In an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview with its CEO Christopher Ruddy, former President Bill Clinton says he believes President Obama will get his healthcare bill, though with little GOP support. He also disagrees with Jimmy Carter’s comments on race and advises the Republicans to come up with a plan similar to Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America” if they hope to gain seats in 2010.

I will assume that the vast majority of you out there caught at least a part of President Obama’s address to Congress Wednesday night. Depending on when and how much you watched, then you probably remember the brief outburst by South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson.

Apparently Wilson had enough of Obama’s lies during the address; what set Wilson off was when Obama made the claim that illegal aliens would not be covered under his proposed health care reform bill. Wilson uttered two words that may or may not empower us as we attempt to derail Obamacare: “You lie!”

To Wilson’s credit, he did apologize for the outburst, as it was in fact a violation of decorum.

But the outburst does provide a “pot, meet kettle” moment in reference to when Obama was an Illinois junior senator. As those of you already know, the then-senator and former president Bill Clinton didn’t exactly get along. Back then, Obama had this struggle on how to respond to – in Obama’s opinion – “bald-faced lies”and how to deal with them, according to Newsweek reporter and author of the book “Renegade: The Making of a President” Richard Wolffe.

Tensions between Obama and Clinton begin to rise around 2008 when the Nevada caucuses were in full swing along with the racially-charged South Carolina primary. Clinton had appeared to take a jab at Obama when he compared his victory in South Carolina to the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s.

Then there is the interview with a Nevada newspaper in which Obama spoke about late president Ronald Reagan’s influence on him, citing that Reagan changed the “trajectory” of America, while at the same time, disregarding Clinton’s presidency as one that was less important. Again, no love lost there, wouldn’t you say?

Of course, you knew that Clinton would fight back as he accused Obama of “praising the Republican Party.” Wolffe, in his book, also talked about Obama being unhappy about his short list of vice president candidates – the size of the list, that is. At that time, besides current vice president Joe Biden, the list included current Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Indiana senator Evan Bayh and Virginia governor Tim Kaine.

So now you all know where the “pot, meet kettle” reference ties all of this together. It is most definitely a flashback moment for those who are campaign junkies. As much as Obama has this dislike for Bill Clinton, he certainly has no problem stealing a page from Clinton’s political playbook.

And one thing is for certain: all of this past bickering and infighting (and current bickering and infighting, for that matter) will lead to the almost certain defeat of the current health care reform bill currently up for a vote in the House of Representatives. And when that happens, you can almost rest assured that  Obama will once again play the “blame game” – something that he is quite proficient at.

Bill Clinton Bimbo No. 5 – Weird Al Yankovitch

Any day is a good day to slam Bill Clinton.

I think most of us already know about the Freddie Mac fiasco; for those who aren’t familiar, Freddie Mac is the mortgage giant that was involved in the accounting scandal whcih led to a huge management shakeup, huge fines and the scorn of their management – and played no small part in contributing to the nation’s economic malaise.  But what a lot of people do not know is that President Obama’s chief of staff - Rahm Emanuel – had a seat on Freddie Mac’s board of directors.

And get this, folks – Emanuel, in 14 months at Freddie Mac – earned $320,000 during his 14-month stint there.  And as it turned out, did very little while at the agency.  I’ll get to that in just a minute; but first a little sypnosis about Emanuel. 

At one time, he was an investment banker – a decade ago, to be exact.  He then turned that into a 3-term stint in the U.S. House after helping Chicago mayor Richard Daley and former US president Bill Clinton get elected.  Now he is Obama’s frontman – chief of staff, if you will.  Nonetheless, he was named to the Freddie Mac board of directors back in February 2000 by Clinton, who Emanuel had served as White House political director; the board under which Emanuel served met no more than six times a year.  But unlike most board members, Emanuel had no duties with any of the board’s working committees.

Upon joining Freddie Mac’s board, Emanuel and other new directors received $380,000 in stock options plus a $20,000 annual fee; while Emanuel was there, the Freddie Mac board was told by executives there of a plan of using accounting tricks designed to mislead shareholders about outsized profits that the government-chartered firm was receiving from risky investments.  The overall goal of all of this was to push earnings onto the books in futre years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and to also help maximize annual bonuses for the company brass.

Also during his 14 months at Freddie Mac, the company had created a scheme to enhance its political standing; as it turned out, Freddie Mac was fined by the Federal Election Commission a record $3.8 million for using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians.  Not surprisingly, Emanuel was a beneficiary of one of these fundraisers after he left the Freddie Mac board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from Chicago’s north side. 

And there are the financial disclosure statements required of those who are US House members; Emanuel’s showed that he made $320,000 while at Freddie Mac and also showed that he sold some Freddie Mac stock, worth anywhere between $100,001 and $250,000 – the document did not state whether Emanuel profited from the sale.  My best guess is that he did.  Here’s where it gets sticky – controversial, even.

According to Armando Falcon Jr., head of an oversight agency for Freddie Mac, he stated that the Freddie Mac did most of their work in committees; however, according to proxy statements, no assignments were issued to Emanuel and two other board members, while most of the other board members drew 2 assignments each.  So basically, he got paid for doing nearly nothing.

Yet another Democrat who had involvement in the current economic mess that our country.  And you know what?  I am willing to bet you that Obama did absolutely no vetting of Emanuel.  It is amazing to me that in the president’s mantra of “transparency”, that there has actually been little to none of that at all.  Once again, this is more ammunition that can and should be utilized for the 2010 election cycle.

Folks, I know that I am getting real repetitive here, but I’ll keep repeating this until it gets the desired result.  We need to get off our asses and get proactive as the 2010 election cycle draws real close.  Seats in the House, Senate and some governorships are at stake here.  And how can you get involved?

It’s easy – get involved in the tea parties that are gaining steam nationwide.  Or you can be involved in an election campaign involving your local congressman/woman and/or senator.  But most importantly, get out there and vote.  That was what killed the Republicans back in 2008 and we do not need a repeat performance of the last election cycle. 

Or you can do the alternative and sit on your ass and do nothing – which is what the Democrats want more than anything.  To do absolutely nothing is to basically approve of any and everything that Obama and the Democrats are trying to put into place.  I want my country back – the country that I used to know.  The one that believed in capitalism, smaller government and less spending.  I don’t want Socialism, do you?  If you truly love your nation, then you don’t want Socialism, either.  All I am asking is that you get involved and help take your country back.

The Friday morning talk shows were abuzz, as usual, with talk about President Obama’s housing plan and other topics, including Bill Clinton offering his 2 cents, the Wall Street bailouts are discussed, Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments about the U.S. being a “nation of cowards” plus much more.

Perhaps this is just me, but I learned a long time ago not to trust a former member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet – be it Eric Holder, Robert Rubin or the individual who was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday.  The Senate confirmed former Clintonista Leon Panetta as CIA director, basically placing the top intelligence agency under the watch of a man who has absolutely no experience in intelligence and is more of a lawmaker and policy maker – a glorified office manager, if you will.

During 2 days of confirmation hearings that were held last week, Panetta told senators that the Obama administration wouldn’t prosecute CIA officers who participated in harsh interrogations – even if they constituted “torture”  as long as they did not go beyond their instructions.  But at the same time, Panetta didn’t say whether he would bring charges against those who authorized the treatment.

He also stated that the administration would continue to deport detainees to other countries under the understanding that they would not be tortured; prisoners in the past have claimed that they were tortured after the Bush administration handed them over to other countries – this process is known as “extraordinary rendition”. 

Besides swearing not to interfere in the CIA’s day-to-day operations, Panetta said he would retain CIA Deputy Director Steven Kappes and 3 other top officials of the agency; he also said that he would encourage differing opinions within the agency and would keep the full house and Senate intelligence committees posted as much as possible.

Whether he holds his end of the bargain is up for debate, but he pledged this prior to being confirmed – and you can take this for what it’s worth:

“I anticipate focusing primarily on ensuring policy and procedure is handled correctly, rather than intervening personally in the details of operational planning or the production of individual pieces of analysis. But let me assure you, the decisions at the CIA will be mine.”

As was expected, congressional hearings began for the Obama appointees, as reported by The Washington Times; first up was the Attorney General appointee Eric Holder.  And like a pit bull, Congress grilled Holder, especially about the Marc Rich pardon; according to Holder, he only had a “passing familiarity” with the Rich case.  Correspondence relevant to the case which was secured by Congress from other witnesses indicated that about 15 months before the pardon, Holder met privately with Rich’s attorney and received a presentation of sorts which Rich’s defense thought were flaws in the federal government’s case.

Holder – who at that time was the #2 man in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton – proceeded to contact the federal prosecutors handling Rich’s case in New York and tried to arrange a meeting; the meeting never took place, due to the fact that Rich never turned himself in and had been a fugitive for about 16 years.  But here is where it gets interesting.

Rep. Dan Burton, Republican from Indiana, who oversaw the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee when it investigated the Rich pardon back in 2001, said that Holder had more than the “passing familiarity” of the case; he further added,

“I know human beings are fallible and they make mistakes, but making statements that are not accurate while under oath before a congressional committee goes beyond the pale. Sure as the dickens, he was not straight with our committee.”

Meanwhile, back at the confirmation hearing, Holder said that there was certainly some things, in retrospect, that he wished he had done differently.  To view the whole, ugly proceeding, click here.  I don’t care what anyone says, the confirmation of Eric Holder to the Attorney General post is not a slam-dunk, not by a long-shot.