Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Obama Blows Off Medal of Honor Recipients

Posted By: Not Exactly... on 2009-02-02
In Reply to:

Obama Blows Off Medal of Honor Recipients... Not Exactly


Scott Isaacs on Fri Jan 23, 2009 9:10 AM EST


According to TSO who was at the “Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball”, this newly sworn-in President for the first time in 56 years blew off the ball (that’s 14 Inaugurations).


Some background on the ball;


The American Legion sponsors the ball, which recognizes recipients of Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award. It started in 1953 for President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first inauguration.


Event co-sponsors include 13 other veterans service organizations, among them the Military Order of the Purple Heart and the Paralyzed Veterans of America.


So where was our new President instead of honoring Medal of Honor recipients who by some miracle are still alive? According to Huffington Post, this was his schedule for Inaugural celebrations;


Later that day, the Presidential Inaugural Committee will host 10 official inaugural balls:


— Neighborhood Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.


— Obama Home States (Illinois and Hawaii) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.


— Biden Home States (Pennsylvania and Delaware) Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.


— Midwest Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.


— Mid-Atlantic Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.


— Western Inaugural Ball at the Washington Convention Center.


— Commander in Chief’s Ball at the National Building Museum.


— Southern Inaugural Ball at the National Guard Armory.


— Eastern Inaugural Ball at Union Station.


— Youth Inaugural Ball at the Washington Hilton.


Unofficial balls include:


— Congressional Black Caucus Inaugural Ball at the Capitol Hilton.


— Creative Coalition Inaugural Ball at the Harman Center for the Arts.


— Recording Industry Association of America’s ball for Feeding America.


— BET’s Inaugural Ball at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel.


— Africa on the Potomac inaugural celebration at Crystal Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Va.


— American Music Inaugural Ball at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.


— Inaugural Purple Ball at the Fairmont Hotel.


— Human Rights Campaign’s Equality Ball at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel.


— Inaugural Peace Ball at the Smithsonian National Postal Museum.


— Impact Film Fund ball.


Mr. Wolf from Blackfive sends along this link to which Inaugural Balls Obama actually attended last night.



Source


Blackfive, which I read occasionally for military pieces, confirmed that President Obama did not come to the inaugural ball. So I became curious because the only two sources were two blogs and one source that consisted of initials. Therefore, I did what any rational person would do: I contacted the American Legion to get the straight story from the people who would know. I was put in contact with a very pleasant gentleman named Craig Roberts who is the American Legion's Media Relations Manager and after our conversation he e-mailed me this statement which I will include in its entirety:


In answer to your inquiry:


The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th. The quadrennial event is co-sponsored with fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year’s event which was held in the Renaissance Washington DC Hotel.


President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. The new President’s absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The American Legion, as an organization, does not feel offended or “snubbed.”


Thank you,


Craig Roberts


Media Relations Manager


The American Legion


1608 K Street, NW


Washington, DC 20006


202.263.2982 (direct)


 


First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Roberts for taking my call and taking the time to compose this statement so that I can share it on behalf of the American Legion. So to those fellow Obama supporters that think this ball did not happen, it did. It was omitted from the media outlets it was omitted from because of logistical challenges due to the extraordinary number of people that flooded Washington D.C. to see Barack Obama be inaugurated as the 44th president and it is not yet on the American Legion's website (as I type this at 8:30 A.M. on 1-23-09) because of some difficulties in updating the website. However, there will be media coverage of the event forthcoming.


I have found out also that the likely reason that Barack Obama attended the auxiliary balls that he did is because six of the balls that he attended were held in the same building. Therefore, attending those balls and the others that he attended were the most efficient with regards to security. It is no secret that President Obama has had questions surrounding his security, that is evident by observing that he was the earliest presidential candidate ever to get a security detail. If the Secret Service felt it prudent to guard him so early in the campaign can the reader imagine what the Secret Service feels is prudent now that he is the President of the United States?


The most likely reason that President Obama did not go to the "Salute to Heroes" inaugural ball is because it was held in the Renaissance Hotel which consists of 16 floors. There was an event called the "Illinois Party - Presidential Event" held at the Renaissance the night before that the then-President-elect did not attend either (I have a call in to the President's press office asking for confirmation of this information which was given to me by one of my sources for this story). Given the amount of time and resources it would have taken to clear a 16 floor hotel as well as protect it while President Obama was inside, I can only guess that he was advised by his Presidential Protection Detail not to attend either inaugural ball because of the building and the inherent problems in securing and then protecting it. The sheer number of people crowding the streets and staying in the hotel surely presented a formidable screening problem as well. But, there's your story... it's not as sexy as "Barack Obama Hates The Military" but it is the truth as best I can tell after talking to the organization responsible for hosting the event and doing some research and educated guesswork about why a security team wouldn't want to protect a principal in the Renaissance with more than 2 million extra people in Washington D.C.


Update: It would appear that, according to Stars & Stripes that Obama had some Medal of Honor recipients at an inaugural ball that he attended. This gives the number of living Medal of Honor recipients as 99, but I believe that two have passed away since that number was compiled leaving 97. There are 7 in this picture and there were 47 at the American Legion inaugural event. I'm curious if there were more at the event this photo was taken at.


Further update: I received an e-mail from Mr. Roberts today (which I would have gotten yesterday if I had not miscommunicated my e-mail address to him) with his original statement along with a new statement. I will include both statements in their entirety:


My statement on behalf of our National Adjutant, Dan Wheeler:


"The American Legion, as it has on every inauguration evening since 1953, hosted the Salute to Heroes Inaugural Banquet & Ball on January 20th . The quadrennial event is co-sponsored by fourteen veterans service and military service organizations and honors recipients of the Medal of Honor. Forty-seven of these heroes attended this year's event. President Obama was invited but did not attend. Vice-President Joe Biden did appear, however, and was very warmly received. From The American Legion's point of view, the new President's absence was understandable considering the unprecedented logistical challenges presented by the vastly increased number of visitors to this inauguration and the necessary attendant security measures. The National Adjutant of The American Legion states that, as an organization, The Legion does not feel offended or "snubbed" by the President's failure to appear."


Mr. Wheeler's message as of noon today (January 26):


"We extended an invitation as we always do. There are numerous Balls and we know he can't attend them all. Of course, we would have loved for him to make an appearance, but he didn't. It's a logisticalnightmare. He did meet with the troops at the Commander In Chief's Ball, and we are grateful for that. Our Ball wasn't about the President; it was about the Medal of Honor recipients and the veterans and families who were there. We are grateful that the Vice President appeared, and our guests were very appreciative.


"That having been said, there are much more important issues to dwell on, which we intend to do. We look forward to working with the new administration on ensuring full and guaranteed funding for VA health care services, and the very best treatment for our service people who have been wounded, and on the quality of life of all members of the Armed Forces and their families, as well as the maintenance of a national security force that will deter any enemy from considering an attack on America."
    





LINK/URL: http://isaacs.newsvine.mobi/_news/2009/01/23/2345799-obama-blows-off-medal-of-honor-recipients-not-exactly


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Blows whatever way the wind blows

At least his O lovers can't say this is a lie, since they actually see him speaking. 


He's so two-faced.....


http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/2008/08/20/the-obama-iraq-documentary-whatever-the-politics-demand/


Bush Sr and Clinton to Share Liberty Medal
Former Presidents Bush, Clinton to Share Liberty Medal
Friday, June 30, 2006

PHILADELPHIA — Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who put politics aside to help raise more than $1 billion for disaster relief efforts, will share the 2006 Liberty Medal, officials said Thursday.

The award annually honors an individual or organization that has demonstrated leadership and vision in the pursuit of liberty of conscience or freedom from oppression, ignorance, or deprivation.

Bush, a Republican, and Clinton, a Democrat, joined forces last year to aid Gulf Coast victims of Hurricane Katrina through the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. Earlier, they formed the Bush-Clinton Tsunami Partnership to help survivors of the December 2004 tsunami that killed more than 200,000 people in southeast Asia.

The former leaders will accept the medal and its accompanying $100,000 prize on Oct. 5 at the National Constitution Center, in what will be the first Liberty Medal given under the center's management.

First awarded in 1989, the Liberty Medal was previously administered by regional civic groups including the Philadelphia Foundation and Greater Philadelphia First.

Click here for the Natural Disaster Content Center

Past Liberty Medal recipients include Polish union leader Lech Walesa, former President Jimmy Carter, former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, South African leaders F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and, most recently, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.

Six recipients of the medal have subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize
Halliburton to wounded employee: You'll get a medal - if you don't sue.
Halliburton to Wounded Employee: You'll Get a Medal -- If You Don't Sue

Halliburton will help its combat-zone employees get the honors and recognition they deserve -- if they promise not to sue the company. That's according to new documents released today by Senate Democrats.


Ray Stannard was a truck driver in Iraq for Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. In 2003, he was part of a fuel convoy that was ambushed by insurgents. Seven Americans died in the attack and 26 were injured, including Stanner. He is suing the company.


His company knew the convoy's route was dangerous and unprotected, he says, but sent the convoy through anyway. What they did was murder, Stannard told CBS News recently. And I stick by that.


The circumstances of his injuries qualified Stanner for the U.S. Defense of Freedom medal, the civilian equivalent to a soldier's Purple Heart. In offering to forward Stanner's medical records to the Department of Defense so they could confirm and appove his award, KBR required him to sign a release form. (You can see the document here.)


The document, sent to Stannard in November 2004, appears to be boilerplate -- but for one curious paragraph that appears to indemnify KBR from any wrongdoing that may have led to Stanner's injuries:


. . . I agree that in consideration for the application for a Defense of Freedom Medal on my behalf that. . . I hereby release, aquit and discharge KBR, all KBR employees, the military, and any of their representatives. . . with respect to and from any and all claims and any and all causes of action, of any kind or character, whether now known or unknown, I may have against any of them which exist as of the date of this authorization. . . . This release also applies to any claims brought by any person or agency or class action under which I may have a right or benefit.

Stannard didn't sign the form. He received the medal. And he filed suit against the company the following May.


Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion

(Okay.  Everyone in Congress and the White House, empty your pockets.)


Fed Refuses to Disclose Recipients of $2 Trillion (Update1)


By Mark Pittman


Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve refused a request by Bloomberg News to disclose the recipients of more than $2 trillion of emergency loans from U.S. taxpayers and the assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.


Bloomberg filed suit Nov. 7 under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act requesting details about the terms of 11 Fed lending programs, most created during the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.


The Fed responded Dec. 8, saying it's allowed to withhold internal memos as well as information about trade secrets and commercial information. The institution confirmed that a records search found 231 pages of documents pertaining to some of the requests.


"If they told us what they held, we would know the potential losses that the government may take and that's what they don't want us to know," said Carlos Mendez, a senior managing director at New York-based ICP Capital LLC, which oversees $22 billion in assets.


The Fed stepped into a rescue role that was the original purpose of the Treasury's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. The central bank loans don't have the oversight safeguards that Congress imposed upon the TARP.


Total Fed lending exceeded $2 trillion for the first time Nov. 6. It rose by 138 percent, or $1.23 trillion, in the 12 weeks since Sept. 14, when central bank governors relaxed collateral standards to accept securities that weren't rated AAA.


'Been Bamboozled'


Congress is demanding more transparency from the Fed and Treasury on bailout, most recently during Dec. 10 hearings by the House Financial Services committee when Representative David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said Americans had "been bamboozled."


Bloomberg News, a unit of New York-based Bloomberg LP, on May 21 asked the Fed to provide data on collateral posted from April 4 to May 20. The central bank said on June 19 that it needed until July 3 to search documents and determine whether it would make them public. Bloomberg didn't receive a formal response that would let it file an appeal within the legal time limit.


On Oct. 25, Bloomberg filed another request, expanding the range of when the collateral was posted. It filed suit Nov. 7.


In response to Bloomberg's request, the Fed said the U.S. is facing "an unprecedented crisis" in which "loss in confidence in and between financial institutions can occur with lightning speed and devastating effects."


Data Provider


The Fed supplied copies of three e-mails in response to a request that it disclose the identities of those supplying data on collateral as well as their contracts.


While the senders and recipients of the messages were revealed, the contents were erased except for two phrases identifying a vendor as "IDC." One of the e-mails' subject lines refers to "Interactive Data -- Auction Rate Security Advisory May 1, 2008."


Brian Willinsky, a spokesman for Bedford, Massachusetts- based Interactive Data Corp., a seller of fixed-income securities information, declined to comment.


"Notwithstanding calls for enhanced transparency, the Board must protect against the substantial, multiple harms that might result from disclosure," Jennifer J. Johnson, the secretary for the Fed's Board of Governors, said in a letter e-mailed to Bloomberg News.


'Dangerous Step'


"In its considered judgment and in view of current circumstances, it would be a dangerous step to release this otherwise confidential information," she wrote.


New York-based Citigroup Inc., which is shrinking its global workforce of 352,000 through asset sales and job cuts, is among the nine biggest banks receiving $125 billion in capital from the TARP since it was signed into law Oct. 3. More than 170 regional lenders are seeking an additional $74 billion.


Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would meet congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system.


The Freedom of Information Act obliges federal agencies to make government documents available to the press and public. The Bloomberg lawsuit, filed in New York, doesn't seek money damages.


'Right to Know'


"There has to be something they can tell the public because we have a right to know what they are doing," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia-based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.


"It would really be a shame if we have to find this out 10 years from now after some really nasty class-action suit and our financial system has completely collapsed," she said.


The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks that handed over collateral including stocks and subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed Web site.


Borrowers include the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup and New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co., the country's biggest bank by assets.


Banks oppose any release of information because that might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group, said in an interview last month.


'Complete Truth'


"Americans don't want to get blindsided anymore," Mendez said in an interview. "They don't want it sugarcoated or whitewashed. They want the complete truth. The truth is we can't take all the pain right now."


The Bloomberg lawsuit said the collateral lists "are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression."


In response, the Fed argued that the trade-secret exemption could be expanded to include potential harm to any of the central bank's customers, said Bruce Johnson, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine LLP in Seattle. That expansion is not contained in the freedom-of-information law, Johnson said.


"I understand where they are coming from bureaucratically, but that means it's all the more necessary for taxpayers to know what exactly is going on because of all the money that is being hurled at the banking system," Johnson said.


The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at mpittman@bloomberg.net;


Last Updated: December 12, 2008 11:35 EST


JT Plumber and family former welfare recipients.
does this mean he turns out to be an ex-commie deadbeat or what?   
Top bailout recipients spending money

on federal lobbying.  This makes me furious at both the companies and the government.  ARGH!


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/bailed-firms-money-lobbying/


It blows the lid off what we already knew. sm
Their Bush hatred is so virulent, it wipes out all reasoning and blackens their souls.  They have no compassion for the people in the south, only gleeful that they have once again been given a reason to hate Bush.  No matter how misguided that hatred and blame is. 
Takes your money and blows it? NM
HA HA
Thar she blows...like fingernails across a chaulkboard

some shiny paper and pretty bow, delivering a canned speech, taking no questions, making empty promises, telling lies easily exposed with a little research on McC's voting record, spread the wealth socialism (exposing her deep ignorance on how the US tax system functions), thrusting Joe the unlicensed back into the spotlight despite the fact he has been exposed to a sham and would like to get beyond his 15 minutes (lost count how many times she has said his name...sometimes 3 or 4 times in one sentence), tying him to hockey players and high school friends, McCain their savior, Barack the evil wealth spreader...still a bag of poop. 


Some honor
Hope his family is duly impressed. What a friggin' bunch of psychos.
You can't honor the flag and still think about those things? nm
x
sam, do not even give this person the honor of a response. nm
.
Alaska AG: State employees won't honor

By STEVE QUINN


JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) - Alaska's investigation into whether Gov. Sarah Palin abused her power, a potentially damaging distraction for John McCain's presidential campaign, ran into intensified resistance Tuesday when the attorney general said state employees would refuse to honor subpoenas in the case.


In a letter to state Sen. Hollis French, the Democrat overseeing the investigation, Republican Attorney General Talis Colberg asked that the subpoenas be withdrawn. He also said the employees would refuse to appear unless either the full state Senate or the entire Legislature votes to compel their testimony.


Colberg, who was appointed by Palin, said the employees are caught between their respect for the Legislature and their loyalty to the governor, who initially agreed to cooperate with the inquiry but has increasingly opposed it since McCain chose her as his running mate.


"This is an untenable position for our clients because the governor has so strongly stated that the subpoenas issued by your committee are of questionable validity," Colberg wrote.


Last week, French's Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed 13 people. They include 10 employees of Palin's administration and three who are not: her husband, Todd Palin; John Bitney, Palin's former legislative liaison who now is chief of staff for Republican House Speaker John Harris; and Murlene Wilkes, a state contractor.


French did not immediately return a telephone call Tuesday for comment.


Earlier in the day, Harris, who two months ago supported the "Troopergate" investigation, openly questioned its impartiality and raised the possibility of delaying the findings.


Like Colberg's letter, the surprise maneuver by Harris reflected deepening resolve by Republicans to spare Palin embarrassment or worse in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.


And it marked a further fraying of a bipartisan consensus, formed by a unanimous panel before Palin became McCain's running mate, that her firing of the state's public safety commissioner justified the ethical investigation.


In a letter, Harris wrote that what "started as a bipartisan and impartial effort is becoming overshadowed by public comments from individuals at both ends of the political spectrum," and he urged lawmakers to meet quickly to decide on a course.


"What I may be in favor of is having the report delayed, but only if it becomes a blatant partisan issue," he told The Associated Press, while indicating he already believes it has become politically tainted.


Democratic state Sen. Kim Elton, chairman of the Legislative Council, the 14-member panel that authorized the probe, had no immediate comment on Harris' request. Under an unusual power-sharing agreement, the council is made up of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats.


At issue is whether Palin abused her power by pressing the commissioner to remove her former brother-in-law as an Alaska state trooper, then firing the commissioner when he didn't.


The matter risks casting a shadow on Palin's reputation, central to her appeal in the campaign, that she is a clean-government advocate who takes on entrenched interests - not a governor who tried to use her authority behind the scenes to settle a personal score.


Palin has defended her behavior and said she welcomed the investigation. "Hold me accountable," she said. But she and the McCain campaign have taken actions that could slow the probe, possibly past Election Day.


Also Tuesday, five Republican state lawmakers filed a lawsuit against an investigation they called "unlawful, biased, partial and partisan." None serves on the bipartisan Legislative Council that unanimously approved the inquiry. They want it pushed past the election or top Democrats removed from the probe.


Making clear the dispute has ramifications beyond Alaska, Liberty Legal Institute, a Texas-based legal advocacy group, was working on the lawsuit. The institute has taken on a variety of cases in defense of conservative Christian positions.


Elton called the lawsuit "a distraction."


"The silver lining in this action initiated by the five lawmakers is that some of that debate now has been kicked to the judicial branch which, unlike the Legislature and the governor's office, is more insulated from the red-hot passion of presidential politics," he said.


Palin fired public safety commissioner Walt Monegan in July.


Weeks later, it emerged that Palin, her husband, Todd, and several high-level staffers had contacted Monegan about state trooper Mike Wooten, who had gone through a nasty divorce from Palin's sister before Palin became governor. While Monegan says no one from the administration ever told him directly to fire Wooten, he says their repeated contacts made it clear they wanted Wooten gone.


Palin maintains she fired Monegan over budget disagreements, not because he wouldn't dismiss her ex-brother-in-law. She has sought through her lawyer to have the matter investigated in a more favorable forum, the state personnel board.


 


Michelle Malkin has it right.."no honor among thieves" and

x


Not the worst...Jimmy Carter holds that dubious honor....
Mr. Democat Jimmy Carter. Check out the economy while he was in office...and what Obama is doing will make that look like a walk in the park. Oh, but the rest of the world will love us....LOL. Ya kill me. LOL.
Bush memo instructs officials: "Say I had honor and dignity."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this! "Honor" and "dignity" are NOT words that would come to mind to describe Bush.


What is INCREDIBLE to me is that Bush's "memoir," "A Charge to Keep" is referenced here. The original ghostwriter (and long-time Bush family friend) for that memoir was fired and his reputation tarnished (in usual Bush fashion) because Bush talked TOO much during his interviews with the writer, including how he wanted to invade Iraq back in 1999 -- 2 years before 9/11. I've posted that link on here before, but here it is again:


http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php


For Bush's staff, upbeat talking points on his tenure


Administration officials get a memo from the White House suggesting what to say about the last eight years: President Bush upheld 'the honor and the dignity of his office,' for one.


By Peter Nicholas
December 9, 2008


Reporting from Washington -- In case any Bush administration officials have trouble summing up the boss' record, the White House is providing a few helpful suggestions.

A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.


Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."

The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.

It mentions none of the episodes that detractors say have marred his presidency: the collapse of the housing market and major financial services companies, the flawed intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war, the federal response to Hurricane Katrina or the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.


In a section on the economy, speakers are invited to say that Bush cut taxes after 2001, setting the stage for years of job growth.

As for the current economic crisis, the memo says that Bush "responded with bold measures to prevent an economic meltdown."

The document is otherwise silent on the recession, which claimed 533,000 jobs in November, the highest number in 34 years.

A copy of the memo was obtained by The Times' Washington bureau. A spokesman for Bush said Monday that the White House routinely sends out suggestions to officials and allies on ways to talk about the administration's record.
"What we have in mind with these documents is we feel the president's many accomplishments haven't been given the attention they deserve and in some cases have been purposely ignored," said Carlton Carroll, a White House spokesman.

No one is required to recite the talking points laid out by the White House, Carroll said.

The memo closes with a reference to Bush's 1999 memoir, "A Charge to Keep":

"Above all, George W. Bush promised to uphold the honor and the dignity of his office. And through all the challenges and trials of his time in office, that is a charge that our president has kept."

One accomplishment cited is passage of the No Child Left Behind law, Bush's attempt to improve education. "He promised to raise standards and accountability in public schools -- and delivered the No Child Left Behind Act," the talking points read.

On the presidential campaign trail this year, Democratic candidates found that any criticism of No Child Left Behind was a surefire applause line.

President-elect Barack Obama promised to revamp the program, contending that it elevated test-taking at the expense of a well-rounded education.

Nicholas is a writer in our Washington bureau.

peter.nicholas@latimes.com


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-bush9-2008dec09,0,4145069.story


 


This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
Obama was cool, while grouchy man steamed. Obama!!!
I'm so happy.  The dippy people on here who are haters and racists and mccain lovers must be so po'd today.  HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Obama gets elected, then it was meant to be! Go, Obama!
nm
Go Obama/Biden! I don't like it and will VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!

Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him.  He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.   


Obama

I believe Obama has an awesome political future.  He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.


Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee.  Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.


I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful.  The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.


Obama is the man!!!
I think he will make an excellent president some day. Maybe Hillary/Obama would be a good ticket choice.

obama
FYI - he never attended a midrasha. This was later corrected.
Obama 08...nm

Obama et. al.

If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business.


 


Obama
As I posted on the other board, it is crazy that in one breath people are freaking out saying he is a Muslim, and in the next one, they are freaking out because of his stand on abortion. Being pro-choice really does not go with being a Muslim.

I like Obama, and I like his stance on choice. I really could care less if he is a Muslim. But, he belongs to a Christian church and has for over 20 years, before he had a political career.

People never cease to amaze me!
Obama
My husband just returned from Iraq, we support the war-- but if I had to vote democrat, definitely Obama, please!! But I vote republican, hee hee.
Go Obama!
What a great victory for Obama!

Did anyone see the Kennedy’s endorsement for Obama and his speech this morning? I have never been more excited and inspired in politics. In my life I’ve voted both sides (usually not voting for a candidate but rather voting for the other side as a vote against a candidate). I usually tune out in politics because of outright lies. Barack is the first candidate that I finally understand what he stands for, what his plans are, and he is someone who can connect with everyone in every walk of life. He is a trustworthy, inspiring, and humble person and his voting record and other aspects of his government life give me the confidence that he would be a great president. Listening to his speeches gives me hope for a better country/future for everyone.

I respect everyone’s choice for who they think would be a better president, but I’m sick to death of Clinton and what she stands for. All you have to do is read up on the history of her and what she did when she resided in Oakland California (who her mentors/ colleagues were and what her motives/plans are). She claims to have all this “experience” but doesn’t have it. She takes what her husband accomplished and if it was something good she claims credit to it and if it was bad she had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile her husband is so consumed/greedy (not sure which word best suits him – maybe consumed with greed) to get back into the white house that he is purposely destroying the opponents (even Ted Kennedy had to call and admonish him), but that is the Clinton legacy, destroying other people’s lives. Then when someone does call him on something he will point his finger at them in a threatening way and plays the victim role. It makes me ill just thinking of having someone as corrupt as both of them back in the white house.

If Bill was such a great president they should bring up all the great things that happened under his presidency, but we are not hearing any of it, why? Because there is none. In my opinion he was one of the worst presidents in history. Not one thing he did was for the good of the country. And if anyone believes that she was such a “good wife” while he was out messing around with other women think again. She had her mind set on being president a long time ago. She just uses him to get what she wants. Everything she does has always been calculated.

As for his presidency, I think people are forgetting….he lied under oath and he was impeached for it. Which brings me to another question…why does anyone believe anything he has to say now? Remember the phrase “that all depends on what the meaning of is, is”. Then there was Waco Texas – people were burned alive. But they called them members of a cult, so I guess that made it okay. Then let’s see…Somalia, Bosnia, Monica (and no it wasn’t just about having an affair with her or all the other women), receiving illegal contributions, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on and on.

An article I just read said it better than I can….

“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience - namely, Bill - to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.

If you are interested in reading the whole article this is the link…

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-brooks0128.artjan28,0,7018385.story



Obama
He would be better than the one that has been there for 8 years.  No matter who is elected, it will take a long time to fix what Bush as screwed up!
<3 Obama too!!
:)
Obama
If she keeps lying from today until November she might actually catch up with Obama!
Go Obama

Haven't seen any posts here for awhile.  Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election.  I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed.  Gas tax holiday?...give me a break!  Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price! 


The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office.  It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history.  It was raised by 4.3 cents.  Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.


So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.


Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.


Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased.  And Indiana too.  It was a close race thank goodness.


Now she needs to step down.  Why?  Because its the right thing to do.  Do the numbers.  There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up.  What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president).  Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind.  Her goal is to serve herself.  She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.


P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads".  Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads".  Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly.  In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama.  Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win.  So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.


Obama
Is Barack Hussein Obama the Antichrist?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=94d_1202965504
I am for Obama because...
My point in fact is agreeing with the republicans in that Obama does not have a lot of experience - I think not having a lot of experience is a good thing because it means he is not "hand-in-hand" with all the people that have been in charge for so long - he can form his own opinions, make his own decisions, and not go with somebody just because they did this or that for somebody or they contributed this or that to somebody...
No, Obama gets it better than many do
Check out this award-winning article written by Fareed Zakaria, a foreign policy expert, right after 9/11 called "Why They Hate Us" - http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/newsweek/101501_why.html

Most people at that time (myself included) said that question was irrelavant, but understanding why they some have those attitudes helps us understand better what the U.S. can do to help change it. The fringe extremists will never go away, but their support by the general Muslim community as a whole will diminish (and already is). Free markets and capitalism would go a long way toward this goal and I think Obama gets that.
obama wants to be GOD
He wants to change the structure of the U.S. and he wants to bargain with and change the structure of Europe..  He is a destroyer.
obama
Muslims are dedicated to destroying the US from within. Obama is Muslim.
Obama..........
I think the pictures speak for themselves....although there will be plenty of Obama lovers who will sing his praises and find excuse after excuse why the flat is no longer on the plane. He could have just as easily left the flag and put his little slogan on there with it, but chose to remove the flag altogether. Speaks volumes!!!!

Obama is Muslim, will always be Muslim, and it is very disturbing to me that anyone would want a Muslim president. No Muslims have ever spoken out about 9/11 which also speaks volumes!! He has learned his Muslim faith from a young child, and the little boys are taught to hate the US and anyone who isn't them...he is no different. There are too may who sing his praises but refuse to state the obvious. Just because they hate republicans sure doesn't mean you put the fox in charge of the hen house. At no time during his speeches have I ever heard him speak of his love for the United States. He just repeats over and over where he came from, who raised him, and what their faiths were, and folks better open their ears and listen up.

No candidate for President of this country would so boldy make a point of getting rid of the very thing that is such a strong symbol of this country. Try doing that in another country and you will be hauled off to jail....the end!!

And, I don't want to hear about this is a free country and he can do what he wants. The whole point of this "free" country is to support the US and our beliefs, not Muslim beliefs which are definitely that of hate. A lot of feathers will be ruffled with this comment, but I really don't care to sugar coat the facts just because some hate republicans or other parties to the point they will accept anything in the white house....a wolf in sheep's clothing, and there will be MANY because of their hatred for the other candidate, who will be sucked into his beliefs as well.
Obama
You know, there is not a nickel's worth of difference between any of them.  They all have ghosts in their closets.  They just hope we do not find out about them.  Bush Sr. had a girlfriend while he was in service.  Eisenhower did, LBJ was a womanizer.  Jimmy Carter is a good human, still working for Habitat and the poor people.  Bush Jr. used cocaine while he was at Camp David about 10 years or so ago.  Not that long ago.  Let's not forget John Edwards.  Like I said there are no clean cut guys or ladies.  We do not know that much about OBama yet.  I have my doubts about him.  He came out of nowhere, too strong and the younger population fell for whatever he has said.  
EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT HER CAN BE SAID ABOUT OBAMA!
I can see your problem with McCain but every bash you make about her is the same about Obama. No experience for either of them, at least she's got EXECUTIVE experience. Tell me, what kind of foreign policy knowledge does Obama have again? Oh wait, that's why he chose Biden as his running mate. No matter what you people say, I believe it was a good choice, because she represents something new and exciting, just like Obama himself!
Obama
It is interesting that she would use his whole name..kind of makes you wonder..I noticed that she does NOT use the whole names of the other candidates but several times I have seen  postings on this board..so what if he has a middle name that is Arabic..
Obama

He's just a talking head, somebody's puppet, aint nothing without his teleprompter and written speeches...gimme a break!


Right, Obama has run nothing!
nm
And yet Obama wants to

help these people so they can continue to sit on their butts and do something while the rest of us bust our humps.  No thank you! 



Obama: It's about you, not me."

With RNC behind us now, dems are faced with the daunting challenge of making the 2008 election a referendum on issues, not a personality contest.  Here are 2 links that got thrown under the bash bus. 


http://www.alternet.org/election08/97198/top_ten_most_disturbing_facts_and_impressions_of_sarah_palin/


http://www.alternet.org/election08/97350/8_more_shocking_revelations_about_sarah_palin/?page=3



Though the title of these articles may lead one to conclude it is more about Palin bashing, there is a gold mine of pertinent information to be found there.  Embedded within the articles are more links that are overwhelming on first inspection, but well worth the time it takes to review them.  Laid out there between the lines is a structured blueprint for facing the upcoming 60 days with effective campaign strategy. 


There is another post that also got buried in the mud which will be brought back up to the top momentarily on issues.  If it get buries again, it will be brought back up to the top again.  The bashes it may inspire will be ignored.  The issues will continue to get the focus. 


There is another battleground in this election aside from the issues push.  It is the one fought on the field of values and vision; specifically, the Obama vision versus the McCain/Palin vision of what kind of America they/we see in our futures and what sort of change each candidate promises to deliver.  The link below is an article that addresses this subject.  It is a self-effacing piece I believe dems should take to heart when considering how to frame their upcoming campaign tactics.  Here's that link.  


http://www.alternet.org/election08/97193/the_palin_choice%3A_the_reality_of_voters%27_minds/


The introduction to this post expresses a basic premise from which I will be operating.  I will not be diminishing the power of Obama's message by indulging in petty squabbles, dead-end distractions, one-upmanship and a race to get the last word.  There is important work here, people, and we best rolls up our sleeves and get started. 


 



  


Obama to appear on

Countdown Monday night.  Can't wait.


 


Obama - do as I say, not as I do

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_craftiness.html


No, that is what they all DO. Obama is the one...
who says do as I say, not as I do.
This is an out and out lie. Obama
will give small-business taxcuts and taxcuts to businesses who will keep jobs in America.  Get it straight!
Obama/PP
The Messiah camp rips a McCain ad citing Obama's support for a kindergarten
sex ed bill, calling it a lie. But we have Obama on tape (and video) telling a Planned Parenthood crowd: "It's the right thing to do."
Are you saying Obama was

under your bed?  I read the black arms and then the rest and can only see the reason to post this on a politics board is . . .