The Coming Impeachment of President Obama

[Pirate Smile]

The Coming Impeachment of President Obama

Jonathan Chait: "Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won't do it right away. And they won't succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office."

Key point: "A December poll found that 35% of Republicans already favor impeaching Obama, with just 48% opposed and the balance undecided. That is a large base of support to impeach Obama for literally anything at all."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/10/13/the_coming_impeachment_of_president_obama.html

Scandal TBD
The coming impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.



Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won’t do it right away. And they won’t succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office.

Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense.

It is safe to say that Issa’s threshold of what constitutes an impeachable offense is not terribly high. As it happens, should Republicans win control of the House, Issa would bring his hair-trigger finger to the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The Sestak pseudo-scandal disappeared because there was no process to drive the story forward. Had Issa been running the Oversight Committee, it would have been the subject of hearings and subpoenas.


http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/78198/republicans-impeach-obama?passthru=MzAwYTliMjg4MTRhYmZhOGZhZDE3OWIxMDYyNjkxMTY

[littlewolf]

1. Not. Going. To. Happen.

[donheld]

71. Don't. Bet. On. It!

[joe black]

2. If I was in his place I'd come out swinging.

In for a penny, in for a pound. Blast them before they blast you.

[Cal33]

21. The Neocons are going to impeach any Democratic president -

with or without any reason. Here was Bush & his criminal bunch, doing many
impeachable things, and Ol' Nancy had to put impeachment off the table
since Jan. 2007.

Is Bush still impeachable? Some say that there is no statute of limitations
for an indictment of war crimes.

[bigdarryl]

3. Impeach him foe what

[phantom power]

6. It doesn't matter. That's part of the point.

Just as with Clinton, they'll pull any reason they have to out of their billionaire-funded asses.

:shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Well, if they win the house, they will investigate 24/7 until they trump up a charge.

This isn't about removing him from office. Only the dimmest bulbs in the party (about half of them) actually believe they can do that because their cause is pure and God is on their side. They will investigate him and find something that 218 Congressmen will vote for, then he is impeached.

Now there is no chance that the Senate will remove him from office, but they don't care. For them, politics is war, and impeachment is just a tool to weaken the enemy.

And I suspect they will push the investigations to have charges by election day 2012.

[JoePhilly]

17. Agree. They will investigate every person he has ever known.

All they need is one charge. Doesn't have to be true.

The goal of impeaching Clinton was never impeachment. The goal was to weaken him and to tie his administration in knots.

[Hekate]

22. GWB: Governing While Black

What else?

[Cal33]

23. You don't have to worry on that account. Neocons always can

come up with lies. They're good at inventing such things.

[AlinPA]

27. "The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority

of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office."

- Gerald Ford

[Starbucks Anarchist]

54. Being black and much smarter than them.

[onenote]

4. If i wanted to write an attention getting article I'd say the same thing

If I wanted to be taken seriously, I wouldn't.

[elocs]

10. If you cannot conceive of a Republican controlled House impeaching Obama,

then you really should expand your thinking of what is possible.

[onenote]

15. would you like to place a wager?

If the repubs capture the House (and I still think there is a good chance for us to hold the house), and an attempt is made to impeach Obama before the 2012 elections (and by attempt, I mean doing more than the Democrats did with respect to Bush), I'll give $100 to DU. If no attempt is made, you give DU $10.

Seems like a good bet for you. Do we have an accord?

[AlinPA]

26. What reason(s) can you offer why they wouldn't try to impeach the President?

[Gaedel]

29. Clinton's Impeachment

The GOP House impeached Clinton. Clinton was acquitted in the Senate (lack of two-thirds of votes to convict).

Following this, there was a big party in the Rose Garden with Clinton, the Cabinet, and the Democratic House and Senate leader dancing around and shouting "Vindication!".

I think that Pelosi and Reid remembered that in 2007 and didn't want the spectacle of a "vindicated" George Bush and his buddies dancing around.

I think the GOP will be very careful of impeaching Obama unless they can count on 67 sure votes in the Senate.

Investigations? Of course. They might try to "pick off" some member of the administration and embarrass Obama into getting rid of them, but no frontal assault on the President.

[AlinPA]

32. Impeachment by itself, even without conviction in the Senate would be a victory for the republicans

because it would be an historical event. They hate him, and anything they can do to hurt him or damage him, they will do. It will be glory for their base.

[Gaedel]

43. Well, we disagree

I think they learned their lesson last time.

[AlinPA]

44. OK. Let's hope they learned.

[NYC Liberal]

61. Impeachment was a disaster in 1998. It would be again in 2011.

In 1998, the Republicans gained no seats in the Senate and lost 5 in the House. Clinton's approval rating went up to the highest of his presidency.

In 2000, the Republicans lost 4 seats in the Senate and another 2 in the house. Their presidential candidate lost the popular vote by 500,000 votes and the only "won" because of the votes of 5 Supreme Court justices.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt the Republicans have learned nothing and are stupid enough to do it again.

[onenote]

31. what do they accomplish if they try and fail?

Nothing, as proven by the effort to impeach Clinton. They look like they lost.

[AlinPA]

33. Because even being impeached without conviction is a victory for them. It will go down

in history as an impeachment by the house.

[zulchzulu]

5. Let the fuckers try. They will overstep and get squashed in 2012. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

14. I hope they don't get the chance but, yeah, I agree. nt

[wiggs]

56. They've overstepped in every way possible since 1994 and yet they are still

hanging in there, doubling down on going right into crazy zone....and getting elected.

Smear, fear, and hate works.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. It's scary to think that 35% of Republicans

favor impeaching him for ANYTHING. They must be REALLY desperate if they honestly think that the public is going to support an impeachment for *anything* that their fevered minds have conjured up. Frankly, I think that, after eight long years of Bushco and all of their documented abuses, they shouldn't even be allowed to try.

:eyes: :banghead:

[tledford]

39. There is one specific reason they want to impeach him -- he is black. eom

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. Of course

That's what it all boils down to- and we can see that the facade of the Republicans' supposed *evolution* on race is cracking and that the ugliness that dwells within the depths of the Republican Party's "base" is getting harder and harder to conceal and, in fact, is starting to ooze out bit by bit. The (undeserved) disrespect shown to President Obama since he started running for President and particularly since he became POTUS has been quite bad though nothing can quite compare (yet) to the horrific treatment the Clintons received while Bill was in office. :puke: For all of our contempt of W, he was treated fairly well. At least, nobody called him a liar during any of his SOTU addresses.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. But, but, but... there are all those Democrats in Congress who...

don't "deserve" my vote.

And Obama just hasn't been good enough to get my support.

And...

(aw fuck it-- I'll stop the phone banking and canvassing and just let the whole damn country go to hell with a Republican Congress leading the way.)

[Pirate Smile]

12. You better not stop.

:)

[Parker CA]

11. Kick and Rec! I put nothing past these fuckers. nt

[spin]

13. Sounds like a scare tactic to me...

If Obama would have went after Bush and Cheney, it might have happened.

The last time the Republicans attempted to impeach a President, they learned a lesson.

[CakeGrrl]

18. You actually think the Republicans "learned" anything from that?

You're not paying attention, IMO.

Look at the unilateral, unified opposition to the President. They may be dead-ass wrong in their position, but they're so committed to opposing him and derailing his agenda it doesn't matter.

That kind of unified opposition would have no problem allowing Congress to do and spend whatever it took to mess with Obama if they have the control to do so.

[spin]

20. The Republican leadership is what counts ...

they are the ones who learned a lesson from the Clinton impeachment fiasco.

What Will a Republican Majority Do Next?
Mark Schmitt | July 27, 2010

If, as predicted, the Republicans take control of the House, or both houses of Congress, this November, will they: 1) shut down the government? 2) propose massive budget cuts? 3) begin proceedings leading toward impeachment of President Barack Obama? 4) repeal the health-reform bill?

***snip***

Then there's impeachment. In a majority heavy with politicians who will believe they were elected solely because of the illegitimacy of the occupant of the White House, there will be subpoenas and fake scandals (and real scandals, too; no administration, however devoted to "no drama" and high ethical standards, escapes without some screw-ups and lapses in vetting) -- and articles of impeachment are sure to follow. The cynical Clinton impeachment certainly established that it is now purely an instrument of politics. But the episode also established that you can't do it without some basis -- although the groundwork was laid early, it took three years before they caught Clinton actually doing something that shocked a lot of people. (We treat it as a sad joke now, but when the Monica Lewinsky stories first came out, plenty of sensible people were convinced that Clinton's presidency could not survive.) As much as some on the right may have convinced themselves that Obama was only elected president because a listserv of little-known opinion writers and professors colluded to bury bad news about him, with support on the ground from ACORN and the New Black Panther Party, that won't make the cut. emphasis added
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=what_will_a_republican_majority_do_next

Obama would have to something REALLY serious before the Republican leadership decides to try to impeach him. The are also aware that if they do try to impeach Obama over minor bullshit, the Democrats will gladly do the same to the next Republican President.

[Cosmocat]

28. People just don't get it ...

First, as someone else noted, the Rs didn't suffer from the Clinton impeaching Clinton, the wore the country down with their non-stop crape and everyone just threw up their hands and voted for the good ol boy just to sttfu ...

They have NO forsight beyond the moment, and it is all scorched earth politics all the time ... AND, they have a completely complicit media to 1) trumpet whatever reality show BS they are screaming about at any given time 2) not call them on their crape that the moment or over time ...

Sorry, if people are so god darned weak minded to give them at least 30 or so house seats and 6 or 7 senate seats two years removed from Bush and four years removed for their majorities, when they were the worst governing party in modern history in this country, I have absolutely ZERO faith that they will "suffer" any kind of "consequences" for spending 10 of billions of dollars and wasting endless time in the witchhunts they will conduct to find whatever crape they will hang their hats on to impeach BO ...

It will be a tragidy of EPIC proportions if these lunatics get the majority in the house ...

[Pirate Smile]

36. People talk about what a disaster it was to Republicans when Newt shut down the government.

But think about it - Republicans did NOT lose control after that in 95', they didn't lose control after they impeached Bill Clinton against popular opinion in 98'. They didn't lose control of the House until 2006. They didn't get punished for shutting down the Government or Impeachment - and both of those are things their crazy base wants.

[Cosmocat]

49. Yep ...

spot on ...

[Politics_Guy25]

19. Huh?-The impeachment of WJC was a smashing success for the GOP

It gave Governor Bush of TX at the time a smashing 17 point lead in the polls and set Vice President Gore off balance for the rest of the campaign that he otherwise would have won easily. Impeachment gave them the presidency. WJC survived impeachment but it destroyed the democrats for 7 years.

[spin]

24. Al Gore had far more problems than Clinton's frolics ...

He never really appealed to the voters as he came across as "wooden".

Why Al Gore Will Not Be Elected President in 2000

Personality and Public Perception

As I noted earlier, one of the first qualities—other than physical appearance—that people notice about others is whether they are outgoing or introverted. This provides a context for the conventional wisdom that Al Gore is "stiff and wooden." Personality theorist Theodore Millon (1996) sums up the outward appearance of highly introverted personalities as "boring, unanimated, robotic, phlegmatic, displaying deficits in activation, motoric expressiveness, and spontaneity" (p. 230). Transposed to the jargon of psychology, Gore’s wooden stiffness is a function of his underlying introversion.

But Al Gore’s personal political style is not merely a function of introversion; as noted, the vice president is also conscientious. Conscientious personalities, according to Millon (1996), are expressively disciplined; they maintain "a regulated, highly structured and strictly organized" (p. 515) lifestyle. A characteristically solemn mood state is conveyed in an unrelaxed, tense demeanor associated with tight emotional control. Not surprisingly, Gore is publicly perceived as stiff and formal. Not to put too fine a point on the distinction, Gore’s stiffness reveals his conscientiousness, whereas his wooden demeanor serves as metaphor for his introversion.

The psychological prescription for Al Gore to win the election is to quit his self-effacing jokes and get the message out that his stiffness serves as concrete proof of his essential honesty and integrity—conscientiousness—and that his wooden reserve—introversion—will serve him well in focusing on the business of governing, unencumbered by the scourge of poll-driven decision making and a counterfeit "connect-with-people" leadership style.
http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/Gore/Not-Elected-2000.html

Gore was obviously much smarter than G. W. Bush, but intellectual nerds don't often win the class presidency. Just remember how close the election was. If people had been that pissed off at Bill Clinton and angry that he wasn't successfully impeached, the election of G. W. Bush would have been a landslide!

John Kerry was also more intelligent than G. W. Bush but once again his personality had problems. He was known to waffle on the issues. He also suffered from a well coordinated attack by the conservative right (Swift Boat Veterans for Truth").

John Kerry's Waffles
If you don't like the Democratic nominee's views, just wait a week.
By Michael Grunwald

Last week, President Bush offered a wry critique of his Democratic challengers. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." Now that John Kerry is the presumptive Democratic nominee, Republicans are sure to focus the spotlight on his history of flip-flops. Kerry did vote for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the war in Iraq, even though he constantly trashes the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the war in Iraq. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited marriage to a man and a woman, but he now says marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. (Although he also points out that he once attended a gay wedding.) And those are just the better-known issues on which Kerry has "evolved."
http://www.slate.com/id/2096540/

John McCain never came across as likable, he appeared to be a grumpy old man. Obama packed youth, vigor and intelligence in a package that people really believed would deliver hope and change.

So far Obama has proven to be the best campaigner that I have witnessed in my lifetime, but he still has to establish himself as a leader. Plenty of time remains in his first term and I can see that signs that economy is starting to turn around.

I have hope that he will succeed and gain a second term.

[Drunken Irishman]

55. It wasn't just about Al Gore...

It was about the whole Democratic Party. How did the Republicans lose by impeaching Pres. Clinton?

They weren't held accountable in 1998 - they only lost five seats in the House. They won the presidency in 2000, they made big gains in the House and Senate in 2002. It wasn't until 2006 that the Republicans finally lost their total grip on the government and that had nothing to do with impeaching Pres. Clinton.

Face it, while Pres. Clinton wasn't impacted in approval, Democrats didn't gain squat from the impeachment. It didn't weaken the Republican Party. It didn't change America's perception of the party. If it had, if it had been a failure, Bush would've been more bogged down by it. Republicans in 1998 wouldn't have just lost five freaking seats, maintaining control of the House.

There would have been blowback and that never occurred.

Why would it be any different this time around?

[spin]

60. Elections are complicated ...

We can argue back and forth and while it's fun, we both probably have good points to make.

I always felt that one of Al Gore's mistakes was not to use Bill Clinton in his campaign. Bill Clinton is a great campaigner and has the ability to reach voters. Al Gore attempted to distance himself from Clinton and was viewed by many as a person who thought he was superior to his President and in fact looked down on him.

THAT was a mistake.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore: Still the odd couple
By BILL NICHOLS | 9/27/09 7:11 AM EDT

In his new book based on a series of interviews with Bill Clinton, Taylor Branch provides a remarkable account of a conversation between Clinton and Al Gore late in 2000, after Gore’s presidential campaign had finally ended in perhaps the most painful defeat imaginable.

Clinton told Gore, Branch writes, that he was disappointed that he wasn’t used more in the campaign’s final days and that Gore had not developed any overarching theme. Gore countered that Clinton had never personally apologized to him for the Monica Lewinsky scandal and that he was still traumatized by the 1996 fundraising scandals. Gore also suggested that Clinton was to blame for his defeat by George W. Bush

“I thought he was in Neverland,” Clinton told Branch.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26785.html

Poor Al Gore, Forever to Be Haunted by Clinton's Ghost
Wednesday, Nov. 08, 2000
At the end of the day, or the beginning of the morning, as it were, Gore seems to have lost this agonizingly close election in the most heartbreaking way: He just couldn't inspire voters. There was little else negative to ascribe to him as a candidate: He's intelligent, dutiful and a loving husband and father. He worked extraordinarily hard throughout this election, running himself nearly into the ground during the homestretch. But the fire in his belly just didn't transmit. There was no spirit in his voice, no excitement in his words. This election was all about turnout. And Gore just couldn't turn his voters out.

***snip***

Wednesday morning, back in Nashville, Democratic insiders are already hurling accusations: The Gore campaign made a critical error in yanking Clinton out of Florida when they did, as one popular theory goes. But Al Gore never wanted to win this race because of Bill Clinton. He wanted to win in spite of him.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,60095,00.html

[Drunken Irishman]

62. But like I said, it wasn't just Al Gore...

That could be dismissed as Gore's failures.

The point I am trying to make is that the Republicans were not hurt by the impeachment. It did nothing to the party as a whole and one could make the case it actually helped them because it did shore up support among moral conservatives.

With that said, I don't think the GOP impeaches Obama. They'll look and try, but it will take Obama actually lying for that to happen. And Obama doesn't seem like a liar. Clinton was only impeached because, well, he lied. Had he not lied under oath, the Republicans would've made a lot of noise, but that was about all they would have done.

[spin]

64. I agree. The chances of Obama being impeached ...

are extremely slim unless he actually does something very serious and very criminal. I don't see that happening.

[Politics_Guy25]

69. President Obama is running one of the most ethical and scandal free administrations ever-n/t

[onenote]

34. Bush's lead in the polls in 1999 had little or nothing to do with the Clinton impeachment

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/05/president.2000/poll/

[Drunken Irishman]

53. Bush's whole campaign was about restoring honor and dignity to the WH.

He trumped up his moral cred and it gained him a larger voting bloc among southern conservatives than his father and Bob Dole had seen in the 90s.

In 2000, the Republicans had to broaden their score. Dole and H.W. Bush were failures politically and electorally and 2000 offered up a chance, on the heels of Clinton's impeachment, to shore up the moral conservatives.

It was a smashing success. Without the Christian right, Bush doesn't even sniff the presidency.

[Politics_Guy25]

68. Yep!!!-I had forgotten Dubya's argument about restoring the dignity of the oval office

That was key to his entire campaign. It's what stands out to me from his rallies the last weekend really. Now, WJC didn't deserve to be impeached of course but to think it didn't play a large role in 2000 would be wrong. It's just like the Bush DUI charge that came out a few days before the election. Gore comes from being 5-6 points down to winning the election but yet the pundits say that had nothing to do with Gore's victory? That's laughable. There are parallels between impeachment and the DUI and the roles that they played in 2000.

Now, all that being said, if Gore had actually shown up for the first debate, when he was 10 points ahead and on the verge of putting the race away, none of this would have mattered.

Oh well, with Gore as president, there'd be no President Obama today and President Obama has done far more for the democratic party than Gore/Clinton ever did so it worked out.

If they try to impeach him, they'll go down in flames and yeah, the senate will never convict ever.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. What did they learn?

They gained the presidency two years later. They grew their gains in the House and the Senate in 2002.

Obviously it didn't hurt them, did it?

[spin]

63. It's simple to say that Clinton's impeachment caused Al Gore to lose ...

but elections are complicated.

Gore was NOT a great campaigner. He didn't even win his home state.

Why did John McCain and Bob Doyle lose? They sucked at campaigning and failed to connect with the voters.

[WingDinger]

16. Wrote a song about it, It goes a little like this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9300924

[jillan]

25. If they even try - I will march in the streets against it - who's with me?

[mkultra]

46. sounds productive

[girl gone mad]

51. It seems like there are a million more important things..

to march in the streets about.

:shrug:

[PatGund]

30. Beyond the Shadow of the Doubt

The Tea Baggers and Birtherstani have been whining that they haven't impeached Obama YET. Many of them feel that if they can get the GOP to take back the House and Senate, impeachment can start on the 3rd of November and end Obama's "usurpion"

[flamingdem]

35. Wait until they go after his DNA nt

[WI_DEM]

37. Only if they win the house, and if they do and go on and try to do this then

they will heed the consequences in the elections of 2012.

[BeyondGeography]

38. Reelection, guaranteed

should they go that route.

[karynnj]

40. Look more closely at their "key point"

Key point: "A December poll found that 35% of Republicans already favor impeaching Obama, with just 48% opposed and the balance undecided. That is a large base of support to impeach Obama for literally anything at all."

If the Republicans take the House they will have slightly over half - so - by this metric - about a quarter of the House would be willing to impeach - NOWHERE NEAR ENOUGH. The difference with Clinton is Clinton gave them a gift by not telling the full truth under oath - had he done that they would have had nothing to use as the reason.

[Cosmocat]

50. After 80 million dollars ...

dozens of official congressional investigations, including the fan mail to the friggen pet cat (seriously), a special investigator ... THEN they fell into the sex scandal ...

As hard as it is to believe, people here are somehow underestimating just how craven the republicans are ... They still not do the FIRST bit of governance and are going to put every ounce of their time and energy into finding SOMETHING to take BO down ...

Jesus, the 94 pukes at least had a REAL "contract" with real plans and legislation ... These idiots aren't even trying to fake that ...

[karynnj]

58. I am underestimating nothing

I do remember how they went through everything they could think of - and it wasn't the sex scandal - it was lying under oath about it and coaching others to do so as well. (There were available sex scandals before he won the nomination - and they themselves did very little. The Republicans were reprehensible, but Clinton's actions (NOT sex, lying) was not innocent - read the statements by most Senate Democrats. You won't find one who absolves Clinton - even as they argued why not to impeach.

Remember Feingold in the Senate voted that there was reason to have a debate on whether to impeach. Not because of Clinton having sex, but because lying under oath is serious.

My point is that Obama is not Clinton - and I hope they are left with no cause that they can get behind.

[Cosmocat]

66. Whatever the context at the end ...

they got there by slamming Clinton with an endless string of investigations, put Ken Starr on his butt ...

For the love of god, they have nearly half of the country thinking the guy hates the country and that is without doing any congressional hearings ...

I get your point that BO is a better man than Clinton with more personal integrity ...

But, they are even meaner now than then, and the media is even more complicit ... Again, they are not even making the pretense of having a plan ... The media does not even fake being unbiased at this point ...

They have a "cause", their cause is he is a D and they are going to get him ... The specific "cause" is YTD, but it will turn up when they start throwing crape against the wall and seeing what will stick ...

Christ, they had the media babbling about him not wearing a friggen flag pin on his lapel for nearly two months ...

Sorry, they get the house and there WILL, no ifs ands or butts, there WILL be hearings 24-7 and they WILL go for impeachment ...

[karynnj]

67. I agree that they will have hearings

But, in the context of being the subject of many investigations, it was completely reckless of Clinton to both do what he did and to think that he was so smart he could lie.

I do get that many investigations were unwarranted, but I also know that in Blumenthal's book, several Senators very early on - including Moynihan, Bradley and Kerry, taking the Clintons at their word that they did nothing wrong, went to the Clintons and pleaded with them to simply put out everything on Whitewater instead of stone walling. They could have avoided a special investigator. He wrote that the Clintons - especially Hillary were furious at them after they left.

I do understand that there was both Republican sense of their entitlement to rule - that led to them seeing Clinton as too plebeian, and now Obama as too black, too foreign and too exotic. (Don't worry - had it been Kerry or Gore, they would have been too elite and out of touch) That is a toxic, anti-Democratic attitude.

However, Clinton was not completely innocent - and his cavalier attitude towards truth led to the crisis. I would also blame the SC's rule that there was no likely harm in letting the Paula Jones case go forward. They had the option of getting an agreement waiving the statute of limitations and having her wait until he was out of office. Clinton's womanizing and his iffy relationship with truth were flaws that we and the media knew before he won the nomination - so they and us in giving him a pass and nominating and electing him.

[33Greeper]

41. Obama can simply tell them to back off or threaten to

let the International War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague take a crack at the Bushies.

[polichick]

42. What'll they get him on - trying to work with Republicans...

...inviting corporate lobbyists to the table, expanding the war?

[Froward69]

47. So a Presidential blowjob ranks what? a 7.2.

I believe them on this... I have heard tea baggers say the ONLY reason to vote republican. (No matter how much of a fuck up clown the republican is) is to Impeach President Obama.

the actually do have a plan.

I get accused of being paranoid believing this. but you do know it is true.

[felix_numinous]

48. GOP pre-emptive strikes

is what they are best at. They have nothing now.

President Obama needs us to cover his back, Republicans fight dirty.

[golfguru]

57. I will give you 10:1 odds not gonna happen

There is not even a whiff of anything illegal Obama has done.

[IDemo]

59. Anytime, and I do mean anytime, that the subject of impeaching the Chimp came up

The possibility of it ever actually happening was swatted down here, most often with a great deal of derision.

Didn't happen then, ain't gonna happen now.

[Monk06]

65. They don't just want to defeat Obama they want to humiliate him. They will

start trying to set him up for impeachment the
minute they have a house majority. They will
do it the same way they did it to Clinton, force
him to testify under oath to Congress and then
catch him in a lie.

Doesn't matter what he will be asked to testify
to, they will try to catch him making false
testimony. That is the impeachment threshold for
the Repugs.

And it doesn't matter that they do not have the
Senate votes to convict. The stain of an impeachment
vote is all they are interested in.

They are truly a corrupt and immoral bunch

[hulka38]

70. He needs to be more bipartisan

and change the tone in Washington.

[jeanpalmer]

72. They're doing ok without impeachment

Last thing they want to do is derail what they have going now. In fact, do they really want to win the House or Senate? It would allow Obama to run against Congress. I think they want to get close this time, and take complete control in 2012.