The blog post offends because Dowd offends. The woman is a doorknob.

Maybe it's news that idiot lefties are coming around.

But can anyone be surprised? Could it mean anything to us that they do? Should the judgment of people who were so impressed by Obama ever be trusted? And they LOVED this guy! Remember? This was where their heads were at. It wasn't that long ago.

There's nothing wrong with the blog post, OK?

But Maureen Dowd....

Crid she's just disappointed because she thought that, under Obama, the government would give all journalists free booze.

No, she's only pretending to be relaxed in her own skin. Women her age who dress that way and mean it aren't smirking about playing dress-up, and they usually don't bother to dye their hair so fastidiously.

Dowd's just another in a long line of lefties who have to give in to the shame and admit that they've been royally had.

Oh, and Obama's a Stuttering Clusterfuck of a Miserable Failure.

There may be hope -- when the leftist media is starting to abandon the Anointed One® they may be realizing the errors of their ways.

But of course it won't be any of His® fault when he is resoundingly beaten at the polls.

Well, when you've lost MoDo, you've lost........

Never mind. Dowd's so messed up emotionally and politically, she's in a class by herself. ;-)

The expression of a policy is a written plan in detail, something more substantial than a scribble on a cocktail napkin. The public has already lost when the discussion of legislation comes out of a back room "deal" or a press conference.

The amazing fact of recent budget and debt limit negotiations is that Obama presented a budget to the Democrat majority Senate, which was rejected by 97 - 0. He has presented no further written plan. Neither the Senate nor Obama has presented a budget in over two years.

The Republicans have presented and voted on a written budget and a written debt limit plan. The "Gang of Six" senators have proposed "cuts" from indefinite future spending levels, and not in writing. That is the old accounting trick of cutting half of a proposed 10% increase.

I hope people of all parties and positions could agree that written plans are fundamental. It is non-partisan to demand that the President and all politicians show the details and analysis behind their proposals. If there is no researched and detailed plan, then that is a horrible misuse of office and a betrayal of the public.

The government presents less planning and justification than a contractor does for a house renovation.

Where are the policy papers which explain and justify the giant experiments that our government is forcing on the people? Where are the measured results of government programs? These are things we can get if we merely ask, or demand, and shame them into a response. Our lives are at stake.

A Few Words About Policy

She's supposed to be smart, like Obama, but I'm not seeing the evidence there either.

In other news, can we agree that Sister knows how to wear a sweater?

I hope people of all parties and positions could agree that written plans are fundamental.

As good as that is, it won't be until the Federal Government subjects itself to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and the Sarbanes–Oxley Act that things will be better. As it stands, the Congressional Budget Office is given a list of conditions and they're required to crunch the number no matter how ridiculous those conditions are.

So long as that is true, I can come up with a concrete, detailed plan that balances the budget in 3 years and cancels the debt in 15. It also requires the south end of a north-bound unicorn producing Skittles at an alarming rate.

"Seriously

I mean, Seriously

We're talking about after four kids here.

Okay, the hair in that last one might not all be original equipment. But if the Maureen Dowds of the world are going to get all moist and runny over the poochfaced 'Hope' poster, I should be forgiven for admiring imagery like this.

What the Democrats should do, if they find Obama distasteful, is to find someone who is more than willing to beat him in the Democratic primaries.

That someone, however, will run far to the left of Obama and promise that they will do the things Obama promised to do but didn't have the temerity to do, and they won't do it with flair and style - they'll do it brass-knuckles style.

The Dems' ain't stupid, though. The second they put a hard-line Dem up there, or a kook who believes that the troops should have been pulled out of the Middle East the second their inauguration ended, any Republican can take the White House.

They may, however, have a ace in their sleeve - Hillary Clinton. Hillary is currently SecStat and is probably telling everyone in the drawing rooms that he likes the title but not the work, and that the novelty after four years has worn off.

They might not like Hillary's methods, but they really do want someone "leading from the front." Hillary will demur until Obama really gunks something up, and then she'll do her "resign from the Secretary of State and challenge Obama" speech to the relief and delight of the old guard and then maintain control of the White House.

Hillary commands every bit as much hatred from the right as Palin summons from the left... But she's been on the scene, composing a list of scandals, for 20 years. No young voter can pretend she's the bold new candidate for their new generation...

And then there's her blank list of accomplishments, and the fact that she could never have come to where she is today without having been married to the President.

The left may have a great candidate next year, but I'm not certain it will be Hillary.

The left may have a great candidate next year, but I'm not certain it will be Hillary.

The left doesn't have a candidate.

And it won't be Hillary.

Obama co-opted all his potential opposition. Napolitano, Clinton, and Sebelius are in his Cabinet (and all have shown themselves to be incompetent or have accomplished nothing). Patrick and Gregoire have been way too supportive of Obama to be viable anti-Obama candidates. The only other governors (after Obama non-executives need not apply) the Dems can turn to don't have enough experience (Cuomo

Hillary would need the Democratic party to publicly beg her to run (both to soothe a wounded ego and to ensure she doesn't look disloyal).

Besides, Hillary has no actual accomplishments as Secretary of State. None.

So electing a Republican next year to replace Obama is a sure bet for improving the economy and our country? I don't think so.

Crid and Conan: Dayum, you're both good! Yup, I can't remember Hillary doing anything and I can't imagine them asking her to run (unless, of course, she has plenty of goods against some of the muckety-mucks, and figures what's a little blackmail between frenemies - you get me elected, I won't release any sordid details about [fill in scandal here]?)

Inconoclast: I don't think so either. We've now cast the elections as a way for people to sell their goods and then lie boldfaced when we ask them what happened to their promises (or get their flunkies to do their dirty work). When we get out of American Idol Elections mode and prune a lot of the career politicians out of our government from both parties, that will begin the improvement.

...you're both good! Yup, I can't remember Hillary doing anything....

So ... let's list her actual achievements.

She was the first female partner at the Rose Law Firm. Of course, her husband was the governor of Arkansas at the time and the firm handled state business.

When Clinton lost his bid for re-election, she toyed with running for governor herself, but polls indicated she was unpopular with the electorate, so Bill ran again.

As First Lady of the US, she stood by her man, earning loyalty points (points she won't blow by turning on Obama - no matter how shabbily he has treated her).

She was elected senator from New York. Her opponent dropped out of the race with medical issues, leaving a less-known and less popular candidate to run in his place. And her husband was the first two-term Democratic president since FDR, so there were pretty substantial coattails to ride.

As senator, she sponsored no major legislation.

As Secretary of State she has led no major foreign policy initiatives [Obama marginalized her from the beginning with czars to handle the flashpoint issues]. She bungled the initial meeting with the Russians. She hasn't been mentioned in any major news stories about foreign policy lately. The networks aren't featuring her in their coverage of Libya. The White House has not made her their point person on the Libyan intervention, despite her advocacy of it.

And she won't run against Obama without the party making a big deal about needing her to do so because to do so without that coverage would make her disloyal to the president and divide the party ... and dividing the party would probably guarantee a Republican win.

==============================

Yep, the Democrats are good and screwed with Barry. Or they should be.

But, thanks to statewide electoral delegate awarding, the Dems do stand a chance. Barry's probably got 247 electoral votes locked up to the Republicans' 205. With only seven states actually in play, Barry could end up with a second term.

The blog post offends because Dowd offends. The woman is a doorknob.

That is a gross insult to doorknobs the world over.

---

I have niece in her mid-20s. A Facebook post of hers last week harshed Pres Obama. It was followed by a torrent of replies from her cohorts.

All of which were equally harsh.