Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 17, 2009

IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT.... In general, I avoid commenting on Michelle Malkin posts -- there's rarely any point -- but she had a gem today that's just too amusing to ignore. (via Memeorandum) The headline reads, "President Obama's 2,000-point tumble," and argues:

On Nov. 4, after Barack Obama clinched the White House, the market closed at 9,625.28.

In mid-morning trading today, the day President Obama signs his massive Generational Theft Act into law and a day before he unveils a massive new mortgage entitlement, the Dow dropped to to [sic] 7,606.53.

Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period -- during the first few months of his presidency.

Great start, O.

Note that for Malkin, the clock started on Nov. 4, the day of the presidential election. So, President Obama got off to a poor start 106 days before his inauguration. Indeed, his start began while voters were still at the ballot box.

(For anyone who's curious, the Dow Jones closed at 7,949 on Jan. 20. That's not 9,625.)

It's hard to even know where to start with such a silly argument. George W. Bush -- who left the country a $10 trillion debt, enough to earn a "President Generational Theft" award from Malkin -- saw the market go from around 14,000 to around 8,000 over 14 or so months. That's a "tumble."

Obama, meanwhile, took office in the midst of a global economic crisis. While Malkin referenced the "first few months" of a presidency, Obama has been in office for just 27 days, and has barely begun to implement an economic policy.

I can appreciate the fact that Malkin, Limbaugh, Coulter, et al, want to see Obama fail. I can even understand why. If they can just convince enough people that bad news is the president's fault, they might be able to get new leadership that can bring back the policies that contributed to this economic nightmare in the first place.

But blaming even a 300-point Dow Jones drop, over a month, on the new president is unusually foolish, even by far-right standards.

Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (60)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

President Obama just signed the Recovery Bill.

A proud moment.

Posted by: Coral on February 17, 2009 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Malkin is pitiful person.

Posted by: ChrisS on February 17, 2009 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

You know, just days after Obama got elected -- early in his presidency -- I noticed that the Sun wasn't out as much. It was a lot darker.

But now that the GOP is earnest in standing up to this Socialist Kenyan despot, the days are a little longer.

Thanks, Boehner!

Posted by: Unca Paul on February 17, 2009 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

27 days is the first few months? Are we measuring Presidencies in dog years now?

Posted by: gradysu on February 17, 2009 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Michelle Malkin is the woman who said that putting Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WWII was 'Justified'

Where do they get these people ?
And how do they get all this media attention ?

Posted by: MSierra, SF on February 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

So Bush was not responsible for the last three months of his administration (that's Obama's responsibility) . . . and of course he was also not responsible for 9/11 because it happened a mere eight months into his administration (which was Clinton's responsibility).

Amazing how powerless Republicans are to affect events--even when they control the White House.

Posted by: Karl Weber on February 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, Steve, Steve. Michelle Malkin? Really?
Don't feed the trolls.

Posted by: Cazart on February 17, 2009 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

My memory may be faulty and it certainly wasn't 2000 points, but weren't we actually in the middle of a major stock market decline from election day in 2000 until the end of the first month of Bush's 1st term?

Posted by: Shalimar on February 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

during the first few months of his presidency

Obama hasn't been president for a single MONTH, you stupid bitch.
.

Posted by: Grand Moff Texan on February 17, 2009 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Blame-shifting at it's finest:
Obama put a government gun to the heads of those traders, and MADE them sell-off.

here's an equally good theory:
The Stanford investigation over $8 billion securities fraud, on the heels of Madoff, on the heels AIG and other bank failures, on the heels of KBR/Halliburton/missing-$9 bln. in Iraq, on the heels of HealthSouth, on the heels of Enron - etc. etc. etc.

The past 8 years has been a feeding frenzy of unrestrained fraud and corruption; overseen, aided, and abetted by the Bush Administration (on behalf of the "Texas Mafia") - It's no surprise that the market is spooked. Half of them are afraid that they've been screwed by their investment bankers, and the other half are waiting for the feds to come bust down their doors.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on February 17, 2009 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

If you think her post was bad, you should check out the remarks in the fever swamp that is her comments section. Such bizarre hallucinations as The Protocols of Zion, the Mark of the Beast, "William Ayres the Conqueror" and other all make their troubling appearance.

It's like a ward full of dingbats tripping on bad mushrooms and screaming post hoc conjugations.

Posted by: trex on February 17, 2009 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing crazier than this would be if Malkin accused a popular cooking show host of supporting terrorism, because of a scarf she wore in a Dunkin' Donuts commercial.

But that would just be stupid.

Posted by: 2Manchu on February 17, 2009 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

There is venom in that lady and it just needs to get out any way it can.

No use in parsing her scribbling for internal consistency, she is all about throwing read meat to the hyenas.

Posted by: SRW1 on February 17, 2009 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Now, imagine if President Bush had presided over a 2,000-point stock market tumble in the same time period -- during the first few months of his presidency.

I agree with Shalimar, stocks were tumbling when Bush was appointed, but there's no way she or anyone in mainstream media would ever have suggested Bush could be to blame. They could never identify any of his mistakes any more than he could himself.

Posted by: Capt Kirk on February 17, 2009 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

These angry, confused, projecting bastards are irrelevant at this point. If we start treating them as such, all the better.

They will then start spewing even crazier crap (I know, hard to believe, but I know that they have it in them) and just prove how off the deep end they are and then they'll make themselves even more irrelevant.

Posted by: GreyGuy on February 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

But blaming a 300-point Dow Jones drop on the new president is unusually foolish, even by far-right standards.
============

Not so but far otherwise. Blaming any damn thing at all on a Democrat is par for the course by Republican standards, and has been since before Newt Gingrich was fucking his mistresses on his Congressional office desk so that he could deny having been "to bed" with them. These are people who'll blame Obama if a Hummer parks in a space marked "Compact". And try to get it on TV into the bargain.

Posted by: Try and keep up there. on February 17, 2009 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

But blaming a 300-point Dow Jones drop on the new president is unusually foolish, even by far-right standards.

I have to disagree with you on this, Steve. It's pretty much bog-standard right-wing stupidity these days.

Posted by: Brock on February 17, 2009 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

i'll take the musings of evgeni malkin over michelle malkin any day of the week.

Posted by: mudwall jackson on February 17, 2009 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

"unusually foolish, even by far-right standards"

No. Nothing can possibly be unreasonably foolish for them. If Michelle Malkin said that the sky was yellow, the sun was blue, and it rises in the west, 30% of America would insist it was true. Remember this is a group of people that create their own reality. When you create your own reality, anything is possible. There is simply nothing that is foolish for them. Anything can make sense when you start from the point of being completely delusional.

Posted by: fostert on February 17, 2009 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINK

I'd like for their to be a good conservative writer who isn't an old white male, but Michelle sadly is nothing close to being "good" or even "mediocre."

Posted by: Franklin on February 17, 2009 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

the day President Obama signs his massive Generational Theft Act into law and a day before he unveils a massive new mortgage entitlement, the Dow dropped to to [sic] 7,606.53.

Other things that have happened since Obama was elected: cows have been born with two heads, milk has soured, stores of grain have gone all mouldy, and good upstanding townspeople have been doing all sorts of ungodly things.

Clearly, Obama is a witch.

Posted by: trex on February 17, 2009 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Of course they do not bring up that when George Bush took office in January 2001 that the S&P 500 was down 26% from its 2000 peak or that it fell another 39% over the next 18 months.

Posted by: spencer on February 17, 2009 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Moreover, when Obama was elected in November 2008 the S#P 500 was some 25% below where it was when Bush took office.

Posted by: spencer on February 17, 2009 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Malkin always makes me laugh at how she yanks the chains of the wingnuts and gets them going about things that make no logical sense. lol

Between the wingnuts themselves and Malkin they are always caught between stupid coming and going.

Posted by: Silver Owl on February 17, 2009 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

re:Nobama, please!

Malkin, is that you?

Posted by: ckelly on February 17, 2009 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

But blaming a 300-point Dow Jones drop on the new president is unusually foolish [...]

An she ain't even a blonde...

Posted by: exlibra on February 17, 2009 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Then again, considering that a sizable chunk of the right, including Ms. Malkin, claim that a few cold days during the winter is enough evidence to disprove anthropogenic climate change ... so saying that Obama's presidency is the cause of Wall Street's declines ain't exactly a stretch for them.

Posted by: ChrisS on February 17, 2009 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Steve,

Please note that the Dow was .31 points lower than today's close on Nov. 20 (16 days into Obama's reign of terror)!

It also seems to me that Obama tried very hard during the transition to keep the markets somewhat happy by showing up on a daily basis and making non-delusional statements about what he was planning on doing.

Obama has not tried to delude investors, as a result stocks have gone down, but have not fallen as far as they could have.

The 1500 point climb over the rest of the transition was due to TARP. It was free money, it kept us alive, and made some think that things would improve quickly.

This month we found out that wasn't going to happen. Obama started to make noises that he really was more interested in Main Street. Bankers learned that some adults were going to go over the books and see if they are insolvent. Call it an "Oh, Shit!" moment. But Obama is setting a floor on the fall.

Posted by: tomj on February 17, 2009 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly Nobama wants to stop funding the Iraq War

Posted by: Olexicon on February 17, 2009 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

The market has dropped 2000 points since Obama was sworn in.

No it hasn't, you boob, not even Malkin is arguing that.

We are borrowing a LOT of money to do this, and the consensus from most economists is that this will not work.

Actually, there is no consensus among economists, although the better ones seem to think that the problem with the stimulus package is that it's not nearly large enough and has too many concessions to the Republicans in the form of tax cuts.

You probably want to quit while you're already way behind.

Posted by: trex on February 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

There you go with "Bush" again. This is about NOW. We are in a world of hurt right now, and what we do about it is going to affect us for many years to come. Can you guys please give up your obsession with BUSH for just one minute, and realize what is going on NOW.

Does anybody REALLY believe this is going to work. Because if it does not, we are going to get hammered!

Posted by: Nobama, please!


I never mentioned Bush, your Obama Derangement Syndrome is out of control

Posted by: olexicon on February 17, 2009 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Hey everybody, give her a break! Malkin's just doing her job. So she's a mediocre propagandist for a bunch of white-collar crooks, even the Mafia had such people. After all, there was a reason that communism was created---and we're seeing its enablers in action today. Sigh. ;-)

Posted by: -jlinge- on February 17, 2009 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

trex,

The best economist of all, and perhaps the only one that matters is the "Stock market."

Take a look at how it reacted to the market today, boob. It went DOWN 300 points, in reaction to the signing.

The market has no faith in this! Ultimately, the market is the most important judge.

Posted by: Nobama, please! on February 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

The best economist of all, and perhaps the only one that matters is the "Stock market."

Take a look at how it reacted to the market today, boob. It went DOWN 300 points, in reaction to the signing.

The market has no faith in this! Ultimately, the market is the most important judge.

Posted by: Nobama, please!


You are just suffering from early onset Obama Derangement Syndrome

Posted by: olexicon on February 17, 2009 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Olexicon,

You and others have missed the point all together.

I could care less whether it is a Democrat or a Republican in office. I care about what works!

I have not heard a one of you step up and support this Sendulous package. Not one person!

The reason is that you know this is MADNESS. How is spending money on sex education, global warming, a train for Harry Reid, etc......how is any of this going to stimulate this economy?

Show me that you are more than just a blind sheep following your political leadership. This is "ONE TRILLION DOLLARS" people!

Posted by: Nobama on February 17, 2009 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

The best economist of all, and perhaps the only one that matters is the "Stock market."

In fact, the market is not an economist at all, just a collection of investors trying to anticipate what may or may not happen. The market is fickle and has no special insight into such a complicated issue as this.

If the market goes up in two days will you be here hysterically proclaiming that the stimulus is working because the market says so?

I didn't think so.

Posted by: trex on February 17, 2009 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives in action--- "Federal authorities today charged a prominent Texas businessman and three of his companies with carrying out a 'massive, ongoing fraud' involving the sale of $8 billion in certificates of deposit, one of the largest alleged financial frauds in U.S. history. R. Allen Stanford and two colleagues, working through a web of firms in Houston and the Caribbean, lied to customers about how their money was being invested and how the firms' investment portfolios had performed in the past, the Securities and Exchange Commission said in a complaint."

Posted by: -jlinge- on February 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

"Of course they do not bring up that when George Bush took office in January 2001 that the S&P 500 was down 26% from its 2000 peak or that it fell another 39% over the next 18 months."

But they DO (or did during the week leading up to inauguration) like to say that 'Bush inherited the 2001 recession'.

So if Bush isn't responsible for what happened to the economy the first x months ( a not unreasonable idea), why is Obama responsible for what is happening in his first weeks?

Posted by: Robert Earle on February 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

We are talking about spending "One Trillion" dollars on a Spendulous package that few believe will work. Is anybody out there willing to defend what your president is doing right now?

Why don't you spend a few hours reading the lengthy and detailed defenses and criticisms of the package posted here on this blog over the past few weeks and then come back to us. No one here is going to redo their work for a nut like you. This blog didn't spring up today when you laid eyes on it and there is plenty of analysis for you to mull over.

But in a word and simple enough so that even you might be able to grasp it: spending on jobs programs puts people to work, minimizing human suffering, and putting their spending money back into the economy.

Come back when your meds kick in!

Posted by: trex on February 17, 2009 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

I wanted to mock the troll, but it's such a target-rich environment that I'm paralyzed by my choices.

The whole notion that the stock market is wiser than any professional economist had me rolling on the floor. Good thing there's no such thing as a stock market bubble, huh?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on February 17, 2009 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Remember, Michelle Malkin's fellow travelers have recently been accusing FDR of causing the Great Depression that started 4 years before he took office. By comparison, blaming him for the performance of the market during the 10 weeks between his election and his inauguration is almost reasonable.

Posted by: tanstaafl on February 17, 2009 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Using the daily swings of the stock market as a barometer of how a president influences the economy is quite ignorant.

The economy is so much more than that. The sooner the dips and jumps in the Dow are ignored as the sole indicators of something greater the better.

Posted by: ChrisS on February 17, 2009 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

I am very upset about this "One Trillion" dollar spending package that we all know is not going to work. If you believe it will work, tell me why?

Because it worked before. Remember? Roosevelt? The New Deal? Or have you swallowed the Republican line that Roosevelt started the Great Depression 4 years before he took office, and nothing he did worked anyway as long as you ignore the increases in employment and consumer spending.

Take a toddle down to your local Post Office sometime and look at the cornerstone to see when it was built. Nine times out of 10, that date will be between 1934 and 1942, because that's what Roosevelt did -- he spent a massive amount of money upgrading our infrastructure by doing things like building dams and post offices.

You're hysterically demanding proof that seat belts work as we go careening towards a wall.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on February 17, 2009 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

you were right at first: its completely useless to try and rationalize a moron's illogic (paraphrasing of course).

What's troubling is anyone that would read malkin in the first place - I'd be concerned about uncontrollable masochistic tendencies.

Posted by: pluege on February 17, 2009 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Obama's fisrt 27 days as President has already done more for this country than the entire history of the republican party.

Posted by: Al on February 17, 2009 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Nobama, the stock market HAS NOT DROPPED 2000 points since 20 January. Get your facts straight--for once.

Gee, do you think there might be OTHER bad news the stock market might be reacting to, such as the continuing meltdown in the auto industry, the chaos in the banking industry, Japan's crisis, and East Europe's looming financial disaster? You think maybe, Mr. Budding Economist?

You conservatives have more sheer damned nerve than anybody on the planet. Bush inherits a strong economy and huge surpluses and then runs America into the ditch, and you say nothing. Hell, you act as cheerleaders for it. Now, President Obama is desperately trying to take action, and you come up with every phony, discredited, delusional argument you can come up with to attack it. Gee, let me guess your solution--massive tax cuts for the rich, right?

I guess those polls that show 65%-70% approval of the President mean nothing, or the Gallup survey that indicated the American people approved Obama's approach over your political party's 67%-31%.

The mistake that will take a long time to recover from is the mistake of having a group of lying, malicious, incompetent right wing criminals in office for 8 years.

Posted by: J. Miller on February 17, 2009 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

January 20, 2001. G.W. Bush takes the oath of office.

September 11, 2001, about 230 days after G.W. Bush takes office, terrorists hijack airplanes and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. One crashes in Pennsylvania. Heck of a start, W.

Posted by: batavicus on February 17, 2009 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Jan. 20, 2001: DJIA: 10,587
Jan. 20, 2009: DJIA: 7949

But this is just a nominal loss. Like any measure of value, a stock index must be adjusted for inflation. In real terms, the drop is greater. If the DJIA were at 12,433, in real terms, it would be even with its 2001 value. Yes, the alleged "stock market highs" of 2007 were _nominal_ highs, not _real_ highs. Why the mainstream media rarely make this adjustment is beyond me.

Of course, how the mainstream media believed fairy stories about WMD in Iraq, the Saddam-Al-Queda connection, and yellowcake in Niger is also beyond me.

Posted by: batavicus on February 17, 2009 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

Heaven forbid you miss the opportunity to take a few comments out of context and use them to bait partisan rants from your readers.
Party affiliation aside, it is important to ask hard questions and expect clear answers when we are proposing debt to the extent most people can not comprehend. There is adequate blame to go around both sides of the aisle as to who got us to this point, but is this level of unspecified spending the answer? Really?!?

Posted by: R. Clark on February 17, 2009 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

I think we need a new word. To call what these folks exhibit "mental retardation" is an insult to MR and developmentally disabled Americans.

Look here, Steve points out that Malkin can't operate a calendar, and Nobama shouts "YOUR MISSING THE POINT!!!!" We're pragmatists, he claims, looking for what WORKS!!!

The problem, of course, is that he doesn't mean an objective yardstick in tangible reality, but a vague conceptual statistic - based in a strange alternate universe where Malkin's point is neither demonstrably false or idiotic.

I actually hope that the GOP continues to take direction from what I presume to be a fossilized dog turd hooked to a dry cell battery. If it shinks itself small enough, we can convert Texas to a giant hamster cage and see how many generations of purebred cretin it takes for them to loose the ability to distinguish food from feces...

Posted by: Fitz on February 17, 2009 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

There is adequate blame to go around both sides of the aisle as to who got us to this point, but is this level of unspecified spending the answer? Really?!?

So if you don't want to do what FDR proved will work, what's your innovative plan? More tax cuts? After all, if tax cuts didn't work the previous 2,654 times we've done them, that must mean they're going to work any day now, right?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on February 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

After all, if tax cuts didn't work the previous 2,654 times we've done them, that must mean they're going to work any day now, right?

Conservatism doesn't fail, Mnemosyne, we can only fail conservatism.

Posted by: trex on February 17, 2009 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

Note that for Malkin, the clock started on Nov. 4, the day of the presidential election. So, President Obama got off to a poor start 106 days before his inauguration.

Of course. Stock and bond purchases are bets on the future. As soon as Obama won the traders were betting that the near future would be worse than the recent past. Now that traders have had time to read parts of the stimulus law, they have bet that the future will be even worse.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on February 17, 2009 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

A previous post refers to "...the fever swamp that is her (Michelle Malkin's) comments section."

It is certainly refreshing to see the cool headedness, well-reasoned arguments, and fine command of the King's English on display in this blog.

Posted by: Ken on February 17, 2009 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

As soon as Obama won the traders were betting that the near future would be worse than the recent past.

No they weren't.

I love fact-free assertions, they're so easy.

Now that traders have had time to read parts of the stimulus law, they have bet that the future will be even worse.

Yes, that's just what traders were doing yesterday, sitting around reading the stimulus "law." In reality, the contents of the bill were known last week and according to analysts the markets ROSE on hopes that it would help stem the crisis, and I posted the cites here at the time.

And if you read the analysis of market performance today you'll see that the general consensus is that the market was dragged down by automotive and banking woes -- and a sentiment that the stimulus "law" (as you so oddly refer to it) wasn't nearly LARGE enough to counter the current crisis.

Which is the opposite of your ideological position.

We can conclude, however, that when the market lost thousands more points under Bush than Obama that traders must have REALLY hated him, right?

Also: I discovered an interesting little secret about you recently, Matty. You know those little off-topic energy update things you post that no one gives a shit about? I happened to come across a few while googling the archives and it occurred to me that some of your assertions about the state of alternative energy seemed a little bogus.

So I checked them out. And guess what I found? You don't always tell the truth. In fact, you've included some whoppers in those updates.

I'm looking forward to examining them when it's least convenient for you.

Posted by: trex on February 17, 2009 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

Of course. Stock and bond purchases are bets on the future. As soon as Obama won the traders were betting that the near future would be worse than the recent past. Now that traders have had time to read parts of the stimulus law, they have bet that the future will be even worse.

I'm not sure why we're supposed to take Wall Street's bet against Obama any more seriously than if they bet against the Steelers in the Super Bowl. Let's face it, they don't exactly have a great record of picking winners recently. Remember how enthusiastic they were about Countrywide? Enron?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on February 17, 2009 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

batavicus,

"Jan. 20, 2001: DJIA: 10,587
Jan. 20, 2009: DJIA: 7949

But this is just a nominal loss. Like any measure of value, a stock index must be adjusted for inflation. In real terms, the drop is greater. If the DJIA were at 12,433, in real terms, it would be even with its 2001 value. Yes, the alleged "stock market highs" of 2007 were _nominal_ highs, not _real_ highs."

Actually, it's much worse than that.

Not only were the DJIA and the S&P500 both DOWN every single year of the past eight years (in inflation-adjusted dollars) from where they were in 2000, but the DJIA would need to be over 16,000 just to get back to where it was in 2000.

Obviously, the idea that the stock market is all of a sudden declining since the election is RIDICULOUS.

Posted by: Joe Friday on February 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

"Also: I discovered an interesting little secret about you recently, Matty"

That's not a secret. Matthew's abhorrence of facts is widely known here and has been known for years. You should look up his Iraq posts -- hilariously delusional and fact-free.

Posted by: PaulB on February 18, 2009 at 7:37 AM | PERMALINK
It's really too bad President Obama couldn't figure out a way to jettison these two [Reid & Pelosi] who are poster children for everything that is wrong in Washington.
Has Jack Cafferty lost his mind or is this just a contrarian view of the world ? How long can he last at CNN writing stuff like this ? Posted by: Neo on February 18, 2009 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Given that W quit being president a couple of weeks before the election, I can understand why Malkin would get confused about how long Obama's been in office.

Posted by: gbear on February 18, 2009 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly