We all now have a new game - a necessary rite a foot or about in Iowa, for starters.

Soon our attention will move to New Hampshire and South Carolina similarly so.

Our Democrats across our Nation either of Blue States or Red States all may be thinking President Barack Hussein Obama would better have been trained and prepared if instead he had been a Criminalist rather than a Constitutionalist as professed.

President Richard Milhous Nixon presented and professed presidential as the "LAW & ORDER PRES." 

President Barack Hussein Obama stumped "HOPE AND CHANGE" & then to just "UNITE FOR HOPE" -when first steppin' out with Clintons' "two-fer" as a/his political and moral compromise.

We have this a post tenth anniversary of 9/11/2001 dreadful events start calling so many to refresh and reset themselves and their thinking anew as our nation now moves to renew itself democratically.

How will Republicans address Obama - President Barack Hussein Obama?

We have that he has been "Nixonian" and tried to claim an early "Teddy" while embracing "late" Theodore Roosevelt - back from the hunt and then the European quite new "Fascist" courts and parlors.

We know the lesson all are supposed to remember from Nixon more than his bold and successful leadership with and about China is that about cover-ups - that about "it's the cover-up!"

The "others" of our 2012 electoral contests cannot now avoid nor ignore the "Nixonian" Obama.

President Obama did profess Constitutional Law for ten years and yet now we see that he likely would have been better served to have professed as a Criminalist - a Criminal Law Professor.

We have these truths well evident that President Obama from the moments of his administration - the earliest possible moments so such of his inaugural speechifying - have him now trapped politically - in a "Nixonian" way for a new "cover-up" scandal.

I have entered regularly into political discussions with my blogging that the size of a cover-up can and does suggest the seriousness and size about a possibly prosecutable crime.  President Obama since his first moments did step out as our leader with both lies and attempts to cover-up and dissuade due consideration and litigation.

President Obama might, if he had professed Criminalist jurisprudence those ten years he did teach a variation of Constitutional Law studies, might have just promised a PARDON for the Clintons instead of attempting a polarized political and partisan cover-up for the Clintons and their eight years.

That we have all witnessed a new Democrat administration attempt to blame "all" and "everything" just on the other - the other party - is remarkable for we have witnessed an largest yet attempt at political "cover-up."  Such a move politically or simply is an act of a guilt - of a guilty conscience.

We could and maybe should wonder why a President once ten years of professing an understanding of our Constitution would have been so pedestrian and base with "ALL BUSH'S FAULT" simplicity suggestive of guilt for that who spoke and spoke such then a party to all about it.  We could ask if he had been a Criminal Law Professor he might have avoided such.

It seems such is so suggestive of a guilt and guilty conscience that a Presidential PARDON more appropriate a partisan "cover" than a now nationally, at least, historically ridiculous partisan and political "ALL BUSH'S FAULT."  President Obama didn't have to be so "Nixonian" as per cover-ups yet could have and should have been more "Nixonian" as per China.

President Obama's Inaugural Speech now sits available for the world as literally quite a partisan confession and literary working to a cover-up that Hillary Rodham Clinton too familiar with from her days a staffer about Congress during Nixon Impeachment and Watergate days.

We have that President Obama as a Constitutional Expert of Professing some interpretation of our founding documents would better have just announced he would PARDON the Clintons as his first act as President and not been so coy and careless so with an attempt to so obstruct justice and move forth with an attempt at a political cover-up.

Again we have his attempt at cleverness asking nation to not relitigate past before it had gotten a due or fair first "litigation."  His attempt to move forward with a Clinton "rival" on his team did deserve that first campaign messaging adjustment to "UNITE FOR CHANGE" from once more hopeful and promising less entangled "HOPE AND CHANGE".

I am not sure how a President PARDON as a first move may have been able to cleanse his party at least from lingering dirt that could be prosecutable in a belated first litigation or how our Senate might have handled a confirmation process for a "PARDONED" peer as then if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Presidential Nominee for Secretary of State.  It does seem self apparent and unimpeachable that "ALL BUSH'S FAULT" a ploy and tactic of a guilt - of person/persons party to/parties of a GUILT.

It seems a wonderment that we have the possibility of a billion being spent now to re-elect this administration and yet with it of a confession political and quite legal (hmmm? - usage?) since his first sworn moments of a duty to us and our Constitution.  It seems a wonderment that a professor ten years of teaching an interpretation of our founding documents would have been better Constitutionally if he hadn't attempted a dictate to a new (contrary) truth and had instead promised an issuance of a Presidential PARDON for the Clintons and those of their eight years.

We have ourselves now secured in a knowledge that the Clintons' 8 years actually happened.

We have ourselves now secured knowing much that Democrats orated (HOPED?) not.

Where are those just who teach and profess about as Criminalists so of a jurisprudence less open to interpretation as vagaries kept by some so of a "Constitutionalist" rendition?  How can Democrats with President Obama now raise a billion dollars in defense when their candidate so historically public quite with his own Inaugural Speech a confession of guilt at least about the Clintons?  How does he politically survive while of a grandest yet "cover-up" attempt that undermined jurisprudence and justice for all?

It was childish to attempt in even just campaigns with "ALL BUSH'S FAULT" yet more a ridiculous and preposterous to work such into business sworn so to defend us and our Constitution from all enemies domestic and foreign.  It was bold to stand and dictate an attempt to rewrite history and ask the nation and the world to not look back and not still ask for a first litigation of eight years of Clintons as if it actually existed. 

Bold?  Or - Childish?  Better he had been a Criminal Law Professor?

2012 is now about Iowa - soon more about New Hampshire & South Carolina --- and now as if we all have found the lost and missing relevant 8 "chapters" (8 years) of the Clintons' administering.  We have a whole year to ask and study much how the size of a cover-up is telling and suggestive to a seriousness and actuality of a still prosecutable criminality.  We have that "ALL BUSH'S FAULT" was clearly considerable as a grand "cover-up" attempt --- we have much of a year left to politically and democratically discuss and decide a more proper and fitting judgement.

Economically, we have as well that a "nationalism" even short of "late" Theodore Roosevelt and a "New Nationalism" is contrary to our global economic interests and a burden on our growth potential - we have among these concerns for jurisprudence and Constitutionality that a call to any nationalism now for Americans better to be a "NOT" and avoided as more variety and localism better for our now more interactive and global existence.  We have that the very politics and policies of this current administration more to now as an ECONOMIC SUPPRESSION than a repeat of "recession" or "depression" - that what they wanted and wanted to sell was mostly what people around the world didn't want to have to buy - didn't want to buy - or just buy into.

These are now new days dawning with more Jobian Tablets tolling for and against - and telling of a confession and early steppin' by President Obama so that it quite evident now that he was acting as only a person or party to a guilt - a guilty person or person party to a partisan guilt should have acted.  We all now have that we have an election asking for a re-election of one whom just with his Inaugural speech his now better known historically of a confession of guilt and so to what may be our grandest yet attempt at a political cover-up.

And so we find ourselves anew to a considerate refreshing for our confederate republic and with a sworn President of political lies less Constitutional than seemingly obstructing of or for justice, and, so actually so ridiculous and even pedestrian that such seems quite criminal and judgeable and able to be of a first litigation. 

We have that it historically cannot have been "ALL BUSH'S FAULT" and that an attempt to walk such out as if a dictate to a new and manufactured "truth" quite a confession of a guilt or of an act of one then necessarily if not by choice a party to a party guilt.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

And, please don't forget to visit and consider my primary blog via:  http://citizenrosebud.org 

Via:  http://citizenrosebud.org   to punditry and commentary at http://2012us.jphogan.org