PHOTO OF THE DAY: Hillary & Obama laugh it up during CBS “lovefest”


The softball interview is here should you care to watch it. But this photo is all you really need to see to know how difficult the “questioning” was on 60 Minutes.

Obama and Clinton laugh

Screen capture via Newsbusters.

Newsbusters’ Kyle Drennan provides this report on NBC’s reaction (emphasis added by him):

Following the friendly chat President Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had with CBS’s Steve Kroft on Sunday’s 60 Minutes, NBC’s reporters could barely contain their glee over the duo getting along so well, with correspondent Peter Alexander proclaiming on Monday’s Today“There they were, side-by-side, at times chuckling together, it seemed even finishing one another’s sentences.” [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Alexander fawned over Obama and Clinton repeatedly patting each other on the back during the self-promotional interview: “The President said he simply wanted to thank Hillary Clinton for being what he called one of the finest secretaries of state we have ever had. But the mutual gushing did not end there….the bitter rivals turned partners showed just how far their relationship’s evolved. The President lavishing Clinton with praise for her discipline, stamina, and thoughtfulness.”

Following Alexander’s report, co-host Matt Lauer asked chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd if the dual television appearance amounted to an Obama endorsement of Clinton in 2016: “What did we watch last night? Did we watch a sitting president giving a warm personal embrace to an outgoing secretary of state or did we watch a sitting president passing the baton to a political ally now?”

Todd was skeptical of the notion: “This was more in the thank-you column.” However, he then portrayed Clinton as a savior of the Democratic Party by agreeing to be Obama’s secretary of state: “Had Hillary Clinton not taken his invitation, the possibility of a Democratic Party that was split in two….So this really was a thank you. Because getting her to come in and the fact that she was such a team player once she went in, this was really the President doing that.”

Scott Whitlock at NB notes ABC’s Good Morning America had the words “Lovefest!” displayed over their video clip from the  Steve Kroft interview, and they, like other MSM outlets, also fawned and gushed over how well Clinton and Obama got along.

Fox News political analyst/Democrat Kirsten Powers rightly calls what happened on 60 Minutes last night ” something you would expect from like, the state-run media”:

 “It was really something you would expect from like, the state-run media. It was that kind of level of propaganda as far as I’m concerned. … I can understand maybe in agreeing to the interview, letting them have maybe one softball question in the beginning and then move on to more important things. This was a joke. Just not challenging basic things like the president claiming that Hillary’s been a great secretary of state in part because they have dismantled Al Qaeda. Now, I’m sorry, is anyone paying attention to what’s going on in North Africa? Why is the president not asked about Algeria, Mali, Libya? These are front and center in the news right now.

Amen.  Make sure you read her slam of Obama’s whining about Fox News here in a serious of must-read Tweets documented by Twitchy Team.

This, and it’s only the first month of his second term.  Sigh. Expect more pillow plumping for this President from administration-friendly “news” outlets in the months and years to come as modern-day “journalism” continues to take a nosedive.

DHS: “We can buy assault weapons to protect ourselves; you can’t. Hah-hah!”


**Posted by Phineas

Since the Newtown school massacre, there have been renewed calls for bans on so-called “assault rifles.” There was a march in D.C. this last weekend, and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Nannystate) introduced legislation to ban all sorts of weapons, mostly based on cosmetic factors that scare lefties, but make no difference in the weapon’s lethality. One of the most common arguments made is that you “just don’t need” such a weapon to defend yourself. (1)

But those are the rules for peasants such you and me. If you work for the Department of Homeland Security, well, that’s different:

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”

Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball also issued a press release this week bringing attention to the weapons purchase request.

Calls made to DHS seeking information regarding whether or not the RFP was accepted and fulfilled were not immediately returned on Saturday.

Let’s keep this straight, shall we? When you want an AR-15 for home defense, you’re a dangerous, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Bible and Constitution (and wife) beating radical who finds his manhood enhanced by getting your hands on an “assault weapon.” And should you want a magazine that holds ten or more rounds… You’re just fantasizing about shooting up a mall, aren’t you?

But, when the DHS wants its agents to have similar weapons… Those aren’t “assault weapons,” silly! Those are for “personal defense!” And, unlike you, they really do need high-capacity magazines! Ten rounds? Bah! Let’s go for 30! And the option for full auto-fire!

Why? Well… because, it’s not the same thing, you bitter-clinger!

In all seriousness, I have no problem with DHS buying weapons for its agents’ personal defense; they do dangerous work in the service of the nation. But shouldn’t ordinary, law-abiding Americans have the right to make the same choices for themselves and their families?

Scratch that. It’s not “have the right,” which implies a debatable question or request. No, Americans have that right as an inalienable natural right that preexists government, and the Second Amendment is a recognition of that right, not a grant.

So, if the managers of DHS can decide that they and their people need these weapons for their personal defense, shouldn’t the government acknowledge that individuals have that same right?

via John Kass

(1) With the usually unspoken corollary: “And you don’t get to make that choice for yourself, either.”

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)