You too Favreau! Oh, the Absurdity of it all.

For winning the Nobel peace prize with your cliches and words, just words.

They have given the Nobel peace prize to a man who could not turn around poverty or violence in his own district or the city for however long he was the state senator. What you see in this video is Obama’s grand accomplishment to date (HT Flineo’s Video).

They have given the Nobel peace prize to a man who was forced to enact his anti-war speech on a make believe set during his campaign because nobody had heard it the first time he gave it — (there is no record of that speech other than one or two eye witness accounts). He did not lead anti-war marches and was a nobody until his campaign decided that the anti-war stance would sell well against Hillary in the Democratic primary. He did not even stop funding for it once he got to the US Senate. He did not conduct hearings while in the US senate on how best to act in Afghanistan in spite of chairing the committee on NATO and Afghanistan.

He did not convince the Palestinians to come to the table even after his overt and in some people’s view, lopsided support of those people. He did not convince Muslim extremists to give up their terrorism in spite of his overt plea to them and their sympathizers (Taliban are as destructive as ever and Al Queda are lying in wait). He did not convince the North Koreans to stop their missile launches nor the Iranians to give up their nuke dream.

What he has done though is to continue many of the Bush/Cheney war time policies. As far as I recall the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been turned into peace missions nor have there been talks of nation building to help those war ravaged populations. We don’t really know what he will do with the two wars he is presiding over.

A war time commander-in-chief getting the Nobel peace prize! There in lies the profound incongruence and the absurdity of this award. Is this all a joke?

But he gave speeches and lectures to everyone and everywhere.

He was nominated for this award less than two weeks after he was inaugurated (the deadline was February 1, 2009) when the only concrete thing he had to show for was his performance as a state senator and you see the results of it in Flineo’s video above the fold. I am discounting getting elected as US senator because he does not have anything to show for it. Getting elected as president was no biggie either because he and his cronies stole the nomination during the Democratic primary and a dog with a Democrat label would have got elected in the general election. And what has he accomplished since his inauguration or nomination? No breakthroughs there. Nothing.

Essentially they have given the Nobel peace prize to this man who has done NOTHING.

I am sad and sorry for the tens and hundreds of activists around the world who work hard and crave the attention for their cause (and not for themselves, mind you) to make world a better place. They could certainly have used the money too.

Obama should have turned it down or at least in a grand gesture shared it with other nominees. Maybe we should be satisfied if this does not inflate further his already over-inflated ego.

Indecision and convenient flip-flops have been the hallmark of this presidency so far but it has started to sow doubt about Obama among a number of his cheerleaders. The fact remains that they just didn’t think much of the 130 or so “present” votes he cast during his state senate days; they didn’t think much of his self-conferred celebrity during his US senate days when he could not be bothered to conduct hearings on, wait for it, the Afghanistan war and learn [more on this below the fold]. All the signs were there but they just could not be bothered to “THINK” and now they with the rest of America are paying the price for it.

Jon Stewart is seeing the light — “get a bigger plate, because you are the president of the United States.” Many presidential candidates get into the game because they love challenges. But this guy never seemed up for it from the beginning; he had to be propped up by a servile media and dragged through the finish line by his cronies. Remember his “let me eat my waffle” days during the campaign. Remember how he ran away from the debates and remember how he was afraid to go before O’Reilly when our girl, Hillary, ate him for lunch. He cheated and defrauded to get here and all for what? For his handlers to whine that there is too much on his plate? Give me a break.

One more thing, when his handlers start talking about him doing things “deliberately”, note that it is the wimpiest excuse I have ever heard for indecision.

What he wants to be is the nominal head of the country jetting around the world with the excellent perks that come with it, sprinkling his inspirational hope and change gobbledygook on gullible nincompoops. Unfortunately for him, American democracy does not work that way, even though he and his cronies turned it into a parliamentary coup during the Democratic primaries. Now that he is there and he has to play the decider, why can’t he work, dammit?

For most of us here at NQ, it is a rhetorical question. Let us see if the kool-aid drinkers will ponder over it in some earnestness.

While they ponder over it, they may as well educate themselves with what is going on in Afghanistan.

In early March, after weeks of debate across a conference table in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the participants in President Obama’s strategic review of the war in Afghanistan figured that the most contentious part of their discussions was behind them. Everyone, save Vice President Biden’s national security adviser, agreed that the United States needed to mount a comprehensive counterinsurgency mission to defeat the Taliban.

That conclusion, which was later endorsed by the president and members of his national security team, would become the first in a set of recommendations contained in an administration white paper outlining what Obama called “a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Preventing al-Qaeda’s return to Afghanistan, the document stated, would require “executing and resourcing an integrated civilian-military counterinsurgency strategy.”

To senior military commanders, the sentence was unambiguous: U.S. and NATO forces would have to change the way they operated in Afghanistan. Instead of focusing on hunting and killing insurgents, the troops would have to concentrate on protecting the good Afghans from the bad ones.

And to carry out such a counterinsurgency effort the way its doctrine prescribes, the military would almost certainly need more boots on the ground.

To some civilians who participated in the strategic review, that conclusion was much less clear. Some took it as inevitable that more troops would be needed, but others thought the thrust of the new approach was to send over scores more diplomats and reconstruction experts. They figured a counterinsurgency mission could be accomplished with the forces already in the country, plus the 17,000 new troops Obama had authorized in February.

“It was easy to say, ‘Hey, I support COIN,’ because nobody had done the assessment of what it would really take, and nobody had thought through whether we want to do what it takes,” said one senior civilian administration official who participated in the review, using the shorthand for counterinsurgency.

The failure to reach a shared understanding of the resources required to execute the strategy has complicated the White House’s response to the grim assessment of the war by the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, forcing the president to decide, in effect, what his administration really meant when it endorsed a counterinsurgency plan. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s follow-up request for more forces, which presents a range of options but makes clear that the best chance of achieving the administration’s goals requires an additional 40,000 U.S. troops on top of the 68,000 who are already there, has given senior members of Obama’s national security team “a case of sticker shock,” the administration official said.

Obama is backtracking from his original support of Afghanistan strategy because he has a case of sticker shock. Read the rest of the article for more unraveling of the events from March leading up to McChrystal today. Follow Larry Johnson’s post here to see how the White House and others are trying to make General McChrystal the scapegoat now.

Democrats have found someone worth fighting in Afghanistan. His name is Stan McChrystal.

White House aides have fanned these flames with recent leaks to the media that “officials are challenging” his assessment asking for more troops. In the last two days, the White House National Security Adviser and the Secretary of Defense have both suggested that the general should keep his mouth shut. President Obama called him in Friday for a talking-to on the tarmac at Copenhagen airport.

Though a decorated Army four-star officer, the General’s introduction to Beltway warfare is proving to be brutal. To be fair, Gen. McChrystal couldn’t know that his Commander in Chief would go wobbly so soon on his commitment to him as well as to his own Afghan strategy when he was tapped for the job in April. We’re told by people who know him that Gen. McChrystal “feels terrible” and “had no intention whatsoever of trying to lobby and influence” the Administration. His sense of bewilderment makes perfect sense anywhere but in the political battlefield of Washington. He was, after all, following orders.

As usual this WH has a knack for smearing people in an attempt to hide their own flaws. Any number of advisers can help but there is only one decider and one place where the buck stops in the White House. Right now that person has sticker shock and worries about passing his sham of a health care reform or his 2012 re-election or whatever.

[As an aside, the body language in that picture of the two of them is telling. Obama is looking down and the General is looking straight at him. Something about it bothers me. Is Obama afraid of the military, perhaps because he does not understand them?]

Because we are black[and impoverished and need inspiration] and we want it[because we are elite and special] and whoopee do.. America elected me, me, me! See it is not so bad. And we brought Oprah!

That is what the IOC heard in their speeches on Friday in Copenhagen. The Obamas should fire the speechwriter. But then again, what would they do with the fumbling, bumbling, and other inanities and stupidities going on in their own heads? These two self-absorbed people are unbelievably shallow.

In her speech she invoked Martin Luther King with the subliminal word dream; recycled her dad’s story from her Democratic convention speech; lingered for half the speech on how her dad would have been proud to see the Olympics in his beloved hometown after having raised two smart children with values somehow inspired by sports.

She concluded her speech by throwing a Kennedy in there asking IOC to think about what Olympics can do for her and her city, her country. And, oh, she threw in some cheap theatrics with intonations, pauses, and voice modulations to affect emotion — for God’s sake, she is the first lady of the richest and the most powerful country on earth and she begged and pleaded [for inspiration]. And there was nothing much about what America will do for the Olympics or the world — nothing much about what was in it for the IOC or the world’s greatest athletes or even why it was their responsibility to come to Chicago and inspire her and others, and especially those other dads like her dad. See the stupidity of it all?

Earlier in another speech, she had insulted her Chicago delegation indicating how she and her buddies had sacrificed to go over to Copenhagen.

He as usual invoked his Kenyan dad; told the IOC they would fall in love with the city he fell in love with and as they already have fallen in love with his wife as he did; lectured them about diversity, dream (there it is again, the subliminal word), American dream and how he ran for the presidency to make the world a better place; how on a clear November night the Americans saw light and in their inordinate good sense elected him, the grand exhibit of everything diverse, and good, and full of hope and change. He concluded that the IOC will also find Chicago diverse, and full of Hope and Change. Oh, he threw in Olympics and its spirit along the way with his Hope and Change. And oh yes, he cautioned that the two-three weeks of celebrations in the name of Olympic spirit in the wonderful Chicago will not solve all the world problems. What a hoot!

[HT to moderateinthemiddle for the video]

Looks like they went in headlong with their tin ears. Did they at least make a sound and intelligent argument to the IOC? No, they threw gobbledygook at them(the same kind they have been throwing at the gullible American people) and the IOC was too smart to fall for it.

18 votes of the 94 total, two of them from our own members and eliminated in the first round.

And the word you don’t hear on this side of the Atlantic from the Obama media whores is HUMILIATION, but you can read about it here and here.

And why the hell did she wear GOLD? Wasn’t that incredibly juvenile?

Militants often demand food and lodging in nearby villages.

When they forced their way into Miss Kausar’s home, her father Noor Mohammad refused their demands and was attacked.

His daughter was hiding under a bed when she heard him crying as the gunmen thrashed him with sticks. According to police, she ran towards her father’s attacker and struck him with an axe. As he collapsed, she snatched his AK47 and shot him dead.

She also shot and wounded another militant as he made his escape.

Supt Shafqat Watali said Miss Kausar’s reaction was “a rude shock” for the militants. “Normally they get king-like treatment but this was totally unexpected,” he said.

Miss Kausar said she had never fired an assault rifle before but had seen it in films and could not stand by while her father was being hurt. “I couldn’t bear my father’s humiliation. If I’d failed to kill him, they would have killed us,” she said.

Survival instincts! But even beyond that what Rukhsana, an Indian farmer’s daughter did for her family and the state is way significant. She nabbed and killed a terrorist.

The dead terrorist is Uzafa Shah, a wanted Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba group commander operating in the area for the last few years — the same group that carried out the terrorist attack in Mumbai last November.

That is what the IOC heard in their speeches on Friday in Copenhagen. The Obamas should fire the speechwriter. But then again, what would they do with the fumbling, bumbling, and other inanities and stupidities going on in their own heads? These two self-absorbed people are unbelievably shallow.

In her speech she invoked Martin Luther King with the subliminal word dream; recycled her dad’s story from her Democratic convention speech; lingered for half the speech on how her dad would have been proud to see the Olympics in his beloved hometown after having raised two smart children with values somehow inspired by sports.

She concluded her speech by throwing a Kennedy in there asking IOC to think about what Olympics can do for her and her city, her country. And, oh, she threw in some cheap theatrics with intonations, pauses, and voice modulations to affect emotion — for God’s sake, she is the first lady of the richest and the most powerful country on earth and she begged and pleaded [for inspiration]. And there was nothing much about what America will do for the Olympics or the world — nothing much about what was in it for the IOC or the world’s greatest athletes or even why it was their responsibility to come to Chicago and inspire her and others, and especially those other dads like her dad. See the stupidity of it all?

Earlier in another speech, she had insulted her Chicago delegation indicating how she and her buddies had sacrificed to go over to Copenhagen.

He as usual invoked his Kenyan dad; told the IOC they would fall in love with the city he fell in love with and as they already have fallen in love with his wife as he did; lectured them about diversity, dream (there it is again, the subliminal word), American dream and how he ran for the presidency to make the world a better place; how on a clear November night the Americans saw light and in their inordinate good sense elected him, the grand exhibit of everything diverse, and good, and full of hope and change. He concluded that the IOC will also find Chicago diverse, and full of Hope and Change. Oh, he threw in Olympics and its spirit along the way with his Hope and Change. And oh yes, he cautioned that the two-three weeks of celebrations in the name of Olympic spirit in the wonderful Chicago will not solve all the world problems. What a hoot!

[HT to moderateinthemiddle for the video]

Looks like they went in headlong with their tin ears. Did they at least make a sound and intelligent argument to the IOC? No, they threw gobbledygook at them(the same kind they have been throwing at the gullible American people) and the IOC was too smart to fall for it.

18 votes of the 94 total, two of them from our own members and eliminated in the first round.

And the word you don’t hear on this side of the Atlantic from the Obama media whores is HUMILIATION, but you can read about it here and here.

And why the hell did she wear GOLD? Wasn’t that incredibly juvenile?

Now America’s chief diplomat, Clinton was presiding over the Security Council because the U.S. holds its rotating presidency this month.

First, she called for a vote on a resolution demanding an immediate end to sexual violence by combatants in armed conflicts and announced that it had been unanimously approved. Then, she delivered a speech on behalf of the United States expressing hope that the resolution will hasten the day when thousands of women around the world fearing rape or sexual abuse during conflict can live in peace.

At the end of the speech, Clinton said: “I resume now my function as president of the council.”

“I kind of like being a president,” she added as diplomats burst into laughter.

“So this may go on a little longer than anticipated!” Clinton said, as applause filled the council chamber.

The laughter continued when she introduced Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who responded saying pointedly: “Thank you Madam President.”

That is our Hillary. State.gov has the full video of her speech.

Meanwhile, what do we make of these left-wing fools?

[Gore] Vidal now believes, as he did originally, Clinton would be the better president.

“Hillary knows more about the world and what to do with the generals. History has proven when the girls get involved, they’re good at it. Elizabeth I knew Raleigh would be a good man to give a ship to.”

How does he think Obama is doing?

“Dreadfully. I was hopeful. He was the most intelligent person we’ve had in that position for a long time. But he’s inexperienced. He has a total inability to understand military matters. He’s acting as if Afghanistan is the magic talisman: solve that and you solve terrorism.”

and he regrets his change of heart from Hillary to Obama last year.

BTW, did you hear that jackass Michael Moore begging, begging Obama to be Obama, you know, the lone virgin in the whorehouse they all thought he was?

And just who is this boss?

The president of the United States shouldn’t have to fly halfway around the world to humble himself before a posse of international sports influence peddlers and beg for a track meet.

But that’s exactly what he is doing.

By going to Denmark with all the other City Hall politicos, including those from the White House, President Barack Obama is doing more than asking the International Olympic Committee to allow Chicago to host the 2016 Games.

He’s asking the IOC to make Mayor Richard Daley the king of Chicago for life.

I would like to think that the president of the United States is his own man. But that is not to be. His boss is Daley!

If you think Chicago’s Olympic push is about sports, you’re mistaken. Sports has nothing to do with this. It’s like in the old movie, with Michael Corleone telling truths to his future wife, saying, “Now who’s being naive, Kay?”

Whether you want the games or not, please try muffling out those giddy broadcast news types and their frenetic cheerleading and understand what you’re really watching.

If Chicago gets the games, the contracts and the grease and immense leverage to reshape a city will be used as originally intended. To rebuild the boss, to give a mayor facing deficits and taxpayer revolts and headaches a much-needed shoring up of his political infrastructure.

Surely the Obama White House, run by former Daleyites, knows that a Chicago Olympics will keep the mayor politically secure. That crown was once heavy and uncertain upon Daley’s head, when the feds were raiding City Hall and sending his underlings to prison. Only a few years ago, the mayor ridiculed the Olympic idea. These days, he carries the torch in his teeth.

It must be all about reform. When Obama was campaigning for president, there was that thrilling line about how he would “transcend the politics of the past” — a line probably written by Daley’s mouthpiece David Axelrod. It sent tingles up or down the legs of the fawning punditry, particularly among liberal commentators silently beseeching Obama to exorcise their racial guilt.

But it also had the effect of portraying Obama as some kind of dreamer.

Yet our president is no dreamer. His guys might sell Hopium, but he doesn’t smoke or eat the stuff. He knew he had to go to Copenhagen. The mayor of Chicago and Oprah Winfrey expected him to be there.

Will it at least help the Chicago residents? Dave Zirin puts it all in perspective:

Mayor Daley, rocking a 35 percent approval rating, says that the Games would be “a huge boost to our economy, raising it to a new level. The Games will help us recover sooner from the recession that still grips our nation and enable us to better compete in the global economy.”

There is only one problem with this argument: the history of the Olympic Games almost without exception brands it as a lie.As Sports Illustrated’s Michael Fish has written, “You stage a two-week athletic carnival and, if things go well, pray the local municipality isn’t sent into financial ruin.”
[snip]
It’s also difficult for Chicago residents to see how this will help their pocketbooks, given that Daley pledged to the International Olympic Committee that any cost overruns would be covered by taxpayers.

This is why a staggering 84 percent of the city opposes bringing the Games to Chicago if it costs residents a solitary dime.

But we shouldn’t be surprised at this point that Obama is tin-eared to the concerns of Chicago residents. As Paul Krugman wrote Sept. 20 on the banker bonuses, “the administration has suffered more than it seems to realize from the perception that it’s giving taxpayers’ hard-earned money away to Wall Street.

Shoveling taxpayers’ money into the Olympic maw is no better, especially in these tough times.

No Games Chicago organizer Alison McKenna said, “I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because instead of putting money toward what people really need, money will be funneled to real estate developers who will be tearing down Washington Park and other important community resources. I oppose the Olympics coming to Chicago because the nonprofit child-welfare agency that I work for had to sustain budget cuts and layoffs, while Chicago has spent $48.2 million on the 2016 Olympic bid, as of July 2009.”

It is all about Daley and his cohorts. Obama is their protege put in the Whitehouse to loot and pillage what they can. Let us repeat a line we have said here in the past — Obama is not the lone virgin in the whorehouse that his supporters think he is.

This is how John Kass closes his column:

It is about paying political debts. It is about waltzing with the one that brought him to the dance, not so much Michelle, as dancing with the little guy with the short shanks on the 5th floor of City Hall.

So he will fly halfway around the world when he doesn’t have the time, with so many other items on his agenda, because he has to.

He’s Chicago’s president. And he got the call from the boss.

How many other bosses will he have before his term ends?

Written by none other than the noted author, novelist, reporter, Helene Cooper of the number one newspaper in the nation, The New York Times.

Drum roll, please.

Mr. Obama: “Where’d my First Lady go?”

Mrs. Obama: “Right here,” stepping beside him, as it started to drizzle.

Mr. Obama pokes fun at the pool, whispering something to Reggie Love and Mrs. Obama, then looking at pool and saying: “We’re talking about how you guys are all waiting to write something down.”

[snip]

Mr. Obama is teasing Mrs. Obama. “You’re standing on the wrong side of me.” She moves to his other side. He says, “I’m just teasing.” She stares straight ahead with a smile.

Oooooh, I have goosebumps all over.

The Scene:

Well, there was no red carpet lining the walkway to the Phipps Conservatory for the leaders’ dinner tonight hosted by President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. But since the First Couple nonetheless spent almost two hours greeting each of their 60 or so guests as they arrived, one by one — or in the case of couples, two by two — and since your pooler’s dream job is actually to work for E Channel covering the Academy Awards Red Carpet, consider this your Red Carpet report.

At 6:15 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Obama stepped out of the Phipps Conservatory, underneath an awning to greet their first guests. Mr. Obama in a dark blue suit, Mrs. Obama in a taupe, pink and green patterned cocktail dress with straps. Pink patent leather two-inch heels. Hair pulled back in a full, bouffant faux ponytail. Long pearl necklace, pearl earrings. No stockings.

That’s it. I got nothing.

Wait!

7:20 — Carla Bruni!!!!

Carla Bruni Sarkozy and Nicholas Sarkozy arrive. Sarko is wearing a suit. Carla Bruni is in a stunning black silk sheath dress, stops just below the knee. She’s holding a green wool scarf, and is wearing Christian Louboutins black evening shoes.

Mr. Obama kisses her four times. “I’m not going to get a chance to see you much.”

Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Sarkozy chat warmly. A lot of touching there too.

That ladies and gentlemen, is your esteemed national newspaper, The NY Times. No wonder, these fucking incompetent morons are sinking and begging for a bail out.

He is off to Copenhagen to lobby IOC to bring 2016 Olympics to Chicago.

One has to wonder who is running the country, as he goes gallivanting around the globe pretending he is the world president or something.

But even more importantly here is my dilemma with his trip. How will it reflect on him if they don’t pick Chicago?

Or is there a guarantee now that they will pick Chicago and therefore he is going in which case is this not a wasted trip on taxpayers’ backs in this difficult economy?

Or he must not have much faith in his wife’s persuasive powers that he thinks he can make the difference which leads me back to my first question and the fallout if his overtures do not pan out.

But this fits in with his style — intimidate IOC in the name of charm. Will they be called Racists if they don’t pick Chicago? If they are afraid and they will pick Chicago anyway for that reason, is this not a wasted trip leading me back to my second question?

US President Barack Obama is to visit Copenhagen to support Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games, the White House confirmed Monday. Obama will arrive in the Danish capital Friday morning, and return to the US following the International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting the same day when the decision about the 2016 host city will be made. The other contenders are Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo.

“President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will both make presentations to the IOC during Friday’s session,” said the White House in a statement.

“They will discuss why Chicago is best to host the 2016 Summer Games, and how the United States is eager to bring the world together to celebrate the ideals of the Olympic movement.”

Michelle Obama, who is leading the Chicago delegation, will arrive in Copenhagen on Wednesday along with talkshow host Oprah Winfrey and Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama and head of the White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport.

Something is lacking in this whole extravaganza. Gravitas, perhaps? Or perspective as in Iran smolders, Afghanistan burns, and Obama heads to…Denmark

[UPDATE] HINDSIGHT is 20/20
Commenter Mel on his blog post dated June 22, 2008 (last year when everything was happening!) wrote this time-line:

Dateline Chicago:

2004, Obama lays claim to no intentions of running for POTUS having no experience
Early 2006, Chicago starts working on an Olympic bid,
December 2006, Mayor Daley strangely supports the man who called Daley a “corrupt sonofabitch” Obama for POTUS
January 2007, Obama supports the corrupt sonofabitch Daley re-election
Feb 2007, Obama announces his bid for POTUS.
April 2007, USOC gives Chicago the nod for bidding on the 2016 Games
April 2007, Obama’s run for POTUS picks up huge fundraising traction
October 2007, Obama numbers very weak, Daley machine backs Obama via Daley’s brother unleashing money Rolodex
Early 2008, media, led by NBC, and Obama’s campaign keep projecting the illusion Obama is the nominee
Most Important:
April 7, 2008 Clinton calls for Bush to boycott 2008 China Summer Games Open Ceremonies
April 2008 Obama continually avoids question of Bush boycott of Summer Games
June 3, 2008 Obama declares himself the nominee after many false media reports Clinton was withdrawing the same evening
June 4th, 2008 OIC announces short list for 2016 Games, Chicago is on it and media is pressuring Clinton to withdraw
June 5, 2008 media continues to claim Clinton withdraw
June 5, 2008 sudden meeting between Obama and Clinton that evening and speculation of Clinton withdraw next day or so
June 6, 2008 IOC meetings with Chicago delegation to explain some bid problems.
June 7, 2008 Clinton suspends campaign.

Anyone wonder why it was so critical for Obama to be crowned the Democratic Party nominee prematurely to June 3rd, and then his doing so himself on the evening of June 3rd after a day full of false AP and media reports that Clinton would be dropping out that evening? Simple answer is the International Olympic Committee was announcing the finalists for the 2016 Summer Games on June 4th and Chicago was one of the Cities in the running.

Note: there are other secondary links on Mel’s original post that provide plenty of articles to support the connection between Obama’s campaign, his money makers, Chicago political machine, all in the context of the Summer Olympics 2016.

It is surreal to me that a handful of people from one single city could hoist an inexperienced, unskilled person with negligible accomplishments on the entire nation for the office of the presidency and HE GETS NOMINATED AND ELECTED. They just gave him a teleprompter and a speechwriter and he adopted his inspiration Rev. Wright in his speech making, after all he had listened to him for 20 years, and the gullible people fell for it. Those same handful of people who propped him up made a mockery of the phrase “We the People” and the election last year seems like a cruel and sick joke played on the American people. The Olympics coming to Chicago (if it does) is just icing on the cake for the Chicago pols.

The important question at this point is will it (the 2016 Chicago Olympics) clinch Obama’s second term?

One has to wonder who is running the country, as he goes gallivanting around the globe pretending he is the world president or something.

But even more importantly here is my dilemma with his trip. How will it reflect on him if they don’t pick Chicago?

Or is there a guarantee now that they will pick Chicago and therefore he is going in which case is this not a wasted trip on taxpayers’ backs in this difficult economy?

Or he must not have much faith in his wife’s persuasive powers that he thinks he can make the difference which leads me back to my first question and the fallout if his overtures do not pan out.

But this fits in with his style — intimidate IOC in the name of charm. Will they be called Racists if they don’t pick Chicago? If they are afraid and they will pick Chicago anyway for that reason, is this not a wasted trip leading me back to my second question?

US President Barack Obama is to visit Copenhagen to support Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games, the White House confirmed Monday. Obama will arrive in the Danish capital Friday morning, and return to the US following the International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting the same day when the decision about the 2016 host city will be made. The other contenders are Rio de Janeiro, Madrid and Tokyo.

“President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will both make presentations to the IOC during Friday’s session,” said the White House in a statement.

“They will discuss why Chicago is best to host the 2016 Summer Games, and how the United States is eager to bring the world together to celebrate the ideals of the Olympic movement.”

Michelle Obama, who is leading the Chicago delegation, will arrive in Copenhagen on Wednesday along with talkshow host Oprah Winfrey and Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama and head of the White House Office on Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport.

Something is lacking in this whole extravaganza. Gravitas, perhaps? Or perspective as in Iran smolders, Afghanistan burns, and Obama heads to…Denmark

He must have practiced in front of a mirror and decided this is the prettiest of him. Thank God for teeth whitening and good dental hygiene.

Barack Obama’s amazingly consistent smile from Eric Spiegelman on Vimeo.

Curiously I had mentioned this very thing in my post here, coincidentally from another G20 meeting in London:

In other news, you remember the picture of the G20ers with the Queen, where the only guy with a million dollar smile that he can’t afford is Obama. In the video below, you can see him getting ready to flash his smile and there is something very unnatural about it. He must take the edict “Smile” to heart whenever a picture is taken. Incidentally the Queen did not like being told to smile for that picture and asked what they were celebrating.

Watch at:
0:49 SMILE;
0:50 Looking down, SMILE is off;
0:51 SMILE;
0:52 Still SMILING;

Drum roll, please.

Mr. Obama: “Where’d my First Lady go?”

Mrs. Obama: “Right here,” stepping beside him, as it started to drizzle.

Mr. Obama pokes fun at the pool, whispering something to Reggie Love and Mrs. Obama, then looking at pool and saying: “We’re talking about how you guys are all waiting to write something down.”

[snip]

Mr. Obama is teasing Mrs. Obama. “You’re standing on the wrong side of me.” She moves to his other side. He says, “I’m just teasing.” She stares straight ahead with a smile.

Oooooh, I have goosebumps all over.

The Scene:

Well, there was no red carpet lining the walkway to the Phipps Conservatory for the leaders’ dinner tonight hosted by President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama. But since the First Couple nonetheless spent almost two hours greeting each of their 60 or so guests as they arrived, one by one — or in the case of couples, two by two — and since your pooler’s dream job is actually to work for E Channel covering the Academy Awards Red Carpet, consider this your Red Carpet report.

At 6:15 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Obama stepped out of the Phipps Conservatory, underneath an awning to greet their first guests. Mr. Obama in a dark blue suit, Mrs. Obama in a taupe, pink and green patterned cocktail dress with straps. Pink patent leather two-inch heels. Hair pulled back in a full, bouffant faux ponytail. Long pearl necklace, pearl earrings. No stockings.

That’s it. I got nothing.

Wait!

7:20 — Carla Bruni!!!!

Carla Bruni Sarkozy and Nicholas Sarkozy arrive. Sarko is wearing a suit. Carla Bruni is in a stunning black silk sheath dress, stops just below the knee. She’s holding a green wool scarf, and is wearing Christian Louboutins black evening shoes.

Mr. Obama kisses her four times. “I’m not going to get a chance to see you much.”

Mrs. Obama and Mrs. Sarkozy chat warmly. A lot of touching there too.

That ladies and gentlemen, is your esteemed national newspaper, The NY Times. No wonder, these fucking incompetent morons are sinking and begging for a bail out.

[Tucker:] But let me just say, very clearly, it was the Obama campaign that first bought up the race question. It was the Obama people who smeared the Clintons as racists, Bill and Hillary Clinton. They made the case to reporters off-the-record, including me, that the Clintons were racists. They started this.

So for him to get up with a straight face and say the media is bringing this race issue up… No, it was your campaign that started this.

Greta Van Susteren: How did they bring it up?

Tucker Carlson: By this whisper campaign. That Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton were somehow opposing Barack Obama because they did not like the fact he was black. And that various statements they made, remember Hillary Clinton famously said that of course it was Lyndon Johnson who signed the Civil Rights Act, you know. Martin Luther King might have advocated for it but it was the president who signed it.

Somehow that became a racist statement according to allies of Barack Obama. He didn’t tell them to be quiet then. He allowed that to happen. Allowed, I think, the slur against the Clintons to fester. That they were somehow animated by bigotry was outrageous. And he did nothing to clear the air.

Did you hear that, Obots? Obama and his minions smeared the Clintons and you were gullible enough to believe it. Shame on you.

{HT to hillaryis44 for the video and the transcript.}

From another post I wrote last week, I present to you this curious passage in a NY Times article which unwittingly refutes the myth about Obama’s non-involvement in the race-baiting strategy of his minions. The evidence is too good to pass up. The chronology is off because the writer of that article seems to be talking about the general election. But as you and I remember, the race card was successfully played against their own during the Democratic primary even to the extent of shamefully dubbing the Clintons racists. Now you hear from Tucker Carlson (in the video above the fold) how that happened.

[snip] As Obama told me, the opportunities afforded him and Jarrett by their predecessors in the civil rights movement gave them both “a shared sense of obligation.” To her and the Obamas, failing to acknowledge the racial dimension of the 2008 campaign constituted dereliction of duty, even if silence on the subject was considered politically expedient by other senior campaign staff members. A moment of truth occurred last July, when the candidate predicted to a Missouri crowd that his opponents would be focusing on how Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.” Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign manager fired back that Obama had “played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.” Momentarily flummoxed, the Obama campaign responded with a tepid insistence by Gibbs that the senator was merely “describing that he was new to the political scene.”

“But within the campaign, Valerie had been saying, ‘You guys, you’re not getting this issue right,’ ” recalls a top official. “And Obama communicated to his senior advisers that he thought we were a little gun-shy on race issues; that the reality was, he did look different. There were also African-Americans on our staff, some in relatively senior positions, who were clearly upset that we had not consulted them in the response. And she actually organized a meeting to discuss it.

“And that’s not just a process thing,” the adviser said. “Because moving forward, the candidate made it very clear to us that we were just a bunch of white people who didn’t get it — which, by the way, was true.”

That Obama required the presence of someone who did “get it” inevitably meant that he would want Jarrett in the White House.

HT to NQ reader, Portia Elizabeth for reminding me of Tucker Carlson’s remarks.

Nancy Pelosi even went in front of camera and cried fearing violence from the purported racists, I said cried — I would post the video but I can’t stand her. Instead I will give you a link where you can see the video and read additional commentary.

The realization that all this was backfiring came quite soon when Obama started acting like the good cop with his bad cop actors pushed to the side. He must have also sent a memo to his other media minions because they started talking about how it is not racism but just change. I am of course alarmed at their tactics but also watching the race dynamics in this country with some intellectual curiosity.

As an immigrant from India, I am new to this black/white dynamic in America.

I don’t look at myself as a colored person, even though someone in my work environment once referred to me as such in a conversation which felt strange to me. I don’t acknowledge my skin color status here in America through the black experience because that is not my heritage. In fact, I saw this same confidence in my foreign students coming from Africa. They did not want to be mistaken for the local AAs. They were proud to highlight their heritage and their distinct identity. What would it take for that kind of confidence to build in certain factions on both sides of the black and white divide in America, that they don’t have to be chained to their ancestors’ legacy?

I deplore anybody using stereotype or prejudice. I am also uncomfortable with the other two phenomena — the “white man’s burden” on the one hand and the racial bias on the other. Both equally cripple true democratic discourse. For instance, in people like Senator Byrd, there is evidence of bigoted behavior from the past. Did it have an impact in his decision to dismiss Hillary Clinton’s candidacy during the Democratic primary? Was it fear of being accused of racism if he didn’t support Obama and the specter of his KKK days being plastered on TV? Senator Byrd surely ignored that Hillary Clinton won WV handily and that she was the more experienced candidate. He must have known that Obama was an empty suit but still endorsed him. How many others suffered from this disease of white man’s guilt or fear before they voted for Obama?

On the other side of the divide, we had AAs voting for him in droves without the slightest regard for his merit or lack of it as a candidate. Even now, majority of them feel that the recent opposition to him is based on racism. In their racial bias, they did not pay attention to his lack of qualifications or experience and now feel that he should be given a pass. While a state senator in Chicago, he did not necessarily take good care of his constituents who were predominantly AA — see this fantastic Flineo video for a bit of evidence on that. In a nutshell what you see in that video is Obama’s grand accomplishment. With the incoming fire on ACORN these days, and Obama as a champion community organizer who propped that organization up, you have to wonder what he really did accomplish. Where are the results?

This much is certain. He used chicanery of the first rate to manipulate these diffident people in perpetuation of their own fears and false pride. He recognized that he can get more votes by crying racism than not.

Obama has squandered a wonderful opportunity in helping people on either side of the black and white divide come to terms with their ancestral ghosts. Imagine a different scenario where he would be truly race agnostic and encouraged people to be as such, wouldn’t that have been a confidence building measure for true racial progress? If he thought he needed to stoke race flames during the campaign to win, shame on him. But what is his excuse now?

While everyone reflects on this new race dynamic intruding on our democracy, we can’t let Obama and his minions off the hook for politicizing a grave and tragic national history (Bob Herbert of the NY Times is still at it, he didn’t get the WH memo). In that context, ridicule is a powerful tool for most of us who are not drawn into their distortion, pro or con, to call them out. One such tool, a visual aid is this interesting flowchart from missourah.com (click on the picture to enlarge) — an Obama guide to who is a racist. If enough of us, rational and sane people keep talking about how these politicians and the corrupt media are out to manipulate you even with as serious a topic as racism, may be someday they will stop using it as a weapon or a crutch.

A sidenote about the flowchart: It is a well done chart. A “brown” person like me will get stuck in that endless loop at the bottom right corner which makes me chuckle. The loop accurately highlights the fact that the racial minorities can’t be labeled racist unless they believe that the dominant race is in fact superior to their own which is rare.

Acknowledgment: Thanks to Sara and Linda for digging up the flowchart for me and to Lisa for her observation that it would have been a lot easier a generation ago to dig up other names with bigoted personal history like Byrd’s. The task of finding more names is made difficult because law of the land holds in spite of some politicians shortchanging the progress we make.

FROM LARRY JOHNSON: PM317 stole my thunder. Good for her. Stewart cuts to the heart of the issue–the media abdication of its job to be the Fourth Branch of government. The staunch refusal of the mainstream media to do even a cursory investigation of ACORN is despicable and ultimately poses a threat to our democracy. Thank God for Andy Breitbart and the balls to do a serious investigation.

To add to Larry’s note: Here is an article from Politico, that minimizes the scandal at the same time revealing the depravity of the elite media. The executive producer of “World News,” Jon Banner called the scandal “noise” and the anchor of that program, Gibson was not even aware of the scandal.

ABC “World News” anchor Charles Gibson seemed caught off guard by the ACORN tapes on Tuesday when he told Chicago radio hosts Don Wade and Roma that he hadn’t heard of them, in a clip flagged by prominent conservative blogger Michelle Malkin. Gibson added that “maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.”

And how many stories these news networks carried on the multiple scandals we have had in the last couple of weeks:

During Beck’s show on Monday, he stood in front of a blackboard-like screen, citing statistics that he said demonstrated the mainstream media’s lackadaisical coverage of the ACORN and Van Jones stories.

“Reports on Van Jones, from appointment to resignation. Look at this: Fox had 51 reports on this guy. CNN was next, with nine. MSNBC, two. The New York Times, one. Washington Post, four. The ACORN corruption — this is your money. Fox has had 133 reports on it. CNN, 90. MSNBC, 10 — how’s that possible? Hey, ABC, how’s it working out for you, with two?” Beck’s onscreen tally credited CBS with two Jones stories, and ABC and NBC with one apiece.

The Politico article is a mish-mash of condescension toward Fox News Network and the ACORN sting operations and of getting flat footed about reporting on the burgeoning scandal stories. I hope more Hannah Giles’ and James O’Keefes step up in place of where traditional news people used to be. There has never been a time when the mainstream media has been so irrelevant as it is now.

And Jon Stewart did get this one right!