Seriously – how can that possibly be? And yet, that seems to be her take:

The call by some members of the black media for African Americans to support President Obama in racial solidarity is a terrible idea. Just as terrible as women supporting women only because of their sex, or any other group viewing the world solely through the narrow prism of their own experience.

If pursued and played by Obama, it would be the worst thing not only for his reelection campaign but also for the country. The man who was elected on a promise of unity — neither black nor white nor red nor blue — can’t now play the race card. Any of his supporters who play that hand will be doing a disservice to themselves and to the nation.

How did this come about?

As Obama’s approval has been slipping, some leaders in the African American media have begun calling on blacks to ignore their concerns and just vote black. Leading the pack is radio host Tom Joyner, who reaches an astonishing one in four black adults. Maybe we could just have Joyner and Rush Limbaugh wrestle each other’s ideas to the mat and skip these tedious debates, primaries and conventions.

Joyner is blunt with his 8 million listeners: “Stick together, black people.”

Again I ask – where the hell Was Ms. Parker in 2008? This is not news. This is SOP for the Obama Campaign. Just the other day, I mentioned Obama’s National Co-Chair, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., and his threats to House members of the Black Caucus to toe the line and stand behind Obama, or face primary challengers (and then doing it anyway, even if they did stab Hillary Clinton in the back and get on board).

But wait, it gets even better with THIS claim by Ms. Parker:

Obama hasn’t played the race card overtly, though recently he did call on a mostly African American audience at the annual Congressional Black Caucus Awards dinner to kick off their bedroom slippers and put on their marching shoes. “Stop grumblin’. Stop cryin’. We are going to press on,” he said. “We’ve got work to do.”

WHAT? Obama has not overtly played the race card? Is she for real? Good grief, where has she been? Did she take one of Sir Richard Branson’s flights to outer space? Has she been living in East Mongolia? Has she not been paying any attention at ALL?

I am just shaking my head in disgust at this revisionist history from Ms. Parker’s keyboard. From Obama’s depiction of John McCain’s campaign as racist (remember this quote? “”And so the only way they figure they’re going to win this election is if they make you scared of me…”), to attacking Geraldine Ferraro and labeling her a racist for something he himself said, forcing her to resign from the Hillary Campaign, Obama has done nothing BUT play the race card. Hell, he just called the Tea Party racist a few months ago!

Ms Parker concludes:

This country has transcended much that was hideous and painful in the course of our evolution. It would be a shame to turn back now.

That it has, but it sure ass hell hasn’t stopped the Obama Campaign,the Obama Administration, and the DNC from labeling anyone who doesn’t support Obama as racists.

For the life of me, I don’t know how Ms. Parker has missed this over the past 3 years, but perhaps you could all remind her of the many and different ways Obama and his Minions have played the race card, from the way the DOJ has handled cases (or not), the assumption of the racist Cambridge police officer, Rep. Clyburn claiming that all ofd Obama’s problems come down to “black vs. white,” and so, so many more. Have at it!

Hillary Clinton salutes the delegates at the Democratic National Convention in 2008

Like most of our long-time regular readers, and nearly all of our writers, I was drawn to No Quarter in 2008 because it was supporting Hillary Clinton in her campaign for the presidency.  NQ was one of several blogs I was reading as I scoured the Internet for people supporting her.  As the primary season wound down in May, we were brought closer together as a community by the our outrage at the machinations of the Democratic National Committee.

Even as far back as February, many Democratic leaders were screeching that she should admit defeat and endorse Obama, but she fought on, winning many important primaries.  But the delegate count was going in Obama’s favor because of the Chicago-style tactics used by the Obama camp at the caucuses. Bus in a bunch of hooligans and overwhelm the locals.  Caucuses that used to be like PTA meetings were turned into events more akin to grudge-match high school basketball games.

Then, on that fateful day in May, the DNC awarded some of Hillary’s Minnesota Michigan delegates to Obama, delegates that she had won in her primary victory.  They did this on the ridiculous premise that “he would have won those delegates if he had been on the ballot.”  That whole affair was too convoluted to write about in any condensed form, but it was the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party as we knew it.

Most of us know this history, and I’m not trying to preach to the choir, but I do want to remind some of you, and to inform our newer readers, of what brought No Quarter together as a community in 2008.  We were a community mostly comprised of pissed off Democrats and Independents who supported Hillary Clinton as the best candidate for president, and who knew that Obama was unqualified for the most important job in the world.  Not only was (is!) he unqualified, but he was a complete unknown.  He is still a man hiding his past, a man with unsavory associates and unproven credentials.

We, as a community, were horrified at the unfairness of the way the Democratic Party treated Hillary in that primary season, doing their best to force her out so they could “unify” the party long before the official nomination at the convention.  That was a major part of what brought people together here at NQ and some other pro-Hillary blogs.  Some of those other blogs folded when she conceded the race, but we hung together, and NQ is still going, although I barely recognize it sometimes, compared to what we were in 2008 and 2009.

After that wretched DNC meeting at the end of May, 2008, when the committee members basically told Hillary to concede in the name of “party unity,” a small group of her backers coalesced under the banner of P.U.M.A.

On Monday, August 22, 2011, HelenK posted this in the comments of my piece “Lady Lynn Speaks Out”:

“My only problem was her [Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild] being advertised as the original PUMA.
She was not.  That title belongs to a commenter at the Confluence.
on May 31 2008  SM77 posted this

P party
U unity
M my
A ass

No one has ever thanked her for that, but many have used the title.”

To which the lovely oowawa replied:

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

The whole message of PUMA folks was to tell the DNC that we intended to defy Party Unity and continue to support Hillary’s campaign against Obama.  The intention was to show Hillary and her campaign team that she had a support group that wanted her to take her fight all the way to the National Convention, and to insist on a delegate count to decide the nomination.

The whole PUMA thing was unorganized, and even had a secondary branch that used different words for the acronym of PUMA, but we saw ourselves as more powerful than we were.  We assumed that we spoke for millions of Hillary Clinton supporters when we insisted that the Democratic Party follow the rules that were always followed by tradition at the national conventions of both major parties up until that time:

• That all candidates have the right to continue campaigning until the Convention decides the nominee;
• That delegates are the ones who decide the nomination, not the DNC;
• That delegates cast their votes on the Convention floor;
• That Super Delegates are free to vote for whomever they choose; and
• That pledged delegates can change their votes if there is no winner on the first ballot.

We wanted Hillary to fight to the end, to demand the delegate votes, and then if she lost the vote,  TO JUMP UP ON THAT STAGE AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT A CRIMINAL JACKASS, WORTHLESS PIECE OF EXCREMENT, RACIST KNOW-NOTHING, NARCISSISTIC COMMUNIST ASSHOLE OBAMA IS!!!

Well, we didn’t want her to give up without a fight.

But, let’s get realistic here.  We were a very small faction, and we were only observers to the political process.  If all of the people who ever thought of considering themselves PUMAs had gathered together in one place at one time and presented ourselves as a unified political bloc, we still would have been too small a group to have any real impact on Hillary’s decisions.

We know she appreciated our support, and a few PUMAs made the news a few times that summer as a “curiosity” (translation: fringe lunatics), but Hillary had BIG considerations that went far beyond her support groups.  She had to think about the Big Picture, and consider her future, as well as Bill’s legacy as a former President.

Let’s try to look at things from her perspective.  We can’t walk a mile in her shoes, but just try to think about what she had to consider in making her decisions that year.

1. She is a Democrat, and given that this is a 2-party country, and 3^rd party candidates have never come close to winning the presidency, she was not about to desert the Party that elected her husband to the presidency twice, and her to the Senate twice;
2. Historically, when one of the two major political parties has a floor fight for the nomination, they go on to lose the general election (exceptions are few);
3. In politics, as in sports or other competitions, we expect winners to enjoy their victory but also to speak well of their “worthy opponent” – and losers are expected to congratulate the victor and be a “good sport” about their loss, because in our society we hate “sore losers”;
4. If she expected to continue to enjoy the respect of her peers in the Senate and the voters who supported her, she had to accept that she did not have enough delegates to win the nomination — regardless of how unfairly the process had played out that year — and therefore, she had to concede graciously, which she did in grand form;
5. If she had decided to challenge Obama’s candidacy on the basis of the Natural Born Citizen controversy, she would have had to have irrefutable proof (which may not even exist), and even with such proof in hand, it would have been challenged in court and in the court of public opinion, which would have split the party enough to lose the general election, and possibly split the party into two parties, giving the Republicans a lock on winning all future elections;
6. The same applies to any other allegations the Clintons may have made against Obama, in that the potential damage done to the party and the future of American politics would far outweigh any potential gain for Hillary and/or Bill, which would have probably made them political pariahs – they would be perceived as “dirty fighters, “ “mudslingers,” “racists,” “traitors to the Party,” and “self-serving spoilsports,” at the very least.

Now think back again to what we were saying at NQ, what the PUMAs were saying, after she conceded the nomination to Obama and began to campaign for him.  Some were saying, “Well, he’d BETTER offer her the Vice President slot!”  Others, like myself, thought VP to be a meaningless and powerless position, and wanted something better for her.  Various members of our NQ writers and readers tossed around different positions that would be a fitting reward for her.  Some thought Supreme Court justice, a lifetime position, would be the best fit for her.  Different Cabinet positions were discussed, but seriously, the best possible Cabinet position of all is Secretary of State, and that’s what she got.  It’s almost like being co-president in its stature.  And it turns out to be an extremely good fit for her talents, her nature, and her abilities.  After serving as SOS and the rest of her history, nobody could ever challenge her qualifications for the presidency again.

Now, honestly, I ask those of you who say she should have turned down a position in this administration, even the prestigious and mostly-independent position of SOS, what were her real options?  Sure, she could have gone back to her Senate seat, like John Kerry and John McCain did.  It’s relative obscurity after running for Prez, but yeah, she could have just said “no thanks” and gone back to her Senate office.

But what if she was genuinely concerned about what would become of U.S. foreign policy under a naïve novice like Obama?  What if she considered who else there was to take that position… and recoiled in horror at the thought of Valerie Jarrett or John Kerry in that highly important position?

Can you imagine, or at least TRY to imagine, what her private conversations would have been like with her husband, Bill Clinton, 2-term President?  Don’t you think he would have advised and encouraged her to take the appointment to Secretary of State?  Don’t you think she would have felt that taking the position of SOS was not only a huge promotion from Senator, but that she could help prevent diplomatic disasters?

Don’t you see how becoming SOS has allowed her to gain literally “a world of experience” and that it’s the highest point in her personal and professional life thus far?  I just don’t see how she could have turned it down.  Why should she?  Just to appease some of her hard-line followers?

Lately,  I see people on this blog who once supported her, praised her, defended her, and fought for her, who now have turned against her.  Some even use the same vilification and innuendos the Republicans have used against her and Bill for two decades.  And frankly, it ties my stomach in knots.

OK, look folks, let me lay it out in personal terms.  I’m an independent voter, and sometimes I like third parties and I truly wish we had a 3-party system of Progressives, Moderates, and Conservatives.  I could then spread my votes between those three with a clear conscience.  But I still have some deep grievances with the Republican Party.  Ken Starr and Dick Cheney anyone? Although I may support any Republican against Obama, I will never be a Republican supporter in general, and at this point, I don’t even see an electable Republican candidate that I like.

I cannot forget the many years that I fought for old-fashioned Liberal causes.  I was a Kennedy devotee as a teenager.   I have always been left of center, and I always will be, although I have become more conservative in some ways, now that I’m an old man who calls 50-year-olds “kids.”  I have always been a Clinton supporter, both Bill and Hill.  I have rarely supported Republican politicians, although I’ve voted for some when the Democrat was no good.

So when I see people who used to support the Clintons and who now revile them for working for the good of the world in the only way they can – through the Democratic Administration – I feel like a kid watching his parents having a drunken brawl.  It makes me just sick at heart.

I don’t know if Hillary is preparing herself for a future run at the presidency, or if she is just excelling at the highest position she’ll ever hold, while gaining the admiration of most of the world.  Either way, I support her.

Has she said some things I wish she hadn’t?  Of course!  Do I support every decision she’s made as SOS or every position she’s taken publicly as the voice of this administration?  Hell, no!!  But do I think she is serving her country admirably and making a damn fine showing of herself as SOS?  Damn straight!!

I know some of you think that by becoming a part of the Obama administration that she is “just as bad as him.”  I’m sorry, but I will never accept that argument.  To me, that like saying that all writers here at NQ are just as bad good as Larry Johnson.  That’s just absurd!

We all agree that there is much to despise about Obama, and a whole different set of things to despise about the people who helped get him elected.  We all know what a liar he is, how lazy he is, how ill-equipped for the job he is, and how there are many things about his secret life that may legally disqualify him from being president, or should land him in prison.  We agree on 98% of those things we hate about him.

But don’t expect me, or many others here, to share your recently-acquired aversion to the Clintons, or your recent (apparent) conversion to Republican conservatism.  We have much we agree on, and we all are entitled to our opinions, but many of us here still support Hillary Clinton and think highly of her and her husband.

Most of us agree that we will vote for the Republican nominee for President this election, mostly to get rid of Obama.  Some have made the full conversion to the Republican Party, and more power to them.  Some are dabbling with Republicanism the way a pre-teen tries a cigarette for the first time.  Others will be voting for the Republican with the same enthusiasm as a pretty boy’s first day in prison.

I love reading your opinions, and we have all learned so much from each other.  We have grown together.  We have changed with time and circumstance.  One thing hasn’t changed for me:  I still love Hill and Bill.

I’ve always worked to try to be friends with everyone of you on this blog, even when I disagree with you.  I recognize that a few of you are more political than me, some are much more educated, and some of you just blow me away with your depth.  Certainly not all of you, but a few.  And I would be disappointed if we all agreed on everything!  How boring!

But please try to understand that at this point in time, there are lots of people with buyer’s remorse for having supported Obama over Hillary, and there are even people talking about her mounting a challenge to Obama and running against him again.  That won’t happen, but still, I enjoy hearing it.

There is a loud chorus of “I TOLD YOU SO!” emanating from this blog and others, as the Kool-Aid wears off and people start realizing what a disappointment Obama is to them.  People all over the country are slapping their foreheads and saying, “We should have voted for Hillary!”

Personally, I can’t see her mounting a competitive challenge to Obama.  But if he steps aside or implodes, it’s pretty clear who the Democrats will run to.  And I, for one, will be grinning ear to ear!

Good grief.

Yes, that is the problem – that Weiner’s “privacy” has been violated, not that he has disgraced his office, his wife, and himself, with very little contrition for what he actually DID. No, his tears were over being CAUGHT, not that he is a freakin’ pervert, engaging in sexting with women around the country, and apparently, made phone calls to some of these women from his House office. There is no doubt that not only did he act unprofessionally, but unethically, compounded by his vast number of lies upon lies.

But as Jennifer Rubin pointed out in her Washington Post piece, “Anthony Weiner, Wronged Man? Not Quite,” some are taking the Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz approach, claiming this is a “private matter.” They are wrong. Rubin specifically mentions Ezra Klein and Richard Cohen:

I’ve been a bit amazed at the post-bizzaro press conference insistence by some on the left that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is a wronged man. Ezra Klein via Twitter professes to be puzzled how this can be a big deal. Richard Cohen writes:

We are doing a terrible thing here — we hypocrites of the press, especially of the blogosphere. Every man lives a bit in a fantasy world, maybe women, too, but I know nothing of them. Every man is a boy, either in mind or in deed. Much of this is harmless. There are no bodies. There is no crime. This is the case with Weiner. No damsel was in distress, and no one was rescued.

This is the place for me to condemn Weiner. Consider it done. He’s a liar and a creep, although how one can be the latter without being the former is beyond me. (Still, lying is impermissible.) But I would also like to condemn those who made it their business to destroy him, who deputized themselves to invade someone’s private life, his fantasy life, and hold him up to ridicule.

Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. [snip]

So let me make sure I understand Mr. Cohen’s point – he thinks the press is doing the wrong thing by REPORTING THE NEWS??? I am just shaking my head in disbelief at these men. Oh, no, check that – I am shaking my head in DISGUST at these men, and their willingness to use their professions as “journalists” to try and protect this pervert.

Jennifer Rubin’s response was very good, I thought:

[snip] Let me point out that Weiner went beyond fantasy. Or have we forgotten that these are real women with whom he was communicating? Women who, gosh, he thinks, are not underage. Women who he supposed would not blackmail him. Women whom he apparently told his wife about before their marriage but could not bring himself to give up. The press isn’t invading his mind or his bedroom; it’s looking at his Tweets and talking to the women on whose Timeline he was willing to risk his marriage, his career and his self-respect. (As for the comment, “Another Christian has been thrown to the lions. The ‘Christian in this case is a Jew,” I am dumbfounded and dismayed that Weiner’s religion should enter into the discussion.)

As for the “I just don’t get it” response of some young liberal men out there, I can only imagine that ideology so dominates their lives that they fail to see the harm in a public figure’s not-at-all-private conduct. Or perhaps they too see the Tweets as a harmless pastime. Maybe, for all the “sexual harassment” training we’ve gotten, we’ve forgotten some essential training in ethics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t get it, either, Ms. Rubin, except to say that this mindset is incredibly disturbing. (Ms. Rubin goes on to note that the Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on Rep. Weiner’s behavior and judgment, and I encourage you to either finish reading her piece, or read the WSJ piece here.)

The next piece of news also deals with a Democratic Representative, Earl Blumenauer. Seems Rep. Blumenauer is upset at the effort put forth by the Parks Department for doing anything that might amount to educating Gov. Palin about American history. Yes, he is upset that money is being spent to give the governor an education at our historic sites and monuments, presumably because it is making her smarter than many in the press (I refer you to the ridiculous recent brouhaha over Paul Revere) in which journalists by and large failed to factcheck before jumping on their condescending “gotcha” bandwagon).

Yes, this representative, Earl Blumenenaur, has some “serious concerns” over the money spent thus far on Palin and her bus tour:

[snip] “Many of the press accounts of stops included in this tour, which provided personal and political benefits to former Gov. Palin, suggest that National Park Service resources were made available to an extent beyond that which an average American family would receive,” Blumenauer wrote.

He cited media reports of Palin and her family receiving a private guided tour of Mount Vernon, early admission to the National Archives and a 10-person escort involving park rangers and New York City police officers at the Statue of Liberty.

“For cases in which the Park Service did not have additional personnel on duty as a result of the tour, was manpower diverted from regularly-scheduled services to accommodate the Palin family’s visits and is this a routine practice for visiting celebrities?” Blumenauer added.

National Park Service spokesman Jeffrey Olson said his understanding is that Palin received customary treatment for a visiting celebrity and that the costs of her visits were nominal at best.

“We see celebrities on a regular basis, it’s something that we’re used to,” Olson said. “We give them a tour but we also try to not make it a bug hoo-ha for all the other visitors. So it’s kind of standard fare if there’s a celebrity or two that show up we do a special program for them.”

That usually involves rangers and interpreters that are on the job regardless. “That’s why it’s not an extra cost for us,” Olson said. “We just try to make sure everybody has a good experience at a national park.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Maybe that’s what is getting Rep. Blumenaur’s goat – that Palin is seen as, and treated like, a celebrity. Oh, but the best part? Palin was not the one who requested the Park Police provide an escort while she was at the Statue of Liberty. Rather, it was one of the officers in charge who did that. Oops – so much for this little “gotcha” attempt by Rep. Blumenaur.

One of the commenters at this Politico.com article was kind enough to post a video of another “celebrity” getting a private tour at the Statue of Liberty. I wonder if Rep. Blumenaur was so quick to investigate the money spent on THIS tour:

I am going to guess, no, Rep. Blumenaur did NOT demand an accounting from the Parks Service for Rep. Weiner being able to go where people had not been able to go since 9/11. But, hey – that’s different, right? Yeah, sure, right.

And in an incredible twist of irony, Rep. Weiner called President Clinton to apologize to him for this whole sexting scandal. President Clinton officiated at Weiner and Huma Abedin’s wedding.

Gee, I wonder what the conversations are like between Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin?

Blech. This whole thing is making me ill – support for this immoral, unethical piece of work (Weiner), and attempts to take down someone as a result of PDS. The hypocrisy is staggering, and I am just sick of it.

How about you? Feel free to talk about the issues above, or anything else on your mind today.

But here’s the thing – this man apparently has a history of treating women horribly. From another maid in Mexico, to a reporter doing an interview, to prostitutes in New York City, he has a history of rape in the worst cases, and rough treatment in the cases of the prostitutes (provided by the same madam, Kristin Davis, who provided prostitutes to former NY Governor, Eliott Spitzer).n A recent book details the rape of the maid in Mexico (which went unreported), along with 14 other women who claim sexual assaults by this man.

Aforementioned madam, Ms. Davis, would not provide any more prostitutes to Strauss-Kahn due to his abusive behavior. The last time was when Strauss-Kahn was going to NYC for a conference with President Clinton:

[snip]Kristin Davis said she provided young women for the IMF chief in 2006, as he ran for the French Socialists’ presidential nomination, and that one complained about his “aggressive” behaviour.

“He was a client of my agency,” she told The Daily Telegraph. “When men abuse women I’m no longer going to protect their identities”.

[...]

Miss Davis, 35, who claims to have a long list of celebrity clients, said Mr Strauss-Kahn called her directly on her mobile phone and paid $1,200 cash for two-hour sessions in hotel rooms.

“He wanted an ‘All-American girl’, with a fresh face, from the mid-West,” she said. “A girl in January 2006 complained he was rough and angry, and said she didn’t want to see him again”.

In September 2006, Mr Strauss-Kahn travelled to New York for a conference hosted by Bill Clintonn September 2006, Mr Strauss-Kahn travelled to New York for a conference hosted by Bill Clinton. Miss Davis claims that month, she sent him a Brazilian-born prostitute who reported that “he was rough”, said Miss Davis, adding: “She told me not to send any new girls to him.” [snip]

Well, I would think not. Sheesh.

As to the other women, I do have a nagging question, which the author of this Telegraph article alluded to, as well:

A deluge of fresh allegations of sexual misbehaviour engulfed Dominique Strauss-Kahn yesterday.

The 62-year-old International Monetary Fund chief, who is accused of the attempted rape of a chambermaid, is said to have targeted young students, ‘behaved like a gorilla’ with an actress and had flings with the widow of an Italian academic.
As Strauss-Kahn languished on suicide watch in New York’s Rikers Island prison following the alleged sexual assault at a Manhattan hotel, the new claims sent further shockwaves reverberating through France and the financial world.

The revelations will trigger more questions about how the IMF’s managing director escaped censure during his rise to become one of the world’s most powerful money men and a potential president of France.[snip]

NO FREAKING KIDDING. That is what I would like to know. With all of these women, in a number of countries, being on the receiving end of, at best, inappropriate advances, and at worse, rape, how is it that NO ONE went after this man?? Go check out this article, and see the long list of women that we KNOW about who had dealings with Strauss-Kahn, just to give you an idea:

[snip]The mother of Tristane Banon, a Parisian novelist who claims to have been subjected to a frenzied sex attack by Strauss-Kahn nine years ago, used the Facebook website to deliver a scathing attack on her daughter’s alleged aggressor.

[...] French socialist politician Auriele Filippetti said the IMF chief had groped her in 2008 and from then on vowed to make sure she was never alone in a room with him.

Piroska Nagy, a Hungarian economist who had a brief affair with Strauss Kahn when both were married in 2008, told investigators that he had a problem and that she felt coerced into sleeping with him because of his senior position and aggressive advances. [snip]

Now that is a story we have heard all too often, isn’t it?

And what was the response to Strauss-Kahn’s arrest in France? Now, let me just say – I love France. I have had great interactions with the French when I have visited there, so this is disturbing to me:

[snip]President Sarkozy is said to have rolled his eyes and said ‘We did warn him’ after hearing of his arrest.

[...]

Most French people believe fallen Strauss-Kahn is the ‘victim of a plot’ over the charge that he tried to rape a hotel chambermaid.

A poll found that 57 per cent of French people think he was ‘framed’ in a bid to ruin him.

Among socialist voters, 70 per cent believe the Left-wing politician has been set up. (Click here to read the rest.)

I guess that answers my question as to why no one has censured this man, or brought charges against him before: because they will not be believed, and he will be held blameless, considered the “victim” of some nefarious plot, not as an (alleged) rapist/serial sexual abuser.

Though the President of France saying they “warned him” is telling – about just what DID they warn him? And was their concern for HIM, or for the WOMEN? I think we can guess the answer to that, can’t we?

Well, hopefully he will not get away with it this time, though. It is far past time, if these claims are accurate (and I have no reason to believe they aren’t, especially since they are coming from all different sectors from a number of different women in a number of different countries). I would not be at all surprised to see more women come forward to levy charges against Strauss-Kahn. Thank heavens for the courage of the maid in NYC, though had other women done so previously, perhaps she would have been spared this horrendous fate, at least at the hands of Strauss-Kahn (allegedly).

Perhaps now, he will get his comeuppance, not just a roll of the eyes and a “warning.” One can hope, anyway…

Amy,

Help us rebuild more lives in Haiti I recently traveled to Haiti and visited Leogane — the city at the epicenter of the earthquake — where I witnessed the incredible rebuilding efforts you have helped make possible.

I met Jerry Joseph, an inspiring father, who was so proud to tell us how he uses his new IT skills to help build network sites and provide technical support in his town.

The technical training Jerry received was from Inveneo — a Clinton Bush Haiti Fund grant recipient. With the salary that Jerry earns he is able to send his five-year-old son to school. The future looks bright for Jerry and his son Jerus.

Jerry is just one of many success stories I saw in Haiti. And there will be many more stories to come as we continue our transition from emergency relief and assistance programs to long-term reconstruction efforts, which promote job growth and economic opportunity.

The critical work to rebuild Haiti continues. Be a part of it by making a donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund now:

http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/donate-today

The creation of jobs does more than change individual lives. Economic stability has the power to transform whole communities and allows Haiti to chart its own successful future.

While visiting the town of Jacmel, we witnessed the powerful impact artisan sales to stores like Macy’s can have on a community. These sales were made possible through organizations like BrandAid and Fairwinds Trading.

As our Fairwinds Trading partner explained, “It was stunning to see this town after that first order from Macy’s hit. The vibe changed. Suddenly there was work, jobs, money was flowing. People were smiling.”

You made these smiles possible. BrandAid and Fairwinds Trading are examples of two incredible Clinton Bush Haiti Fund recipients.

I spoke with Haitians encouraged by job growth. Small business owner and artisan Gerard Dumas, who cares for seven children, previously employed four to five people. He now employs 15 people as the direct result of business through Fairwinds Trading.

Help us transform even more communities. Make a donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund today and help us build back Haiti even better:

http://clintonbushhaitifund.org/donate-today

The road to economic security for Haiti will be a long one, but we’re seeing progress in Haiti and we remain hopeful.

Wow, it sounds like things are really turning around there – for some, at least.

What I found to be striking, and disconcerting, about this letter from Mr. Edson is that it said NOTHING about how women are faring in Haiti. See, I had just read the following article by Tracy Wilkinson of the LA Times a day before I got this email, “Rape Flourishes In Rubble Of Haitian Earthquake.”

Well, the title gives you a pretty good idea of what is happening to women in Haiti. In all honesty, this article brought me to tears. It is disturbing on so many levels, including how much a part of the culture sexual assault against women, and girls, is:

Halya Lagunesse thought she knew despair. Nearly seven years ago, the soldiers who had killed her husband gang-raped the Haitian woman and her daughter Joann, who was 17 at the time.

But that pain pales in comparison to the torment of learning last March that her 5-year-old granddaughter had been raped.

The attacker gave the child about 50 cents to go and buy rice. On her way back, he intercepted her and dragged her into a cemetery.

“How did that happen? How did that happen?” Lagunesse, 50, cried, wringing her hands.

“This situation does something to their minds and makes people sick,” she said. “Their hearts are bad.”

Hers is a tragedy of rape compounded: Her granddaughter, now 6, was conceived in the gang rape of her daughter.

Six years old. A child conceived by rape is raped herself at SIX YEARS of age.

As to the culture in Haiti, there is this:

Rape wasn’t even considered a serious criminal offense in Haiti until five years ago.

The women who pushed for the legislation making it so also built Haiti’s first shelter for abused women. Next they had hoped to make fathers legally bound to acknowledge their children and pay some support.

Haitian women are the poorest and most disenfranchised in this poorest of nations in the hemisphere. And yet, through the work of a spirited coterie of feminist activists, real strides were being made.

Until Jan. 12, 2010.

How disturbing is that, that rape was not even considered serious until five years ago. The effect of the earthquake is far-reaching:

Haiti’s cataclysmic earthquake killed hundreds of thousands, left this capital in ruins and sent more than a million people into a life in crowded, squalid camps.

It also devastated a strong and surprisingly successful women’s movement, which, a year later, struggles like the rest of the nation to recover, even as women are being subjected to horrific sexual violence.

So much has been lost.

Magalie Marcelin, the indefatigable activist with the gap-toothed smile who founded one of Haiti’s most important women’s advocacy organizations, Kay Fanm. Crushed to death as she mentored an aspiring feminist.

Myriam Merlet, broad-faced, cheerily abrasive and endlessly effective, whether in her position at the Women’s Ministry she helped shape or lobbying for the rape law she helped enact. Died in her home under a ton of concrete.

And there were so many more, equally and less famous, midwives, nuns and professors, peasant leaders and government officials, all who worked for women. All gone.

“It was a very big loss,” activist Danielle Saint-Lot said. “We cried together. We are mourning together.” [snip]

Indeed. Not only were so many people lost, so much devastation to this already poor nation, but the impact on women and girls is tremendous.

How is it that Mr. Edson missed this in his upbeat review of the situation in Haiti a little more than a year after the quake? He made no mention whatsoever of women in Haiti, and what they are enduring. That is just shameful.

Well, there is the obvious answer to that question, and it is not a good one. Suffice it to say, I am not exactly running for my checkbook to give more money to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. Rather, I will find a women’s organization working there to support instead.

But I am getting ahead of the story. It is a long article, and I cannot possibly reprint it all here. I encourage you to read the article in its entirety at the LA Times. But here is just a bit more of it:

[snip]
“If you tell anyone,” one of her attackers threatened, “we will kill your brother or your sister.”

After the rape, Simone, 23, sought medical attention. Then an organization that helps rape victims, Kofaviv, took her under its wing and gave her psychological counseling.

But she still lives in the plastic-tarp tent, and her attackers lurk, murmuring their threats, watching her.

“I feel very unsafe,” said the young woman, whose bright eyes widen as she tells her story. “I have nowhere else to go. I am tortured.”

Rape has long been a scourge in Haiti. It was used as a form of political repression in 1994 and in 2004, periods of upheaval when military dictators and their brutish gangs of enforcers seized power. Men who opposed the regime were abducted and killed, women raped. An entire generation of Haitians is filled with children of rape.

The earthquake generated new shockwaves of sexual violence. Hundreds, maybe thousands — there is no comprehensive count — have been raped. Some of the assaults are crimes of opportunity, but increasingly they seem a calculated, predatory form of stalking and attacking.

Only a few of an estimated 1,300 tent encampments that are spread through this shattered capital have nighttime lighting or significant police presence. Tents do not have doors or locks. People are jammed together in dehumanizing density without privacy.

[...]

Young women are easy prey for uneducated, unemployed men who populate the camps, often stoned and with time on their hands. They see women and girls as fair game. Many women have denounced camp leaders, always male, for demanding sexual favors in return for tents, food and building materials.

Activists are bracing for a jump in teen pregnancies and HIV and AIDS cases, whether from rape or unprotected sex, since clinics that dispensed birth control and advice were also destroyed. The United Nations estimates that Port-au-Prince needs at least 1,000 maternal-care clinics. There are 10. [snip](Please click here to read the rest.)

Why is that? Why do so few of these encampments have lighting or a security presence? It seems to me that should have been a major priority post-earthquake: the safety of those who are left. Given that rape and sexual assault are so problematic in Haiti, it is astonishing that more money, more work, more intention has not gone to doing so. It is also unacceptable.

One organization working for the women of Haiti is KOFAVIV. You can access them on Facebook, or through MADRE, another women’s organization which is working with this organization, which was established by rape victims for rape victims in Haiti. If you are so inclined, you can make a donation through the MADRE site.

What is happening to the women in Haiti is reprehensible, abhorrent, and unacceptable. It must stop. And it would sure be nice if the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund added Women’s Rights (and security) to the list of their programs in Haiti (if it is there, I missed it). Until then, I’ll be sending my money to women’s organizations who ARE doing the work to secure women’s and children’s rights, their HUMAN rights, to be free of fear and sexual assault.

And maybe Mr. Edson needs to take another look at what is happening to over half the population in Haiti before he paints so rosy a picture…

One thing this brief biography does not say, though, is that she also has family in Egypt. She knows whereof she speaks when she says the following from The Daily Beast post regarding the Egyptian uprising and the Muslim Brotherhood in particular:

Don’t buy the hype about the moderate Muslim Brotherhood. Kirsten Powers on why the U.S. should worry about the rise of an Islamic power in Cairo. Plus, full coverage of the Egypt unrest.

Americans are notoriously naïve.

This is the message I am getting from people I know in Egypt today.

When the protests first began in Egypt, I was in constant contact with an Egyptian relative who is a successful businessman, university professor and astute student of world politics. As my husband and I panicked for our family’s safety, this relative was calm, assuring me that Hosni Mubarak would appoint an interim government and that there would likely be an important role for Omar Suileman, who is a well respected leader in Egypt. Both these things quickly came true. Day after day he assured me that everything would be fine. He was sure that the Muslim Brotherhood—which he regards as a radical Islamist group – was not organized enough to gain any significant power.

Today, he was not so calm. Our family in Egypt is shocked and alarmed by what they are hearing from Western voices and even the apparent leading opposition candidate Mohamed ElBaradei—who has partnered with the Muslim Brotherhood — who claim that the Brotherhood is a moderate group that should not be feared.

As of this writing, all of the news sources are reporting one thing – Obama got his demand. That demand, as I have written previously, is that he wants the Muslim Brotherhood to have a seat at the table. And so they will. It is just disturbing beyond belief that a US President would make such a demand for a group like the Muslim Brotherhood, yet he did. Shocking.

Ms. Powers also speaks about the Christians in Egypt and the difficulties they face. The bombing of a Coptic Church on January 1st in Alexandria in which 23 people were murdered, and 79 hurt, is a case in point. Just the other day, two Coptic Christian families were shot and killed, a total of 11 people, including children.

It leaves me speechless, and incredibly sad. So, I will return to Ms. Powers’ post:

[snip] As a liberal, I have a very hard time with the idea that I’m not supposed to care about a potential government that is oppressive to minorities and women.

During the last elections, the Brotherhood’s slogan was “Islam is the solution.” Its logo is a black flag with a sword and the Koran.

[...]

I spent much of yesterday interviewing American experts on the region—including two Brookings Institution scholars who are experts on the Muslim Brotherhood—and was reassured over and over that the organization has reformed and does not seek to establish a fundamentalist state. One claimed that Brotherhood officials have said they view Copts as equal citizens.

My relative laughed at this. He says when Brotherhood members have been asked about how they would treat Christians they are vague. When asked about whether they would nationalize the banks, they are vague. Even one of the Brookings scholars told me that the Brotherhood would probably segregate the sexes. This is far from a secular group.

I had a similar reaction when an old friend tried to claim that the BBC said the Muslim Brotherhood was moderate now, and opposed to violence (something not in the Profile they did). This organization gave birth to the likes of Hamas and Al Qaeda, and we are honestly supposed to believe this organization, which helped fuel the recent protests, has changed their stripes, with a slogan like, “Islam Is The Solution” (and, “Resistance Is Futile?”)? Uh, sure, okay.

Ms. Powers seems to be of the same opinion:

Our family in Egypt always makes the point that if the current regime—which is considered moderate and quasi-secular—arrests people who convert from Islam to Christianity, what do you think it will be like if power is seized by a group that has as its explicit goal the spread of Islam?

One of the things I consistently hear from the Egyptian Christians I know is that Islamists know the right things to say in order to gain power. They are sophisticated. They are especially astute at telling Westerners what they want to hear.

[...]

As a liberal, I have a very hard time with the idea that I’m not supposed to care about a potential government that is oppressive to minorities and women. I also do not support theocracies—Muslim, Christian or otherwise even if they aren’t fundamentalist. If find it strange that so many American liberals aren’t concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated mission to “spread Islam.” It’s hard to imagine them being so unconcerned about a Christian political group with the stated mission of establishing a Christian theocracy gaining power in a new government.

If the Muslim Brotherhood wants to evangelize Islam on its own time that is fine; but it shouldn’t be able to use government power to do so. I should also note that it is already against the law for Christians to share their faith in Egypt—and that’s under a quasi-secular government. (Human Rights Watch last year accused Egypt of “widespread discrimination” against Christians and other religious minorities.)

This isn’t to say that Mubarak deserves our support. He’s an oppressive dictator. But all the Americans who are supporting the participation of the Muslim Brotherhood in the new government need to understand who they really are. Beyond my own personal concern for the treatment of Christians and women, fundamentalist Islamic governments generally aren’t known for being pro-American.

I shared with my Egyptian relative that most experts I spoke to here believe that Turkey is the model that Egypt will follow.

Again, laughter. (Click here to read the rest.)

Yeah, I bet. But I’m not laughing. Again, I have to ask, why does Obama have so many connections to this organization? How can that possibly be, and why are so few people concerned about that given for what they stand?

And in all honesty, I am thankful I had a chance to go to Egypt when I did. Muslims of the Brotherhood variety don’t deal too well with people of my persuasion, or gender, for that matter. Because for what the Muslim Brotherhood stands, “Islam is the Solution,” is to promote Sharia Law. Let me give you just a few more examples of what that means for, oh, let’s just begin with homosexuals (from Top Ten Reasons Why Sharia Is Bad For All Societies):

In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’

Anyone want to take bets on how long those men survived having a stone wall pushed over on them? Yeah, I wouldn’t take that bet, either.

How do women fare? Well, heaven help you if you are married:

[snip] The Quran says:
4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” (Bukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr: Muslim no. 2127:

‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’

Oh, sure, that’s the old school talk. But hey – you can check out this cleric describing the proper way for a man to beat his wife a year ago in Egypt. Wait until you see the justification for it:

Well, okay then – as long as you don’t curse her when you beat her, then things are just peachy keen.

Good grief. Oh, there is so, so much more to Sharia Law along these same lines.

Tell me again why, and how, Obama is so connected to the Brotherhood? How is it he asked a member of an outlawed group to attend his big speech? Why does he keep pushing for them to have a seat at the table?? I really want to know.

What will it take to break through Americans’ naivete about Egypt, about the Muslim Brotherhood, and Sharia Law? I’m with Ms. Powers. I am not okay with Egypt being given over to Islamic Rule, for women, for Christians, for the stability of the Middle East, and the impact on Israel.

I can only think of our lovely tour guide, how proud she was of how far women had come in her country, how they only had to wear the hijab, that they were able to work, and go to school. I hope, and pray, for her sake and all the women there, that Egypt does not give over to the conservative elements. I guess this is one of the times that, truly, only time will tell.

And no, I am not referring to the trial currently going on in Phoenix in which a father is accused of running down his own daughter because she had become too Westernized. Yes, the one to which they refer as an “honor killing.” That trial is ongoing, and is also disturbing on a number of levels. That is what Sharia Law looks like.

So is this: the whipping, and subsequent death, of a 14 year old girl who had been raped by her 40 year old cousin, for ADULTERY, in Bangladesh. Yes, she was accused of adultery because her cousin was married. As the BBC reports, being lashed to death was the second “punishment” she received:

[snip]The family members of the married man also allegedly beat the girl up a day before the village court passed the sentence in the district of Shariatpur.

“Her family members said she was admitted to a hospital after the incident and she died six days later. The village elders also asked the girl’s father to pay a fine of about 50,000 Taka (£430; $700),” district superintendent of police, AKM Shahidur Rahman, told the BBC.

He said it had not been established yet whether she died because of the punishment she received or another reason.

“We are still waiting for the post-mortem report. In the meantime, we are also looking for another 14 people including a teacher from a local madrassa in connection with this case,” Mr Rahman said.

Activists say dozens of fatwas – or religious rulings – are issued under Sharia law each year by village clergy in Bangladesh. [snip]

In theory, Sharia Law has been outlawed in Bangladesh, and four people, including a cleric, have been arrested for this fatwa. That will not bring back Hena Begum, though:

“What sort of justice is this? My daughter has been beaten to death in the name of justice. If it had been a proper court then my daughter would not have died,” Dorbesh Khan, the father of Hena Begum, told the BBC.

He said those responsible for the death should be punished.

A group of people held a rally on Wednesday in the town of Shariatpur in protest against those who gave the fatwa and demanded action against them.

This is the second reported fatality linked to a Sharia law punishment since the practice was outlawed last year by the High Court.

A 40-year-old woman in the district of Rajshahi died in December, days after she was publicly caned for allegedly having an affair with her stepson.

Nearly 90% of Bangladesh’s estimated 160 million population are Muslims, most of whom practise a moderate version of Islam. (Click here to read the rest.)

Good for Bangladesh for outlawing this practice, though clearly, it is still being conducted in certain segments of the population.

So tell me again why a federal judge has put a halt to the ban of Sharia Law passed by the vast majority of voters in Oklahoma?

Or why the Oklahoma University Student Government would vote to condemn the ban on Shariah Law (no, I am not making this up)? Are these students really okay with women and girls being killed by their family members for an alleged infraction (apparently, it does not have to be proved)? Are they really okay with a “Harry Potter” actress, Afshan Azad, being beaten by her brother because she has a non-Muslim boyfriend? (Her brother got a six month sentence.) Are they really okay with hands being hacked off of thieves? Do they have the faintest clue what Sharia Law means? I would say, Hell No.

And the lack of logic employed by these students is disturbing in and of itself. One student said this:

[snip] Daitch, a Jewish student, said no one should be singled out in state law and that the ballot question easily could have singled out Jewish and Catholic teachings, as well as Islam.

“I hope that if my faith was under attack, someone would stand up for me,” she said.

“What if the bill outlawed Jewish law? And technically the 10 Commandments are international law, and I don’t think many Oklahomans would appreciate
knowing that they outlawed parts of their own faith.” [snip]

This is not about the Muslim faith per se. It is about allowing one religious group to insert their own set of laws over and above the laws of the country in which they live. While the Ten Commandments may inform a number of our laws, I dare say if people started putting people to death in this country for wearing mixed fabrics, something clearly forbidden in Leviticus 19:19, these same students might be a tad concerned. Especially if any of them also eat pork, or shellfish, or any other of the numerous prohibitions in the Hebrew Scriptures that don’t end well for the offenders. But people are not allowed to put to death someone who “spills their seed upon the ground” (Gen.38) because that would be allowing the laws of one particular faith to supercede the laws of the land. Hence the separation of church (or temple or synagogue) from state. It’s kind of a foundational concept for our country. Just saying. (Just what the hell are they teaching at OU, anyway?)

Because we have been manipulated into thinking that if we say ANYTHING negative about Islam, we are Islamophobic, intolerant, racist, xenophobic, and on and on and on. I’m sorry, but I am just not okay with women or girls being murdered or beaten by their family members for some perceived infraction that has “dishonored” the men. I am not okay with it, and I do not understand these folks who are.

To extend blanket, uncritical, acceptance of any group in an effort to be “tolerant” is just wrong-headed. It is NOT okay to beat women, it is NOT okay to wage jihad, it is NOT okay to cut off limbs, it is not okay to cane, flog, or stone people. Any attempt to make this acceptable, under the guise of “political correctness,” is deplorable.

This is what Sharia Law looks like, the flogging to death of a 14 year old girl. The murder of a daughter. The beating of a sister. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood wants to implement not just in Egypt, but around the world:

[snip] “God is our objective, the Koran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of God is the highest of our aspirations” — the Brotherhood since its founding has supported the use of armed struggle, or jihad. The Brotherhood supports the waging of jihad against non-Muslim “infidels,” and has expressed support for terrorism against Israel, whose legitimacy the Brotherhood does not recognize, and against the West, particularly the United States….[snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

To defend this is not “politically correct.” No. Rather, it is uninformed, uneducated, uncritical, idiotic parroting of a party line, the purpose of which is to hide the oppression of an entire segment of the population, and the radical intent to do harm. That isn’t “politically correct,” that is just stupid.

And we should name it as such. Don’t take my word for it. Take it from someone who has lived under this practice:

Name it indeed. Call it what it is and stop doing the work for those who wish to wage jihad against us, or implement Sharia Law in Egypt, or in Europe, or in the States. Name it. Call it out. And do not let people get away with justifying these kinds of practices in the name of “tolerance.” Call them out.

These progressive champions don’t seem to realize they have delivered the President more grievous insults than the ones they have long sought to protect him from. By framing President Obama as lacking in leadership skills, or being held captive by the opposition party, or too beholden to the far left of his own party, these pundits are telegraphing their belief that he is too soft, not a capable executive, not responsible for his own actions and a victim.

Their reasons for depicting Obama this way are their own, but I suspect it is too horrible for them to contemplate that they were taken in by branding and attractive rhetoric. Mr. Obama is doing precisely what he has done since well before his election – capitulate in the face of challenge. Were the “principles” pundits expected the President to uphold really his or theirs? A candidate must draw a line in the sand via his or her own record, demonstrating a willingness to go down fighting for a cause over the course of years before it can be proven that such principles are any more than projections by optimists wanting to be swept up by “history” and romance.

His State Senate record in Illinois recalled a man who voted “present” 130 times, along with 6 “wrong” or “oops, I hit the wrong button” votes. As a freshman US Senator he missed over 40% of his votes, particularly risky ones. In 2008, he reneged on FISA, was guilty of double dealing on NAFTA, reneged on his written promise to take public financing in his presidential campaign, and surrounded himself with corporatist advisors like Austan Goolsbee who have long favored privatizing Social Security. Contrary to his upstart, new kind of politics image, he receiving more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and was backed by the old guard of the Democratic Party. He praised President Reagan while belittling President Clinton and campaigned down south with Donnie McCurkin, ex-gay man “reformed through prayer. That the Obamas had long lived beyond their own means, receiving help with their house purchase from now convicted felon Tony Rezko and his wife should have given pundits pause.

This list went largely unchecked.

Most important, though the left favored Obama because of his purported anti-war stance, his little known 2002 anti-war speech regarding Iraq involved no vote or political risk yet when in the Senate three years later, he voted twice to continue funding a war he disagreed with.

Reviewing the above facts along with contradictory campaign promises Mr. Obama made in 2008, one has to wonder who these pundits thought they were urging the rest of us to vote for. And why do they complain that he is behaving in an unthinkable or incomprehensible way now? If one logically considers his record and his actions, not just his words, his current behavior was at least somewhat predictable via his past deeds.

President Obama showed himself to be a political opportunist wont to help those who helped him the most. Ergo, special considerations to unions and corporate bailouts by the truckload. This is not to fault Mr. Obama by the way. He presented his best self to the American people. If there were those who chose not to question his contradictions, who would not take advantage of such great good fortune?

The fault and responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media and pundit class who abjectly refused to do their jobs in vetting Mr. Obama as a candidate. Those of us on the ground who saw inconsistencies and voiced our concerns were roundly and viciously insulted.

Further, the current furious flailing and complaints of liberal pundits are as empty and false as their previous accusations of “racism” were toward President Obama’s critics. Come 2012, they will all fall in line behind his candidacy, believing Republicans to be six kinds of evil. This is precisely why our President feels comfortable capitulating on tax rates, or pushing healthcare (without a public option) that is years away from being fully enacted rather than concentrating on putting Americans back to work. As far as President Obama is concerned, the left “has nowhere else to go,” despite Politico posting an article yesterday stating that President Obama was continuing and even growing a number of President Bush’s past policies.

While editorials on Huffington Post, diaries on DailyKos along with other print media are rumbling about a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, the likelihood of its success is slim. And whether one feels the left’s wish list is right or wrong headed, or “sanctimonious” – as President Obama just called it – is hardly the point. Unless those who are furious now are willing to lose to win, offering more than idle threats, we will have more of the same rhetoric that we have been getting from both parties for years – lip service paid to a cause without effective solutions or legislation to back it up.

Solutions, anyone?

YES!!!! By a vote of 7-3, the Peace and Justice Commission of Berkeley passed a resolution claiming Manning should be freed, and is a hero. The resolution now goes to the City Council:

An Army private jailed for allegedly leaking sensitive military data is a hero and should be freed, according to a resolution under consideration by the Berkeley City Council.

The council is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to declare its support for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who’s suspected of providing WikiLeaks with classified military documents and a video depicting an Army helicopter attack in Baghdad in which 11 civilians were killed. [snip]

Oh, boy. But wait, it gets better:

“If he did what he’s accused of doing, he’s a patriot and should get a medal,” said Bob Meola, the Berkeley peace and justice commissioner who authored the resolution. “I think the war criminals should be the ones prosecuted, not the whistle-blowers.”

The proposed resolution originated from the same commission that declared the Marine Corps “unwanted intruders” in Berkeley in 2008. The council’s ensuing approval – and reversal – ignited some of the city’s most raucous protest in years and prompted more than 25,000 e-mails to City Hall.

Now that should tell you all you need to know. I don’t know about you, but when my back is against the wall, if I had to choose between one of these yahoos and a Marine, I’d take a Marine any day of the week. But that’s just me.

Okay, now I know that there can be times when the release of sensitive information, whistle blowing, has resulted in positive changes. I get that. But to declare this soldier who stole classified information, information that is putting lives at stake (according to our Secretary of State, the director of the DOJ, and former President Clinton), does not a hero make. IMHO, that is.

So, how about those “no” votes? This is what one of them had to say:

[snip] Commissioner Thyme Siegel was one of the three “no” votes.

“We’re just sitting here in Berkeley – we don’t know that Afghani informants aren’t being murdered because of these leaks,” she said. “Bradley Manning sounds like a very sincere person, but I’m sorry, we really do have enemies, and it’s not clear at all what the effects of these WikiLeaks are.” [snip]

You’re damn skippy, Ms. Siegel. That’s my point. Not just for the Afghani informants, but for intelligence assets and US personnel around the globe.

In case you were wanted to know more about the resolution, it continues:

Berkeley’s proposed resolution thanks Manning “for his courage in bringing the truth to the American people and the people of the world.”

Army officials had no comment on Berkeley’s resolution, but said that leaking classified data can endanger the lives of informants, provide useful information to the enemy and undermine the trust of those working with the military, according to Department of Defense spokesman Bob Mehal. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Ah, yes – “courage.” Is that what we are calling treason these days? Providing classified information to a foreign national? Give me a break already. Manning isn’t exactly Karen Silkwood. He stole classified information, is cocky as hell about it all, and does not appear to be doing it in a “whistle blowing” kind of way, but more of a, “hey, look what I did!” kind of way. Big, big difference.

Not too long after I picked my jaw up off the floor from reading this article, I received the following email from Voters for Peace, with this in the Subject line: “ON BEHALF OF JULIAN ASSANGE AND WIKILEAKS.” Wow. You know I had to open it. The email reads:

Challenging U.S. Empire and its illegal and unjust wars are at the heart of our work at VotersForPeace.US.

This mission calls us to the active defense of journalist Julian Assange, WikiLeaks.org and the courageous whisteblower(s) who are dealing the most powerful blow to U.S. Empire in recent memory with the continuous massive release of documents now rocking world capitals and dominating the global media.

In an attempt to intimidate and silence others, there is serious concern that the U.S. government will try to make Assange an example by manipulation of existing law or the creation of new laws retroactively applied charging him with crimes in the United States and pressuring other governments to extradite him to the USA.

We must create a culture where it is safe and supported to tell the truth about our government’s activities. We must encourage more people to have the courage to reveal what they know about the murder, torture and corruption committed in our name.

We must stand up to protect all whisteblowers and truth tellers in the face of a U.S. government which is increasingly unaccountable to citizens, to domestic or international laws, or to our Constitution.

Recall that The New York Times has admitted it checked every document it published with the government beforehand. We must say to the Empire, “We draw the line HERE. Step back. We will not sit silently while you make this journalist and good government activist into a criminal to drive fear into the hearts of any other who would oppose you. We will resist.”

Please consider signing this petition as an expression of your support for peace, justice, and democracy, www.WikileaksIsDemocracy.org.

Sincerely,

Linda Schade
Co-founder, Voters for Peace

WTH? The “U.S. Empire”?? Are these some of the same people involved in “Hacktivism,” trying to disrupt Visa, Mastercard, and the Palins own personal credit cards,a long with Palin’s PAC to support what they consider to be WikiLeaks free speech rights? (Ironically, they have a narrow view of free speech. It only applies to them, and not to those who, like Palin, oppose what Julian Assange has done. Perhaps they can look up the term “hypocrite” in Wikipedia to see if their picture appears there. Just a suggestion.)

Meanwhile, looks like the DOJ is finally getting its act together (seriously – how long have they had to look into possible wrong-doing?). According to the UK Independent, “Assange Could Face Espionage Trial In The U.S.” What a concept.

Now – about Bradley Manning – will he face additional charges? A court-martial, perhaps? Huh – I wonder what the people in Berkeley would do then? I shudder to think. How about you?

The release of State Department cables by Julian Assange at WikiLeaks has continued to have an impact at home and abroad. I am still not sure how it is this man has not been charged with espionage, or Pfc Bradley Manning with treason for providing classified information to a foreign national, but that is just me. That Assange is still free after not one, not two, but three massive data dumps of sensitive, classified information, is beyond me.

Recently, Philip Shenon of The Daily Beast had this article highlighting some of the effects of these leaks, After the Leaks, the Shakeup. This is disturbing, to put it mildly:

The Obama administration is planning a major reshuffling of diplomats, military officers, and intelligence operatives at U.S. embassies around the world out of concern that WikiLeaks has made it impossible—if not dangerous—for many of the Americans to remain in their current posts.

Administration officials tell The Daily Beast that while planning is only in its preliminary stages, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA assume that they will have to shake up staffing at a number of American embassies and consulates within the coming months.

The shakeups are most likely at embassies where U.S. diplomats and other officials wrote classified cables—made public by WikiLeaks over the last week, or soon to be made public, with the Americans identified by name and title—in which they were harshly critical of corrupt or incompetent local government leaders.

I find this so troubling on a number of levels, not the least of which is that Assange has put lives at risk as a result of his personal vendetta against the United States. Additionally, he has ruined the work of some of our diplomats who will have to be reassigned:

[snip] “We’re going to have to pull out some of our best people,” said a senior U.S. national-security official, “because they dared to report back the truth about the nations in which they serve.”

“That’s another part of the tragedy of this,” said a senior U.S. national-security official. “We’re going to have to pull out some of our best people—the diplomats who best represented the United States and were the most thoughtful in their analysis—because they dared to report back the truth about the nations in which they serve.”

The State Department acknowledges that the WikiLeaks dump has done damage to American foreign policy, a problem that is likely to be compounded by the withdrawal of U.S. diplomats and other embassy officials who cannot be easily replaced because they are—not surprisingly—among the government’s best-trained specialists on the foreign nations and regions where they are now posted. [snip]

Former President Bill Clinton also stated that these leaks were going to cost lives. In addition to that most chilling thought, the State Department has to withdraw diplomats who have laid groundwork to establish diplomatic relations, thus ending all of their carefully orchestrated work. All because of this one man who stole our classified cables.

Tell me again why we have not levied espionage charges against this man?

There is a great deal to this article, and I urge you to read the entire piece, but there was a component of this that was particularly troubling:

[snip] In an interview with The Daily Beast, Edelman, now teaching at the School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, would not discuss the contents of the cables, because they are officially still classified. But he said their public release was one small part of the “absolute catastrophe to American statecraft” that would be created by the WikiLeaks dump.

“There’s every prospect of people getting killed over this,” he said, noting that State Department cables often identify local intelligence contacts who might now be targeted for violence. “Certainly you’re going to have to be very careful what you say to an American diplomat, if you say anything at all.”

Administration officials say it is impossible to predict how many American diplomats and other embassy officials may have to be moved out of their posts, and from which embassies and consulates, because it is still unclear exactly what more WikiLeaks intends to make public. [snip]

Indeed, Assange has threatened to release a tremendous amount of information regarding Gitmo and BP, which is being held by approximately 100,000 individuals should anything happen to the site, and to him, presumably. This is in addition to the promised dump of information regarding the banking industry, including Bank of America. In other words, he is holding the United States hostage.

Again, he has been charged with no crimes by our government.

Here is something else that I find to be very disturbing:

[snip] The Obama administration appears to have given up all hope of stopping the release of the cables since Assange is believed to have shared the full library with some of his deputies within WikiLeaks.

State Department officials insisted there was no panic within the department over the release of the cables by WikiLeaks, especially since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her aides have anticipated the release of the cables for more than six months.

Um, what? They knew this was coming (again – for the third time), and their response was what, exactly? To try and hack into WikiLeaks, plant a virus to disrupt the flow of this classified information that might endanger lives? No, not exactly:

[snip]A White House official tells The Daily Beast that “there have been no heart attacks” and that the State Department has been working for months to try to identify the U.S. diplomats and their local intelligence sources whose work—and safety—might be compromised in the cables released by WikiLeaks.

“We’ve known about this for some time,” Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley, the department chief spokesman, told reporters last week. “The compromise happened months ago. And we have been working diligently with other agencies of government to assess the impact, understand what might have been downloaded and provided outside of the government. We’ve been prepared for this day for some time.”

Philip Shenon is an investigative reporter based in Washington D.C. Almost all of his career was spent at The New York Times, where he was a reporter from 1981 until 2008. He is the bestselling author of The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation. He has reported from several warzones and was one of two reporters from The Times embedded with American ground troops during the invasion of Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War.

Ah, yes – to prepare for the release by identifying agents and diplomats. Well, that is important, I’ll grant you. But if we are supposed to be the most powerful nation on EARTH, how is it that this one man, Julian Assange, aided by some lowly private, is able to put lives at risk without the US impeding him? Why has he not been arrested? Why was he allowed to release such sensitive information?

I am no computer guru by a long shot, but I do know that people are able to plant viruses all the time. Most of us have had to deal with the fallout of a Trojan Horse getting into our computers. Is it really possible that the United States does not have hackers capable of doing that to shut down this site and corrupting the files? For real? I just find that to be incredulous – aren’t we supposed to have the best of the best, the brightest of the brightest working for our government to protect our national security and classified information?

I still do not understand how this private was able to gather all of this information. Who hasn’t seen spy shows in which the security of information is critical, and any attempt to swipe it sets off alarms all over the place? Do we not have that capability? Apparently, that is only in the movies…

Evidently not. So, PJ Crowley’s response to all of this is that they had been prepared for this day for some time? How about not allowing that day to happen at all? How about interrupting the flow of our classified information to the rest of the world? How about tracking down this asshole and ARRESTING him?

Am I missing something here? Because I am just at a loss as to why our government would not find a way to stop Assange. Again, that could just be me…

UPDATE: Julian Assange has been arrested in London on the Swedish sex crime charges.

In response to my queries, a reader at NQ provided this article from the Washington Post, “Why Prosecuting WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Won’t Be Easy,” which states this:

[snip] What law did Assange violate? It will surprise many that there is no statute making it illegal to reveal classified information. There are statutes that criminalize the disclosure of very specific types of classified information, such as the identity of a covert operative (think Valerie Plame) or “codes, ciphers or cryptographic systems.” But there is no catch-all law that simply says, “Thou shalt not disclose classified information.”

Indeed, when Congress tried to enact such a statute, President Bill Clinton sensibly vetoed it. His reason: The government suffers from such an overclassification problem – some intelligence agencies classify even newspaper articles – that a law of this sort would end up criminalizing the disclosure of innocuous information. And even that vetoed statute would have applied only to government officials, not to private individuals or journalists.

It IS a surprise, but that explains why “news” outlets like the NY Times could reprint the classified information.

But there is also this, which is why people like Sen. Diane Feinstein want to charge Assange with espionage:

Instead, prosecutors in the Assange case, like the prosecutors in the AIPAC case I handled (author Baruch Weiss), would resort to the Espionage Act of 1917, an archaic, World War I-era statute that prohibits “willfully” disclosing “information relating to the national defense.” According to Judge T.S. Ellis in the AIPAC case, this means that the prosecution must prove, among other things, that a defendant knew that the information he was disclosing was potentially damaging to national security and that he was violating the law. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

How could Assange NOT think it would damage the United States? Indeed, isn’t that his point? Moreover, if Assange commissioned the theft of this information, that seems like espionage to me. He obtained it somehow. And I still do not understand how this private was able to get away with this information, which raises some other questions…

The midterm elections are just three months away. All across the country, Democratic members of Congress are bracing for tough reelection campaigns, and doing so without a valuable asset. The sky-high approval ratings that carried Barack Obama into the White House in 2008 — and brought so many Democrats to Washington with him — have diminished, in some places greatly. Obama’s overall standing hovers around 45 percent and much lower in places like Arkansas and Missouri, where key Democrats are running in especially difficult races. That’s significant, because, as Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, has noted, ”When it comes to choosing candidates for Congress, it is opinions of the president’s performance that matter.” Today, many Democrats find themselves pondering a question that would have seemed unthinkable only a year ago: Does President Obama help them or hurt them?

Applied to President Clinton, that’s a much easier question to answer. He has emerged as the surrogate of choice for embattled Democrats.

Green goes on to describe Clinton’s successful efforts on behalf of Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, Mark Critz in Pennsylvania and significantly, Andrew Romanoff in Colorado – although the White House had endorsed his Democratic rival Michael Bennet. That race is now neck and neck, thanks to Bill Clinton.

In July, according to Gallup, [Clinton’s] favorable rating exceeded Obama’s for the first time. This resurgence is all the more striking because Clinton’s image took a beating in 2008, when many Democrats, including Obama staffers and members of Congress, denounced his attacks on Obama as racist — charges that split the party and that Clinton himself bitterly denied. He appears to have overcome this, but without quite forgetting it, either. What all the candidates he has endorsed have in common is that they were early supporters of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidential nomination.

Clinton also seems to be quietly making a point about race. He stumped for Blanche Lincoln in the predominantly black regions of Arkansas, and endorsed Kendrick Meek, a rising African American star, in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary, even though (or maybe especially because) both had been snubbed by Obama. It’s worth noting, too, that Clinton has not campaigned for candidates like Robin Carnahan in Missouri, who could use his support, but didn’t lend theirs to his wife.

Payback. Green mentioned a party operative with ties to both Clinton and Obama who noted Clinton had reached “cruising altitude” with Obama is “still taxiing.” President Obama is box office poison at the moment and is staying away from campaigning in many local races since his presence may be doing more harm than good.

It’s hardly surprising that a president stands to play a commanding role in the fall campaign. But who would have guessed it might not be Barack Obama, but Bill Clinton?

Um. We did. Bill Clinton has his failings but he was never a flash in the pan. And he and his wife actually left the country better than they found it.

Speaking of his wife, Secretary Clinton’s name crosses pundits’ and politicians’ lips more and more of late. It seems they have a new job in mind for her – savior of Barack Obama’s presidency. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad that these boobs are bandying her name as a replacement for Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket. Their theory being that she has “proved” she can play nice and be a good soldier, as if she has earned her keep like a good little girl and now can be “used” be save the man who has no idea what to do in the office to which he was elected.

None of these boobs can admit that she should have, and should have had, the top job in the first place.

Good luck with that.

Hillary has worked her butt off to save him on foreign policy while remaining separate and apart from the President’s domestic economic blunders.

As to the media who so abused the Clintons in 2008, who are now aching and crying for mommy and daddy to ride to the rescue of their errant son, there is a wonderful line from The Color Purple…

“Until you do right by me everything you think about is gonna crumble! …Until you do right by me, everything you even think about is gonna fail!”

So, to the pundit class, when you are ready to deliver your apologies, the line forms to the left.

Listening to our local FOX 25 this morning, a fill-in for the off-the-wall winger VB surmised that this weekend we witnessed the successful outcome of a kid raised with true family values, rather than talk.

Think about it.

Shy Chelsea moves into the White House when she’s 12. She lives through the glare of the cameras, the onslaught of the rightwing witch hunt of her mother and the scandal of her dad’s affair. Yet, she turns out to be a wonderful woman who marries the guy she met in high school.

So, the commentator on TV wanted to give Bill and Hillary props for their undeniable family values. In comparing Chelsea’s parents and Bristol Palin’s parents, he said something to the effect, that the “party of family values” could learn something from these two who actually practice it.

Bill and Hillary Clinton raised their daughter to be a woman that girls of every party and every religion can admire and emulate.

Here’s Chelsea through the years in photos below.

Cross-posted from the hampster nest over at http://www.partizane.com

Arkansas days

Young Chelsea

Family

Chelsea and Marc

Chelsea and Marc later

The smiling couple

Shortly before 11 p.m. local time, the Clintons exited a van arm-in-arm outside the Beekman Arms Hotel. The former first lady, in a long, green dress, waved to the cheering crowd waiting behind metal barricades outside and quickly went into the hotel. They left about a half-hour later.

Earlier in the day, Bill Clinton, looking fit and relaxed in blue jeans and a black knit shirt, walked with security a few blocks north from the picturesque village’s main intersection to the restaurant Gigi Trattoria.

Of course, he attracted a huge crowd, as both Hill and Bill usually do, and mingled among them answering questions:

“We’re all fine.”

“We love it here,” he said. “Chelsea loves the area as well.”

I was thrilled to see them both looking so joyous and all of us at NoQuarter wish a beautiful wedding day to Chelsea and Mark – and to Chelsea’s parents who have enduring such mistreatment at the hands of the press. One of the high points of the campaign of 2008 was soft spoken Chelsea hitting the campaign trail as her mother’s most effective surrogate.

It has been fascinating to watch the media tripping all over itself to offer more than mere speculation on this top secret celebration. Big media has been reporting on the high price tag of the wedding for 400 guests, quoting figures of $2 million or even more. Security and secrecy has added stress and expense to the event for a family whose tastes are not extravagant, according to ABC News.

I’m sure secrecy has been of huge importance so that the wedding is not invaded by paparazzi and other vultures. Yet I take any of the media dollar figures with a huge grain of salt. It would not surprise me to discover that the wedding is costing far less than big media’s outrageous estimates. They barely get anything else right when discussing the Clintons. Why trust this?

The UK’s Daily Mail reported yesterday on Chelsea looking exhausted the day before the wedding, as if no one on their staff had ever gotten married. The stress of the upcoming event, and the fact that one is doing a lot of last minute prep accounts for a less than stellar appearance as one is racing about town. Trust me — Chelsea will make a lovely bride!

The top secret event to be held at Astor Estates in picturesque Rhinebeck is a huge event for the town and has had reporters speculating on the guest list as well. The Obamas have politely declined an invitation. The Gores will not be in attendance either. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, Former British Prime Minister John Major, and Ted Turner are reportedly on the list of the hottest event of the summer…

My hope is that every face Chelsea and Mark see at their wedding will reflect love and light back to them and give them yet more reason to celebrate. That is as it should be.

(photo courtesy Arkansas Times)

We’ll be keeping you posted of new developments but for now, we wish all the best to the Clinton family as they celebrate their daughter’s wedding.

The Republicans don’t do that! That kind of repudiation didn’t happen to Bob Dole, GHW Bush, or Gerald Ford. Of course, the Republicans have the advantage of not losing nearly as many presidential elections. I guess that kind of skews things. Dubya still has plenty of supporters among Republicans, and thanks to Obama’s miserable presidency, even some Democrats nowadays think wistfully back to the good old days of The Dub!

President Bill Clinton hasn’t been completely cannibalized, but many Democrats have tried to cut him off at the knees. I find that hard to understand. Bill Clinton was the only Democratic President since FDR to win and serve two full terms of office (the only other Democrats to do so were Woodrow Wilson, and the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson). He presided over a period of unprecedented prosperity, turned the national deficit into a surplus, and managed to conduct military operations (as part of NATO) in Bosnia and Kosovo without loss of American lives. Despite his accomplishments, many Democrats, those of his own political party, hate the man! And they extend that hatred to his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or CDS, is how some of us refer to this bizarre hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Obama is President because the Democrats would have won in 2008 no matter who they nominated, and the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, in the delirious throes of CDS, decided amongst themselves that they didn’t want Hillary to win because they didn’t want the Clintons back in the White House. That’s why so many people blame Bill Clinton’s controversial impeachment for Hillary’s loss.

She was the best candidate in the field of aspirants, but the Clinton’s themselves often promoted the idea that they were “two (Presidents) for the price of one,.” starting with the campaign of 1992. Many people of both parties really disliked that notion for some reason. Perhaps it’s too much like royalty for their tastes, having a family in charge of the country instead of one leader. Maybe it’s just too much of a good thing.

It seems these Democrats, most of whom defended the Clintons in the 1990s, have bought into the Republican propaganda with the militant zeal of the newly converted. We expect it of Republicans, but it just seems weird coming from the those who are still Democrats. The vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons won, I guess.

Republicans started trying to take the Clintons down during Bill’s first election to the White House by calling him a draft dodger and Communist sympathizer. They pounced on accusations from women who claimed Bill had affairs with them, or worse. They tried to bring the Clintons down with endless investigations. They couldn’t find any legal wrongdoing by the Clintons, even after years of a Special (Republican) Prosecutor trying to pin the tail on the donkey.

They finally managed to corner Bill into denying, under oath, that he had “sexual relations” with Miss Blue Dress, sparking the national debate over whether oral sex performed by one individual on another constituted “sexual relations” when no intercourse occurred. Many agreed with Bill’s definition, others didn’t. But no other president has ever been forced to testify under oath about his sexual dalliances. If they had, the list of perjurers could be quite long, but Bill was the only one faced with it in the age of DNA testing. So far.

This fudging of the truth, when confronted on camera with evidence of marital infidelity, resulted in his being impeached (accused) on the charge of perjury by the House, but subsequently acquitted (found “not guilty”) by the Senate. How conveniently people overlook that acquittal.

Bill stood his ground, continued as President, and finished his second term. He even remained very popular, with high approval ratings to the end of his term of office.But because he had been impeached, he became anethema to many in the Democratic Party. His impeachment will be forever remembered by both dumbasses and selective-memory types, as “he was thrown out of office for getting a blowjob at his desk.”

Listening to some of these idiots, you’d think Bill so befouled the Oval Office that Dubya Bush had to have it sand-blasted before he’d set foot in it.

Meanwhile, during his travails and after, Hillary won much sympathy from many people, while others got very angry with her for staying with Bill. My own view is that it’s nobody’s business but the Clintons. But talk about class and character! How many of us, of either gender, could keep our chins up as well as she did when Bill’s sexcapades made headlines? I think there were a few news reports that she was furious, maybe even one report (true or not) that she threw something at him. Rumors abounded that the reason Bill strayed was because she was a lesbian, and other rumors that their sexual relationship was definitely over when the Monica story broke. I doubt any of those rumors and reports held much truth. She may have made him sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom for awhile, but I believe their marriage is based on love and devotion, and that they weathered the storm as well as any couple could, or better.

But these opinions carried over into Hillary’s political career, with some saying she had no chance of success because of Bill, or because she stayed with Bill, or just because they’ve always hated her for being too outspoken. So Bill was the albatross around Hillary’s neck as much as he was, as others have put it, her escalator to the Senate.

What I was hearing during the early part of the primaries, in 2007 and early 2008, was that Hillary didn’t stand a chance because of Bill. They just couldn’t imagine Bill keeping his nose clean, let alone keeping it out of her decision-making. Ironically, these are some of the same folks who used to joke about President Hillary being the one who was really in charge in the 1990s.

What my liberal friends kept saying was that they REALLY didn’t want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House. They offered a variety of reasons. Some have always hated Hillary for their own twisted reasons, or they are desperately ashamed of Bill because of his impeachment and all that it entails. Or perhaps they’re just jealous of him because they’ve never had a BJ themselves.

I see the Clintons as a Power Couple, a pair of equals who communicate well and share their opinions with each other openly. I suspect Hillary voiced her opinions to him when he was the POTUS, and I would imagine he is her closest counsel as well. Personally, I like the idea of getting a two-fer.

There’s no doubt Hillary has always been a power in her own right, a force to be reckoned with. Having been a successful high-profile attorney, after a brilliant university performance, she married an aspiring politician who became governor of Arkansas a few years after they married. She was First Lady of Arkansas for ten years, which put her into politics.

To detractors who say she wouldn’t be the powerhouse she is on the national political stage without riding Bill’s coattails, I would say that’s also true of all the (mostly male) politicians who got where they are by hitching their wagons to other (mostly male) politicians already in power. Or perhaps they were born into it. And they say America hates dynasties.

Bill may have made Hillary a star, but she helped make him what he was/is, and she shared with him the experience of being Arkansas’ First Couple for a decade. Did she rise to fame in politics because of him? Certainly. But the same is true of him. It’s definitely true that successful couples nurture each other, bring out the best in each other, and grow together. True, he held the offices, but it’s not like she was confined to the kitchen in an apron and pearls. She’s no Donna Reed. And definitely no Tammy Wynette!

So the questions remain, the speculation continues, and the opinions are all over the road. Did Bill’s notoriety keep Hillary from winning the nomination? Or will he eventually help propel her into the Oval Office? I hope for the latter. But she may have to have it sandblasted first.

Jiminy Christmas, how this crowd has changed! And not changed! I took a one-year sabbatical from writing diaries, but I was always lurking up in the attic with Ceiling Cat. While I was keeping up with the blog, she was watching you closely all along, and she told me that some of you have been very naughty. Very naughty indeed!

About the time I faded from these pages last summer, there were two camps of loyal Hillary fans:

Those who wanted her to shun the Obama administration, and those who were happy she became Secretary of State. One group didn’t want her anywhere near this administration because they rightfully saw it as an endorsement of He Whose Middle Name Must Not Be Spoken, and even as a betrayal of those who worked so hard for her to become The First Female POTUS… only to have her turn traitor to our cause. I understand that point of view with a lot of empathy.

On the other hand, I ultimately think she did the most admirable thing by agreeing to serve her country as Secretary of State, regardless of who was President. Accepting the position of SOS comprised the most politically expedient, the most patriotic, and the most noble things she could do, given the cards she was dealt. So I guess that puts me in the other group. Do I sound wishy-washy? I am. But I’m just being an Independent Moderate, as always. Like Bill Clinton, I see myself as adhering to the Third Way, his famous philosophy of middle-of-the-road compromise, letting both sides win a little something.

From what I’ve heard since the summer of ’08, Hillary was not eager to serve in this administration, but agreed to become SOS after multiple requests from the “president-elect.” It’s quite easy for me to imagine a lot of soul-searching on her part, as evidenced by her last few campaign speeches, as she asked the crowd what she should do, what her followers would want her to do, after ceding the nomination fight. Perhaps she should have spent her political capital in one big binge, overtly working to expose the Obama campaign’s illegalities. If she had done anything like that, she’d have ruined her reputation. A too-high price to pay for what most would interpret as a pity party, serving up sour grapes.

My friends, I am 100% convinced that’s how it would have been portrayed, had she protested as much as we wanted her to. Behaving ungraciously would have been unthinkable. Others would have to expose Obama. She couldn’t, Bill couldn’t, and even her most rabid followers shouldn’t (maybe especially them!). She did the right thing, the only thing she could do. Fortunately she was wise enough to know that acting honorably was her only choice, despite being cheated not only of the Presidency, but the simple right to hear her delegates counted at the Convention, like all her predecessors had enjoyed. For her to face that much disrespect from the DNC, Obama, and his handlers, and still put on the eye-popping patriotic performance she did at the Convention, well, it just completely blew me away! I had to laugh because I knew that deep down in her heart she was on the level ABOVE the High Road! And yet she made it very clear that the voters had blown it!!

I guess she could have graciously turned him down and recused herself to her humble duties as a Senator, perhaps retiring from public life when her term expired. Hmmm. Let me think… obscurity, or traveling the world to engage with heads of state and be treated like royalty. And even have many opportunities to influence the destiny of the world. Hmmm. Such tough choices!

I know a lot of people here wanted her to be in this administration, especially as Secretary of State, to enhance her clout and to serve (save?) her country, as I have always thought she should. In fact, many indignantly insisted that she MUST be offered a major position at the highest federal level. It was owed to her, since she wasn’t offered the VP slot, but then “The vice presidency isn’t worth a pitcher of warm spit, ” according to John Nance Garner (vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt). So other than being a federal judge, even a Supreme, which sounds boring and depressing to me, I think the role of SOS fits her best, plays to her strengths, and balloons her prestige throughout the whole world.

The main reason she didn’t get elected, according to many opinions I have heard, and I believe it to be true: she was still married to Bill. This may keep her out of serious contention for the near future, I fear. Morbid as it sounds, I think she will have a much stronger chance to win… as a widow. I hope that day doesn’t come soon. I love Bill Clinton, for all his flaws and foibles. I hope he’s around a good long time to come.

I’ll have more about Bill and his impact and influences on Hillary when next I climb down from the attic. Soon, I hope. The heat up here is unbearable, and this nosy cat is driving me crazy!