending package has been passed, a budget has been proposed that will explode the deficit and the government has taken an attitude that appears to declare war on investors, I'd say that we're on LESS sure footing.

3. Are we a morally stronger nation now than we were before Obama took office? I'd say, considering the dangling of our possible participation in the outrageously anti-Semitic Durban II Conference, coupled with our "reaching out" to thug-actors like Iran, Syria and Hamas, we're LESS moral.

His poorly-vetted cabinet picks have been a mess and his foreign policy is so muddled that no one knows who the power is behind the throne - in the Middle East, is it George Mitchell? John Kerry? Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama?

With a blizzard of "czars" and and "summits," does this administration resemble the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, or what? When in doubt, what does the clearly in-over-his-head Obama, along with his media acolytes do? Change the subject to "George W. Bush," of course.

Just today, Vermont Senator Pat Leahy took his Bush "Truth Commission" to the floor of the Senate. Said the senior senator: "How can we restore our moral leadership and ensure transparent government if we ignore what has happened?"

If Leahy is concerned about "transparency" and "moral leadership," perhaps he should start by investigating the Democrat House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel and his serial non-payment of taxes, or Democrat William Jefferson's $90,000 in cold (sorry) cash hidden in his freezer, or Democrat Senator Roland Burris' admission that he was playing Let's Make A Deal with ousted Democrat Governor Rod Blagovitch.

Leahy could not have been too concerned with "transparency" or "moral leadership" when he voted to confirm the admitted tax cheat Tim Geithner to be the Secretary of the Treasury.

Last week, Keith Olbermann ripped George Bush for saying that the Republican Florida Governor, Charlie Crist, was a "D-Lite" (meaning "Democrat"-lite) for supporting President Obama's "stimulus" package. What Olbermann didn't tell his audience was that it was George P. Bush (son of former Governor Jeb Bush) - not George W. Bush - who made those remarks.

Disingenuous to the core, Olbermann didn't care as long as he could deflect attention away from the thus far scarily-inept presidency of the man he and MSNBC were full partners in electing.

In his opening remarks at the economic summit on Monday, President Obama classlessly got in on the act when he accused President Bush of "casual dishonesty." (This was before the head of his National Economic Council, Larry Summers, casually fell asleep.)

Beware when Leftists fail. That is when their truest emotion, anger, comes to the fore. It's why we will likely see a Truth Commission, a Fairness Doctrine, higher taxes on the hated rich and caps on executive bonuses, all in order to attempt to give themselves meaning after it becomes abundantly clear that their savior is just a 47-year old man, without much experience.

It's us vs. them. It's really very simple. The ones who want to live in freedom vs. the ones who do not want us to live in freedom. So, when Israel gets bombs lobbed at its cities every single day and it stands up for itself, it's a blow against all of those who want freedom-lovers dead. When Iraqis vote, it's a blow against those who want totalitarianism.

Obama doesn't get this. Since January 20, 2009, have we gained or receded against the enemies of freedom? With Obama's appeasement agenda, practically begging Iran for a sit down, the answer, is disturbingly clear.

Leftist leaders are weak because they are equivocators (in the grand goal of 'can't we all just get along'). Weak leaders aren't good decision makers, but they can APPEAR as if they are strong leaders by throwing a lot of "smart" people at problems.

This is what Obama is doing and it's going to further damage the economy because there is no clear message and in-fighting is occurring coming from all those "smart" people. The same is occurring in Foreign Affairs. Someone remind me: Is Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State?

But, is it really any surprise? Obama told us during the campaign that he gets 300 emails every morning from 'experts" in various fields. Oy! This is in contrast to the conservative style, which is to consult experienced people and make common sense judgments.

I think more liberals are in therapy than conservatives because their style leads to more questions whereas conservatives live life, not obsessing over every decision, recognizing and accepting that mistakes in life will be made.

Citizen and candidate Obama chose to remain in Reverend Wright's church whose diatribes against America are now famous. The media and Democrats thought it was more important to demonize President Bush who kept America safe from terror attacks for 7 ½ years.

Senator Obama voted against the Surge. In light of the Surge's obvious success, did the media call candidate Obama's judgment into question? No.

So, why is anyone surprised that a number of Obama's choices for high level governmental posts are ethically-challenged, like Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, Nancy Killefer and Bill Richardson?

Caught up in their blood lust for President Bush, Democrats chose to deny the reality of who Mr. Obama truly was: A stunningly inexperienced Chicago-bred politician who had made poor choices, in his associations and judgments.

In politics, as in life, you get what you pay for.

The Left said that "Bush was the worst president in history" when his successes -- just in Iraqis voting in a multi-party, free election -- puts him, at the very least, in the middle of the pack, if not higher. So, when the liberals sold you on "Bush is the worst" and deigned Obama "best" -- even before he started -- I just knew that he was on his way to probably becoming the worst president in U.S. history. Again, whatever the Left says, the opposite is true: Bush was one of the best and Obama will be one of the worst.

Obama lost some power today, with the pulling out of Daschle. Power is perceived. And the media started to ask the tough questions (finally!) today to Robert Gibbs -- who looked lost and despondent.

One of the questions asked was about Obama's "lost credibility." Not good for the president, but good for America because Obama is dangerous in his incompetency. People are getting to see what happens when you elect far Leftists: they give nice words on "ethical standards," but endorse nominees for high positions who are deeply, ethically-challenged.

You get a so-called "stimulus" bill that's really a spending bill that touts the failed policies and "ideas" of their cult: Liberalism. The less power Obama has, the better. He has never run anything and Americans are finally -- FINALLY! -- waking up to his incompetence.

The sheen is coming off the savior and the fall, ultimately, will be extremely messy.

The new meme from Obama and his media enablers will be that Washington D.C. can't be "changed" -- it's too steeped in "politics as usual." "Obama tried." The Left always has 'victimhood' to fall back on. And they will.

Richardson, Daschle, Geithner, Killefer...yeah..."hope" and "change"...not for liberals.

It wounded him. His pride was hurt and it made him quite angry because he is a true narcissist. He internalized "Sarah." That's when he came out with his "lipstick on a pig" remark. It was definitely meant for Sarah, although Obama always gave himself an out (i.e. giving Hillary the finger, while scratching his head).

When the economy fell apart, it gave those inclined to vote for 'change' good cover. They now had an issue that they could make themselves believe a fresh face could take on with vigor.

Without the economic collapse, I think Obama was only about 3 or 4 days from losing his cool, tipping off who he really is: a guy who seems incredibly nice and decent on the outside, but has a vicious mean streak in him. HE STAYED in that Nazi-like church for 20 years listening to you know who.

Palin rattled him to the core. When he is rattled like that, he starts to crumble. That sort of rattling doesn't seem to happen with men, only women.

Finally, I have a theory that never disappoints: when a liberal says something/anything, you know that the exact opposite is true. As an example, when Obama said, at many campaign stops, "this election isn't about me, it's about you!" I knew that it was all about him. Try this shorthand system out. It always works!