April 21, 2010

"We are going to do that"/"Yes, we can!"

Here's President Obama stumping for Barbara Boxer and interrupted by hecklers demanding the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Obama turns on some charm and says "We are going to do that," and the crowd starts chanting "Yes, we can."



Now, I interpret the "Yes, we can" chant as sarcastic. You say you "are going to" do something, but why haven't you done it? You ran for office telling us "yes, we can," and you got the power of the office, so you've had time to demonstrate your vaunted capacity to do things. To tell us now that you will do something in the future isn't good enough. Sarcastic, right? If not, it should be.

95 comments:

TMink said...

Hero worship leaves no room for sarcasm.

Trey

Drew said...

Whoa. The President made his "annoyed" face. He quite clearly did not like being interrupted, even with his own over-weening catch-phrase.

PatCA said...

I think we are witnessing the collapse of this narcissist's bubble. Whether it's in time to save the republic, I don't know.

Franco said...

I thought it was the other Obama supporters grabbing a nearby slogan to drown them out.

wv "untri" to reverse a previous attempt

Mark O said...

Sarcasm requires more intelligence than can be claimed by Boxer supporters.

AllenS said...

The people yelling "Yes, We Can" are Obama supporters. A lot of Democrats don't like fags.

vet66 said...

I took his remark as "You want a piece of this? Come on down!" Yeah right, as if that would happen. For a moment he almost shrunk to the size of little miss Boxer who disappeared in his shadow.

The community organizer still thinks he can portray the erstwhile "angry black man" and people will shrink back into their assumed latent racism. He is as out of touch here on earth as he would be on an asteroid in the outer belt of the solar system he want NASA to explore.

shoutingthomas said...

Angry protesters!

Potential terrorists!

LL said...

Obama is going to do that right afte he closes Gitmo and pulls all the military out of Iraq.

mRed said...

Come on people. Being everything to everybody every hour of every day is hard work. Those hecklers should be muzzled and jailed for being so darn mean. It's not like he promised as in a cross my heart sort of way. Can't we all just get along?

Fred4Pres said...

I think it is called holding Da One's feet to the fire.

I would gladly trade repealing health care reform for repealing don't ask don't tell.

bagoh20 said...

Are liberals more likely to suffer spousal abuse in silence? "He really does love me, he's just struggling with a lot of issues right now." At least a few are standing up for their principles above partisanship.

Quayle said...

Why weren't the hecklers saying "thank you" to Obama for all he has already done for them?

You'd think they'd be more grateful.

I mean, he's over there mopping the floor, and the hecklers are telling him to mop it differently.

He's over there trying to get the car out of the ditch, and the hecklers are criticizing him.

Ungrateful bastards.

Kirstin said...

Where did he learn that fake Southern-ish dialect? In Indonesia? At an exclusive Hawaiian prep school? Occidental College? Columbia? Harvard? In Chicago?

Paul Zrimsek said...

Post from Garage claiming that Obama has already repealed DADT and the hecklers have been duped by Fox News coming in 4...3...2...1...

Kensington said...

I thought it was the Obama zombies bitterly clinging to their slogans in order to shout down the dissenters. You know, business as usual for the Left.

jk said...

It's not shown in Ann's link, but later in this speech Obama confers w Boxer and says she "didn't vote" for DADT. You can see it at about 6:27 in the clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY3qX-O_aKE&feature=related

I may be misunderstanding, but I thought DADT was put into place via a Clinton executive order, NOT a congressional vote. Was there a vote at some later point that made it a law?

Thanks to anyone who can help illuminate this for me.

John said...

I liked the part where he invited a heckler to come up on stage. I would like to know what happened then.

Did the heckler try to go to the stage? Was he/she stopped by security?

Did the heckler wimp out?

I would have liked to see Obama's bluff called.

John Henry

WV-Macebuct. No idea what it means but I do love Google's word verfication captchas. Instead of being a nonsensical random string of letters and numbers they are almost words. Never quite words, though some should be. But almost words. Seems like someone at Google had a sens of humor about this.

garage mahal said...

Post from Garage claiming that Obama has already repealed DADT and the hecklers have been duped by Fox News coming in 4...3...2...1...

That's so not me.

mesquito said...

Yes we can

- idefinitely detain enemy combatants in military prisons.

- Issue assassination directives agains American citizens.

- Blow up suspected members of al quaeda and the taliban, as well as anybody else who happens to be standing in the blast radius.

Intercept and examine the personal communications of Americans suspected to be in contact with alien terroists.

***
No we can't:

Put terrorists in boxes with scary caterpillars.

Shoot water in their noses.

Brian Day said...

Sarcastic, right?

No. As Mark O correctly pointed out, Boxer supporters aren't intelligent enough for sarcasm. They wanted to drown out the heckler but could only come up with a campaign slogan.

If they had started shouting "Hope and Change", then it would be close to sarcasm.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Where did he learn that fake Southern-ish dialect?

From his many many years listening to Rev. Wright spewing from his pulpit

MadisonMan said...

I didn't look at the video with sound on, but Obama looks tired.

Who was the last President that didn't look tired all the time? I can't think of one.

AJ Lynch said...

Playing basketball and golf can tire you out.

AJ Lynch said...

DADT is a law? For some reason, I thought it was an exec order.

Does anyone remember which Dem senators voted for it?

jk said...

AJ: That was my understanding too, but I was confused by O saying that Boxer "didn't" vote" for it. Maybe he was trying be cute?

Peter V. Bella said...

Obama is turning into LBJ. He hates dissent. He hates people who disagree with his policies or his lack of policies.

Actually, he just hates the people.

danielle said...

the crowd was definitely being sarcastic, and judging by the president's facial expressions, that seems to be how he perceived it as well.

i wonder what the collective reaction would be if Obama just issued an executive order. i also wonder how many members of the joint chiefs and other senior military folks are against ending DADT. i cant tell Petraus' view. Admiral Mullen seemed very supportive of ending the ban.

i bet there is significant push back either amongst the people at the top, or at least reported to the people at the top.

edutcher said...

In years to come, the video of The Zero's reaction will be used in digital dictionaries to define the word, "tantrum". Messiahs are not criticized.

AJ and jk are correct; it was an Executive Order signed by the man who told homosexuals in LA during the '92 campaign, "Ah have a vision fore America and y'all are part of that vision".

Kirstin said...

Where did he learn that fake Southern-ish dialect? In Indonesia? At an exclusive Hawaiian prep school? Occidental College? Columbia? Harvard? In Chicago?

Probably listening to the Hildabeast during the last primary campaign, or maybe Albert Gore, The Living Redwood, trot out the y'alls when he ran against Dubya.

John said...

I liked the part where he invited a heckler to come up on stage. I would like to know what happened then.

He knew the Secret Service wasn't gonna let that happen. Reminds me of our Yorkie, Treasure, who would throw a fit if she saw another dog walking past our house (it was her street, you know). She'd finally jump off the couch and run to the front door, yapping all the way, but, when she got there, she'd turn to me as if she were saying "The door is locked, isn't it, Dad?".

The Zero's never done fisticuffs or really had any kind of debate with anyone who wouldn't defer to his race in his life.

Montagne Montaigne said...

I can never tell... does anyone here actually care about the policies themselves-- like, do you have an opinion about DADT, do you want it repealed, do you want it preserved-- or is everything just about how it relates to Obama's popularity and image?

The whole thing is so meta.

AllenS said...

This veteran doesn't want DADT repealed.

PatHMV said...

It's an actual law, folks. See post here at Stubborn Facts, and an earlier post here.

lemondog said...

From Wiki

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton who, while campaigning for the Presidency, had promised to allow all citizens regardless of sexual orientation to serve openly in the military[1]. At the time, as per 1982's Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.[2] Congress, opposing Clinton's proposed changes, included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 policy[2]. The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993[3] issued Department of Defense Directive 1304.26, which while following the letter of Congress's restrictions attempted to soften them by focusing on homosexual "conduct" rather than sexual orientation, and stating that military applicants are not to be asked what their sexual orientation is.[2] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Since it has been passed more than 13,000 troops have been discharged for homosexual conduct.

Further from Wiki:

Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on gay and bisexual people in the armed forces was led by Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized congressional hearings that largely backed the armed forces position that had remained unchanged since the 1981 directive. While congressional support for reform was led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who fought for a compromise, and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued for a complete repeal of the ban.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I took his remark as "You want a piece of this? Come on down!" Yeah right, as if that would happen."

It's easy to be a member of the "101st Fighting Teleprompterists" when you have the Secret Service to hide behind.

Barack Obama is a mama's boy. My grandmother could beat his ass.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"I liked the part where he invited a heckler to come up on stage. I would like to know what happened then."

Barack Obama only does that because he knows anyone who takes him up on his invitation to take the stage will be assaulted by his Praetorian Guard and hauled away to a mental asylum for "attacking" the President of the United States.

He's a fucking coward.

AllenS said...

Bill Clinton wasn't into homos. He liked young girls, girls about his daughter's age. I don't blame him. Obama probably isn't very comfortable around homos either.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"He liked young girls ..."

What do you mean "liked."

Bill Clinton is still fucking young girls who are not his wife, to this day.

And the media allows him to because he is not, per se, an elected official. So they're turning a blind eye to it and not reporting it.

But he's still fucking them.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...

Calling Zachary Paul Sire!

How's that Obama guy working out for you?

Alex said...

MM.... it's so meta that you try to make it meta. Bottom line is why hasn't Obama issued an executive order doing away with DADT? What's his excuse? Why hasn't he shut down Gitmo? Why are the troops still in Iraq?

Alex said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on gay and bisexual people in the armed forces

That should read: ban on gay, bisexual and transgender in the armed forces.

El Pollo Real said...

POTUS is wrong about Boxer. She doesn't represent the interests of a significant number of Californians. She hasn't listened to them for years.

Add to that number those dissatisfied with her for other reasons and you have a candidate on her way out. I hope for her sake that she's cut a deal for a cushy consultancy or a book deal.

paul a'barge said...

Sarcasm?

Not a chance. To engage in sarcasm you have to have at least a modest sense of humor.

Gay activists? Not.

Babs said...

My 12 year old son who is 'very well indoctrinated' by me heard his What's up'? and said 'Listen to him say 'What's up'? That doesn't sound how a President should talk. I told him great observation, he has no class.

Hombre said...

El Uno tweaked by another captious critic. Pobrecito.

LOL

WV "ariest" = Dismissing criticasters with the ariest demeanor.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Bottom line is why hasn't Obama issued an executive order doing away with DADT? What's his excuse? Why hasn't he shut down Gitmo? Why are the troops still in Iraq?"

Because Barack Obama hates gay people. He'd lose the support of black Christian ministers if he tried to get rid of DADT. So, he panders to people he views as sodomites.

Obama hates Jews. This is why he's trying to kick them out of their homes in Israel. Otherwise he'd lose 2 million American Muslim voters who only vote for him because his middle name is Hussein.

Obama loves Gitmo. So much so that he's creating a second Gitmo at Bahgram Air base in Afghanistan to punch them twice as hard.

Obama loves killing people with drone missiles. This way, he can kill brown Pakistani's without actually having to look them in the eyes. It's easier for him to sleep that way.

Obama loves stepping on the neck of third world countries. That's why he not only did not bring troops back from Iraq, he doubled down on neck-stomping by putting 30,000 more neck-stompers into Iraq to kill more brown people faster and more efficiently. He hates them.

Barack Obama is evil.

He's way more evil than Dick Cheney ever aspired to be.

That's why any Democrat who supports Barack Obama is an accomplice to genocide, gay hatred and anti-Semetism. If you support Barack Obama, you're just as guilty of a hate crime as he is.

AJ Lynch said...

"What's Up" is how the younger generation starts almost every conservation. It annoys the heck out of me but, to be fair, Obama is awkwardly trying to straddle the chasm between having gravitas and being hip and young.

Joseph said...

Awesome. Obama should be embarrassed. Not as embarassed as the dishonorable John McCain and certain old military leaders who insist on pushing the myth that the young men and women defending the country as gay-haters who would have trouble putting their patriotism above their contempt for gay people. But he should be embarrassed nonetheless for letting this relic continue to fester.

edutcher said...

Montagne's being silly again. The reason you don't want homosexuals in the barracks is the same reason you don't want co-ed barracks, either.

The only country with a serious army that allows homosexuals is Israel, but they are not allowed in the barracks and must go home at night.

WV "warsabi" Restaurant combining Japanese cuisine and banzai charges.

AJ Lynch said...

I should have added it is hard for Obama to convey gravitas when he has never held a real f-ing job.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

@PatHMV, it appears that you're right. Still, the Democrats absolutely own the executive and legislative branches and I have to believe that it would take little more than a "do this" from Obama and DADT would be history. If he wanted to, he could stage a bunch of high level meetings with the Joint Chiefs and other flag officers "seeking their advice" but basically giving him cover. (How many generals and admirals do you think would tell the CINC to his face that they couldn't find a way to cope without DADT?)

Instead, Obama chose to spend his time on the golf course. Memo to gays: your wants and needs aren't nearly as important to him as his golf handicap.

JAL said...

Actually someone did shout "Thank you!" when he mentioned his tax gifts.

Don't know if that was sarcasm or not.

BHO took it as a Thank You.

I look at the infamous chart of spending and weep.

JAL said...

Because the graph says "Not in a hundred gazillion years."

bagoh20 said...

"I can never tell... does anyone here actually care about the policies themselves"

Those on either side could be accused of that, and especially Obama.

Policy is all I care about. Open gays would certainly cause some problems logistically, and it's unfortunate that anyone has to hide their sexual preference, but the military's mission comes first. When that is compromised everyone, including gays, are at risk.

There are many things that we must keep private in our lives to hold certain jobs. I think this may be one, or it may not. I would trust senior military people to determine cost/benefit and inform our political leaders, who can then decide.

But, I strongly side with the primacy of the military mission over social engineering. The military is tasked with killing people in great numbers when needed, some hurt feelings are pretty small in the balance.

I find it very unfortunate that I'm prevented from serving because of age, despite the fact that I really want to. We don't all get what we want at any cost to others.

Beth said...

Of course it's sarcastic, as is the Don't Ask, Don't Donate movement. I'm with them. Just do something already.

Montagne Montaigne said...

"I would trust senior military people to determine cost/benefit and inform our political leaders, who can then decide"

EXCEPT when it's Obama deciding something. Then it is teh bad, all around, amiright?

Step 1: hate and oppose Obama
Step 2: find a reason
Step 3: think about the issue

Is that about right?

garage mahal said...

I think it's awesome Obama doesn't want to let horses into the military. Slippery slope!

Fen said...

More like a strawman.

The military routinely discriminates on the basis of age, weight, gender, martial status, medical condition, eyesight, etc.

But I've got no problem with gays/lesbians serving openly in the military, as long as they are separated the same way the women and men are.

AllenS said...

There are horses in the military. Ever been to Arlington Cemetery? Oh, what a silly question, of course you haven't.

AllenS said...

Any 1st Cav people here?

AllenS said...

Yep, just as I suspected, it's called the 1st Cav. Div.'s Horse Cavalry Detachment. Who knew? Well, actually, I knew.

garage mahal said...

And if we repeal DADT soldiers will start marrying horses.

Anthony said...

I suppose that, following the rules the Left imposes on references to protestors (i.e., 'teabaggers') we could call these protestors 'rump rangers', no?

AllenS said...

I surprise you with my military knowledge, don't I?

El Pollo Real said...

Garage Mahal wrote: And if we repeal DADT soldiers will start marrying horses.

Making hay for what it's worth?

Freeman Hunt said...

I have an idea:

How about if we just leave military policy regarding gay people up to the head of each branch of the military?

Benefits: (1) No longer a political issue. (2) Leaves it up to the expertise of the military. (3) Allows one or more branches to experiment with allowing gays to serve openly. This would either show the other branches that it works well and the military benefits or that it causes problems. (4) It would also allow experimentation with different varieties of policy. Separate barracks versus shared barracks, all units allow openly gay service members versus only certain units allowing such, etc.

Seems like a way to gradually (or quickly depending on how it goes) change DADT while dialing back the politicization of the issue.

edutcher said...

AllenS said...

There are horses in the military...

Those belong to the 3rd Infantry.

What? You never heard of 'foot cavalry'? ;)

New "Hussein" Ham said...

How about if we just leave military policy regarding gay people up to the head of each branch of the military?

With all due respect Freeman, it is imperative that we do not leave these decisions up to the military.

The military carries out civilian policy, not the other way around.

We have left the decision up to our leaders, who are executing our collective will.

As a nation, we have decided we don't care if gays are in the military as long as they conduct themselves as we direct them. They have to follow orders. And the other is: No cocksucking.

It is the conduct we're talking about here people.

You can be gay, and be in the miltary. DADT is the policy which requires that the military cannot exclude gays.

You just can't go around sucking cocks or trying to masturbate your foxholemate or munching the enlisted carpets.

Those agitating for the repeal of DADT aren't agitating for allowing gays in. Gays are already in.

They're agitating for open cocksucking.

And they aren't ever going to be allowed that. Any more than officers are ever going to be allowed to fuck the enlisted.

Freeman Hunt said...

Doesn't the military decide what a recruit's weight is allowed to be? How strong he must be? What sorts of character flaws she's allowed to have? What bad habits will be tolerated? What height someone must be for various military positions? What sorts of religious chaplains will be provided? Etc.

I don't see why the various military branches aren't in charge of deciding this as well. The issue has become so political that any change or lack of change is liable to be carried out badly.

Fen said...

Corrrect Freeman. There is no "right" to serve in the military.

Fen said...

And NO, Garage. You still can't suck the horse's balls. Libtard sicko perv.

Michael said...

I am more concerned about transgendered people and whether there will be like a dress code and lipstick prohibitions.

TheThinMan said...

Obama speaking at a Boxer fundraiser. Isn't that one of Dante's lower rings of hell?

John said...

(a different John)

I was an enlisted man in the Air Force during the Viet Nam war.

FWIW, I know for a fact that the guys in my squadron would not tolerate gays in the barracks. Two were assigned there, and it definitely didn't work out.

A friend of mine was a Marine officer who saw combat as a platoon commander. According to him, if a Marine was discovered to be gay, the official policy was to remove him from the unit the same day, for fear of violence by his squad mates.

That was forty years ago, and we're told that today's young people are comfortable with gays. On the other hand, revulsion against gays is an instinctive reaction (for those who have it), and human nature doesn't really change. Whatever the place of gays in society, the military--at least the combat arms of the military--is different.

Roger J. said...

Mr O promised to repeal DADT and hasnt--he's either a liar or incompetent (I suspect both).

DADT is ridculous as a policy--I served 25 years (as a cavalryman, Allen S :) ) I don't have a problem with gays in the military and think the UCMJ has all the teeth it needs to remedy any issues arising from gay-straight issues.

Methadras said...

garage mahal said...

And if we repeal DADT soldiers will start marrying horses.


Finally, you can have the family you've always wanted. Why the long face, tubby?

Methadras said...

Watching this idiot oaf of a president, stumble and mumble his way into or out of policy only reflects on the other morons that elected him.

AJ Lynch said...

I know two USAF lifers. Master sergeants [I think that was the rank each achieved] who were opposed to lifting the DADT policy.


wv = skstlesi = these are getting harder Althouse- trying to get rid of me?

bagoh20 said...

I bet most pedophiles would say that they had those attractions from the very beginning of their sexual awareness. Therefore, an argument could be made that they are born that way and it's not a choice for them. Yet their sexual preference is the most serious offense today in our society with the longest sentences (life) and most severe social stigma.

Of course the existence and nature of the victim changes everything, but the gay argument uses similar justification for gay rights. I believe in most gay rights, but this justification seems worthless to me. The fact that I'm born a horny rapist by nature does not justify anything.

Blog advertising, Blog advertising

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"There is no "right" to serve in the military."

In the "gay" context, there is a right. Gays are not prohibited from serving.

The US military doesn't care if you are gay. They care about what you DO ... not what you ARE.

Current DADT policy is that gays may serve in any branch of the military and the military cannot ask them about their sexual preferences.

Soldiers are not allowed to suck other soldiers' cocks ... just like hetero officers are not allowed to fuck enlisted personnel.

Soldiers are also required to do situps and follow other orders they don't like - such as cleaning latrines. If you don't like taking orders, don't go into the military.

Those agitating for the repeal of DADT are not agitating for gays to be in the military because gays are already allowed to be in the military.

They're agitating for open cocksucking without fear of reprisal.

They want permission to violate orders and suck pole.

They aren't ever going to get it.

If you want to openly suck cock, go to the nearest airport bathroom and Larry Craig will help you out.

But don't go to Camp Pendleton. There's no cocksucking there.

AllenS said...

To each his own, Roger.

Drew said...

Gibbsy confirmed today that Obama isn't interested in repealing DADT this year. So his assurances to this "friendly" crowd is just another lie.

And the "Do you wanna come up here?" crack was really . . . lowlife. Ugh. New president, please. I'd even take Nixon back.

Freeman Hunt said...

If this issue were left up to the head of each branch, I don't think it would be long before at least one branch experimented with lifting DADT.

Steven said...

He's way more evil than Dick Cheney ever aspired to be.

Dick Cheney is, after all, the only case in history of a member of a major party Presidential ticket declaring support for gay marriage during a general election campaign.

jr565 said...

How thin skinned is this guy? He has to respond to a heckler personally? What is he, a standup comedian? Obviously not, as otherwise we'd be laughing at his policies and not crying or raging against them. Though maybe he's engaging in an ironic form of performance art, and like Andy Kaufman and the wrestling match is making his whole presidency a joke performance that we wont get till 5 years down the road when we realize it was all an act.

jr565 said...

If you want to openly suck cock, go to the nearest airport bathroom and Larry Craig will help you out.


The gay latrines in the baracks will be the ones with the glory holes in all the stalls.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The US military doesn't care if you are gay. They care about what you DO ... not what you ARE.

BINGO.

As is the case in any business or occupation, be it a CPA, auto mechanic or military person whether you are gay, straight or want to make out with rubber dolls.

Just do your damned job and shut up about your sex life.

holdfast said...

Freeman:

cough, Navy, cough!

I mean, those uniforms - seriously?

bagoh20 said...

I agree with Freeman; experiment with one branch. They will excel or not. They will find a way to make it work or not.

The rules would have to take sexual conduct among the recruits very seriously and it could get very messy, but I say give it a try.

Frankly it sounds like it would be cruel. Just like having female recruits living with men; terribly distracting.

John said...

I wonder why gays want "Don't Ask Don't Tell" repealed. They would be even worse off than they are now.

Lemon Dog posted a good summary of what DADT is and the underlying law. Key point:

At the time, as per 1982's Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, it was military policy that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged."

DADT is an executive policy, initiated by Clinton. As far as I can tell, Congress had nothing to do with it. DADT says that the law, which is very clear, will be ignored unless the gay service member violates it flagrantly, forcing the military to enforce it.

If Obama eliminates DADT, it seems to me that this will then force the military to be more vigilant in watching for and discharging gays.

Unless we are talking about getting Congress to pass a law overriding the existing law and specifically permitting gays in the military.

So I think I am missing something here. Can someone explain why gays and Obama want DADT overturned? (Assuming that Obama does want it overturned and is not just paying lip service)

John Henry

Methadras said...

New "Hussein" Ham said...

In the "gay" context, there is a right. Gays are not prohibited


I stopped that sentence right there because it's true. Have fun making your own destiny homosexuals. If you don't like DADT, then don't join. No on is holding a gun to your head. Now, do you see how common sense works, homosexuals?

veni vidi vici said...

Drew at 9:34 a.m. 4/21 is correct.

I read his comment before watching the video and was actually surprised to see that was indeed the case.

For a guy touted as being so suave, cool and debonair, the fella's got an awfully weak ability to conceal his pique.


wv: "wootbill" -- the last one of those was probably the 2003 income tax cuts.

Clyde said...

Did the crowd do the Obama salute as well, while they were chanting "Yes We Can!" to The Leader? The one where they hold their arms up with their fingertips steepled into an O? Because that would have been the piece de resistance.