Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

valerie jarrett Tag

In many ways, former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick (D) was Obama before Obama was Obama.  Patrick was elected the first black governor of Massachusetts in 2006, and his entire campaign was based on the same nebulous "change" mantra that would sweep then-Senator Obama into the White House two years later.
At his first inauguration under uncommonly fair skies in January 2007, the man who a year earlier had been dismissed as a hopeless romantic with no chance of victory carried with him limitless hope for the future — for better schools, fairer housing, racial healing. “It’s time for a change,” Patrick declared, “and we are that change.”
Sound like Obama's "we are the change we've been waiting for"?  That's no mistake.

You might think that the Obama administration would be gracious on its way out the door. Fuggedaboutit. Valerie Jarrett—asked by Greta Van Susteren during her inaugural MSNBC show this evening—what was her biggest surprise during her eight years in the White House, gave a nasty, partisan response. Said the senior adviser to President Obama: "what surprised me was the willingness of the Republicans in congress to put their short-term political interests ahead of what's good for the country . . . I thought they would come to the table and really try to work with us to focus on what we could do to move our country forward together. So it was disappointing and surprising that they didn't."

While it's way too early to assess the overall damage to Hillary Incorporated from the email, now document destruction, scandal, is does appear to be hurting Team Billary in ways that are hard to change: Public perception of a politician. While Billary is dreadfully tiresome and transparently faux in its lack of transparency, to much of the electorate Billary is simply a nice old lady with a grandchild. Well, she does have a grandchild, but that's about where the nice ends.  And that unhappy end product of a secretive, controlling, fear-mongering, basically incompetent presidential candidate is coming into public view and that view may be hard to change. Jonah Goldberg hits the Billary on the head when he says:
If you want to know what Hillary Clinton would be like as president, you’re seeing it right now.
Maureen Dowd wrote an Open Letter to Billary:
It has come to our attention while observing your machinations during your attempted restoration that you may not fully understand our constitutional system. Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our democracy: The importance of preserving historical records and the ill-advised gluttony of an American feminist icon wallowing in regressive Middle Eastern states’ payola. You should seriously consider these characteristics of our nation as the Campaign-That-Must-Not-Be-Named progresses. If you, Hillary Rodham Clinton, are willing to cite your mother’s funeral to get sympathy for ill-advisedly deleting 30,000 emails, it just makes us want to sigh ....
So how did this all happen? Ed Klein at The NY Post says Valerie Jarrett leaked key details of Billary's intrigue:

Why would any conservative believe anything Valerie Jarrett says about what John Boehner promised to do? Conservatives have good reason to neither like nor trust Boehner. In addition, conservatives have been betrayed by the GOP before, so often that they've come to expect it. But seriously, what reason would Valerie Jarrett have to be telling the truth when she says this?:
President Barack Obama's top adviser and confidant [sic] told a group of global elites on Thursday in Las Vegas, Nevada that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has made a commitment to the White House to try to pass amnesty legislation this year...Valerie Jarrett, Obama's senior advisor, told attendees at the yearly invitation-only SkyBridge Alternatives Conference that Boehner would help the White House make a push [to] get immigration reform enacted in the next three months.
I can't think of a reason to trust her. I can, however, think of a reason or two why she would lie. The first would be to get people on the left pumped and enthusiastic about amnesty's chances. The second would be to cause the right to start railing at Bohener and calling him a traitor. There's no real downside to inciting a civil war among your opposition. That said, we have no idea what Boehner will actually do on immigration, and there's no good reason to trust him. But I wouldn't trust Jarrett as far as I could throw her to report accurately on Boehner's true intentions or even on what Boehner told her his true intentions were, or to report on her own true intentions. Boehner has denied making any such promises to Democrats, by the way. And Jarrett herself has backtracked and offered the following clarification:
Boehner has made [a] commitment to trying, not that he has made [a] commitment to us or time frame.
Everything clear now?
Font Resize
Contrast Mode