State of the Union: Dangerous Weakness

(Anne Bayefsky-National Review Online).President Obama's message in the State of the Union address confirmed that he is tone-deaf to the grievous threats that exist to American national security and incapable of changing course before those dangers become a terrible reality.

The catastrophe of nuclear proliferation had finally made it to the top of the agenda by the time he took office. But over the past year, this president added disarmament to the same platform. He put the retention of U.S. nuclear weaponry on the U.N. negotiating table alongside Iranian acquisition of such arms. In this State of the Union address he wasn't shy about reasserting this world view: "We are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people - the threat of nuclear weapons." By which he meant, in American hands too. The president did not first and foremost promise never to let the genocidal Iranian regime acquire these weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the first national-security priority he articulated was to seek "to reduce our stockpiles and launchers."

According to President Obama, only by weakening America can we hope to convince our enemies to stand down.

The president alleged that it was "these diplomatic efforts" at disarmament that "have . . . strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that [are] . . . in pursuit of these weapons." He knows Iran is closer than ever to acquiring nuclear weapons. He is fully aware that the U.N. Security Council is deadlocked on adopting new sanctions against Iran. He is cognizant that China has repudiated the suggestion of a unified front to stop Iranian ambitions. And yet he told the American people - with a straight face - that his diplomatic effort at disarmament "is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated."

President Obama announced that in April he will hold another hand-shaking, hot-air-generating "nuclear security summit" - to control American and Russian arms. As for dealing with Iran, he could not manage to muster a single concrete move, just an empty "they too will face growing consequences."

The president then touted the only leg on which his foreign policy has been standing: "engagement." To Iran's brutalized dissidents, engagement has meant crocodile tears. The State of the Union added yet another layer of verbiage over their gravestones. "We support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran," claimed the president. Why the limitation? What about the children, the men, the myriad minorities? Why did the president delicately avoid naming any Iranian victim, including the Americans now being held hostage in Iran?

This is an administration that has turned its back on inconvenient victims from Tehran to Tibet to Israel. An administration that has climbed on board the U.N. Human Rights Council, despite its being a tool of Islamic states for defeating rights. And yet the president disingenuously lectured: "America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity."

The president concluded his perfunctory remarks on national security by analogizing the need for strength in an increasingly dangerous world to a childish game: "Let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough." In so doing, he has underestimated the intelligence of his audience. Americans increasingly understand that the weakness exuded by President Obama over this past year, and venerated in this State of the Union address, has reinvigorated real enemies, not imaginary ones.

Rush Limbaugh reads Letter to President Obama

Celente: SOTU was a pep rally and a political theater for Obama

Senator Inhofe on Joe Kelley Show Says Obama Is Best Liar He’s Ever Seen

CNN focus group: Independents Tired of "Hope"/Health Care Talk

Frank Luntz focus group: "Talk is cheap, I'm tired of all his promises", "Chutzpa to continue these words,when his actions are different".

Mccain: Obama still suffers from a "blame it on Bush" syndrome.

(Via email to supporters).Tonight, during his State of the Union speech, President Obama laid out his vision for our nation's future. As you know, the President and I have differing views on the direction we should take the country, and I stand by my conservative values of reduced spending, low taxes, and a strong national defense.

During his first year in office, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have amassed a $12.4 trillion deficit that is growing each day. While the President advocates increased federal spending, I have actively advocated tax cuts, reduced spending and earmark reform to get our economy back on track.

The non-discretionary spending freeze announced by the President is a start, but what he also needs to do is promise to veto bills laden with pork barrel spending and begin creating jobs for the thousands of out-of-work Americans.

We currently face a national unemployment rate of over 10%, and it has only grown during President Obama's time in office. As we have seen, trillion-dollar, big-government stimulus packages are not the answer for creating jobs. To stimulate our economy for job growth, we need payroll tax cuts, tax incentives for small businesses and an assurance that Democrats will not raise taxes.

As a United States Senator, I fight each and every day for these and other conservative values. I won't settle for business-as-usual, behind-closed-doors politics. I'm not afraid to stand up and speak out for the majority of Americans who are angry at the current Democratic leadership in Washington.

The people of Massachusetts confirmed last week what we have been saying for a long time - the American people want a change in Washington and an end to big government solutions to problems like health care. I was proud to be an early supporter of Senator-elect Scott Brown's campaign. It was a landmark victory and I look forward to working with him to block government-run health care, tax increases and increased federal spending.

Romney on Good Morning America: “We’ve Lost a Year.”

Palin responds to Obama's speech: In one word - 'Lecture'

(Gop12).Greta Van Susteren and Sarah Palin chatted about Barack Obama's speech tonight.

VAN SUSTEREN: Governor Palin, if there's one single word that sort of describes your view of the State of the Union speech, what is it and why?

PALIN: In a word "lecture". I think there was quite a bit of lecturing; not leading in that as opposed to Governor McDonnell's follow-up comments were quite inspiring, his connection with the people, he absolutely gets it. He understands government's appropriate role.

And it seemed like our President still has that fundamental disconnect between what the people are expecting with their government and what he wants to deliver.

VAN SUSTEREN: And Governor Palin, in terms of this speech, do you think that he managed to reach across the aisle even though you used the word "lecture", did he reach across the aisle? Do you think any Republicans were persuaded [to say] let's try to work together?

PALIN: Not necessarily, Greta, because the remembrance here has got to be that he and the Democrats -- they have been in charge of Washington this last year, so the common sense reforms that he is looking for the Republicans to join him on -- he could have implemented many of those common sense, as he calls them, reforms all along. Nothing has stopped him from doing that.

His mention of off-shore drilling, considering that; new energy plans, and other things that do make a lot of sense, and I do appreciate him mentioning those in the speech.

Those things that are, again, common sense he could have implemented, and I think that was a bit condescending as he spoke that being received by Republicans who were saying "Wait, we wanted to do that all along. Where you been?"

McDonnell in Republican response to SOTU: "We want results, not rethoric"

Before a national audience, Gov. Bob McDonnell tonight hammered the White House over spending, health care and energy policy and stressed the job-and-economy theme that anchored his campaign.

McDonnell said in the Republican response to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address that the federal government "is simply trying to do too much."

"Last year, we were told that massive new federal spending would create more jobs 'immediately' and hold unemployment below 8 percent," he said.

"In the past year, over three million Americans have lost their jobs, yet the Democratic Congress continues deficit spending, adding to the bureaucracy, and increasing the national debt on our children and grandchildren."

McDonnell surrounded by about 250 friends, family members, supporters, administration officials and others, delivered speech in the chamber of the Virginia House of Delegates.

Addressing health care, McDonnell said Americans agree on the need for a system that is affordable, accessible and of high quality. He said Republicans have put forth a plan that would not shift Medicaid costs to the states, cut Medicare, and raise taxes.

"And our solutions aren't thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests," he said.

He said Virginia has the opportunity to be the first state on the East Coast to explore for, and produce, oil and natural gas offshore.

"But this administration's policies are delaying offshore production, hindering nuclear energy expansion, and seeking to impose job-killing cap and trade energy taxes," he said.

'Candidate Obama' in SOTU speech: Do not govern as "every day is Election day", and declares: 'I don't quit'

(Yahoonews).Declaring "I don't quit,'" an embattled President Barack Obama vowed in his first State of the Union address Wednesday night to make job growth his topmost priority and urged a divided Congress to boost the still-ailing economy with a new burst of stimulus spending. Despite stinging setbacks, he said he would not abandon ambitious plans for longer-term fixes to health care, energy, education and more.

"Change has not come fast enough," Obama acknowledged before a politician-packed House chamber and a TV audience of millions. "As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may be, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth."

Obama looked to change the conversation from how his presidency is stalling — over the messy health care debate, a limping economy and the missteps that led to Christmas Day's barely averted terrorist disaster — to how he is seizing the reins. He spoke to a nation gloomy over double-digit unemployment and federal deficits soaring to a record $1.4 trillion, and to fellow Democrats dispirited about the fallen standing of a president they hoped would carry them through this fall's midterm elections.

A chief demand was for lawmakers to press forward with his prized health care overhaul, which is in severe danger in Congress. "Do not walk away from reform," he implored. "Not now. Not when we are so close."

The president devoted about two-thirds of his speech to the economic worries foremost on Americans' minds as recession persists. "The devastation remains," he said.

Obama emphasized his ideas, some new but mostly old and explained anew, for restoring job growth, taming budget deficits and changing a Washington so polarized that "every day is Election Day." These concerns are at the roots of voter emotions that once drove supporters to Obama but now are turning on him as he governs.

In a remarkable shift from past addresses, and notable for a president whose candidacy first caught fire over Iraq war opposition, foreign policy took a relative back seat.

It came behind the economy and was largely devoid of new policy. And Obama made no mention of three of the toughest challenges he faced in his first year: failing to close the terrorist prison compound at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, failing to get Israel and the Palestinians to resume peace negotiations, and struggling with the al-Qaida havens in Pakistan that are at the core of the terrorist threat to America.

Obama's response to President Obama's State of the Union

Hush hush no Crush! 'Obama Girl' gives Obama only a B-: "He should be focusing a lot more on jobs, Economy"

(NYpost).First, Massachusetts turned on the president.

Now, the bikini-clad "Obama Girl" -- who fa mously cooed about her "crush" throughout the presidential campaign on YouTube videos -- admits the thrill is gone.

Amber Lee Ettinger -- the buxom sensa tion who lip-synched about her love for then-candidate Barack Obama -- said she wishes he spent his first year in office more fo cused on fixing the abysmal economy.

"I think he's doing an OK job," said Ettinger, whose original "Crush on Obama" video, first shown in 2007, has had more than 16.5 million views on YouTube.

"I know he's getting a lot of flak for things that he's not doing," she told The Post. "In my opinion, I feel like he should be focusing a lot more on jobs and the economy."

Ettinger, 28, said that even though she doesn't have health care -- "I can't afford it" -- she still thinks Obama should have waited to tackle the thorny legislation that has been blamed for the devastat ing Democratic loss of Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

"It's definitely a distraction because of the economy being as bad as it is," said the Jersey City resident.

"He did create some jobs, but most of them were government jobs and that doesn't really help the middle class. But it helps a bit," said Ettinger.

Her grade for Obama: B- minus.

Victory truck drives down to PA - Poll: Toomey over Specter by 14 points 45-31

(Philadelphia Daily News).Former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey has opened up a 14-point lead among likely voters in his bid to deny U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter a sixth term, according to the latest Daily News/Franklin & Marshall Poll.

Poll director G. Terry Madonna said that the results reflect a growing national Republican resurgence mixed with a lack of Democratic enthusiasm as the two parties battle over issues like health care and the economy.

Specter, who switched from Republican to Democrat in April, was tied at 30 percent in a general election match-up with Toomey among registered voters, with 35 percent undecided, the poll found.

But Toomey jumped out to a 14- point lead when the poll targeted "likely voters," people who said they are certain to vote and are paying close attention to the race.

Among that group, Toomey led Specter 45-31 percent, with 20 percent undecided.

"I can't deny it's all very encouraging," Toomey said. "But I'm also very aware of the fact that the election is nine months away. A lot can happen. So I'm going to run like I'm 20 points behind."

Specter, who narrowly beat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary, declined to comment on the poll yesterday.

Toomey, who lives near Allentown, left his congressional seat for the 2004 race.

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, who is leaving his Delaware County congressional seat to challenge Specter in the primary, also came up a loser against Toomey in the poll. Toomey led Sestak among registered voters by 28-16 percent with 51 percent undecided.

With likely voters, Toomey's lead on Sestak grew to 41-19 percent with 37 percent undecided.

Sestak was unavailable for comment yesterday, a campaign spokesman said.

The poll found health care, the economy and jobs to be the top issues in the race.

The winner of the May 18 Democratic primary will have to deal with what Madonna calls the "enthusiasm gap."

Madonna notes that 47 percent of the registered Republicans in the poll said that they were likely to vote in the Nov. 2 general election, while only 35 percent of the Democrats felt the same way. He attributes that to national news of Democrats' struggling to implement their policies in Washington despite control of the White House and Congress.

Freeze the spin ! Obama offer spending freeze while he dismisses Mccain's suggestion for a freeze in the debates

Obama Gets 'F' on Stopping Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction

(FOXNews.com).A bipartisan, independent commission on stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction says that the Obama administration has failed in its first year in office to do enough to prevent a germ weapons attack on America or to respond quickly and effectively should such an attack occur.

In a 19-page report card being published Tuesday, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Proliferation and Terrorism, chaired by former Senators Bob Graham, a Democrat from Florida, and Jim Talent, a Missouri Republican, gives the new administration the grade of "F" for failing to take key steps the commission outlined just over a year ago in its initial report.

Specifically, the commission concludes that the Obama administration, like the three administrations before it, has failed to pay consistent and urgent attention to increasing the nation's ability to respond quickly and effectively to a germ attack that would inflict massive casualties on the nation.

The commission repeated its warning that unless nations acted decisively and urgently, it was more likely than not that a WMD will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013, and that the terrorists' weapon of choice would be biological, rather than nuclear.

The administration's delayed response to the H1N1 virus, the report concludes, demonstrated that the United States was "woefully behind in its ability to rapidly produce rapidly vaccines and therapeutics, essential steps for adequately responding to a biological threat, whether natural or man-made."

Even with time to prepare, the report noted, the epidemic peaked "before most Americans had access to vaccine."

And a bio-attack, it warned, would have no such warning.

The administration's lack of urgency was also reflected in its lack of priority on producing and distributing enough vaccines and other medical countermeasures for Americans, its reluctance to insist that hospitals have enough surge capacity to treat people who would be infected in a bioterror attack, and the lack of a national plan to coordinate federal, state and local efforts following a bioterror strike, the document asserts.

Ultimately, the commission chairman and vice chairman say, the "lack of preparedness" and "consistent lack of action" reflect "a failure of the U.S. government to grasp the threat of biological weapons."

Unlike its effort to prevent a nuclear attack, the Obama administration has shown "no equal sense of urgency" about preventing or responding to germ warfare that might cause comparable death and suffering, the commission concludes.

The report assigns 17 grades that it says highlight the issues of greatest priority in protecting Americans from WMD. The commission gave the administration a "D+" for its efforts to tighten oversight of high-containment labs in which experiments involving the deadliest pathogens are conducted. There were still far too many Federal, state, and local agencies regulating germs in sometimes conflicting ways, it states.

The commission also gave Congress a failing grade for failing to consolidate the estimated 82 to 108 committees and subcommittees that oversee some part of the Department of Homeland Security.

"Virtually no progress has been made since consolidation was first recommended by the 9/11 Commission in 2004," the report asserts.

The Graham/Talent WMD Commission, as it is known, is a legacy of the 9/11 Commission, which recommended its creation to examine WMD proliferation threats in its own report. In December, 2008, the WMD commission concluded in its final report that American national security faced ever growing threats from unconventional weapons, and from biological weapons in particular.

Its report, "World at Risk," unanimously concluded that bioterrorism was the most likely WMD threat the nation confronted given the exponential growth of biological technology and the stated desire of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to acquire such weapons. It called upon the administration to take 13 steps to reduce America's vulnerability to such an attack. The new report card assesses the progress that the Obama administration has made in implementing its recommendations.

The report is not uniformly negative. It gives the Administration high marks -- an "A" -- for the reviews it has conducted into how best to store and secure dangerous pathogens, and two "A-minus" grades for appointing a WMD coordinator and restructuring how the White House oversees homeland security issues.

But it warns that such steps are not commensurate with the threat the nation faces from terrorist groups searching for unconventional weapons in asymmetrical warfare.

Palin: Mr. President: Please Try, "I'm Listening, People," Instead of "Listen Up, People!"

(Facebook post).We’ve now seen three landslide Republican victories in three states that President Obama carried in 2008. From the tea parties to the town halls to the Massachusetts Miracle, Americans have tried to make their opposition to Washington’s big government agenda loud and clear. But the President has decided that this current discontent isn’t his fault, it’s ours. He seems to think we just don’t understand what’s going on because he hasn’t had the chance – in his 411 speeches and 158 interviews last year – to adequately explain his policies to us.

Instead of sensibly telling the American people, “I’m listening,” the president is saying, “Listen up, people!” This approach is precisely the reason people are upset with Washington. Americans understand the president’s policies. We just don’t agree with them. But the president has refused to shift focus and come around to the center from the far left. Instead he and his old campaign advisers are regrouping to put a new spin on the same old agenda for 2010.

Americans aren’t looking for more political strategists. We’re looking for real leadership that listens and delivers results. The president’s former campaign adviser is now calling on supporters to “get on the same page,” but what’s on that page? He claims that the president is “resolved” to “keep fighting for” his agenda, but we’ve already seen what that government-growth agenda involves, and frankly the hype doesn’t give us much hope. Real health care reform requires a free market approach; real job creation involves incentivizing, not punishing, the job-creators; reining in the “big banks” means ending bailouts; and stopping “the undue influence of lobbyists” means not cutting deals with them behind closed doors.

Instead of real leadership, though, we’ve had broken promises and backroom deals. One of the worst: candidate Obama promised to go through the federal budget “with a scalpel,” but President Obama spent four times more than his predecessor. Want more? Candidate Obama promised that lobbyists “won’t find a job in my White House,” but President Obama gave at least a dozen former lobbyists top administration jobs. Candidate Obama promised us that we could view his health care deliberations openly and honestly on C-SPAN, but President Obama cut deals behind closed doors with industry lobbyists. Candidate Obama promised us that we would have at least five days to read all major legislation, but President Obama rushed through bills before members of Congress could even read them.

Candidate Obama promised us that his economic stimulus package would be targeted and pork-free, but President Obama signed a stimulus bill loaded with pork and goodies for corporate cronies. Candidate Obama railed against Wall Street greed, but President Obama cozied up to bankers as he extended and expanded their bailouts. Candidate Obama promised us that for “Every dollar that I’ve proposed [in spending], I’ve proposed an additional cut so that it matches.” We’re still waiting to see how President Obama will cut spending to match the trillion he’s spent.

More than anything, Americans were promised jobs, but the president’s stimulus package has failed to stem our rising unemployment rate. Maybe it was unfair to expect that an administration with so little private sector experience would understand something about job creation. How many Obama Administration officials have ever had to make a payroll or craft a business plan in the private sector? How many have had to worry about not having the resources to invest and expand? The president’s big government policies have made hiring a new employee a difficult commitment for employers to make. Ask yourself if the Obama Administration has done anything to make it easier for employers to hire. Have they given us any reassurance that the president will keep taxes low and not impose expensive new regulations?

Candidate Obama over-promised; President Obama has under-delivered. We understand you, Mr. President. We’ve listened to you again and again. We ask that you now listen to the American people.

Obama: I rather be a good One term President; Krauthammer: He is a Mediocre One Term President..

Quinnipiac poll: Rubio Leads Crist in Florida 47-44

A new Quinnipiac poll in Florida finds Marco Rubio (R) now leading Gov. Charlie Crist (R) in the Republican race for U.S. Senate, 47% to 44%.

Pollster Peter Brown: "Who would have thunk it? A former state lawmaker virtually unknown outside of his South Florida home whose challenge to an exceedingly popular sitting governor for a U.S. Senate nomination had many insiders scratching their heads. He enters the race 31 points behind and seven months later sneaks into the lead. And, the horse race numbers are not a fluke. Rubio also tops Crist on a number of other measurements from registered Republicans, who are the only folks who can vote in the primary. Rubio's grassroots campaigning among Republican activists around the state clearly has paid off."

Rubio also beats Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) in a general election match up, 44% to 35%. Crist leads Meek, 48% to 36%.

Rubio gets a 32 - 14 percent favorability rating among Florida voters, with 53 percent who don't know enough about him to form an opinion. Republicans give him a 53 - 4 percent favorability, with 42 percent who don't know enough. Although Democrats view him negatively 25 - 7 percent, 34 percent of independent voters rate him favorably, with 13 percent unfavorable and 52 percent who don't know enough about him.

Crist is viewed favorably among Republicans 64 - 27 percent, 46 - 42 percent among Democrats and 51 - 36 percent among independents.

John Boehner: MA Election Was a Clear Repudiation of the Policies Coming Out of This Administration

"The election in Massachusetts, the election in New Jersey and Virginia is a clear repudiation of the policies coming out of this administration and this congress, whether it's health care, whether is the all the spending, the debt, the bailouts, the national energy tax, the American people are saying enough's enough. Another thing the American people are asking is where are the jobs. It's the issue that the American people want us to focus on, not another stimulus bill"

"The Divided States of Obama" - Gallup: Obama would exceed Bush as Most Polarized President

The 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats' (88%) and Republicans' (23%) average job approval ratings for Barack Obama is easily the largest for any president in his first year in office, greatly exceeding the prior high of 52 points for Bill Clinton.

Overall, Obama averaged 57% job approval among all Americans from his inauguration to the end of his first full year on Jan. 19. He came into office seeking to unite the country, and his initial approval ratings ranked among the best for post-World War II presidents, including an average of 41% approval from Republicans in his first week in office. But he quickly lost most of his Republican support, with his approval rating among Republicans dropping below 30% in mid-February and below 20% in August. Throughout the year, his approval rating among Democrats exceeded 80%, and it showed little decline even as his overall approval rating fell from the mid-60s to roughly 50%.

"Prior to Ronald Reagan, no president averaged more than a 40-point gap in approval ratings by party during his term; since then, only the elder George Bush has averaged less than a 50-point gap."

Thus, the extraordinary level of polarization in Obama's first year in office is a combination of declining support from Republicans coupled with high and sustained approval from Democrats. In fact, his 88% average approval rating from his own party's supporters is exceeded only by George W. Bush's 92% during Bush's first year in office. Obama's 23% approval among supporters of the opposition party matches Bill Clinton's for the lowest for a first-year president. But Clinton was less popular among Democrats than Obama has been to date, making Obama's ratings more polarized.

Obama still has three years left in his first term and possibly seven more as president, so there is much time for the polarization of his approval ratings to subside. However, if the current level of polarization persists through the end of his term, Obama would exceed Bush as the president with the most polarized approval ratings.

Bush's average Republican-Democratic gap for his eight years in office was 61 points. This included the record gap for a single approval rating: 83 points, which occurred twice -- in September 2004 (95% Republican, 12% Democratic) and October 2004 (94% Republican, 11% Democratic).

The political divide in Bush's ratings is to some extent understated, though, given the rally in public support for Bush after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, when he received record-high approval ratings. Even with these approval ratings, he averaged a 55-point gap in approval by party during his first term. During his second term, the average party gap in his ratings was 68 points, higher than Obama's to date.

The accompanying graph makes clear how much the level of political polarization has grown in Americans' evaluations of presidents in recent decades. Prior to Ronald Reagan, no president averaged more than a 40-point gap in approval ratings by party during his term; since then, only the elder George Bush has averaged less than a 50-point gap, including Obama's average 65-point gap to date.

No wonder our Economy is so bad, Obama is busy online all day

(from Washington post)....Obama is the first truly wired president, the first to have Internet access at his desk and to converse regularly via e-mail. This fingertip access sends him "constantly" online, said one senior adviser, and the information he finds there influences his thinking and some of his deliberations. He also "uses the Internet like a normal adult," said another aide, "reading news articles, checking sports scores."

As for what Obama reads online, his advisers said he looks for offbeat blogs and news stories, tracking down firsthand reporting and seeking out writers with opinions about his policies. Obama was particularly interested in Atlantic Online's Andrew Sullivan's tweeting of the Iranian elections last year, said an aide, who requested anonymity to discuss what influences the president.

After losing 3 campaign active contests, Obama still sure about himself - “The Big Difference” Between '10 and '94 “Is Me”

(ABCnews).Rep. Marion Berry, D-Ark., fears that these midterm elections are going to go the way of the 1994 midterms, when Democrats lost control of the House after a failed health care reform effort.

But, Berry told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the White House does not share his concerns.

“They just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

Asked today by ABC News’ Yunji de Nies if the president said that, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs pleaded ignorance.

“I have not talked to the president about that,” Gibbs said, employing one of his favorite dodges.

Gibbs seemed to suggest that he shared that view, whether or not President Obama said it.

“I hope it's not newsworthy to think that the president hopes and expects to be an effective campaigner in the midterm elections,” Gibbs said.

Berry told the newspaper that he “began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out…I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and ’94. No one that was here in ’94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn’t a good feeling.”

I'm sorry i voted for Obama, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma

(Jill Dorson-RCP).I am a registered Independent. I voted for Barack Obama. And for that, I am sorry.

I'm not sorry for you. I'm sorry for me. Because I voted for Obama for me, not for you. I voted for hope and change and all the intangibles that Obama was peddling in the wake of the financial crisis, Sarah Palin, Sept. 11 and all the other ills that shook our country in the last decade. I wanted something new. Something different. What I got was, I suppose, exactly what I voted for - a spin doctor. And not a very good one at that.

Before John McCain unwittingly picked a tabloid-magazine cover girl for his running mate, I was leaning toward going Republican this time around. I did the second time Bush was on the ballot and I very nearly did the first time, too. But as soon as Palin climbed out of her igloo and onto the national scene, well, there was no turning back for me.

You see, I felt my choice was to risk McCain dropping dead and letting the world's most well-known hockey mom run this country, or to believe that Obama would surround himself with educated people and that he was smart enough to take their advice.

I was right. He is smart enough to seek counsel. I'm just outraged at the counsel he's seeking these days. Key financial leaders who are tax cheats come immediately to mind, but as the recent terror attack made clear to me, the idea that a president of the most powerful nation in the world could think it was OK to have a Homeland Security chief with such a loose grasp of what terrorism is and how it works is troubling.

I was right there laughing when George W. Bush struggled with the names of countries around the world early in his tenure. And while my knowledge of foreign policy is limited, I thought Bush's was lousy, too. But after Sept. 11, I saw a man with no charisma step up and fight for this country, its citizens and its freedom. Bush became a leader.

Seven years later, I am ashamed to say that I was blinded by charisma. Obama was so convincing that I stopped caring about what he knew and started getting caught up in the euphoria. Imagine having a president who came from a broken home, who had money troubles, who did grass-roots community service? A young father. The first black president. It pains me to admit I got caught up in the hoopla.

But McCain made it easy. He's a smart man, I don't doubt that. But between picking Palin, suggesting that the first debates be delayed and, well, picking Palin, he made it easy for Obama to win. As Election Day drew near, all Obama had to do was keep his mouth shut to win.

All that changed when the Obama campaign became the Obama administration. I was a small business owner during 2008 election and my business ultimately failed under the weight of a horrendous economy. I am not ashamed. I worked hard. But I believed that Obama would try to level the playing field between big business and small, between thieves and honest business people, between greed and moderation. Instead, he bailed out the most wicked and left the rest of us fail.

I watched with horror as Obama followed Bush's lead in bailing out banks, auto makers, insurance companies, all of those companies deemed "too big to fail." What does that mean? My small company got thrown under the bus and my savings were ravaged - perhaps Wall Street is using them for bonuses this year.

Not to mention President Obama is recklessly spending our country's future into oblivion.

It was clear after just 90 days what a mistake I'd made. My taxes have gone up and my quality of life has gone down. Hope has given way to disgust and I see now that change is simply a euphemism for "big government."

Like many others, my view is narrow. I vote for the candidate I think will be best for me. I often define myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. But above all, I want to feel safe and I don't want to feel that I am being ripped off. I want a president who inspires me and cares about my contribution to the fabric of the country. I want a president with experience and savvy, a Commander in Chief who puts our country and its citizens first.

I only hope the Republicans can find him the next time around.

President Obama to reintroduce himself as 'Candidate Obama' during State of the Union address

(Yahoo).President Obama will have a chance Wednesday to reintroduce himself to the nation when he delivers his first official State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.

The prime-time speech, which will be aired on all major TV networks and cable stations, could hardly come at a more critical time for a president grappling with double-digit unemployment, sinking poll numbers and the possible collapse of his top domestic policy priority, an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

"As often as the president has spoken over the past year, critics on the right and left have largely defined him," says University of Notre Dame American studies professor Robert Schmuhl. "For the State of the Union, he needs to redefine himself, who he is politically and what his core principles and policies are."

In Ohio on Friday, just three days after Democrats lost the 60th Senate vote that gave them an edge in pushing their agenda through Congress, Obama struck a decidedly populist tone.

Shunning a necktie for a midday town hall-style meeting in Elyria, Obama told the crowd again and again that he'll "never stop fighting" for them on issues from health care and jobs to education and accountability.



On Wednesday, however, the setting will be decidedly different: formal and steeped in history and tradition.

When he speaks to the nation from the House of Representatives' chamber, he will take "the biggest stage the president has" to speak to the people, says Michael Gerson, White House speechwriter for George W. Bush.

How he responds to last week's message from Massachusetts voters, who gave Republican Scott Brown the seat held by Sen. Edward Kennedy for nearly five decades, could set the political course for the next year and beyond.

"It's the moment when everybody's watching and when people take the measure of how he responds," Gerson says. The speech will tell voters and members of Congress, "this is the Obama strategy" after the Massachusetts election.

Inside the White House, the political strategy already has shifted. David Plouffe, who managed Obama's presidential campaign, has been tapped by the president to help Democrats stave off big losses in next fall's elections.

For Wednesday's speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says it was always the plan for Obama to focus mainly on jobs and the economy and there have been no major rewrites of the speech to account for Tuesday's election. On Sunday, senior White House adviser David Axelrod told CNN's State of the Union that the nation will hear Obama's "ideas about additional steps that we can take to help create and stir hiring around the country."

Others say there ought to be some readjustment, in tone and substance from a president whose approval rating is now at 48% in Gallup's daily tracking poll.

Dee Dee Myers, former president Bill Clinton's first White House press secretary, says Obama needs to "show some contrition" and let voters know that "he gets it" on health care and frustration with the slow pace of the economic rebound. She says Obama should acknowledge that the Democrats went about overhauling health care "in a way that left people with more questions than comfort."

At the same time, she says, he's got to show some spunk — without being artificially populist, a mantle not in keeping with his personality. Too often, "Obama seems like he tries to talk everyone into what he believes — and that's part of why we elected him, because he's a calm, reasonable guy — but behind that, there has to be some fight. You have to be able to take a few punches and throw a few punches."

Wayne Fields, an English professor at Washington University in St. Louis and author of Union of Words: A History of Presidential Eloquence, says Obama is at his best when he explains difficult issues as a teacher would.

"The crucial thing for him, first of all, is to be calm," Fields says. "He needs to make it clear he's not shaken by all of this." After setting that tone, he should remind people that the nation's "problems are hard and complicated and the responses are experimental."