The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

New Hampshire Democratic Debate Winner

Who won the ABC Democratic Debate in New Hampshire?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1451

-------------------------------------------------------------

New Hampshire Republican Debate Winner

Who won the ABC Republican Debate in New Hampshire?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1450

.

This seems like a subjective debate. Unless you are going to survey every country to see when they gave up faith in the NPT, either under Clinton or Bush, you'll never resolve this debate. Maybe the fact checker should stick to other issues.

Factchecker: You spelled "signatories" wrong.

Many experts would agree that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal will present the single greatest national security threat to the United States over the next few years, given the political instability in that country.

You can't blame Bush for everything, much as some peoople would like to do so.

Those two sentences form an unintentionally humorous juxtaposition, given how much Bush has done to promote stability in Pakistan (and elsewhere in the world, for that matter).

"You can't blame Bush for everything"?

OK, fair enough, but does he deserve credit for having made nuclear non-proliferation a priority, and reducing the global threat?

"Some people" may want to blame Bush for everything, but most reasonable people would agree that Bush's foreign policy has undermined American security and increased the number of challenges that a successor will face. Except perhaps HRC, who states that we are "safer" now than in 2001 (based on what metric, or line of thinking she'll never say).

Here is what Obama said:

"That's why it's so important for us to rebuild the nuclear proliferation -- nonproliferation treaty that has fallen
apart under this administration."

It sounds like this is an accurate statement. Of course he is bashing Bush. He is a Democrat!

The Presidential Race, My Take

By Alexander P. De Filippi
Sunday, January 06, 2008

Mainstream republicans have reasons to celebrate and to worry, from the news coming from the Iowa caucus this past Thursday January 3. In effect, Mike Huckabee, the mainstream candidate and future presidential republican nominee, won easily the election. The media calls Mitt Romney "the establishment candidate" because he has money, the true is; the real establishment candidate is Huckabee, who represents the George W. Bush line in all matters, from free trade, to immigration plus his pro-life stance. The mainstream or establishment candidate in the Republican Party is not determined by the amount of money or name recognition of the candidate, but by the base of support within the Republican Party that the candidate has. Governor Mike Huckabee has on his favors the two main factions of the Republican Party, the Christian right and the business community, no one of the other republicans in the race count with those two elements of support. Giuliani, McCain, Ron Paul, have to divide among themselves the fiscally conservative, non religious right, which is located mostly in the east and west coast, and that does not surpass more than twenty percent of the republican electorate across the country.

The second good news for republicans came from the democrats results, the establishment candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, came on third place. I call her the establishment candidate because she counts with the media support and the money coming from the business community located mostly in California and New York. It is very difficult to foresee that Barack Obama could win a presidential contest against Mike Huckabee, therefore if the democrats nominate Senator Obama they would be loosing the presidential election, a presidential election that based on the results coming from the 2006 congressional election is up to the democrats to loose.

The sobering or sour note for republicans came from the Iowans participation in the caucus, Iowa isn't New York, Iowa is a conservative state that went for George W. Bush in 2004 and slightly for Al Gore in 2000. Therefore, the fact that the people participating in the democrat's caucus was two and a half greater than those participating in the Republican caucus is a bad news for republicans. Iowa has only seen benefits for the last seven years from the George W. Bush administration, Iowans should be grateful of republicans, also, in that state, the grass root republican machine is almost as good as the one they have in the south, in fact the Christian republican grass root machine runs well even in New York City. The Iowan local press isn't liberal either, therefore that massive participation of people, including independents, in the democrat's caucus, is impressive and should put the republicans on notice that something as unusual as the awful results of the congressional and gubernatorial race of 2006 could happen again this year.

The democrats conundrum. The democrats have the momentum with the American electorate this year as they had it on 2006, therefore wining the presidential race should not be a problem for them. Nevertheless, in spite of the favorable winds, the democrats find themselves unable to nominate a good candidate; any of the three main contenders, Obama, Edwards and Clinton is an easy target for republicans. Any of those three should loose in a race against Huckabee, any of those three democrats will have to name a vice-president that can help them, maybe Al Gore? Vice-president again? I do not know. I believe the democrat establishment will be able to save Hillary Clinton becoming her the democrat nominee, unfortunately for democrats, she is a poor candidate, as any of the three just mentioned. Therefore, the democrats' faith depends of two factors, the vice-president they name and a repetition of the 2006 phenomena where independents and moderates, nationwide, broke for the democrats. The democrats could make easier for them to get the independent and moderate votes if they play the "minister card" against Huckabee. Independents and moderates, that make up easily twenty percent of the electorate, tend to be non religious, the reason they tend to be moderate or independents is become they do not take any position to the extreme, whether we talk about politics, environment or religion. In addition, in this occasion, the republicans, apparently, won't have the Hispanic support as they did in 2000 and 2004, the media has manipulated the immigration subject in such way that Hispanics, unfairly though, perceive republicans as anti-immigrants.

The Presidential Race, My Take

By Alexander P. De Filippi
Sunday, January 06, 2008

Mainstream republicans have reasons to celebrate and to worry, from the news coming from the Iowa caucus this past Thursday January 3. In effect, Mike Huckabee, the mainstream candidate and future presidential republican nominee, won easily the election. The media calls Mitt Romney "the establishment candidate" because he has money, the true is; the real establishment candidate is Huckabee, who represents the George W. Bush line in all matters, from free trade, to immigration plus his pro-life stance. The mainstream or establishment candidate in the Republican Party is not determined by the amount of money or name recognition of the candidate, but by the base of support within the Republican Party that the candidate has. Governor Mike Huckabee has on his favors the two main factions of the Republican Party, the Christian right and the business community, no one of the other republicans in the race count with those two elements of support. Giuliani, McCain, Ron Paul, have to divide among themselves the fiscally conservative, non religious right, which is located mostly in the east and west coast, and that does not surpass more than twenty percent of the republican electorate across the country.

The second good news for republicans came from the democrats results, the establishment candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, came on third place. I call her the establishment candidate because she counts with the media support and the money coming from the business community located mostly in California and New York. It is very difficult to foresee that Barack Obama could win a presidential contest against Mike Huckabee, therefore if the democrats nominate Senator Obama they would be loosing the presidential election, a presidential election that based on the results coming from the 2006 congressional election is up to the democrats to loose.

The sobering or sour note for republicans came from the Iowans participation in the caucus, Iowa isn't New York, Iowa is a conservative state that went for George W. Bush in 2004 and slightly for Al Gore in 2000. Therefore, the fact that the people participating in the democrat's caucus was two and a half greater than those participating in the Republican caucus is a bad news for republicans. Iowa has only seen benefits for the last seven years from the George W. Bush administration, Iowans should be grateful of republicans, also, in that state, the grass root republican machine is almost as good as the one they have in the south, in fact the Christian republican grass root machine runs well even in New York City. The Iowan local press isn't liberal either, therefore that massive participation of people, including independents, in the democrat's caucus, is impressive and should put the republicans on notice that something as unusual as the awful results of the congressional and gubernatorial race of 2006 could happen again this year.

The democrats conundrum. The democrats have the momentum with the American electorate this year as they had it on 2006, therefore wining the presidential race should not be a problem for them. Nevertheless, in spite of the favorable winds, the democrats find themselves unable to nominate a good candidate; any of the three main contenders, Obama, Edwards and Clinton is an easy target for republicans. Any of those three should loose in a race against Huckabee, any of those three democrats will have to name a vice-president that can help them, maybe Al Gore? Vice-president again? I do not know. I believe the democrat establishment will be able to save Hillary Clinton becoming her the democrat nominee, unfortunately for democrats, she is a poor candidate, as any of the three just mentioned. Therefore, the democrats' faith depends of two factors, the vice-president they name and a repetition of the 2006 phenomena where independents and moderates, nationwide, broke for the democrats. The democrats could make easier for them to get the independent and moderate votes if they play the "minister card" against Huckabee. Independents and moderates, that make up easily twenty percent of the electorate, tend to be non religious, the reason they tend to be moderate or independents is become they do not take any position to the extreme, whether we talk about politics, environment or religion. In addition, in this occasion, the republicans, apparently, won't have the Hispanic support as they did in 2000 and 2004, the media has manipulated the immigration subject in such way that Hispanics, unfairly though, perceive republicans as anti-immigrants.

I just finished watching the Fox News new Hampshire republican debates.

Senator McCain just made a terrific bid for Secretary of Defense. He didn't want to answer questions on any other topic. He moved every answer to every question back to his military and foreign policy experience.

Someone needs to tell McCain that he is not running for Secretary of Defense.

It is interesting that in a forum where "one liners" don't work and knowledge and experience win the day Huckabee looked very weak. Huckabee waffled and stammered on a number of questions. He had no answer for all of his past mistatements. I think we saw the real Mike Huckabee today.

Romney had the best answers and the best presence on stage. Again, in a forum where knowledge and experience come shining through, Romney clearly won the day.

Romney for President of the United States of America. McCain for Secretary of Defense.

Who gives a damn, by God, on the effect of Pakistani nukes on _American_ lives? The nuclear weapons of Pakistan and India are destined for each other, or for no one.

The American exceptionalism which is taken for granted in the mainstream media is here taken a nearly lunatic pitch of conceit.

Why we can blame Bush for the weakening of the NPT, with as much if not more clarity and justice than with his other follies, is that he has approved the development and production of new nuclear weapons, in contravention of America's treaty obligations. The reason North Korea developed nuclear weapons is not because India has 60 or Pakistan has 30. It is because America has 10,000, and intends to build more. America's nukes, as well as the nukes of all 5 nuclear weapons states in the treaty, are the ultimate causes of proliferation. _That_ is why reduction in their stockpiles was an essential aspect of the treaty. And _that_ betrayal of international nuclear safeguards is perhaps Bush's worst crime, or blunder. Whichever you think is worse.

As much as I like Obama, it is not the right time for extreme change. We need a transitional candidate that can move us forward, but not shove us forward. There's too much danger in the world right now. This is not the time for extreme change. If Obama gets the Dem nomination and McCain gets the Republican nomination - for the first time in my life, I will vote Republican. It is too dangerous right now to go with the candidate of extreme change.

Chritina, this is precisely the right time to support extreme change. In a world where the forces of the status quo has led to a mind-boggling reduction of American INFLUENCE in every single part of the globe, even, or should we say especially, amongst its closest and most traditional allies, this is the time to reassess, break away from a failed past and present and chart the course for a brave and invigorating future. FIRED UP; READY TO GO! OBAMA 08

To say that the '98 tests "did much to undermine the international non-proliferation norms established by the treaty" may be a perfectly defensible opinion, but it is not a fact.

Likewise, Obama expressed HIS defensible opinion. He did not make anything up or even misstate anything.

What is undeniable, however, is that the Bush administration has done everything they can to undermine El Baradei and his inspection teams. Cheney in particular has trashed him and his team's work. Surely this sends a signal to the world that the US does not currently take non-proliferation seriously and, by extension, undermines the NPT; although that will change under President Obama.

Just like Bush had Rove ... Obama has it's Axelrod's that's who ... but I guess you guys already knew that ... the Best Fool Knows the Planner Behind the Plan or Should I say Plant of Obama ... `Change Crapola' ... read about David Axelrod ... and how he created the most tightly wrapped Obamadate in history: this guy is an operator as slick as Karl Rove - worked on many campaigns and has always used his message to tell a tale `to elect his guy'. `A Message of Hope' ...` Bridge to the 21st Century' 1996 ... the new Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick ... sound familiar, that's David Axelrod. From Mayor Daley of Chicago, to Harold Washington the late ex-mayor, from Bill Clinton to the late Senator from Illinois Paul Simon ... David Axelrod. It's all about compares to the past, and `the great Tale of the Candidate' ... `The Audacity of Hope' ... read about all the answers, no holds barred: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=1 ... (you will have to register at NYTimes `great piece') ... called Obama's Narrator. Axelrod is even a good friend of the Clinton's, Axelrod is the Guy Who Created Obamalaria and `the fever of change on a dozen insurgent Democrat campaigns' ... even Edwards, all these guys know each other so well - it's almost like they had each other's kids!

So Michael - how many Pinochios for your statement (had it come from a candidate):

"It was under Clinton, after all, that India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons, which put a huge hole in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty."

When in fact they were not signatories and thus no hole was made in treaty ?

Two would be my guess :-)

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Obama campaign violating state law by placing automated phone calls to numbers on the Do Not Call list. Former State Rep. Sandy Keans, a Clinton supporter from Rochester, said she received a call."This afternoon, I received a pre-recorded phone message from the Obama campaign attacking Senator Clinton even though I am on the Do-Not-Call List," Keans said.

Obama he has managed to avoid media bias against Clinton. "Obama, through an unprecedented convergence of luck has never before faced serious attack yet, Media refuses to show he is a phony, someone whose lofty rhetoric isn't born out in his own public record. His lack of foreign policy experience and showing he isn't ready to lead in a dangerous world. His votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate. facts show he always supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home, votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater, voted with Bush on posturing S 433 which allows the Bush to suspend any troop withdrawal! Record also shows Obama faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from Bush admin and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies, voted with Repub to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. "He talks about change but has no real record of making change. Lastly his use of the race card will not play well nationally, We are absolutely sick of obama saying hes not running on race, but thats all he offering and all we are talking about!!!!, he is a self proclaimed Black Racist. Again media attacks Romneys Mormon faith but refuses to discuss obama church. Go to website to know what he believes. http://www.tucc.org/about.htm. I think the media needs to be held accountable! ALL the candidates should have been given the same treatment. All these OLD men who own these media outlets are afraid of an educated strong woman like Senator Clinton. Is why they attack her on clothes, wrinkles etc...And refuse to show her in any positive light. They have completely lost CREDIBILITY CNN, MSNBC etc...Are just the "Enquire on TV.

dyck.... give it a rest, girl... you're delirious... go get some sleep, have a bite to eat... Hillary will be in to tuck you in... nitey-nite...

What do you believe will win New Hampshire's primary vote on Tuesday, Dull Competence or Poetry?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1464

.

A great column there.

While only signatories of the NPT can technically violate it, ANY nation with a rogue nuke program can impacting the GOAL of the NPT.

Fact Checker of course was talking about the goal, whereas reflexive Bush-haters decided technical violations were what mattered. Feh.

I have been listening to the Upper Class media today and for weeks talking about another gentleman from Hope. Most of the commentators agree the "bunker mentality" is a general election discussion Huckabee is moving toward. In truth Bush must be listening of late for he is beginning to move toward such a policy of talking to world leaders even our enemies the Foreign policy position Huckabee advocates in the article. Huckabee is a rare Republican that thinks using both sides of his brain and sees "green" cares about broken humanity and is endorsed by the NEA. He is a Republican cut of a different clothe that social conservatives, moderates and actually even some liberals can and will support! The elite and establishment Republicans despise Huckabee's broken humanity policy and are praying the great fish (not a trout) of the bible will swallow him in the Republican primary sea! They mostly care about their money or selfishly the borders within their own habitation! The more they pray their Pharisaical prayers and preach their negative messages and God knows they are coming out of the woodwork the higher Mike goes in the Polls. I must say I am amused! There are even some right wing Arkansas Legislative Republicans that supported a policy which would allow migrant children to suffer or even possible die rather than provide for them medicine. They add to their position of closing the border (which Huckabee supports) an additional policy of not providing medication, or feeding the poor. They preach this policy as if it is from Jesus's teachings. I am not sure what bible they have been reading. I have not found that policy in mine. The one I own and the one Mother Teresa read states "suffer the little children to come unto me". I guess the Pharisaical Republicans have added to their bible we must ask what country the children come from and we must look at the color of their skin and if they are not "white American" they are illegal or different and we must not help them. You are right Governor Mike we are a better Country than that. Even Michael Moore is more right on this position than the right wing Pharisaical Republican Legislators fighting Mike Huckabee's broken humanity policy that gives a human touch to Government.
I recall in a debate some years back when a Democrat said to a Republican candidate called Dan something to the effect "you are no John F. Kennedy". Hmm, I think the press is finally getting it that Mike Huckabee is no Pat Robinson. Elect ability? Huckabee beat the Clinton machine in Arkansas four times so I'll let you answer that. Ed Rollins Reagan's Architect and now Mike's still likes donuts and booze and may be getting older and balder but his memory is still good and I think he's got one more winning campaign in him. Ed remembered Democrats prayed for the Republican nomination of B rated movie star and eventual Governor Ronnie Reagan in 1980 and their prayers were answered. I guess they forgot to pray about the general election for Reagan won with a landslide. I read a few days ago a headline on Drudge and elsewhere the Democrats were again in a "silent" prayer mode for another "B rated star" guy in this case the "Mike" guy called Huckabee who they want to be the Republican nominee. They better be careful what they pray for because he is clothed in the same clothe as Reagan a "Great Communicator and Chief"! I wonder if their prayers will be answered again. Yes we agree with Mike "Jesus is to smart to run for office" and let us add to take sides but I do look forward to watching those old rerun movies with a B star actor replaced by a "Mike" guy.

We are all tired of hearing Bill Clinton tooting his legacy everyday during this campaign, when in fact he is not on the ballot. One thing he does not mention about his legacy is that while Bill and Monica were going nuclear in the oval office, Pakistan tested their first nuclear bomb in 1998. If Bill had paid attention to rein in Pakistan, we could have avoided 9/11 as well as the massive expense on the war on terror. However much we like to put the blame on George Bush on the inefficient execution of the war on terror, the conditions for terror were brewing in Pakistan during the Clinton administration.

The fact is that Kosovo was not going nuclear and Pakistan was going nuclear during the Clinton administration. Yet Clinton and Madeline Albright were poking around Kosovo. During that time Pakistan stole nuclear technology from the United States, built and tested their first nuclear bomb, Musharaf grabbed power from a democratic government and made military rule in 1999.

India had constantly complained throughout the 90s about the terror they were facing from Pakistan. They provided to Clinton the intelligence on the nuclear program of Pakistan. But Clinton decided not to engage Pakistan in any conversation. His famous week long trip to India and a half hour stop at Pakistan shows how much conversation was happening between the Clinton administraion and Pakistan.

Al Queda used bases in Afghanistan and Sudan. But the Madrassas training Al Queda and recruiting young men to become the suicide squad were in Pakistan. Clinton did not pay attention to Pakistan. When George Bush took over and 9/11 happened within 9 months, he stood like a deer facing the headlights of an on coming truck. There were no plan, policy or notion put forth by the Clinton administration which Bush could have depended on to understand the nature of the threat. Madeline Albright due to her ancestry and roots in the corners of Europe near the regions of Bosnia, Kosovo knew only the roads in Kosovo, not the roads in Pakistan.

Bill Clinton is to be blamed solely for taking the eye off of the nuclear proliferation threat from Pakistan, for the sake of keeping his eyes on Monica. Pakistan became nuclear under his watch. Unlike the hard rhetoric of George Bush about North Korea and Iran about their nuclear programs, Clinton decided to keep mum about Pakistan. Media did not write in legible ink about the happenings in Pakistan during the Clinton administration only because the media became obsessed with Clinton going nuclear with Monica.

That is the legacy of Bill Clinton folks. Let's not forget why we are facing the war on terror and why we have the situation in Iran, North Korea and especially Pakistan today.

Do you think Hillary can make decisions for our country without Bill injecting his legacy foreign policy? Hillary has already hinted that Bill will be the world ambassador. This means that he will ignore other problem spots around the globe that can go nuclear and concentrate on regions that are of no strategical importance to US. Madeline Albright also did not see the importance of reining in Pakistan during the Clinton administration. She is the lady who is roaming around with Hillary now. What it means is that the foreign policy advisors for Hillary are of old world caliber, who did not understand the nuclear proliferation then and who do not understand the current nuclear world order either.

Sometimes 35 years of experience can come in the way of change. We are constantly faced with corporations replacing experienced older generation of employees with new young blood. However much we fear about losing our jobs, it is a necessity for companies to stay afloat. This happens because corporations know that younger generation will bring the required change to match the changing landscape of technology and ideas. The yonger generation is nimble, has the energy, less bad legacy to fall back and hit their head on. The whole world order of living organisms is based on the concept of replacing experienced older organisms with new younger organisms. We do not want an administration who will go looking for a type writer to send an email. We want an administration that is capable of looking forward. Not one that talks about 35 years of legacy, and how much they are vetted.

Let us not be afraid of fear. The fear the Clintons are trying to instill in us. Obama and Edwards have both effectively sold their ideas to people not only in Iowa but to many more in other states as well. They have the enthusiasm, passion and energy to take this country forward. The debate in New Hampshire is a testament to their synergy. In Obama we see a person of vision. In Edwards we see a person of great passion. A Obama/Edwards ticket is the way to go forward.

You are right that we need someone who is for the people of this country. I am not voting for Mike because I am in a congregation that says too. I am NOT a baptist, I just like what Mike stands for. Anyone who takes time to hear his message understands Mike is for the people of America, more than any other candidate.

For the first time in my life, I have been truly inspired for a candidate. I believe Mike will win. He won by a huge Margin in Iowa. He won with 36% of the vote to Mitt Romneys 24% to Mccains 13%. People who voted for Mike were inspired and dedicated to his cause. The media said it could not be done. It was done.

Mitt Romney spent 70 million dollars in attack ads directed at Mike Huckabee. Mike spent 1.9 million towards an honest and positive campaign. People are smart and realized the value of Mikes ethics. If Mike can do better than Romney who is spending 20 to 1 against Mike, it shows you were the people stand in values. Think of the good all that money could have done to help the poor or the many other needy causes. It's sad.

NH show that you cannot be bought by Mitt Romneys greed and negative attacks.

It is time for a truly great leader in our Country, it is time for Mike Huckabee.

Dan Campbell
Sgt., USMC

I want the fact checker to test Dr Paul's claims of how we are paying for the war some in taxes much via debt and inflation vs every other politicians claims.
Since the euro was 0.88 cents in 1999 and is now $1.48 could that have an influence? How did that happen?

www.ronpaul2008.com

Be careful in your choice this election if you chose Obama, the republicans will have a field day with attack ads come november. I can already see the titles " Are you ready for Barack Hussain Obama" an ex muslim who refused to hold the Bible as he was sworn into to the senate" They will make him look like a non patriotic american who stands with the muslims. The "low-informed class" will run to the voting booth and vote against Obama. The race is not over yet and if Obama thinks the majority of the American people are ready to jump on this fairytale kumbaya skittles road to "change" then he needs a wake up call.....Trust me Fox news and all the right wing nut balls will push for getting Obama nominated come this fall and trash Hillary, just wait and see... This is because Obama does not pose a threat in the the blue collar south or the mid west...So unless we begin to help Hillary this election we will see another 4 years of a right wing ding bat in the white house...

Sara: Are you a Hillary surrogate? You sound like that Bob Kerrey character. If Hillary can't win even 1/3rd of the democratic party's vote, it doesn't matter what the republicans say, she is not good enough to be president. Obama has weathered so far against the mud slinging from Hillary. He will do just fine against the republicans. Hilary's camp wants to run this campaign under a banner of fear and blackmail. The people of this country did not buy it. That is all that counts. The only person who is crying foul is the loser Hillary. She shouldn't have even entered the race this time since she refused to help Al Gore and Kerrey when they were running for the presidency. She is not for the democratic party. She is all for herself. Queen Hillary.

One comment I would like to make about the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty:

Somewhere, there is a proviso that bans the export of nuclear technology and material to non-signatories. Bush has promoted a deal with India which would blow this out of the water (Congress, thankfully, did not agree). So Bush has taken steps that would essentially blow a hole in the NPT.

John Edwards, simply the Progressive Choice.

"You can't blame Bush for everything."

Well, if he initiated a policy, a militaristic action, or failed to act (can you say real estate and finance industry) you can point this out if not blame him.

He told us about a brief, urgently necessary, and self-sustaining war. None of the above were true. I for one blame him.

He told us that the market must decide. Well what happens when real estate investors, real estate agents, and even financial organizations don't like how the markets decide? No, the fed does not regulate everything that could go wrong. However, encouraging prudence, adherence to best-practices, and avoiding cut-throat tactics to write loans would have been nice. I blame him and his approach to governance.

"My New Year's Wish is that Congress will not raise taxes." Ok then who pays for his war AND bridges, roads, healthcare, Veterans Affairs, and Education? I blame him.

Friday: "President says he can fix economy."
Monday: "The economy is resilient and upon a good foundation."
If nothing is wrong with it, why isn't he saying it is strong and that he can fix it.
Here again, I blame him.

Should I not?

Why do you assume that Kimball is in the Obama camp? He works for a nonpartisan organization. By wrongly tying him to a political campaign you are tacitly creating a bias against Kimball's argument. Please stick to actual matters that are not matters of opinion.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.