http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/report-obama-initially-thought-he-won-the-debate/
( just want to know what drugs he was on to think he actually won last week... )
And who is running this campaign , the Marx Brothers ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/obama-spokesman-we-released-that-moronic-big-bird-ad-because-of-the-grassroots-outcry/
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/msnbc-why-cant-team-obama-stop-talking-about-the-debate/
( They can't stop talking about the debate because they believe they can convince folks they won - if they just explain it better... )
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-debate-performance-prep-preparation-romney-2012-10
( Sad attempt to minimize - you know the O Team really is feeling the heat to try this gambit... )
President Barack Obama appeared to take a shot Sunday night at his debate performance against Republican Mitt Romney last week.
SNL showed no mercy though......
http://hillbuzz.org/ridicule-saturday-night-live-turns-on-obama-largely-to-save-itself-mittromney-barackobama-presobama-22056
* * *
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/05/obama/?wprss=rss_politics
His campaign team wants it, yes, and his party, and his wife. But if meeting donors and lawmakers is such a drag, and campaigning such a chore, maybe he’d rather be home in Chicago, spending time with his family and small circle of close friends. At work, only his students would press him for answers. And at parties, he could indulge his kindhearted inclination to seek out the oldest person in the room and settle in to hear his stories.
and....
http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberals-fret-is-obama-bored-does-he-want-a-second-term-maybe-not./article/2510054#.UHGka03A-gQ
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/10/04/updated-election-forecasting-model-still-points-romney-win-university
( just want to know what drugs he was on to think he actually won last week... )
Report: Obama initially thought he won the debate
POSTED AT 7:21 PM ON OCTOBER 9, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
I keep telling myself that this is unlikely, that even a guy with a galactic ego who surrounds himself with yes-men, cultists, and a very friendly media couldn’t possibly have thought he won that debate. At best, his inner monologue was Kevin Kline at the end of “A Fish Called Wanda”: “It was a tie.”
But then I remember that his grand answer to Romney’s national poll surge was a Big Bird ad, and I don’t know. I just don’t know.
When President Barack Obama stepped off the stage in Denver last week the 60 million Americans watching the debate against Mitt Romney already knew it had been a disaster for him.But what nobody knew, until now, was that Obama believed he had actually won.In an extraordinary insight into the events leading up to the 90 minute showdown which changed the face of the election, a Democrat close to the Obama campaign today reveals that the President also did not take his debate preparation seriously, ignored the advice of senior aides and ignored one-liners that had been prepared to wound Romney.The Democrat said that Obama’s inner circle was dismayed at the ‘disaster’ and that he believed the central problem was that the President was so disdainful of Romney that he didn’t believe he needed to engage with him.
Not the first time we’ve heard that his team knew even before the debate was over how disastrous it was. But what about the man himself? Could he have been so intoxicated by the smell of his own rhetorical flatulence that he thought he had won? According to the NYT, maybe:
Mr. Obama walked off the stage thinking he at least had gotten in some of his points. “This was a terrific debate,” he said in the closing minutes.“He knew that Romney had had a decent night as well,” Mr. Axelrod said later. “But it’s very hard when you’re standing there. It’s hard when you’re up there to judge it completely.”
Is it? If the entire Twitterverse, which includes partisans of all stripes and IQs high and low, could reach a consensus in real time that Romney had demolished him, we should expect the Lightbringer to have had some inkling. And if you believe this Politico piece published a few days ago, he did:
Nobody had to tell President Barack Obama he had whiffed when he walked off the stage in Denver Wednesday night — nor was he in the mood for a lot of advice.“You could tell he was pissed,” said a person close to the president, “But it wasn’t like the end of the world. It was like, ‘That wasn’t good. The next one has to better.’ No apologies. No hand-wringing.”That night, after a brief, terse chat with his advisers backstage at the University of Denver arena — “He had real clarity about what had happened,” one of them told POLITICO with a chuckle — Obama hopped in his limo, “The Beast,” and sped off to a nearby DoubleTree with wife Michelle.
Not sure how to square those NYT and Politico pieces except to assume that campaign staffers are spinning in different directions due to disagreements over how best to help him. If they admit that he knew he was losing, the question from their base then becomes, “So why didn’t he adjust and try harder?” If they say that he didn’t know he was losing, the question is, “How can any sentient being not have known?” Maybe Axelrod figures it’s better to invite the second question and play it off with a glib “it’s hard to judge when you’re in the moment” than to invite the first question, the answer to which is either “he didn’t care enough to rally” or “he wasn’t intellectually agile enough to adjust.”
Speaking of lame, glib, laughable spin, your exit quotation: “[T]hey feel just as good about where they are today as they did two weeks ago.”
And who is running this campaign , the Marx Brothers ?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/obama-spokesman-we-released-that-moronic-big-bird-ad-because-of-the-grassroots-outcry/
Obama spokesman: We released that moronic Big Bird ad because of the “grassroots outcry”
POSTED AT 4:48 PM ON OCTOBER 9, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
Deeply embarrassing, but not entirely the campaign’s fault. If memory serves, Romney’s Big Bird line was the thin reed to which liberals on Twitter were clinging the morning after the Denver debacle:
“There’s been a strong grassroots outcry over the attacks on Big Bird. This is something that mothers across the country are alarmed about, and you know, we’re tapping into that,” Psaki told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday…“The larger point… is, aside from our love for Big Bird and Elmo, as is evidenced by the last few days, the point that we’re making here is that when Mitt Romney… was given the opportunity to lay out how he would address the deficit, when he said ‘I will take a serious approach to it,’ his first offering was to cut funding for Big Bird,” Psaki said. “And that is absurd and hard to take seriously his specific plan.”
Two problems. First, needless to say, Romney’s point about PBS isn’t that serious deficit reduction should start there, it’s that not even popular federal outlays should be immune from cuts in the name of restoring fiscal stability. A guy who bet his presidential candidacy on Paul Ryan is about as serious as an American politician can get when it comes to spending. And let me gently suggest to Team O that any campaign that treats the Buffett Rule as an important budgetary reform shouldn’t wag its finger too sternly in criticizing others for half-measures. Second, the Big Bird ad is actually very typical of Hopenchange’s M.O. this year. They’ve tried to bludgeon Romney with every cheap demagogic populist ploy within reach. How were they supposed to lay off an easy opportunity to suggest that Mitt hates moms and kids and puppets? What’s unusual about the spot isn’t that it’s trivial, it’s that they released it at a moment of real momentum for Romney, which in turn makes them look desperate and inept. Per Sean Trende’s superb analysis today at RCP, it’s very important to Obama’s campaign that they be seen as winning at all times. A winner can get away with a silly ad like this; a guy who just got his ass handed to him in front of 70 million people really can’t. Trende:
I’ve superimposed the major events of the 2012 cycle here. The basic trend line is fairly plain. Over time, the president’s lead gradually deteriorates. When it gets too close, he makes a major play to change the dynamic, pushing the lead back up…I do think there is a degree to which Team Obama has successfully (and quite frankly brilliantly) created a “virtuous cycle” this election. There are three ways in which this is the case.First, the bandwagon effect affects fundraising. Once you move outside the partisan core, people like to back winners. This is especially true of the business community. By assiduously cultivating its front-runner status, the Obama campaign has aided its ability to press future arguments.Second, maintaining a lead allows greater leeway in the arguments it can make. Something like the “cancer ad” from August looks hard-hitting from a campaign that is leading (and I certainly include candidate super PACs as part of the “campaign”), but would probably be described as “desperate” from one that is losing.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it affects press portrayals of the candidates and party enthusiasm. This is the most important thing here: I still think the default expectation here has been that Obama should be losing.
In other words, every time the basics of the economy and the deficit and some new foreign-policy debacle start to eat into Obama’s lead, he latches on to a new shiny object that can boost his lead by a few points — until the basics (“gravity,” in Trende’s phrasing) start to drag him down again. The more consistently he’s seen as a winner, the more Romney smells like a loser, which has all of the self-fulfilling effects that Trende describes above. The reason the debate was such a killer was that it shattered that perception of Obama’s invincibility that he’d spent the last nine months cultivating. And the last thing you want to do once that’s happened is make yourself seem ridiculous by running a silly ad that’s transparently an attempt to change the subject — especially if you got elected the first time by scolding people for the “smallness” of their politics. Watch the two clips below, the first via the Examiner and the second via the Right Scoop, and see for yourself who looks small now. Just look at what this guy’s “new kind of politics” nonsense has become. Click the image to watch.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/09/msnbc-why-cant-team-obama-stop-talking-about-the-debate/
( They can't stop talking about the debate because they believe they can convince folks they won - if they just explain it better... )
MSNBC: Why can’t Team Obama stop talking about the debate?
POSTED AT 1:21 PM ON OCTOBER 9, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY
Chuck Todd appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe earlier today to discuss Team Obama strategy — and perhaps staffing — in the wake of their debate debacle. Six days later, not only is the Barack Obama campaign still talking about the debate, they’ve released an adabout perhaps the least important issue mentioned in it … Big Bird. Instead of changing the subject, they’re continuing to extend the damage, and Mike Barnicle asked Todd about their strange obsession with the debate rather than finding anything else to discuss. Todd agrees, and says that “Chicago” may be making some personnel changes in the final days of the campaign, according to his sources on Team Obama:
Yesterday, I wrote that the continuing focus on the debate by Team Obama was one reason that Romney’s bounce could turn into a surge. Instead of putting the debate in the rear-view mirror by offering a substantive declaration of a second-term agenda — which is already several months late in coming — Obama and his campaign chose perhaps the leastsubstantive moment from the debate to bring it all back up to voters. This is a campaign that has entirely run out of gas, so much so that the only topic they can handle is Big Bird. That doesn’t look presidential; it doesn’t look like anyone at Team Obama really cares about looking presidential and addressing the big issues any longer. They’re defaulting on the big issues and second-term agenda to Romney. If that continues, the polling shift will soon transform into a surge.
Update: The RNC has some fun with the Obama campaign’s self-immolation today with this graphic:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html
Did Obama Just Throw The Entire Election Away?
The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 - 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 - 45 lead. That's a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama's performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing.
Romney's favorables are above Obama's now. Yes, you read that right. Romney's favorables are higher than Obama's right now. That gender gap that was Obama's firewall? Over in one night:
Currently, women are evenly divided (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Last month, Obama led Romney by 18 points (56% to 38%) among women likely voters.Seriously: has that kind of swing ever happened this late in a campaign? Has any candidate lost 18 points among women voters in one night ever? And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That's terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion. He still has some personal advantages over Romney - even though they are all much diminished. Obama still has an edge on Medicare, scores much higher on relating to ordinary people, is ahead on foreign policy, and on being moderate, consistent and honest (only 14 percent of swing voters believe Romney is honest). But on the core issues of the economy and the deficit, Romney is now kicking the president's ass:By a 37% to 24% margin, more swing voters say Romney would improve the job situation. Swing voters favor Romney on the deficit by a two-to-one (41% vs. 20%) margin.... Romney has gained ground on several of these measures since earlier in the campaign. Most notably, Obama and Romney now run even (44% each) in terms of which candidate is the stronger leader. Obama held a 13-point advantage on this a month ago. And Obama’s 14-point edge as the more honest and truthful candidate has narrowed to just five points. In June, Obama held a 17-point lead as the candidate voters thought was more willing to work with leaders from the other party. Today, the candidates run about even on this (45% say Obama, 42% Romney).
Lies work when they are unrebutted live on stage. And momentum counts at this point in the election.Now look at Pew's question as to who would help the middle class the most:Look: I'm trying to rally some morale, but I've never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week - throw away almost every single advantage he had with voters and manage to enable his opponent to seem as if he cares about the middle class as much as Obama does. How do you erase that imprinted first image from public consciousness: a president incapable of making a single argument or even a halfway decent closing statement? And after Romney's convincing Etch-A-Sketch, convincing because Obama was incapable of exposing it, Romney is now the centrist candidate, even as he is running to head up the most radical party in the modern era.How can Obama come back? By ensuring people know that Romney was and is a shameless liar and opportunist? That doesn't work for a sitting president. He always needed a clear positive proposal - tax reform, a Grand Bargain on S-B lines - as well as a sterling defense of his admirable record. Bill Clinton did the former for him. Everyone imaginable did what they could for him. And his response? Well, let's look back a bit:With President Obama holed up in a Nevada resort for debate practice, things can get pretty boring on the White House beat right now. Pretty boring for Obama too, apparently. "Basically they're keeping me indoors all the time," Obama told a supporter on the phone during a visit to a Las Vegas area field office. "It's a drag," he added. "They're making me do my homework."Too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously. Too arrogant to give his supporters what they deserve. If he now came out and said he supports Simpson-Bowles in its entirety, it would look desperate, but now that Romney has junked every proposal he ever told his base, and we're in mid-October, it's Obama's only chance on the economy.Or maybe, just maybe, Obama can regain our trust and confidence somehow in the next debate. Maybe he can begin to give us a positive vision of what he wants to do (amazing that it's October and some of us are still trying to help him, but he cannot). Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves.I've never seen a candidate self-destruct for no external reason this late in a campaign before. Gore was better in his first debate - and he threw a solid lead into the trash that night. Even Bush was better in 2004 than Obama last week. Even Reagan's meandering mess in 1984 was better - and he had approaching Alzheimer's to blame.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-debate-performance-prep-preparation-romney-2012-10
( Sad attempt to minimize - you know the O Team really is feeling the heat to try this gambit... )
Obama Mocked His Debate Fiasco At A Fundraiser Last Night
AP
|
Per the White House transcript, here's what he told a crowd at a Los Angeles fundraiser, after a show that featured Jennifer Hudson, Bon Jovi, Katy Perry, Stevie Wonder, and Earth, Wind and Fire:
"These guys — and everybody here are just incredible professionals. They're such great friends, and they just perform flawlessly night after night. I can't always say the same. But here's the good news, is we've got a better vision for our country. We have a better plan for the next four years. And that's why we're here tonight."
It was Obama's most candid acknowledgment of what pundits and voters on both sides have said after last Wednesday's debate — that Romney trounced Obama.
At the fundraiser, Obama also acknowledged that he "goofed up" in the 2008 campaign, noting that the mistakes didn't come back to haunt him. And he got a dig at Romney in there, too:
"Back in 2008 — everybody always remembers the victory, but they don't always remember the bumps in the road. Things always look good in retrospect. But in the middle of it, we were — we made all kinds of mistakes. We goofed up. I goofed up. But the American people carried us forward. And even with all the things we had going for us — all the ways that things just kind of converged, 47 percent of the country still didn’t vote for me. I just want to point that out."
SNL showed no mercy though......
http://hillbuzz.org/ridicule-saturday-night-live-turns-on-obama-largely-to-save-itself-mittromney-barackobama-presobama-22056
RIDICULE: Saturday Night Live turns on Obama (largely to save itself) — #MittRomney #BarackObama #PresObama
HotAir highlighted SNL’s “Denver Debate Recap” sketch that aired last night…surprised that Saturday Night Live’s writers actually took some potshots at Obama. Remember the Alinsky Rule Book and the power of ridicule. If Obama’s being mocked on SNL now, he is not going to win the election and SNL is trying to up its ratings by getting ahead of that curve. These people are leftists, but they are not stupid…and they want to survive with an audience after Obama loses. If they thought this guy was going to win, they would not be ridiculing him now.
Obama was never ridiculed in 2008…and he was not mocked by SNL until last night. That means something.
I decided to watch the entirety of Saturday Night Live’s latest episode (hosted by Daniel Craig) so you didn’t have to. Here are my Top Ten Things to Know about what happened on the show last night (and why they are important) for each of the Obama-related sketches.
Denver Debate Debacle Sketch:
10. The “Cold Open Sketch” (the one before the “It’s Saturday Night…” opening credits) highlighted the Denver Debate. This in itself was surprising and important because SNL could have ignored the debate completely since Obama performed so poorly. They’ve done just that in the past to help their “Lightbringer” before. It would have been easy for them to do something else in the “Cold Open” and do a debate sketch later in the show after the first appearance by the musical guest or after the Weekend Update segment (when a good portion of their audience goes to sleep). That way, they could say they DID do a debate sketch…even if they limited its exposure. Instead, they did the debate sketch right up front when they have the most viewers. That was striking.
9. Obama was portrayed in the Debate Sketch as bumbling and completely out of it to the point of not using words properly, speaking poor English, and oftentimes having no idea where he was. Jay Pharaoh (who is doing a great job of impersonating Obama) really portrayed the current president as a bumbling idiot. This is the first time I’ve ever seen them do this. The previous actor who played Obama on SNL was Fred Armisen…and he impersonated Obama as “the smartest man in the room” and as a demigod who was so perfect he was above everyone else. There seems to be a deliberate show-wide decision that this portrayal is no longer acceptable and that the God-King act should not be continued by Pharaoh (which is ironic, considering “Jay” in some ancient cultures meant “god-king”). In the debate sketch Obama said things like “Four years ago when I became president I inherited the most worst economy”…which is SNL showing that Obama is no longer portrayed as the great orator that the Ministry of Truth (or Minitrue, for short) claimed he was back in 2008.
8. They actually made a little dig at Barack and Michelle’s sham marriage (though they didn’t allude to Obama being secretly gay). This was kind of “blink and you missed it”, but at the beginning of the debate sketch Obama rambled about his wedding anniversary to Michelle and seemed to have trouble remembering the details of when they met…and then the SNL cut to a shot of the real Michelle sitting there with a mad look on her face being bored, as if she couldn’t care less about what he was saying. That was very interesting. It communicated that the marriage is a sham and that Michelle didn’t feel like playing along any more. This was a weird place for SNL to go. Pharaoh-as-Obama said, “Happy Anniversary Sweetie” and SNL showed Michelle just sitting there next to Valerie Jarrett looking to the side as if she was ignoring him. STRANGE!
7. When Obama was talking during the debate, Mitt Romney (as played by Jason Sudeikas) was shown staring ahead and intently focused on every word Obama said…while Obama stared down at the podium while Romney was talking. This really happened during the actual dentate but it’s surprising that SNL went there and depicted it. SNL tried to explain Obama’s being off in space on the stage by claiming he forgot to get Michelle an anniversary gift and so he was heard talking to himself and saying “I can’t believe I forget this, but I did inherit an economic mess from Bush so that distracted me”.
6. Romney was portrayed as having complicated “47-point plans” for things and for droning on with many details (some of which SNL called “lies”) but even when doing that SNL still showed him to be a competent businessman who knew what he was talking about. I don’t think Romney was depicted in a negative way at all, though it’s clear the SNL writers don’t like or support him in real life. It was more like he was shown as a guy who came to Denver ready to debate but meanwhile his opponent decided to screw around up there and embarrass himself.
5. Mid-debate sketch, the pudgy guy playing Jim Lehrer woke Obama up from daydreaming about things he would buy Michelle back at their hotel from the gift shop to say that “Romney has just claimed that he killed Osama bin Laden, so would you care to respond” and Obama said, “No, you two go ahead” before staring back down at the podium again. This was so weird…but it was SNL’s way of showing that Obama didn’t care about the debate and didn’t even try on Wednesday to look engaged.
4. SNL repeatedly claimed Obama’s poor performance was from “altitude” and he might pass out at any minute. ”I’m getting lightheaded”. ”Why did I agree to do this in Denver?”. ”This was a bad city to have a debate in”. These were repeated excuses for his sustained incompetence.
3. “Stop subsidies to PBS” is brought up and then Jim Lehrer acts as dazed and confused as Obama. To me, this was clearly SNL trying to paint Romney as a villain for going after PBS’s federal funding without
2. Romney had to wake Obama up at the end…and when he came to, he shouted “I love my wife!”. They really hammered home the fact that Obama was out of it…but they tried to explain it on him being in a “high altitude” and being distracted by his anniversary…and not that he was on drugs at the time. Which is what I believe the problem was: that Barack Obama is a chronic drug abuser who just can’t function without a TelePrompTer to tell him what to do. If he can’t read what he’s going to say, his brain is so addled by the drugs he’s done through the years that he can’t string a few sentences together.
1. General impression was anger at Obama for throwing the debate away and not caring about his performance. In my personal opinion as a writer, this was a passive-aggressive sketch that resulted in anger in the writer’s room that Obama just threw the debate away. They didn’t mock him like they would a Republican…but they I think sent a warning to him that if he keeps doing this he will finally get the REAL treatment that SNL typically gives presidents and it won’t be pretty. The attitude was “this is the worst we want to do to you so don’t make us go further, you dummy”.
MSNBC’s “Special Report: Three Days Later a Look Back at the Obama Debate Disaster” Sketch
10. This sketch skewered the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue, for short) for being so openly working to elect Obama and so disappointed in his debate performance. The main point of the sketch is that, yes, the national media really is a Ministry of Truth working for Obama and that Minitrue is in fact a very accurate catch-all to refer to these people you see on tee-vee. Frankly, you are a dummy if you keep watching the “news” on television or reading the newspapers. Seriously — and I am talking to you if you are like my boyfriend’s mother CarolAnne and you keep doing this — unplug the cable, cancel the paper delivery, and start getting all your news from online sources with consistent conservative bent from now on. Avoid the tee-vee like the plague because it lies to you and the people on the air are openly members of Minitrue. YES, even at FOX. All of them are in on this, so stop falling for it and letting them poison your thinking.
9. Rachel Maddow is depicted as working for the Obama campaign itself, citing it as her job to “pick up the pieces and make sense of Obama’s debate performance”. Maddow was portrayed not as a TV news commentator but as an actual Obama strategist tasked with doing outright damage control for him. No pretense at all of being a “journalist”.
8. “The Worst Thing That Ever Happened Anywhere” is how MSNBC described the Denver Debate in this sketch. Which is exactly how MSNBC reacted on Wednesday night. I’m telling you in as plain of language as I can: if you still watch this channel and you oppose Obama and Democrats then you are a fool because these people on MSNBC are part of the Obama campaign and you are willingly watching a propaganda channel.
7. Al Sharpton is portrayed as a moron who supports Obama to the last just because he is black. ”I will never forget where I was the night of that debate. I was here, on MSNBC”. Sharpton treats the debate like it was a national tragedy in line with 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or the day Kennedy was assassinated with his “I will never forget where I was” line. ”I think he did bad but now I want to make an excuse for why he did bad”, Sharpton says, before trailing off into a weird theory that Obama was poisoned by the atmosphere in Denver and that he couldn’t speak well there because he was from Hawaii originally and they have lower atmosphere there. This is honestly sort of what Al Gore tried to claim immediately after the debate disaster. Sharpton called it “Altitude Poisoning” in the SNL sketch. Later, Sharpton claimed that it was “the time zones” and Denver being “in the Western hemisphere” that was the problem.
6. S.E. Cupp made it into the ranks of conservatives that SNL lampoons. She’s depicted as a vacuous, smiling, gloater. To be honest, I don’t read much of her stuff but think it’s interesting they didn’t go with an Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin impression here so Cupp must be irritating enough lefties with something to warrant an SNL appearance. It really is true, no matter how much you dislike the show, that a mark of “making it” on the national scene is being parodied on SNL so congrats to Cupp (who I hear is a nice person in real life and worthy of her success).
5. Chris Matthews is shown screaming, yelling, being incoherent, and not having bathed or slept since Obama’s debate performance. This was Jason Sudeikis playing him…and it was funny. Matthews looks like a guy whose boyfriend cheated on him and he’s obsessed with “getting answers” as to why. He just screams and yells through most of the sketch and is clearly unhinged. This should be a wakeup call to MSNBC if even SNL sees that Matthews’ Obama worship has really gone off the edge. In the sketch, Matthews got vulgar and said that “Obama took a giant dump” on the stage. Which is kind of accurate, though I don’t condone the imagery. Matthews claimed “the first rule of debating is to always be interrupting” and Obama was wrong to let Romney even talk.
4. Rachel Maddow tries to create “another Romney gaffe” by replaying a part where Romney stumbled on the word “inflation”. She plays that bit over and over again, trying to make a big deal of it and saying that “Romney is not presidential if he can’t say this word correctly”. This was a clear and strong punch at MSNBC for always trying to invent some “gaffe” for Romney to help Obama. MSNBC has really crossed a line and lost all credibility if even SNL must admit this now.
3. Al Sharpton claimed that Romney and Obama really switched bodies Freaky-Friday style and that that was why “Romney was cool and Obama didn’t have no game”. This was a point in the sketch where Sharpton just kept trying to grasp at increasingly more desperate straws in order to explain what happened to Barack Obama at that debate.
2. Chris Matthews called Obama a “pussy” and then advised him to go “all Mike Tyson on Romney” at the next debate. Which is funny, because that would backfire on Obama as well. I honestly don’t know what Obama will do at the next debate because suddenly being angry and “Mike Tyson” will just make him look crazy. I sincerely don’t know how I’d advise him if I was his campaign staff. That debate on Wednesday was a disaster that will be hard to recover from…and I personally don’t think he can.
1. Maddow ends the segment by asking “Is winning the election even important?” She says the answer might surprise you. I say this is SNL getting ahead of the curve and acknowledging that Obama is going to lose so that later they can say they rode the zeitgeist correctly. Obama failed, SNL acknowledged it, and it seems the trend is for the writers of this show to paint the remainder of the campaign in “winning isn’t important because we at least had four years of glory” shades of disappointment and accepting reality.
Weekend Update for 10/6/2012:
10. “Well, you have to hand it to Mitt Romney...because President Obama sure did”.
9. “Obama failed to mention Romney’s infamous 47% comment…electing to take the high road…but failing to mention that THAT road leads to building houses with Jimmy Carter”.
8. Romney says he will cut funding to PBS but it’s ironic because “Mitt” is such an excellent Muppet name. Lame joke follows about Mitt not wanting to borrow from China to pay for PBS and then Seth Meyers says that “today’s Sesame Street is brought to you by the letter “THIS”‘ and shows a Chinese simplified character under the Sesame Street logo.
7. 70 million people watched the debate on tee-vee, online, or “from one of the podiums”…as Seth Meyers says this, a shot of Obama looking down at his feet and seeming like he’s sleeping was put on the screen.
6. Admitted that Obama lost the debate BIG. No trying to lie and claim it was indecisive or a tie. Obama lost and they admitted it, which is weird for SNL.
5. Winners/Losers Section: Moderator Jim Lehrer is mocked for allowing Obama to lose. ”Like a ghost visiting a scene from his past life”. Lehrer was “an out of towner trying to hail a cab at rush hour”. He was “stammering like Hugh Grant in a rom-com”. Meyers said, “Hey Jim, you have to keep guys to time. If that’s how long you think two minutes is then your wife is a lucky woman”. FOX News is declared the big winner with Meyers saying that after the debate FOX executives said “I think we can report this thing exactly as it happened”. Michelle Obama is declared a loser for having to watch her husband “take a beating like that on your anniversary”. Seth Meyers then takes a punch at Romney over Sesame Street and also calls him a liar on healthcare but the jokes were so lame they are not worth detailing…and Meyers looks desperate doing them. BIGGEST WINNER: America…because Meyers says “is there anything more exciting than Joe Biden thinking it’s up to him to get the lead back”?
4. Big Bird came on to talk about cuts to PBS. The actual, real Big Bird. This is desperation and fear, people. The thing is, though, that I think most people understand that Sesame Street makes a LOT of money. I think it’s like $200 million in merchandise profit alone. Probably much more than that. PBS does not need government funding if it can make so much off merchandise sales and Sesame Street is never going anywhere because if it had to leave PBS it would become its own channel, no doubt, somewhere. So go ahead and try to scare people with Big Bird going away…they will not really believe this if they think about how much Sesame Street stuff is for sale in stores and howe expensive it all is. In the sketch, Big Bird is told he was mentioned in the debate and they do a joke about Twitter and “tweets” (since he’s a bird). Big Bird says he does not talk politics because it ruffles feathers. While Big Bird is on stage it’s clear that Meyers has been restrained from saying anything anti-Romney or pro-Obama as per the terms of the deal to have Big Bird appear. Sesame Street is being very careful to not allow Big Bird to DIRECTLY take sides here…but having him appear right after Meyers was being negative about Romney reinforces in the minds of viewers that “Romney is against Big Bird”. This is the Left’s only angle of attack right now, but it will not work, folks.
3. The rest of Weekend Update was random: QVC codes on tombstones, women putting crack cocaine in their vaginas, dogs being stoned.
2. They had Cecelia Giminez on (the woman who “ruined” that painting of Jesus in Spain, who is now demanding money for it because it became famous) in the form of one of the SNL actresses whose name I don’t know. I really wish this woman hadn’t done this. It was a great story up until she started demanding a share of the profits from her “work” on the painting. I went from feeling sorry for her for trying to do a nice thing and then being made fun of…to then loving how a positive result came in the form of increased tourism to the town that saved many small businesses…to now being disgusted by this greedy pig of a person. People, quit while you are ahead in situations like this. SNL lampooned her as saying “Gimme the money” over and over again and mocked her for thinking Jesus really looks like the painting she made. It was actually funny the way they depicted her as a greedy, crazy, drunk person. I would have taken exception with that before…but after Cecelia started demanding money instead of just being happy that people liked the painting, I don’t care if anyone makes fun of her now.
1. All in all, SNL really could only try to attack Romney as being a villain for “wanting to take away Big Bird”. Everything else was just accepting that Obama did terribly this week. That’s not good for Democrats. Surprisingly, they didn’t try to do a Todd Aiken joke or claim Republicans hate women. Looks like the public has pretty much forgotten about this now. If SNL is not beating it like a dead horse, it is truly forgotten by people.
* * *
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2012/10/05/obama/?wprss=rss_politics
Does Barack Obama really want to be president?
Seeing our president hanging out at podiums in Charlotte and now Denver, his famous competitiveness nowhere to be seen, has left me with a question I wish I didn’t have: Does Barack Obama really want to be president?
His campaign team wants it, yes, and his party, and his wife. But if meeting donors and lawmakers is such a drag, and campaigning such a chore, maybe he’d rather be home in Chicago, spending time with his family and small circle of close friends. At work, only his students would press him for answers. And at parties, he could indulge his kindhearted inclination to seek out the oldest person in the room and settle in to hear his stories.
There are more introverts than you might think in his business, just as in mine, actually; both are chockablock with people who might never speak to anyone without a call list to get through or a notepad in hand.
Only, in love, in work, and in politics, desire is at least as important as affinity; you actually have to want it, and show that that’s the case. Anyone can have an off night or two, of course. Obama’s last couple of major outings, though, were so lacking in oomph that he seemed weary of going on.
In Charlotte, he told us that he was older and sadder than when he’d first hit the national stage, at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, where his fellow quiet guy John Kerry was nominated:
Eight years later, that hope has been tested — by the cost of war; by one of the worst economic crises in history; and by political gridlock that’s left us wondering whether it’s still possible to tackle the challenges of our time.I know that campaigns can seem small, and even silly. Trivial things become big distractions. Serious issues become sound bites. And the truth gets buried under an avalanche of money and advertising. If you’re sick of hearing me approve this message, believe me — so am I.
These days, he’s more optimistic than ever, he went on to say, but that part didn’t come through.
The message Bill Clinton delivered was far more convincing, and he assured us that Obama does want to be rehired:
“I want to nominate a man,” Clinton said, “who’s cool on the outside, but who burns for America on the inside.” Eventually, though, the voter needs to see the fire in the outwardly cool candidate with his own eyes.
And if he shows more passion on the shuffleboard court than in this presidential race, why is that?
Maybe, just as Obama yelled at Vanity Fair’s Michael Lewis during a basketball game, someone needs to yell at him, “Don’t be looking to the sidelines all sheepish. You got to get back and play D!”
But then again, maybe not; in the end, the intensity has to come from him.
and....
http://washingtonexaminer.com/liberals-fret-is-obama-bored-does-he-want-a-second-term-maybe-not./article/2510054#.UHGka03A-gQ
Liberals fret: Is Obama bored? Does he want a second term? Maybe not.
There’s no doubt President Obama’s liberal supporters are worried by his lackluster performance in the Denver debate. “Everyone is in shock,” one show-business liberal told the Hollywood reporter. “No one can understand what happened.” The Obama faithful are offering the White House advice, talking points, pep talks — anything to improve the president’s performance when he next faces Mitt Romney at Hofstra University on October 16.
But for some liberal writers, the concern goes deeper. Perhaps Obama’s somewhat withdrawn demeanor at the debate was an indication that he doesn’t even want a second term as president.
On the morning after the debate, The Atlantic ran an analysis headlined, “Snippy Obama, Whose Heart’s Not In It.” Writer Garance Franke-Ruta suggested that Obama, as an unusually sensitive man, has been worn down by the presidency’s demands of conducting war in Afghanistan and dealing with crises like the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya. “His supporters keep wanting Obama to be who he was in 2008,” Franke-Ruta wrote. “But that’s not who he is anymore.” Obama’s old enthusiasm for the job is simply gone.
Now, in the Daily Beast, liberal writer Michael Tomasky asks, “Does Obama Even Want to Win the Election?” After poor Obama showings at the debate, the Democratic convention, and a high-profile “60 Minutes” interview, Tomasky writes, “Someone needs to ask the cut-to-the-chase question: is he enthusiastic about keeping this job, or he is just maybe tired of being president?”
Perhaps he is. If so, there were certainly signs long before Wednesday night in Denver. A look at the president’s career shows he has never stayed in a job four years without looking to move on to something better.
After a year or two as a community organizer, Obama became deeply frustrated by his inability to enact the kind of big changes in society that he wanted to see. He went to Harvard Law School to plug into the power structure that would help him make those changes in the future. Returning to Chicago three years later, he dabbled in the practice of law before winning a seat in the state Senate in 1996. But he became frustrated with the job almost immediately; according to a Washington Post profile, Obama began “chafing … at the limitations of legislating in Springfield.”
The easily-bored state legislator almost immediately began planning a run for the U.S. House in 2000 — which turned out to be his only losing campaign. Shortly thereafter, he set his sights on the U.S. Senate, winning in 2004.
But within a year after arriving in Washington in early 2005, Obama was restless again. According to the election account Game Change, in 2006 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “sensed [Obama's] frustration and impatience, had heard rumblings that Obama was already angling to head back home and take a shot at the Illinois governorship.”
“I know that you don’t like it, doing what you’re doing,” Reid told Obama, according to Game Change. Reid suggested Obama run for president instead. Soon Obama was doing just that.
Now Obama has been president for nearly four years. Aided by a huge Democratic majority from 2009 to 2011, he achieved some big things — massive stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize, essentially for showing up. But he hasn’t achieved, and won’t achieve in four more years, the “fundamental transformation” of American society that he envisioned. And his entire career suggests that by now he should be angling for a bigger, better job. The problem is, there isn’t such a position — and a second term in the same old job doesn’t count. The chief benefit of winning re-election to a second term might simply be to avoid being labeled a loser, to avoid joining Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush as presidents who couldn’t win a second time.
So if his liberal supporters sense signs of boredom and frustration in the president, they might be right. I wrote about this in a January 2010 column that began, “This is about the time Barack Obama becomes bored with his job.” Back then, he had just passed a year in office — about the time, in the past, that his restlessness and ambition began to kick in. Now, years later, the problem is only worse.
and......
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/henry-porter-obama-romney-debate
Has a disillusioned Barack Obama lost the will to win?
The president's lacklustre TV performance cheered Republicans but they would be unwise to gloat just yet
Email
Barack Obama: he appeared to lose out to Mitt Romney on TV. Photograph: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
'Romney wanted to be there; Obama didn't want to be there," was the pithy verdict on last week's presidential debate from James Carville, who helped put Bill Clinton into the White House in 1992. You simply can't argue with that. Obama seemed frazzled, undernourished and almost disengaged from the policies that are closest to his heart. You wondered if this man actually wanted to win the election. Does he have the stomach for another four years?
Anyone who has died on stage, or flopped in front of a TV audience, will have felt for him. I looked away from the debate, feeling awkward and was rather amazed to hear what sounded like Obama debating Reagan, not Romney – a plausible, slightly folksy voice pushing moderate conservatism. That's no surprise – Mitt Romney is consciously channelling the last Republican hero and it represents a real danger for Obama.
Much research has been done on the impact presidential debates have on undecided voters. The orthodoxy is that the debates don't matter very much and that the candidate with a lead in the polls after the first debate, as Obama still has, wins the majority in the electoral college, which means that nothing that happens in the subsequent debates on 16 and 22 October should affect the outcome.
But it's certainly not a done deal in 2012. Obama's lead was cut to two points after the debate, though his week was somewhat saved by an unemployment rate that sank below 8%, the lowest since he took office.
What matters as much as the candidates' performance is the narrative in the media. A study on the 2004 clash between George Bush and John Kerry shows that the media vastly influenced the perception about who won. Those shown no commentary after the debate believed Kerry had won, whereas those watching NBC coverage, which praised Bush's performance, insisted that Bush had won.
The debates usually allow for some latitude in interpretation and both sides find something to take away, but Obama was so dramatically underpowered, so underwhelming and dreary that the American media unhesitatingly awarded the bout to Romney. He seemed top dog in all respects: he looked better, spoke better (541 more words than Obama with four fewer minutes speaking time, to be exact) and appeared in command of the agenda. By contrast, Obama missed the target several times, but mostly didn't try to hit it.
This may be the pivotal moment of the campaign, which will not properly register in the polls until after the next debate. The truisms that a challenger is simply running for election, while the incumbent is running a country as well, and that the serving president comes to the platform with a grim realism about the job and intractability of so many problems count for something. The challenger is relatively fresh; he has less to lose and he has the president's record to aim at. But these advantages on Romney's side do not account for the wipe-out in Denver.
Al Gore ventured (unhelpfully) that Obama had not acclimatised to Denver being 5,000 feet above sea level while an American friend of mine wondered if the diet-conscious president was suffering from low blood sugar, which is to say, the lack of a good steak dinner before the 90-minute debate.
Something was wrong, although a letter in the New York Times suggested that if you listened to the debate, rather than watched it, Obama was the clear victor. But the "optics versus substance" argument is beside the point because 67.2 million Americans watched the debate, and a recent MIT study has shown that an energetic, good-looking candidate benefits from the debates, "with new support coming from less informed voters".
That the president is black, that he seemed dog tired and often glanced at his notes when Romney was speaking had an uncomfortable but rarely acknowledged resonance in the US. I am sorry to have mention this, but the contrast between the black guy, momentarily off his game and looking downwards, and the white guy, all crisp, clear-eyed and on top of things, will register in the subconscious of an electorate that is far from being free of racism.
But whatever the subliminal traffic of the debate, there is no doubt that Obama conceded important territory by allowing Romney to stake a claim for the presidency as a unifying figure, the candidate who, despite his privileged background, tax records, offshore bank accounts and the export of American jobs to China, could heal the rift in American politics.
Romney sold his record as governor in Massachusetts, where he worked with a large Democrat majority, as the qualification for ending the logjam in Washington: he was the man to walk across the aisle and do business with the other side.
While incanting the creed that espouses individual choice and enterprise over big government and centralised authority, Romney shifted to the centre ground and simultaneously implied that Obama was, in fact, the divisive figure of US politics. A successful completion of this move may be as dangerous to Obama as the spooky invocation of Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Does Obama's poor performance last week indicate a subconscious desire to quit the White House and withdraw to Harvard or Chicago to write books? He could be forgiven. In December, the US government faces what the Federal Reserve chief, Ben Bernanke, has called the fiscal cliff, the expiration of tax breaks and the beginning of deep budget cuts, which will increase federal revenues by about 19%, yet will plunge the US into a double-dip recession.
Faced with the choice between debt and recession, the government will eventually opt for the first, but the result of either course is not good. In addition, the victor will face the fallout from Europe's economic problems, Iran's nuclear ambitions and the poisonous atmosphere in Washington DC, which certainly won't be at ease with an Obama victory.
For an individual such as Obama who is not wholly a freak or narcissist, the job entails unique psychic fatigue, which Obama hinted at when he spoke to Michael Lewis in Vanity Fair. He talked of the toxic nature of cable news and some research that showed the simple act of taking decisions – even what to wear or what to eat – degraded one's ability to take further decisions.
But judging by his punchy speeches at the end of last week, Obama still has an appetite for the job. Something that is forgotten in all the performance reviews of Denver is that the debate brought out the ideological differences of the two men in vivid detail. Simply watching Romney pretend that he has not promised $5tn in tax breaks to the wealthy and obfuscate on welfare cuts will surely be enough to inspire Obama. He had an off day – we all do – but now the race is too close to call.
While we read about different polls everyday , here is a different item to ponder.... and check the track record for the model !
Updated election forecasting model still points to Romney win, University of Colorado study says
and maybe this is why Obama has been so clearly disinterested , mailing it in so far at the last debate......
http://hillbuzz.org/the-obamas-already-preparing-for-move-to-hawaii-in-january-2013-hyde-park-neighbors-talking-about-chicago-house-being-sold-soon-63935
The Obamas Already Preparing for Move to Hawaii in January 2013: Hyde Park neighbors talking about Chicago house being sold soon
[ Click above to embiggen: Iolani Palace is no doubt where Barack and Michelle Obama would like to live, but it's not available to them as it's a museum now. Instead, the Obamas are using Chicago proxy-buyers to purchase a $35 million oceanfront estate for them in the most posh area of Oahu, where they coincidentally vacation frequently already. Move-in date is scheduled for January 2013 ]
UPDATE: Just found out that the asking price of the house they are looking at is most likely $35 million. Bobby Titcomb, the Hawaiian native who brings Obama “fish and poi” (that’s code for “weed and coke”) to the White House is most likely involved in the purchase of the estate on Oahu that the Obamas will most likely be moving into in January. Possibly watching Titcomb’s movements will give more clues as to which house, exactly, Obama will move to in January 2013.
UPDATE #2: Found it! Here’s the only property that matches all the clues we’ve been given. It is on the market for $35 million, which matches what Mrs. Robinson has been saying about the “$35 million house she’d be living in soon”. This estate was also featured on TV’s remake of Hawaii 5-O recently. Do you see how that’s a little in-joke that Obama would like…the “O” in the show’s name, like the “O” he’s used as his personal emblem since 2008? A man who named his dog BO, after his own initials, would love to own a house that was featured in an “O” show, like after his last name. This is a photo of the house as featured on TV and in Honolulu Magazine so you can see a little inside. The link above has more pics of the house that Barack Obama will soon be living in as an ex-president.
UPDATE #3 – Weird coincidence, but Drudge Report is right now running stories about the shootings that happen just blocks from the Obamas’ house here in Chicago in the area of Hyde Park. The whole city has gotten MUCH more dangerous in the last four years. This jives with what Mrs. Robinson told friends here in Chicago about her not moving back to Chicago and about the Obama’s Hyde Park house going on the market soon.
************************************
Barack and Michelle Obama will be moving to Hawaii in January of 2013 and preparations are now being made to purchase an estate in close proximity to land owned by the University of Hawaii, where the Obama presidential library and “political center” will be located.
Here in Chicago, it’s pretty obvious that Michelle does not want to move back to this city and its winters (for any reason) and Michelle’s mother, who’s been living in the White House with her daughter and her family, will be happily making the move to Hawaii as well.
I have a friend whose family knows Michelle’s mother; they have been crystal clear that the elderly Mrs. Robinson regularly says that she’ll be in Hawaii next year permanently with her daughter and granddaughters. There is neither talk of returning to Chicago to live nor of living in the White House for another four years — instead, there’s a sense of “it was fun while it lasted” coming from Mrs. Robinson in her talks with her Chicago friends.
Democrats are already working to locate an acceptable property in Hawaii for the Obamas to live; this land and its complex of buildings must be ready to move-into in January and must meet all the requirements the Secret Service demands since the Obamas will be granted continued protection, by law, for nine years after Barack leaves office. The Reagans, Clintons, and second Bush family all had their post-presidential homes purchased quietly on the side by friends when their times in office were coming to an end. The Obamas are doing the same thing now.
They are not talking about building a complex on vacant land because there is not time for that. They will need a place to live come January, and they are not returning to their home in Chicago that was purchased with the help of convicted felon Tony Rezko. Chicago served its purpose in Obama’s life and moving back here provides him no additional benefits. As a former president, he’d always be the second most powerful man in a town where the Mayor of Chicago is essentially a feudal king. In Hawaii, the Obamas will hold court as a new royal family on the islands.
Back in 2009, the University of Chicago showed interest in obtaining the Barack Obama Presidential Library and Museum (and Political Action Center) but all of that cooled when Chicago lost its ill-fated bid for the Olympics; those plans included the construction of parking garages and other support buildings that would have been centered around a temporary stadium that was meant to be demolished and replaced with the Obama Library Building. Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to the President, purchased large tracts of tenement land near the proposed sites of all this construction hoping to cash in with a huge windfall when first the Olympics and then the Obama Library were supposed to be there. But neither of these things is coming to Chicago now.
The University of Hawaii will host the Library, Musuem, and “Political Action Center”. Most likely, it will be called the Obama Center, like the Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Just like the Carters, the Obamas want to live as close to the Library complex as possible so Barack can hold court there, give speeches, and walk through a replica of his Oval Office to relive past glories (which is what Jimmy Carter does on a regular basis, FYI). This is pretty common for former presidents, actually. Both of the Bush families moved close to where their respective presidential libraries were built and the Reagans before them had a post-presidency life in close proximity to Ronald Reagan’s library.
The Clintons are anomalous for not moving back to Arkansas and living in New York state instead. The Obamas will resume the tradition of the former president living in a new home purchased quietly by friends and allies in the last days of his presidency to be occupied immediately after he leaves office and begins the construction of his post-presidential office and archives of his administration.
I’m not familiar with the real estate process in Hawaii, but I bet some of you who are industrious could start to look at transactions and available estates and note those that meet the following criteria for the Obamas’ new home:
* must have gorgeous ocean views and a private beach
* must be easily accessible via a short drive from an airfield, as Obama will want to travel a lot to give speeches in Jimmy Carter fashion after he leaves office
* must contain a main house with at least six bedrooms (one for Barack, one for Michelle, one for Mrs. Robinson, and one for each of the daughters); ideally the estate will have a separate in-law suite for Mrs. Robinson as she’d like some privacy I’ve been told
* must contain outbuildings for the secret service to occupy (as they will maintain a command center there for the family’s protection for nine years after he leaves office)
* must not have any close neighbors (or if it’s adjacent to another property, there must be high fences and some kind of barrier between the properties)
* must be easily accessible to a location where the University of Hawaii can maintain the Obama Library and Obama himself can work in his Obama Center
That last one is the big clue to where you will find a spot for their new home…since Barack Obama will want to be able to commute easily to the “Obama Center”, wherever that is built. He’s a young-for-an-ex-president man, so he’s got a good 40 years ahead of him to make use of that Obama Center when it’s built…and I imagine he wouldn’t want to drive any further to it every day than Jimmy Carter does to the Carter Center in Atlanta.
Where’s a good location that the University of Hawaii would want to build his library, so that it becomes a tourist attraction for Hawaii and also afford the University the Prestige of having it on a campus? The University will be picking up a lot of the cost of the Library’s construction as private fundraising for this project has thus far been anemic. In Chicago, Penny Pritzker has already started making soft calls to inquire if people would be willing to be generous to the Obama presidential library project and she’s gotten mostly polite declines (and some hang-ups). Someone who works for Penny told me that.
Figure out where the University of Hawaii could build this, and you’ll figure out the radius of a 20-30 minute drive (at most) for where the Obamas will have their next home starting in January of 2013.
Also keep an eye on architect Frank Gehry’s activities. The Pritzker family funded the Pritzker Pavillion in Millennium Park in Chicago, which Gehry designed. He’s the architect that designs buildings to look like crumpled paper that has been wadded up into a ball and placed on a pedestal. The idea for the Obama Library building is for it to resemble the US Constitution as crumpled into a ball during Obama’s term in office. Frank Gehry will design it, Penny Pritzker will spearhead the fundraising for it, and the Obamas will be living very close to where it will be built in Hawaii.
The clues are there…now we just need to figure out where this will be.
It’s a place I doubt I’d ever want to visit, but it’s not sitting well with Chicagoans here on the ground that it’s not being built in Illinois because without the Chicago political machine Obama would not have gotten to where he is. But now that he’s there, and will be leaving the White House soon…there’s no more need for Chicago or Chicagoans.
Hawaii, here they come!
***********************
READ PART TWO – Who is funding the purchase of this $35 million estate and how can the Obamas afford it?
READ PART THREE — Celebrate National Empty Chair Day in Barack and Michelle’s new $35 million beachfront estate
No comments:
Post a Comment