This is key.  Our side needs to keep their heads about them with this.

 This is simply more evidence that Obama markets himself according to the goals of the moment.   Trying to gain street cred among blacks in Chicago?  Attend Rev. Wright's church.  Trying to appear like the hip International Man of Mystery?  Use your middle name Hussein.  Also, during your college years, play with silly, foreign-sounding pronunciations of your first name.  And now this.  Surely he knew the agency said he was born in Kenya.  If it's false, he let them use it anyway because, again, it made him more appealing to the current customers he was trying to woo.

Merely more evidence that Obama is an opportunistic phony.

Ben Labolt said at about 2:50:

"(Romney's) own partner admitted in the LA Times that their goal was wealth creation, not job creation."

Um, news flash, Ben.  That is the goal of every company!  And when you create wealth, guess what is also created?  Jobs!

About the surprising nature of seeing this kind of interview on CNN:

Ashley Banfield and some others in the MSM are beginning to show signs of fatigue  from  carrying far too much water for Obama over these last several years.  Dare I hope anyway?

So who is going to do the boasting for him?  Certainly not the MSM.    Maybe this is where the SuperPACs can come in, telling these stories.  These stories are needed and crucially important, as the MSM and the Obama campaign will be appealing to low-information voters' emotions.  

As 'Bullygate' shows, WaPo/MSM is going to do all it can to skip over all of the impressive and heartwarming stories of Romney in the 2000's, 90's, 80's, and 70's.   To the MSM, there's nothing to see there.  Instead they reach back to 1965 because that's the only negative personal story they can find.  

Since they won't tell his stories, it is up to our side to do it.

I really cannot believe that we are still seeing these Obama halo shots.  In 2008 it was bad enough as the media was swept up into a Messianic fervor over Obama.  But now?   At this point, the MSM are just making fools of themselves.  

(NRO is currently featuring a slideshow of various MSM Obama halo shots, triggered by the rainbow halo Newsweek cover, just as a reminder of this absurdity.)

Great podcast.  I especially liked the part (starting at about 32 min. in) when one of them was explaining how marriage transforms men from their angry adolescent phase into real men.  A good woman makes her man better.  It's pretty clear that this is the case with Ann and Mitt Romney.

Of course I also loved the mockery of the WaPo in having to go back 47 years (!) to find anything scandalous on our guy.   Just pathetic.  We are not voting on Mitt the adolescent, we are voting on Mitt the man.  Yes.  But how many 'low-information' voters will this work with? It's scary that the election is essentially in the hands of such voters.

Also -- a fascinating point that I had not previously considered or heard discussed -- the part about how the left claims marriage is supposedly so important for gays, while they are silent (or worse, considering how it's in their best interest to encourage single motherhood) on that point for everyone else.

I love this!  I think this will resonate with average, non-OWS people.  

I'd love to see the Obama campaign (just like they did with Seamus and Julia) show how out of touch they are by trying to hold this against Romney.   They'd love to paint him as the lady (the 'Nazi Cow' that we were supposed to hate) in "A Field of Dreams" who supposedly had two 1950's and went straight to the 70's.   Nope.  Mitt "experienced the 60's"  -- just in his own way.

Great point.  (Although the 'honest' part is a tougher sell....)

 And here I thought all this while that he picked Biden for his "foreign policy expertise."  Hee hee.

To be fair to the headline writers, whenever primary opponents endorse the winner, the media is always going to be eagerly looking for anything indicating lingering bitterness.  So it is incumbent upon endorsers to carefully word their statements so as to avoid giving the media any fodder for such headlines.   Santorum decided to include this in his endorsement:

"The primary campaign certainly made it clear that Gov. Romney and I have some differences."

By including that statement,  Santorum knowingly gave the media fodder for such headlines.   So I'm really not mad at the media. 

Can Santorum still rally the troops and make that statement merely an obligatory acknowledgement of their differences?  Sure!  Just campaign relentlessly and passionately for voters to support the ticket.   In other words, his actions these next six months will determine whether or not the 'bitter' meme is a big deal (and detrimental to our chances in November and his longer-term status in the party)  or just a one day story.

"That Romney guy is talking about free markets, freedom, whatever.....Obama is giving me free BIRTH CONTROL!!!!"

Yes, perfect graphic for this story.  One disturbing thing that this whole episode has revealed is that DOL statistics can be manipulated by an administration.  I was not previously aware of that.   It gives any administration a lot of wiggle room to manipulate those numbers, as we are seeing now.  (And then of course the page 1, headline phony numbers are "adjusted" later in the month -- which story appears on page 10.)  Obama will do whatever it takes to manipulate that one number -- the unemployment rate -- to below 8% by Election Day. No matter what the reality is and no matter who is being hurt in the mean time.

Has this power been abused previous to the Obama administration?  Or is it merely a question of degree?   Obama is pushing this to farcical levels.

Delicious.  

It is clear that the Obama campaign lives in an echo chamber, and that they actually thought this would be effective.  If they keep over-reaching in this tone-deaf way, I might just have some hope come November.

I'm in the Rubio camp!

Ms. Strassel's column is a must-read.  This is a big deal,  and it is chilling.  These are dictator-thug tactics. Period.   Any fair-minded American will be outraged by these threats.

But, I bet that Liz Marlantes is representative of most in the media and on the left:  everyone is fair game because in a day of SuperPACs, individual donors should expect more "scrutiny."   And then the other left-leaning panelist, Charles Lane, pretends that this might also have a chilling effect on potential Obama donors, conveniently ignoring Strassel's whole point about the power of the Presidency being behind this.  What hacks.

I'm with flownover.  Just because Romney himself doesn't drink, doesn't mean he's going to go the Carter route and force that on everyone else.   I see the Romneys as being gracious hosts and offering their guests the kind of wine selection they would expect and enjoy.

I do not live in her district (I live in Utah's 3rd Congressional District) but have been watching her candidacy.   As further evidence that she is the real deal, here is an op-ed that she wrote for the Deseret News in November.  

Go Mia!

This is a revealing gaffe.  In Great Britain, and indeed the English-speaking world, the name of those islands is the Falkland Islands.   In Argentina, they are referred to as las Islas Malvinas.  

 Obama reveals here that he rejects Britain's name for their own territory.  But then, wanting to show his contempt for Britain,  that pesky detail -- what was it that the Argentines call the islands? -- tripped him up.   So he's pompous and asinine on two levels.

If you are going to shoot off your mouth to stick it to our ally like this, then at least do your homework, man!