GOP's 'Obama' Falls Flat

MOST PANNED SPEECH IN 20 YEARS SETS JINDAL FOR CLINTON COMEBACK
It was ironic that during which a film set in India and partially created by Indians won the Academy Award for Best Picture while America's top Indian political figure fell flat on his face.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's response to the State of the Union is the most panned high-profile political speech in 20 years. Not since then-Governor Bill Clinton droned on and on at the 1988 Democratic National Convention has the political ground shaken harder and swallowed up a rising star of the party.

Everybody on both sides of the aisle had disparaging words for Jindal's sing-song performance. He reminded me of an Indian Woody from the children's film Toy Story.

I'm your favorite deputy, Mr Limbaugh!

The numbers genius from fivethirtyeight.com Nate Silver had the night's biggest zinger when he said, "If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that's because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again."

In retrospect, MSNBC's Chris Matthews was quite prescient in uttering his audible, "Oh God" just as Jindal appeared. He apologized the next day saying he was only referring to the "stagecraft" of the speech.

In the end, the Republican Party's "Obama" crashed and burned on the national stage, but the connection to Clinton's comparable fizzle in 1988 should be examined. Both are Southern governors and highly-skilled intellectual minds. Both were anointed up-and-coming stars in their parties and possibly presidential candidates. No matter what American mythology says, there are second acts in American political life. Clinton did the talk show circuit and allowed himself to be made fun of. Four years later, the guy known for talking too much became president.

The breadth of the criticism against Jindal has been shocking. So much so, that Rush Limbaugh felt compelled to evoke Reagan's 11th Commandment--though shall not talk ill of fellow Republicans. The incongruity of the response is so evident that it should allow Jindal the ability to brush himself off and continue to burnish his credentials for a run in 2012. He could one day be the guy who use to be the guy who looked childish and dorky on national television, only to rise again.

Liberal Media Welcomes Limbaugh Back

WHERE HAVE YOU GONE, RUSH LIMBAUGH?

Rush Limbaugh seems to be popping in and out of the news cycle recently. A new Democratic president could be the culprit. A blowhard like Limbaugh is far more entertaining speaking for the minority party, but his re-emergence is being touted by more liberal-friendly media outlets.

Tolerating the voice of Limbaugh after eight years of quietly peddling the GOP muck and piling up a fortune is the trade-off for a Bush-less Washington. Limbaugh did rear his neck out from under his headset periodically, though. He parroted the Bush administration 9/11 bravado, helped convince the nation to invade Iraq and battered Sen. John Kerry. Otherwise, his star never burned brighter than when he had Bill Clinton to push around. Limbaugh still can throw his weight around, though, with conservatives as illustrated by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) metaphorically knelling down to kiss his ring earlier this week.

Now, with President Obama, Limbaugh is all over the news. Making racist and blatantly un-American comment on why he does not support the new prez. Is Limbaugh really making more outrageously tasteless remarks than normal or are producers at outlets like CNN, MSNBC attempting to create a villain for their programs and articles?

Watch a video from MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews below. The resulting story focused on Rep. Dick Armey's misogynistic comments to Salon chief Joan Walsh, but notice the segment is set up twice by referencing the rotund Republican, Limbaugh.

Cable news is hardly news anymore, but entertainment. Hardball is an informative and entertaining program (Matthews' repeated on-air HA-HA-HA's are fun enough), but keep in mind the foil of Limbaugh as merely an attempt to create an opposing voice when most of Washington and the nation is quite united with the President...for now.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Hillary's Iraq War Dilemma

Darrell Hammond as Chris Matthews interviews Sen. Hillary Clinton on Saturday Night Live

It may be a silly send up of Sen. Hillary Clinton and MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Saturday Night Live last Saturday, but it's worth noting that by officially throwing her hat into the race for the White House the attitudes and perceptions of Hillary the Candidate versus Hillary the First Lady are beginning to form.

The writers at Saturday Night Live just may have crafted the prevailing thought of Democrats across America with this line:

"I think most Democrats know me. They understand that my support for the war was always insincere."

We're likely to witness a Sen. Clinton vaguely extroplating her shifting positions on the war in tones similarly to that line. There is a very high liklihood that the stormy atmosphere on Capitol Hill and the rest of America regarding this war will likely persist. Because no matter the amount of resolutions against the surge in Iraq the Bush administration is dead-set on making it happen; not because it's the best tonic for the military's problems or the most righteous, but because it will literally run the clock out on this President's watch. There's is no other reason for it.

With the scenario of today still percolating in 2008, it will be to the advantage of those who stood against the war (Barack Obama) and those who either reversed course earlier enough (John Edwards) and those without much of a public record either way (Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel)

In Hillary's case, her vote authorizing the President to invade Iraq is no different than Sen. John Kerry's or any candidate on the Republican side, but it is likely that by lying low the past six months regarding her opposition to the war as its quickly bogged down in the theater of war and opinion polls, her strength on this singular issue has been severely sapped by her competition thereby giving away much of her virtual lead and possibly campaign dollars to people like Obama and Edwards.

This race is on. The question is: can the prohibitive front runner win the presidency wire to wire without the country hearing the same old song of that it's heard through one Clinton and two Bush's?

Is Bush Widening the War On Terror?

IRAN, SYRIA MAY BE IN BUSH'S SIGHTS

Undoubtedly, your morning paper will lead with the variation of the headline Bush says, "I blew it". More newsworthy, though, will be his veiled threat to Syria and Iran. During tonight's primetime speech President Bush said:

We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

On MSNBC's post-speech coverage both Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews highlighted this stark passage, yet looked less sure of whether the media would latch onto its implications. It was as if Olbermann and Matthews thought they really didn't believe what they heard.

Sen. Barack Obama, Tim Russert, Brian Williams and Pat Buchanan answered the duos questions with uncertainty regarding the President's statement. Between eating an Ultimate Cheeseburger and noticing how if you look at George W. Bush in the eyes his ears look oddly huge in the periphery, I couldn't recall anything about Iran and Syria, either.

As the nation debates the logic in adding more troops to a lost cause the Adminstration, instead, has designs on widening the so-called war on terror.

Can President Bush's decision-making get any more bizarre? His candle in the proverbial wind of disagreement over the state of this war has grown worrisome. The troop escalation plan is favored, ostensibly, by one man. A vast majority of Americans disapprove of this exercise even more than they did last November when they handed control of Congress to the Democrats and you would be hard pressed to find any military expert who would call a troop surge nothing more than the President running out the clock on his term in office without a loss on his watch.

When does the inkling that President Bush views his presidency as a dictatorship where the voice of the people is non-existent and unwelcomed become frightfully real?

It's now imperative that the Democrats stop what they failed to do during the elections of 2000 and 2004 and stop President Bush or run the risk of becoming complicit in his dirty deeds. Those who envision the predicatable Democrat pussyfooting should be on notice that the party has nothing to fear. The power of the people are with them and those who waver are too disgusted with the current Administration to believe any of its forthcoming rhetoric.