I am sure you will be SHOCKED to learn that Obama is acting in much the same way. I know, I know – what a surprise. Ahem. Well, it seems some one has been doing a little investigative journalism, something in VERY short supply of late. But get this – I tell you, you better be sitting down – in this case, it was – WAIT FOR IT –
MSNBC. YES, the very network to which we routinely refer as “MSNBO”! Once I recovered from the shock of it all, I couldn’t wait to see just how transparent President Obama was compared to Bush. (I wonder if there is a way for us to do a pool on these kinds of things, like for NCAA basketball or something?)

This is what MSNBC uncovered in this report:

Obama Names 110 White House Visitors

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the hundreds of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

The emphasis there is mine. This is a bit of a schizophrenic opening. On the one hand, they want to champion that Obama released 110 names – Woohoo!! On the other hand, they have to acknowledge that, once again, President Obama is using the SAME arguments as Bush. Moreover, this “Constitutional Scholar” is doing so in clear violation of not one, but TWO federal court rulings! Maybe the KoolAide was made improperly that day, I don’t know, but the report continues:

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year. There are limitations there as well, including potential Supreme Court nominees, personal guests of the First Family, and certain security officials.

The names released Friday include business leaders and lobbyists with a lot to gain or lose from Obama policies. They include Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates (whose foundation is pushing for changes in teacher pay), former AIG chairman Maurice Greenberg, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, Citigroup’s Vikram Pandit, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, JP Morgan’s James Dimon, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis, John Stumpf of Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley’s John Mack, State Street bank’s Ron Logue, BNY Mellon’s Robert Kelly, labor leader Andrew Stern of the Service Employees International Union (22 visits)*, American Bankers Association CEO Ed Yingling, community bankers president Camden Fine, and lobbyists Heather and Anthony Podesta, whose brother John Podesta led Obama’s transition team.

Besides Gates, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt are also on the list. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC. One of NBC’s parents is GE.)

Advocates and nonprofit leaders include National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is interested in health policy.

So, this is how Obama is paying these people and organizations back, by having them in the White House? I bet Kim Gandy was just all aflutter after she threw ALL women under the bus to endorse Obama over a life-long women’s advocate. There is more on her below.

I know many readers will be interested in this White House guest:

Democratic donor and businessman George Soros visited with White House aides twice.

Yes, indeedy, a major funder of Moveon.org has been to check up on his biggest investment – ahem – twice.

We’re just getting started:

Political figures include former Sen. Thomas Daschle, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Al Franken, former Vice President Al Gore, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, and Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf.

Celebrities at the White House include Oprah Winfrey, actors Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Denzel Washington, and tennis star Serena Williams. Journalists include Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Conservative religious leader Gary Bauer visited, as did liberal civil rights leaders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Okay, the last two, along with Oprah, are NOT a surprise. Gary Bauer? Just a tad surprising.

For anyone who wants to see more:

Msnbc.com has put the full list in a handy PDF file, and also in an Excel file for those who like to sort.

One guest is mighty interesting:

Not that Bill Ayers

The White House warns that many names that may appear familiar — and controversial — do not in fact refer to the most famous people to carry those names. Jeremiah Wright is on the list, but it’s not the president’s former pastor. This Michael Jordan is not the basketball player. This Michael Moore is not a filmmaker. The William Ayers who took a group tour of the White House isn’t the former radical from Chicago who figured so prominently in the 2008 campaign. And the Angela Davis on the list has a different middle initial than the activist and former fugitive.

The White House could have avoided some of that sort of confusion by providing more information on the visitors, such as an employer name and the city they hail from. For example, is the Shawn Carter who attended a poetry reading the same one who goes by Jay-Z and had campaigned for Obama?

“This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information,” a White House special counsel, Norm Eisen, wrote on the White House blog.

If you spot a name on the list that bears investigating, please drop us a note.

Of COURSE we will just trust Obama and his spokes-minions when they assure us that this Bill Ayers could not POSSIBLY be domestic terrorist – Capitol Building and Pentagon bomber – long time friend and mentor Bill Ayers! He is just some guy who wanted to visit the White House Gift Shop and pick up a couple of Marine One helicopter models for his boys. I am sure of it. Sheesh. Really? They expect us to believe this crap? Evidently – they got plenty of other people to believe that kind of crap and more, so why stop now?

Okay – if you are consuming any liquids right this minute, I suggest you put it down when you read this:

Limited release

Despite the accompanying White House claim of “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” the Obama White House continues to take the same legal position as the Bush White House, arguing that the records are not public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Only limited “voluntary releases” are being made to settle a lawsuit filed by an advocacy group, though a federal judge has twice ruled that all the visitor logs are public. (Again, emphasis is mine.)

Yet there are severe limitations to the transparency:

Most of the visitors from Inauguration Day to September will never be released by the White House under this voluntary disclosure — unless the public can guess their names. The White House policy doesn’t allow members of the public or press to ask for “everyone who visited health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle,” or everyone who visited on May 4, or everyone from the American Medical Association. Only individual names can be checked.

I know, right? Didn’t this sound just a little pissy?? From someone at MSNBC?? The bigger picture is that the Obama Administration is BREAKING THE LAW. Hell to the YES, that information falls under FOIA – this is OUR White House, not the Obamas. We most definitely DO get to know every single John Smith and Jane Doe who cross the threshold of the White House. You better believe we do.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but it is a start:

The list released at 4:30 p.m. Friday includes just about 110 names with 481 visits. Those names were among those requested by members of the public so far, for visits during the period from Inauguration Day through July. (That’s why we know of visits by the wrong Bill Ayers, the wrong Angela Davis, etc., but we don’t know of visits by countless unnamed lobbyists.) Members of the public who used the White House online form to check names did not receive a personal reply indicating whether or not the request was received, or whether the name appeared on the list, so the system provides no feedback. Does the absence of Bill Clinton’s name on the list mean that he has not been to the White House, or that the request wasn’t received by the White House online system?

A request for the complete records of all visitors from the first months of the administration, filed by msnbc.com, was rejected by the White House, and an appeal is pending. The news organization requested the names of all visitors to the Obama White House beginning with Inauguration Day. Msnbc.com has filed an administrative appeal with the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service.

Say whaa?? The White House rejected a request from their lapdog “news” source?? Huh. There’s a shocker. Welcome to the “Under The Bus” club, MSNBC!

The Wall Street Journal focused on the most frequent visitor to the White House. He was mentioned in the list above, but without the acknowledgment of the frequency:

SEIU’s Stern Tops White House Visitor List

Promising “transparency like you’ve never seen before,” The White House released its visitor log this evening under a new voluntary disclosure policy.

The log chronicles 481 visits to the White House from individuals ranging from Jay-Z to Bill Gates from January through July.

The list includes William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Michael Moore, Robert Kelly (R. Kelly), Malik Shabazz, and Michael Jordan.

But the White House said those aren’t the guys you’re thinking of. Nor is the log complete.

Ahahahahahahaha!!! I just cannot get enough of this one – sure, they aren’t the same people. Yeah, okay, we believe you. NOT. And because it is just so much fun to see them squirm, I am keeping in the part that is repetitive of the article above, especially the quotes from Eisen. Oh, what a funny guy:

“A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few ‘false positives’ – names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else,” Norm Eisen, a special counsel to the president, writes on the White House blog. “The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House. Nevertheless, we were asked for those names and so we have included records for those individuals who were here and share the same names.”

Adds Eisen: “This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.”

Uh, ya know, I think we are all smart enough to not get all confused by this incredible level of “transparency.” Beginning with, we actually know the definition of “transparency,” something Eisen and Obama apparently do not.

And then there is this:

One thing is clear: *Service Employees International Union President Andrew Stern holds sway at the White House, where he’s listed for 22 visits—the top number on the logs. Visitors in the top 10 also include former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy, and NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan.

So THAT’S what Gandy and Keenan got for stabbing Hillary Clinton and, well, WOMEN, int he back – visits to the White House. I guess there is something gained by selling your soul, though, personally, I don’t think it is worth it. But that’s just me.

Anywho – yes, the President of the SEIU, again, the union co-founded by the founder of ACORN, Wade Rathke, is the TOP visitor at the White House. The SEIU has been in the news quite a bit, especially for holding California hostage – threatening that their good buddy, Obama, would not give the state any federal stimulus funds if it had the audacity to expect the union to cut wages like everyone else so the state wouldn’t go bankrupt. NOW we know how the union was able to do that. All those visits to the White House apparently paid off – for the union, not California, the state with one of the largest budgets around (as in 5th in the world). What makes this more egregious is that California pays a lot into the federal tax system and receives little comparatively speaking. And this union is allowed – by the White House – to hold it over a barrel. Yep, all those meetings seemed to do the trick!

Aren’t you just so heartened by all of this “transparency”? And by seeing who Obama is welcoming into our White House? Yeah, me, too. As long as the Obama Administration continues to thumb its nose at Federal Law, I reckon we should be “thankful” for this (no, not really – it’s BS that they are still sitting on so much information).

Oh, but if you can just GUESS who might else have been there and submit that form asking them, maybe you can confirm some other folks who have been there, too. Lemme know what you find out, okay? I am sure we would all just love to know…

Oh, and these positions aren’t just “fun” ones, like being the Ambassador to the Bahamas, for instance. You may have heard of this position: US Attorney General. Yes, indeedy, Eric Holder was an Obama contributor, though comparatively speaking, he and Susan Rice got their jobs for not a whole lotta green (between $50 – 100,000). Ain’t politics GRAND?

Naturally, rhese are paid positions – and the pay is mighty nice, as you will see below. What you might not realize is that there are actually professional diplomats. You know, people who know how to play the game of diplomacy. They would not be in this group of folks Obama is putting into these plum roles, either. Oh, you know they’re happy about that – not.

Fredreka Schouten had this article in USA Today, Top Obama Fundraisers Get Posts. She should have written, “Plum Posts” in her title:

More than 40% of President Obama’s top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama’s campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.

Overall, about 600 individuals and couples raised money from their friends, family members and business associates to help fund Obama’s presidential campaign. USA TODAY’s analysis found that 54 have been named to government positions, ranging from Cabinet and White House posts to advisory roles, such as serving on the economic recovery board charged with helping guide the country out of recession.

Nearly a year after he was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington, Obama also has taken a cue from his predecessors and appointed fundraisers to coveted ambassadorships, drawing protests from groups representing career diplomats. A separate analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats’ union, found that more than half of the ambassadors named by Obama so far are political appointees, said Susan Johnson, president of the association. An appointment is considered political if it does not go to a career diplomat in the State Department.

That’s a rate higher than any president in more than four decades, the group’s data show, although that could change as the White House fills more openings. Traditionally about 30% of top diplomatic jobs go to political appointees, and roughly 70% to veteran State Department employees. Ambassadors earn $153,200 to $162,900 annually.

Dang – that’s a mighty nice salary! Can you imagine being the Ambassador to, well, anywhere, but I’ll pull one out – BELIZE – and getting that kind of salary? And BONUS – you don’t even really have to know how to do the job!! Sheesh! No wonder real diplomats are a bit peeved:

“It is time to end the spoils system and the de facto sale of ambassadorships,” Johnson said. “The United States is best served by having experienced, knowledgeable and trained career officers fill all positions in our diplomatic service.”

The administration is “well aware of the historical target of career vs. non-career ambassadors, and we will be right on that target,” said White House spokesman Thomas Vietor. He said the first round of diplomatic jobs traditionally go to political appointees because those are the first available when a president takes office.

Vietor said Obama also made it clear early on that he would “nominate extremely qualified individuals who didn’t necessarily come up through the ranks of the State Department but want to serve their country.”

Among the top Obama fundraisers with jobs: former technology executive Julius Genachowski as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and Nicole Avant, a music industry executive who is the top envoy in the Bahamas. Neither granted interview requests.

Always a man of his word, that Obama. Ahahahahaha – I could barely type that out. I mean, he does say words, and so what if he rearranges the order of those words from time to time so that their meaning is the exact opposite of what he said previously? Picky, picky.

I know you are worried about those people who gave Obama a bucket of money who DIDN’T get to come work in the White House, or in Paris. Don’t you fret – Obama is taking care of them, too:

Those not in the administration benefited in other ways, including attending invitation-only White House bashes, such as a St. Patrick’s Day gala.

Fundraiser David Gail, a Dallas lawyer that the campaign identified as raising between $100,000 and $200,000, joined dignitaries in July for an East Room country music concert featuring Alison Krauss and Charley Pride. He said he greeted Obama after the event but doesn’t have special access to the president, who was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington.

“I’ve seen people who have been included on conference calls or events who were very involved at the grass-roots level,” Gail said.

“Contributing doesn’t guarantee a visit to the White House,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday, “nor does it preclude it.”

Oh. My. GODDESS. Have you ever seen such mealey mouthed contradictory hooey? Oh, wait, you probably have – the LAST time I quoted Gibbs. You know, someone who can hedge like that ought to have a career in landscape design, for cryin’ out loud.

Okay, so some of these people aren’t ambassadors, or the US Attorney General, or Chair of the FCC, but they are still getting by:

Others not on the campaign’s list of official bundlers also have reaped rewards.

Sacramento developer Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, a fundraiser in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign, was nominated this month by Obama to serve as ambassador to Hungary. Clinton is now secretary of state.

Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis did not respond to interview requests, and her office referred calls to the White House.

It’s too early to tell how big a role Obama’s fundraisers will play. On the ambassador front alone, nearly 100 top positions remain unfilled, according to the American Foreign Service Association’s tally.

Ronald Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, wants Obama to limit political appointees to about 10% of diplomatic jobs. “The direction is not good,” he said of Obama’s appointments to date, “but you cannot definitively say what the picture will be for the whole administration.”

“The direction is not good.” Uh, yeah. These are the people either running our country, or having an impact on foreign affairs, or charged with ensuring the very laws that govern our land. And you wonder why Washington is such a mess. The people who are running it are the ones who washed someone’s back, and are simply getting their payback. It is some kind of payback they are getting, too – plum positions, and positions of power. All because they have deep pockets. I bet that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside (for me, it is my blood pressure rising).

Below is the list of people thus far, also from the USA Today article. Have fun perusing it and seeing just what a few hundred grand will get you. Wait, is THAT the kind of “change” Obama meant??

FROM FUNDRAISER TO STAFFER

President Obama has named 54 fundraisers to government positions. Here’s a look at who they are and how much they raised. The campaign reported fundraising in broad ranges only.

RAISED MORE THAN $500,0000

Nicole Avant Ambassador to the Bahamas
Matthew Barzun Ambassador to Sweden
Don Beyer Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Jeff Bleich Ambassador to Australia**
Richard Danzig Member, Defense Policy Board
William Eacho Ambassador to Austria
Julius Genachowski Chairman of Federal Communications Commission
Donald Gips Ambassador to South Africa
Howard Gutman Ambassador to Belgium
Scott Harris General Counsel, Department of Energy
William Kennard Ambassador to the European Union**
Bruce Oreck Ambassador to Finland
Spencer Overton Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Thomas Perrelli Associate Attorney General
Abigail Pollack Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Charles Rivkin Ambassador to France and Monaco
John Roos Ambassador of Japan
Francisco Sanchez Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade
Alan Solomont Ambassador to Spain and Andorra**
Cynthia Stroum Ambassador to Luxembourg**

RAISED BETWEEN $200,000 and $500,000

A. Marisa Chun Deputy associate attorney general
Gregory Craig White House counsel
Norman Eisen Special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform
Michael Froman Deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs
Mark Gallogly Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Max Holtzman Senior adviser to the Agriculture secretary
James Hudson Director, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Jeh Johnson General counsel, Department of Defense
Samuel Kaplan Ambassador to Morocco
Nicole Lamb-Hale Deputy general counsel, Commerce Department
Andres Lopez Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Cindy Moelis Director, Commission on White House Fellows
William Orrick Counselor to the assistant attorney general
John Phillips Chairman, Commission on White House Fellows
Penny Pritzker*** Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Bob Rivkin General counsel, Transportation Department
Desiree Rogers White House social secretary
Louis Susman Ambassador to the United Kingdom
Robert Sussman Senior policy counsel, Environmental Protection Agency
Christina Tchen Director, White House Office of Public Engagement
Barry White Ambassador to Norway
RAISED BETWEEN $100,000 and $200,000
Preeta Bansal General counsel, Office of Management and Budget
Laurie Fulton Ambassador to Denmark
Fred Hochberg President, Export-Import Bank of the United States
Valerie Jarrett Senior adviser to the president
Kevin Jennings Assistant deputy secretary of Education
Steven Rattner Treasury Department adviser
Miriam Sapiro Deputy U.S. trade representative**
Vinai Thummalapally Ambassador to Belize

RAISED BETWEEN $50,000 and $100,000

Eric Holder Attorney general
David Jacobson Ambassador to Canada
Ronald Kirk U.S. trade representative
Rocco Landesman Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts
Susan Rice Ambassador to the United Nations

** Nominated, not yet confirmed by Senate; *** National finance chairwoman
Sources: Obama campaign, Public Citizen; White House; USA TODAY research
Contributing: Andrew Seaman

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush – absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already – THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

Um, aren’t these EXACTLY the same things OBAMA is planning on doing? Let’s see – he attacked Hillary Clinton during the Primaries by claiming she would fine people who didn’t have insurance. She never said that, but now Obama is. Obama claimed in the campaign that McCain was going to cut money from Medicare and tax people on their insurance, and now Obama is planning on doing both! WTF???

Oh, wait – Obama was emphatic with George Stephanopoulos that it is NOT a tax on insurance. Heck, no, no way, could this exchange make anyone think this is a tax:

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

You can watch the exchange here to get the fuller picture, and new definition:

No disrespect or anything, President Obama, but you make shit up all the time! Jeezum crow! And you’re going to get all testy with George? I reckon you forgot that you are trying to WOO people over to your plan, not antagonize them. Oh, wait, I forgot – this is upside down world. A world in which people who have the audacity to actually question you are rude, but one in which you can flat out lie about people who disagree with you. I got it. New definition of rude – check!

Well, that was the whole tax issue. How about cutting Medicare? Uh huh:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s go to Medicare then…

OBAMA: Good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …because you also said that no one will lose what they have. And Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, says that the cuts you’re looking at in Medi — the Medicare Advantage program…

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …are going to force people to lose coverage they now have.

OBAMA: No. Here — here’s what’s going to happen. These are essentially private HMOs who are getting, on average — and this is not my estimate, this is Democrats and Republicans, experts have said — they’re getting, on average, about 14 percent more over payments, basically subsidies from taxpayers for a program that ordinary Medicare does just as good, if not better, at keeping people healthy.

Now, they package these things in ways that, in some cases, may make it more convenient for some consumers, but they’re overcharging massively for it. There’s no competitive bidding under the process.

And so what we’ve said is instead of spending $17 billion, $18 billion a year, $177 billion over 10 years on that, why wouldn’t we use that to close the donut hole so the people are actually getting better prescription drugs…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator Nelson says it’s going to…

OBAMA: …Why don’t we make sure that we’re using some of that money to actually make people healthier?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he said it’s going to cause beneficiaries right now to lose what they have.

OBAMA: Look, I understand that change is hard. If what you’re saying is that people who are currently signed up for Medicare advantage are going to have Medicare and the same level of benefits, but they may not be having their insurer get a 14 percent premium, that’s absolutely true and will the insurers squawk? You bet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They may drop the coverage.

OBAMA: No, these folks are going to be able to get Medicare that is just as good, provides the same benefits, but we’re not subsidizing them for $18 billion a year.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So Senator Nelson, he wants to pass an amendment that shields anyone currently on Medicare advantage from any cuts. Do you support that?

OBAMA: George, I’m not going to be negotiating a particular provision of the bill, sitting (ph) down with you here right now. What I am going to say is this: the basic principle that is indisputable is that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare that is not making people healthier. I want to make sure that we’re using that money to actually make people healthier.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if people lose their Medicare advantage?

OBAMA: What I have said is we’re not going to take a dollar out of the Medicare trust fund. We’re going to make sure that benefits are just as strong if not stronger. We’re not going to subsidize insurance companies in ways that end up creating a situation that Medicare is actually weaker and has a less financial foundation, because right now, we’ve got eight years from now potentially Medicare going into the red.

If you get a chance, go watch the video. It seems to me that Obama gets JUST a tad testy…

One itsy, bitsy problem. The Health Care bill does say tax. Page 29 of the bill:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

And here’s a little bit of advice for President Obama, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a safe bet that it’s a duck. But when the duck is clearly labeled as a duck (or in your case, a tax, or a cut in services, or a lie) it is a duck. So stop pretending a tax is not a tax, especially when it is labeled a tax. Just as folks understood that fellatio was a sex act they also are able to figure out that having to give the Government more money out of their pockets is a tax no matter what it is called. You may not understand what an “excise tax” is but some of us are actually able to tell the difference. But thanks for playing.

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.

Now is when I remind you that not only does Obama have very strong ties to ACORN (he worked on their behalf as a lawyer at one point), and its sister organization, SEIU, and let’s not forget that Obama gave $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate to “get out the vote” during the Election Season. And ACORN, the alleged non-partisan organization, currently under investigation in at least 14 states for voter fraud, the organization that helped create the Fanne Mae/Freddis Mac fiasco, is receiving YOUR tax paying dollars, $53 million to date, and stands to receive $8.5 Billion in Stimulus money.

The aforementioned article? It is this: Former Leftist Activist, Turned FBI Informant, Pulls Back the Curtain On ACORN. Well, you know that caught my eye right away – this guy, Brandon Darby, was a leftie activist, like many of us were, but unlike most of us, worked with the FBI on terrorism. Here is Darby’s story:

I first experienced ACORN in post-Katrina New Orleans. I was part of a relief organization, Common Ground Relief, which had been delivering much needed aid to the 9th Ward, an area that had been hit especially hard by the flood waters and by neglect. Rumors immediately began surfacing, questioning our motives and intentions. I was very confused by these rumors. Who was behind them? How could anyone question the vital work we were doing in the community? We lived and worked in the 9th Ward. We suspended our regular lives and, in many cases, left our families to travel to New Orleans to help those affected by Katrina and poverty. We slept on dirty plywood floors and shared everything we had with the residents. Most of us were white. Was our skin color the issue? I knew from personal experience that the majority of the Black 9th ward residents didn’t care what color our skin was. It took me awhile to get over the hurt I felt at such allegations and to find out where they were coming from.

In the following weeks, I was made aware of the fact that ACORN had reopened its New Orleans office (several months after the storm). Various groups from around the city informed me that Acorn was upset with us because we were in “their” community and had not sought approval from ACORN to operate there. I was told that ACORN said that we were “privileged white people who had come to a Black community as saviors and we refused to work with local Black leadership.”

The more I pondered the matter, the more I realized what was happening. As usual in marginalized and impoverished communities, a small group of radical self-proclaimed leaders was insisting that all local aid and relief came through them—even if they were AWOL for several months. Though the majority of residents either hadn’t heard of ACORN or simply disagreed with their politics- ACORN insisted that they were THE Black leaders. This was upsetting to me. Sure, the local pastor we worked most closely with was Black; but that didn’t matter to ACORN. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t evoke the name of Elijah Mohammed or Malcolm X. It was as if Pastor Johnson didn’t count because he didn’t submit to ACORN’s mandate that ACORN was the sole leadership of Black New Orleanians.

Am I reading this correctly? Only black people can work with black people as far as ACORN is concerned? Dang, I bet all of those organizations and churches who sent so many people and aid to New Orleans didn’t know the rules. I know I didn’t when I sent money, and took my niece and nephew there post-Katrina to spend tourism dollars as requested. I think we all thought we were helping our fellow Americans. This is a bit of a shock, I have to say.

Back to the article:

As then director of Common Ground Relief’s 9th Ward project, I was warned by many that ACORN would ruin me politically if I didn’t submit to their leadership. I believed in what I was doing and how I was doing it. I refused to submit. The political fallout was almost unbearable. I just kept my eyes on meeting the needs of the community. When confronted by adherents to ACORN’s brand of race analysis, I pointed out that ACORN was not there immediately after the storm, so I could not have sought their leadership even if I had wanted to.

Over the following years, that particular style of political attack was prominent in New Orleans. Anytime that ACORN was displeased, the other party was deemed a racist. If the other party disagreed with the label or with ACORN’s agenda- they were met with “of course you feel that way. You are a racist.” Though it is clearly woefully inaccurate and unethical to use such an accusation as a political attack and as a means of shutting down philosophical debate and discourse, some at ACORN didn’t let that stop them. I refused to submit to it. I believed in listening to the majority of the community, who were desperate for our help, and not only to the self-proclaimed leaders. I paid a dear price for it.

This is disturbing on so many levels, not least of which is the people there NEEDED this help. They still do. People who WANT to help, who take time to do this, are then treated shabbily, and labeled racist to boot. Wow. I can only imagine how that felt to Darby after all his work there on behalf of that community.

And where does the FBI fit into all of this? Here’s how:

I returned to Texas after a couple of years adminst the political quagmire of post-Katrina New Orleans. My experience there with various groups was educational and life-changing, though some of these groups concerned me. Eventually I began to see some of them as dangerous and deceitful about their missions. This, along with a growing appreciation of my country helped lead me to work with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

I was as proud of this new era in my life as I was of my time in New Orleans. I had the privilege of participating in efforts where lives were saved; both in the United States and in Israel. While working undercover with the FBI at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota, I helped to uncover a bomb plot. Two men had made firebombs with a homemade napalm mixture of gasoline and oil. Their initial targets were Republican delegates. These bomb-makers (domestic terrorists) later decided to attack a staging area for the Secret Service and other law-enforcement agencies. Fortunately, they were stopped and arrested.

I was asked, and agreed, to testify against them. As was expected, the more radical elements of the media began to attack both me as an individual and the FBI as a whole. One of the men accused plead guilty; the other hired an expensive defense attorney and concocted a story about the FBI building these bombs to “set up left-wing activists” and stop dissent. But once the facts became clear, the defense changed their story and instead tried to blame the FBI for ”influencing” the terrorists. Thankfully, after one hung jury and many months of intense media attacks against me, the other bomb-maker (domestic terrorist) decided to come clean and admitted to the judge that he had invented the whole story.

What does any of this have to do with ACORN? I wondered the same thing on January 31st of 2009 when I was reading an ACORN blog that is run by Wade Rathke (the man who claims credit for founding ACORN). He devoted an entire page to my work with the FBI. How did he describe the FBI’s effort and success in preventing innocent Americans, local police and federal agents from being burned, maimed and/or possibly killed by firebombs? He wrote that it’s “one thing to disagree, but it’s a whole different thing to rat on folks.” That is what ACORN’s founder had to say about my role in stopping a bomb plot.

I was even more shocked as I continued reading the article. ACORN’s “founder” went on to mention that another self-proclaimed “radical” activist who had worked closely with him was also involved in my story. Her name is Lisa Fithian. I first encountered Ms. Fithian in New Orleans. She came to town after Common Ground Relief had started operations. She assumed a position of prominence and continuously challenged my work and leadership. During the RNC bombing trial, she cooperated with the defense of the bomb plotters and led media attacks on me and the FBI.

Ms. Fithian has been quoted in various mainstream news articles as saying, “Nonviolence is a strategy. Civil disobedience is a tactic,” and “Direct action is a strategy. Throwing rocks is a tactic.” She is also quoted as stating that “When people ask me, ‘What do you do?’ I say, ‘I create crisis’, because crisis is that edge where change is possible.”

ACORN receives tens of millions of dollars from taxpayers to promote their agenda. Free speech is sacred, of course. However, it is clear that ACORN has made a practice of blurring the lines between free speech and tax-payer-funded activism. Fortunately, our federal government is adept at investigating and identifying the misuse of federal funds. It will be interesting in the near future to see how Mr. Rathke and his ACORN associates stand up to the same scrutiny they have focused on our military, the FBI and other governmental groups and agencies.

After the revelations exposed in the O’Keefe/Giles videos, maybe the FBI will get the hint and take a look into ACORN. If they need a reminder, they can go back and look at the testimony of ACORN Whistleblower, Anita Moncrief, who had PLENTY to say about how ACORN operates, and acknowledged the connections between ACORN and Obama. It is a shocking reminder of what the MSM let go by in order to carry water for Obama.

So, maybe it’s not too late? Maybe after all of these recent (and not so recent) revelations SOMEONE in law enforcement will do the right thing and go after ACORN? Make the connections, hold them accountable, and do it now? Heaven knows, there is enough information available, isn’t there?

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!! Anita Moncrief, the ACORN whistleblower, is going to be on Paulie Abeles, Sins of Omission NQ radio show SEPTEMBER 21st at 9:00 PM (EST)!! WOW!!!! I cannot wait. I’ll be there – hope you will, too!

Rather, the point of the Editorial has to do with an upcoming Supreme Court decision:

The Supreme Court may be about to radically change politics by striking down the longstanding rule that says corporations cannot spend directly on federal elections. If the floodgates open, money from big business could overwhelm the electoral process, as well as the making of laws on issues like tax policy and bank regulation.

The court, which is scheduled to hear arguments on this issue on Wednesday, is rushing to decide a monumental question at breakneck speed and seems willing to throw established precedents and judicial modesty out the window.

Corporations and unions have been prohibited from spending their money on federal campaigns since 1947, and corporate contributions have been barred since 1907. States have barred corporate expenditures since the late 1800s. These laws are very much needed today. In the 2008 election cycle, Fortune 100 companies alone had combined revenues of $13.1 trillion and profits of $605 billion. That dwarfs the $1.5 billion that Federal Election Commission-registered political parties spent during the same election period, or the $1.2 billion spent by federal political action committees.

Uh, okay. Is it really possible that the Editors are unaware just how much money Obama spent to buy the White House in the last election? Are they unaware that he violated one of his campaign promises to forego Public Financing? Did they even BOTHER to look up just how much money Obama GOT from corporations?? Evidently not. Hence their outrage at this possibility. And it goes on:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the limitations on corporate campaign expenditures. In 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, and again in 2003, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, it made clear that Congress was acting within its authority and that the restrictions are consistent with the First Amendment.

In late June, the court directed the parties to address whether Austin and McConnell should be overruled. It gave the parties in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission a month to write legal briefs on a question of extraordinary complexity and importance, and it scheduled arguments during the court’s vacation.

All of this is disturbing on many levels. Normally, the court tries not to decide cases on constitutional grounds if they can be resolved more simply. Here the court is reaching out to decide a constitutional issue that could change the direction of American democracy.

The Editors are sure right about that – it IS “disturbing on many levels.” I just don’t get why they didn’t get so exercised about this say, oh, two years ago. I guess I’m just nitpicky that way.

And their concern continues:

The court usually shows great respect for its own precedents, a point Chief Justice John Roberts made at his confirmation hearings. Now the court appears ready, without any particular need, to overturn important precedents and decades of federal and state law.

The scheduling is enormously troubling. There is no rush to address the constitutionality of the corporate expenditures limit. But the court is racing to do that in a poorly chosen case with no factual record on the critical question, making careful deliberation impossible.

Most disturbing, though, is the substance of what the court seems poised to do. If corporations are allowed to spend from their own treasuries on elections — rather than through political action committees, which take contributions from company employees — it would usher in an unprecedented age of special-interest politics.

Corporations would have an enormous say in who wins federal elections. They would be able to use this influence to obtain subsidies, stimulus money and tax loopholes and to undo protections for investors, workers and consumers. It would take an extraordinarily brave member of Congress to stand up to agents of big business who then could say, quite credibly, that they would spend whatever it takes in the next election to defeat him or her.

The conservative majority on the court likes to present itself as deferential to the elected branches of government and as minimalists about the role of judges. Chief Justice Roberts promised the Senate that if confirmed he would remember that it’s his “job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

If the court races to overturn federal and state laws, and its well-established precedents, to free up corporations to drown elections in money, it will be swinging for the fences. The American public will be the losers.

Well,I don’t know about you, but this seems just a tad disingenuous to me. They are railing NOW about the money corporations can spend? Do you think they gave a crap that Goldman Sachs, yes, I said, GOLDMAN SACHS, gave Obama almost $1 MILLION dollars? How about Time Warner giving him almost $600,000? The list goes on and on, which is what makes the outrage of the Editors ring just a bit hollow to me. How about you?

In his August 20, 2009, meeting with supporters at the Democratic National Committee and its “Organizing for America” (OFA) arm – formerly the “Obama for America” campaign – President Obama blamed the media for the fact that many untrue claims made by opponents of his health care reform push had been accepted by many Americans as fact.

Stating that end of life care was “previously considered a bipartisan concept,” the president said, “this used to be just a sensible thing that everybody could agree to.”

But it “suddenly became ‘Death Panels,’ and scared Grandma,” he said, “and it’s just irresponsible.”

“Scared Grandma?” Can our President say anything that doesn’t sound condescending and insulting?

The president added, “I have to say, part of the reason it spreads is the way reporting is done today. If somebody puts out misinformation, ‘Obama’s Creating Death Panels,’ then the way the news report comes across is: ‘Today such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn’t true.’ And then they go on to the next story. And what they don’t say is, ‘In fact it isn’t true.’”

Even more preposterous than the President demonizing “grandma” and anyone else angered by the arrogant, flatfooted handling of health care reform legislation, he is now demonizing the press, his strongest allies.

No “death panels” eh? Glad to hear it. But I wonder why a Senate subcommittee then promptly removed a suspicious sounding provision from their bill after Sarah Palin made a stink about it on her Facebook page. Even Obama cheerleader Eugene Robinson admitted she had a point. His monstrous health care bill (I think there are 5) has not even been formulated yet, but the Obama Administration is going full steam ahead selling it to the American people, criticizing anyone questioning their audacity in ramming through a bill no one understands. The latest we hear is that Obama has backed off the public option. This magical health care legislation morphs into something new daily.

As Tapper points out:

Today OFA sent out an email to supporters continuing this line of criticism. (You can see the email HERE.)

“Over the past few months, two things have become clear about the fight for health insurance reform,” writes OFA director Mitch Stewart. “1. Our opponents will create and spread outrageous lies to try to stop President Obama from creating real change. 2. We just can’t count on the media to debunk them.”

Obama cannot count on the media? Not two months ago, he made fun of the media’s fawning when he joked about rolling over in bed to find Brian Williams lying beside him. The President is also being disingenuous. When the “death panels” comment hit the net, the press was all over itself debunking it, and insulting Palin once again. The American people saw through the many conflicting statements on health care and decided they weren’t buying. That is the real issue. But the President can’t come out and tell the American people off for not being seduced by more smoke and mirrors.

This comment is the pièce de resistance…

Stewart then quoted President Obama from August 20, and said supporters need to “double our own efforts to get the truth out. That means more organizers running door-to-door canvases and phone banks to educate our neighbors, more events to spread the word to Congress, and more ads on the air countering the smears. And we’ll need the money to pay for it all. Can you chip in to help make it happen?”

“Stepping in when the media fails is a daunting challenge,” Stewart writes.

Yes, let’s go door to door for more bullying. Let’s raise lots more money people don’t have to push a plan when we’re still not sure what’s in it.

So far, this administration has not earned enough points with the American people to convince us we should take legislation this important on faith. Stewart has a lot of nerve to talk about what should be done when the media fails to do its job. I think there are still a good number of Hillary’s 18,000,000 voters who might like to get a piece of that action.

No one, not even President George Bush ever had such loving, sycophantic treatment by the press. More than owing contributors to his huge war chest, President Obama owes the mainstream media for their blind praise and abject refusal to vet him throughout 2008. That was reason numero uno why this man was elected. Now he is criticizing the press for actually daring to let a little real news see the light of day. In reality, he is criticizing the fact that press efforts to minimize the gravity of grass roots opposition has backfired.

Of course we need reform, but before we do something drastic to 1/6th of the economy in such perilous times, let’s make sure we are doing something to help, not hurt. The Obama Administration has once again chosen bullying and hubris over returning to the drawing board to fix the problem.

The media still defends the President at every turn. It is an indicator of negative public sentiment when the President feels he must resort to criticism of an organism that has largely functioned as his own personal PR firm for 20 months. It will be interesting to see if any of our so called journalists finally declare enough is enough and remember the way they USED to do their jobs.

We’re waiting…

The seed for the first Woman’s Rights Convention was planted in 1840, when Elizabeth Cady Stanton met Lucretia Mott at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, the conference that refused to seat Mott and other women delegates from America because of their sex. Stanton, the young bride of an antislavery agent, and Mott, a Quaker preacher and veteran of reform, talked then of calling a convention to address the condition of women. Eight years later, it came about as a spontaneous event.

In July 1848, Mott was visiting her sister, Martha C. Wright, in Waterloo, New York. Stanton, now the restless mother of three small sons, was living in nearby Seneca Falls. A social visit brought together Mott, Stanton, Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt. All except Stanton were Quakers, a sect that afforded women some measure of equality, and all five were well acquainted with antislavery and temperance meetings. Lucretia Mott Fresh in their minds was the April passage of the long-deliberated New York Married Woman’s Property Rights Act, a significant but far from comprehensive piece of legislation. The time had come, Stanton argued, for women’s wrongs to be laid before the public, and women themselves must shoulder the responsibility. Before the afternoon was out, the women decided on a call for a convention “to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman.”

To Stanton fell the task of drawing up the Declaration of Sentiments that would define the meeting. Taking the Declaration of Independence as her guide, Stanton submitted that “all men and women had been created equal” and went on to list eighteen “injuries and usurpations” -the same number of charges leveled against the King of England-”on the part of man toward woman.”

You have to love the symmetry with which Stanton crafted the “Declaration of Sentiments.” And what an interesting choice of words for the Declaration, isn’t it? Stanton didn’t stop there:

Stanton also drafted eleven resolutions, making the argument that women had a natural right to equality in all spheres. The ninth resolution held forth the radical assertion that it was the duty of women to secure for themselves the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton afterwards recalled that a shocked Lucretia Mott exclaimed, “Why, Lizzie, thee will make us ridiculous.” Stanton stood firm. “But I persisted, for I saw clearly that the power to make the laws was the right through which all other rights could be secured.”

The convention, to take place in five days’ time, on July 19 and 20 at the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Seneca Falls, was publicized only by a small, unsigned notice placed in the Seneca County Courier. “The convention will not be so large as it otherwise might be, owing to the busy time with the farmers,” Mott told Stanton, “but it will be a beginning.”

A crowd of about three hundred people, including forty men, came from five miles round. No woman felt capable of presiding; the task was undertaken by Lucretia’s husband, James Mott. All of the resolutions were passed unanimously except for woman suffrage, a strange idea and scarcely a concept designed to appeal to the predominantly Quaker audience, whose male contingent commonly declined to vote. The eloquent Frederick Douglass, a former slave and now editor of the Rochester North Star, however, swayed the gathering into agreeing to the resolution. At the closing session, Lucretia Mott won approval of a final resolve “for the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” One hundred women and men signed the Seneca Falls Declaration-although subsequent criticism caused some of them to remove their names.

How telling is that, that no woman felt “capable of presiding” at their own Rights Convention? Holy smokes. At least there were some supportive men there, including Lucretia Mott’s husband, to step up. But not everyone was supportive:

The proceedings in Seneca Falls, followed a few days later by a meeting in Rochester, brought forth a torrent of sarcasm and ridicule from the press and pulpit. Noted Frederick Douglass in the North Star: “A discussion of the rights of animals would be regarded with far more complacency by many of what are called the wise and the good of our land, than would be a discussion of the rights of woman.”

But Elizabeth Cady Stanton, although somewhat discomforted by the widespread misrepresentation, understood the value of attention in the press. “Just what I wanted,” Stanton exclaimed when she saw that James Gordon Bennett, motivated by derision, printed the entire Declaration of Sentiments in the New York Herald. “Imagine the publicity given to our ideas by thus appearing in a widely circulated sheet like the Herald. It will start women thinking, and men too; and when men and women think about a new question, the first step in progress is taken.”

Stanton, thirty-two years old at the time of the Seneca Falls Convention, grew gray in the cause. In 1851 she met temperance worker Susan B. Anthony, and shortly the two would be joined in the long struggle to secure the vote for women. When national victory came in 1920, seventy-two years after the first organized demand in 1848, only one signer of the Seneca Falls Declaration-Charlotte Woodward, a young worker in a glove manufactory -had lived long enough to cast her ballot.

What a day that must have been for Charlotte Woodward, but how sad it took 72 years for women to get the right to vote after Seneca Falls, and that she was the only remaining one able to cast her vote. Still, what a joy that must have been for her. Can you imagine it?? WOw.

Let’s just see how far we have come in the past 161 years:

We have come nowhere near far enough. I can only imagine what Mott, Stanton, and the others, would have thought of this past primary season. On the one hand, no doubt, they would be thrilled that a woman would win the popular vote, would win almost all of the big states, many by a landslide. On the other, they most likely would have seen the treatment of that woman (and Sarah Palin, too), as more of the same. Forced by the powers-that-be to give up delegates she won fair and square for the inexperienced, younger man, forced to play by a different set of rules at the Convention than anyone else EVER, a different kind of convention from Seneca Falls, that’s for sure. It was one that failed to live by its OWN rules in order to put this woman firmly in her place. No doubt, what happened this past year would feel all too familiar to them. And to too many of us.

My deepest appreciation to these women who began this process. We have come a ways from that Convention 161 years ago, but we have far, far to go to achieve real equality in this country. One thing I do know – no one is going to hand it to us. We must keep fighting, like Hillary Clinton kept fighting in the face of the naysayers. And maybe next time, the best person, who happens to be a woman, will actually win…

Wow. This is but one of the profound statements made by Dr. Jones throughout the course of Bill Moyers’ “Journal: Faith and Social Justice,” which also included Dr. Cornel West, formerly of Union, now at Princeton University, and Dr. Gary Dorrien, from Union. There is a video of the show, which can be seen HERE, and is from which all further quotes are taken (thanks, SusanUnPC, for the link).

Back to President Jones for a moment, though. In Union Theological Seminary’s 172 year history, she is the FIRST woman to hold this post. I wrote about her way back in April, 2008, “Is This A Sign Of Things To Come??” Of course, now we know that the Powers-That-Be made sure it wasn’t, but a girl has to have her dreams, and that was mine at the time. (Now, it is that Secretary Clinton can get out before her ability to affect change has been marginalized beyond recognition. As in, she should be in Russia right now – just sayin’.) President Jones has a distinguished resume, including teaching at Yale for the past 17 years, at the university as well as the law school. She is an impressive woman, brilliant mind, yet the kindness and warmth exude from her like, well, like it does from Hillary. Or as one might expect from someone who is the head of, and teaches at, a seminary preparing students for ministry.

Union has long had a history of social justice in the world. One might say that is its calling, or the calling of the students who attend it. During my time there, we were able to get the Board of Trustees to divest assets in South Africa, still in the throes of apartheid at that time. Many of the students worked in soup kitchens, engaged in protests on a variety of issues, and dealt with the AIDS crisis as it first erupted in New York City. In addition to that, because it was understood that language shapes reality, all classroom discussion, all papers, and all worship services HAD to be in inclusive language. It was an amazing environment in which to learn, though it made it rather difficult in the world at large in which language was certainly not all inclusive, or in which women did not hold prominent positions Even then, though, we had a number of outstanding professors in women’s theology, ethics, and Hebrew Scriptures. Thankfully, those numbers continue to increase among the faculty. (Photo by wallyg)

So, it is in that environment that this discussion took place with Bill Moyers moderating. Bear in mind, these are Christians, and that is the place from which they move in the world. BUT – that being said, they may not be the kinds of Christians you are used to hearing from, thus why I encourage you to listen to the whole video, if you have the time and inclination.

This is what followed the statements made by Dr. Jones above:

BILL MOYERS: And that’s the trade union movement you talked about.

SERENE JONES: That’s what love is.

CORNEL WEST: That’s the woman’s movement. That’s the gay and lesbian movement.

SERENE JONES: You put it in policy forms.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the love that, that’s what holds you in the struggle, you know. Even if you’re not succeeding, you know.

CORNEL WEST: Allowing you to sustain and do.

GARY DORRIEN: It’s the energy. It propels you into a struggle in which you might not be succeeding.

BILL MOYERS: You remind me that all three of you come out of what, once upon a time, was called the Social Gospel movement. The movement to apply Christian ethical principles to society. And wasn’t that a response to the first round of economic collapse in the early part of the last century?

GARY DORRIEN: There is something new that started in the 1880s with the Social Gospel. You have a sociological consciousness itself that there’s such a thing as social structure. And so, well, if there’s such a thing as social structure then now there’s something that’s just different.

That makes the equation different. That it’s not just a question of bringing people to Jesus who will then transform society. But rather salvation itself has to be conceived, not just in personal, but social-structural terms. So, with the Social Gospel movement in the 1880s, you do, for the first time, see preaching and theology in which Christian salvation is being talked about as including making movements toward the change of social structures themselves in the direction of something that’s now being called social justice.

CORNEL WEST: There’s a sense of-

GARY DORRIEN: Because even the term social justice is only coined during that very same period.

BILL MOYERS: But the Social Gospel tradition was, in itself, overwhelmed by the materialism of the last part of the 20th century and by the turbo capitalism that you were talking about enshrined in Thomas Freidman’s icon. I mean, the Social Gospel was not sufficient to sustain itself against the power of economics and, in fact, structural wealth. Right?

CORNEL WEST: Right. That’s true.

SERENE JONES: But I think we can never underestimate the crisis of desire. That it wasn’t just that there was – it didn’t have enough social strength, or a good enough analysis. That what turbo capitalism does, is it – the biggest, sort of, war zone is interior to us – where it takes over your desire. It makes you into a creature who wants to buy the commodities. So you could have a great political analysis. But what you’re doing, on the ground every day, is you’re fueling this turbo capitalism. And it’s in the churches that another kind of desire should have been being crafted. That’s where you can get people in their bones and really begin to force the question of, what is it that you want? What makes you happy? What makes your life mean? What, you know, it’s those deep questions of want.

“Turbo capitalism” – what a concept that is. I think we have seen that operating on Wall Street and in our banks (which was the discussion preceding this one). Here is a good bit of the discussion on Obama. Now, I should say that early on, as I understand it, West was a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s. Clearly, he has moved to back Obama, but critically so, as he points out in this discussion. There is more about Obama, but for space reasons, I am limiting that part of the discussion to this:

BILL MOYERS: You said the age of Obama is about everyday people. And you asked the question: how do we unleash their power? What’s the evidence that that’s happening?

CORNEL WEST: Well, I think it’s a very complicated situation. Because, of course, the age of Obama actually emerges with a discredited Republican party in disarray. With a mediocre Democratic party that only had the Clinton machine at the center. And if this charismatic, brilliant, young, black brother can somehow get over the Clinton machine, he can become president.

That’s why I supported him. Critically! A Socratic, prophetic, orientation toward the brother, right? Because he becomes the initiator of a new age. We had to bring the age of Reagan to a close. The era of conservatism had to be brought to a close. Thank God it was. But then the question will be, well, is he going to focus on the poor and working people? Will he recycle neo-liberal elites from the old establishment of Wall Street – which the economic team is?

BILL MOYERS: We know the answer to that.

CORNEL WEST: We know the answer to that.

BILL MOYERS: Right after the election, you were-

CORNEL WEST: Will he recycle the same neo-imperial elites when it comes to foreign policy. I know he’s dealing with tremendous power. Wall Street. Congress. And so forth, and so on. I understand the political considerations. People have the right to organize. Lobbies have a right to bring power and pressure to bear. That’s what American democracy’s about.

But that’s not truth. That’s not the same as prophetic witness to truth. Especially as Christians, you see. So that the critique launched against Barack Obama, be it Gaza, be it Darfur, be it in Ethiopia, be it wherever. It has to be put forward. That is the calling of prophetic Christians.

GARY DORRIEN: Well, I wouldn’t even give him the out that Cornel just gave him. Because I think, in fact, he could stay in his lane and do way better than he has on the economy, and also on scaling back the military empire.

So, on those two things, to be so solicitous of Wall Street, to have treatment of the banks that’s just absurdly favorable to their interests, and refusing to clear out shareholders, and refusing to get to the bottom of it.

And also in his just utter refusal to really face up to the cost and extent of the military empire that, even though he notes in this book, “The Audacity of Hope,” is outspending the next 25 nations combined in the military. He says in the next paragraph, and he has continued on this line, that we need to expand it further. So we’ve got nothing coming on sort of pulling back on that issue as well. On the other hand, you can’t say that this has been a cautious president overall.

I mean, it’s quite amazing that he is taking on virtually everything one way or another at the same time. So he has – there’s been a fair amount of audacity in deciding that this is his moment. There’s not going to be a better moment to come along anyway.

If he’s going to do something about health care, or a number of issues. Dealing with Iran, maybe make a breakthrough with Cuba. That he’s got to put his cards on the table now and get what he can.

BILL MOYERS: You said, after the election, “We want to give him time. We want to give him room.” And my question to you is: how much room and how much time?

CORNEL WEST: Well, the first thing we want to do, we want to protect him, and he and his precious family. Second thing we want to do, we want to make sure all the criticism is fair, so it’s not ad hominids, it’s not personal. It’s not racist. It’s not whatever, you see.

At the same time, he is subject to all the same requirements of truth and justice as any other president, any color. So my criticism out of love for, not just the people, but Barack Obama himself. How my criticism help him? Give him strength? He plans to be progressive Lincoln. Fine. That’s difficult. He will be helped by more progressive Frederick Douglasses. That’s what I aspire to.

BILL MOYERS: Do you see the-

CORNEL WEST: To help him push him in a progressive direction.

BILL MOYERS: Do you hear those voices coming from his left? We know about them from the right. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh. We all know them.

CORNEL WEST: Well, the voices are there! Paul Krugman, and Sylvia Ann Hewlett and Ben Barber and William Greider and Ron Walters. The voices are there. He’s not yet listening. That’s the difference. Lincoln listened to Douglass, Garrison. Brother Barack Obama, he is listening too much to Summers, Thurman, Geithner. We can go right down the neo liberal list. That’s dangerous if he wants to be a progressive president.

BILL MOYERS: Why do you think that is?

SERENE JONES: I think one of the reasons that it happens is that we are living in a very overwhelming time. And it’s always going to be the case that a conservative familiar neo liberal agenda sounds safer.

Because it’s what we know. But the truth of the matter is what we know is what got us in trouble in the first place. So it’s one of those moments that everybody faces in their own life. We happen to be facing it structurally right now. Is everything collapses, what do we do? In the midst of that fear, do we grasp for what’s most familiar? That’s what’s happening. But the very thing you’re grasping for is the thing that got you there in the first place.

CORNEL WEST: Absolutely.

SERENE JONES: It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

There is so much more to this discussion. But for me, it is heartening to know that these kinds of discussions are taking place at all. I hope that their being Christians didn’t put you off, because what they say really transcends what their particular faith system is (and I say that as someone who is not Christian, myself). I am glad that people like this are keeping a watchful eye on Obama, and I think they make good partners with us as we try to reclaim our country from where Obama and his Wall Street cronies are trying to take us.

I began with the words of President Jones, and now I’d like to conclude with them as well. I think these are good words to live by in general, and especially in these days:

It takes a little opening of spirit and an opening of intellect and courage. It’s courage.

Huffington Post featured an exclusive excerpt from Wolffe’s book on Obama’s ascent to the Presidency. You can run over and see it for yourselves if you feel so inclined, I will not link to it. Much as I would wish otherwise, I must express bottomless contempt for the continuously disrespectful way the Clintons are discussed and regarded by the Obama camp. Apparently Wolffe appeared on the “Today” show this morning to discuss his book and the internal debates within the Obama campaign regarding offering Hillary Clinton the job of Secretary of State:

Of all his transition choices, none was easier to make, or more complex to execute, than Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Obama had long wanted his former rival on his team, no matter what his friends and aides said about her aggressive campaign… His staff opposed the idea for the most part, arguing that Clinton would never be truly loyal. But Obama was willing to leave the primaries behind, including his own strong feelings at the time. “I don’t hold grudges,” he told his aides. “I don’t worry about the past. I’m concerned about what happens now. If she can help me and Bill Clinton isn’t too much of a liability, we should seriously look at this.”

Hillary’s aggressive campaign? Heaven forefend a woman actually have the temerity to step up to the plate and compete for the nomination the way any man would. Bill Clinton a liability? Tell that to the thousands, perhaps millions who now benefit from the Clinton Global Initiative. Tell that to those of us old enough to remember the nineties when Bill and Hillary presided over eight years of peace and prosperity, a balanced budget, an enormous surplus, and unemployment cut in half.

According to Wolffe, Obama stated:

“I’m really interested in pursuing this, but I know she has some hard feelings coming out of this campaign.” Emanuel and John Podesta, the former Clinton official who ran the transition, assured Obama that she was over those hard feelings now. Obama smiled and said, “Believe me. She’s not over it yet.”

He smiled? I bet he did. Again with “over it.” Just because Obama’s surrogates daily intimated the Clintons were racists, I can’t imagine why any of us would have a problem getting over it. But this is the piece de resistance:

[Obama’s] decision to offer her the job of secretary of state came surprisingly early. Well before the end of the primaries, when his staff and friends still felt hostile to her, Obama decided that Clinton possessed the qualities to carry his diplomacy to the rest of the world.

So during the primaries when he had ‘already made this decision,’ he campaigned daily with the meme that Hillary had no foreign policy street cred and her visits to over 80 countries as First Lady were nothing more than “tea parties, even though he knew that was a bald faced lie. “Carry his diplomacy to the rest of the world” …like his grateful, supine hand maiden. Wolffe’s writing here sounds like a bunch of school boys fantasizing about a hareem. Don’t look now, but Wolffe just betrayed his own paradigm.

And no, I am not over it so don’t even go there. Nor should anybody be over it who actually cares about democracy or decency. Further, Obama states:

“We actually thought during the primary, when we were pretty sure we were going to win, that she could end up being a very effective secretary of state… I felt that she was disciplined, that she was precise, that she was smart as a whip, and that she would present a really strong image to the world…I had that mapped out.”

Obama had that mapped out. Wow. He really is brilliant. And her voters had it mapped out a long time ago that she could dance circles around Obama. Guess we should have all had degrees from Harvard, too. According to Wolffe, Clinton had “issues” including settling her campaign debt and Obama informed his senior aides:

“I’m not begging her to take this job. If she wants it, I could help. But I’m not willing to go out in these difficult economic times to do a flashy fundraiser in California.”

“In these difficult economic times?” So that’s why he has a ½ million dollar pizza party on Wednesday nights? Or jet sets around to different parts of the country to sign a bill on the taxpayers’ dime. Or why he spent $6 million of his supporters hard earned dough on faux Grecian temples at his nomination festival? Or why his Inauguration festivities cost twice as much as that of President Bush? Guess times must not be quite that tough.

But here is really the lowest insult of all. I wonder who this quote is coming from – a senior aide? Who is unnamed? What Senate Democrat actually said this – if any?

As it happened, plenty of people in the Senate were begging Obama to offer Clinton the job. Obama’s aides believed that many Senate Democrats thought Clinton had extended her presidential campaign far beyond the point where she had lost the election. Her negative advertising wasted Democratic money, threatened to undermine the party’s nominee, and suggested that she was disloyal to the party. They were unwilling to offer the junior New York senator a position ahead of her lowly rank, and she stood little chance of becoming majority leader. “There was a lot of encouragement from inside the Senate to get her into this job,” said one senior Obama aide. “They wanted her out of there.”

Why in God’s name would Wolffe write this? If he is so enamored of Barack Obama that is fine, but surely at this difficult point in our history, if President Obama actually cares about the country and our standing in the world, he would never want to undermine his Secretary of State. Would he? Giggle, giggle. And let me go on the record as saying if the knuckle draggers at the Obama campaign are anything like his frat boy speechwriter Jon Favreau, who put a picture on his Facebook page of he and a pal groping a life sized cardboard poster of Hillary Clinton and forcing a beer down her throat, that should clarify the level of some of the folks who helps to get our current President elected. Is it any wonder that we read quotes like these: “They wanted her out of there…”

And if it is in fact true that the Senate Democrats “wanted her out of there,” it is because they couldn’t bear their shame in looking her in the face at work every day. She was forced out after a nominating contest that was razor close, and was not even allowed to legitimately have her name in nomination, though she had won the popular vote. She outclasses every single one of those cowardly back stabbers. And if anyone wants to complain about who depleted voters coffers so there was no money left for Senate Democrats, you have to look no further than the Obama campaign, who outspent her three to one. After Mr. Obama promised he would help Harry Reid with down ticket races, he reneged. So how real is this complaint anyway? Furthermore, the Clintons have raised more money for the Democratic Party over the years than anyone.

After the Presidency, Secretary of State is the biggest and most important plum post– everyone from John Kerry to Governor Richardsion was begging for it. I’ll bet VP Biden would have rather had SoS than the position he now holds, so to pretend they had just successfully farmed Hillary Clinton out to the minor leagues for the sole purpose of “getting her out of there” is laughable at best.

Further, Glenn Thrush of Politico chimes in to note that:

Wolffe may be overstating the case. According to my reporting at the time, some Senate Democrats admired Clinton’s grit, and many others thought she’d earned the right to ride out the campaign to the end.

It looks as though Wolffe’s blockbuster reporting is just more revisionist history coming from Obama’s sour aides who were pissed that an amazing sixty year old lady in a pantsuit actually made their candidate sweat for something he wanted. It is no less than horrifying to appoint a Secretary of State who clearly knows what she is doing and is a huge asset, only to constantly disparage her as being no more than an egregiously disloyal, irritating inconvenience. I wonder if Wolffe realizes how bad and how petty he makes Obama’s aides look for their negative characterizations of SoS Clinton when clearly, she has repeatedly demonstrated her willingness and ability to rise above all of this. Then again, Wolffe is a “contributor” to Newsweek/MSNBC. Uh, need I say more. Oh, but he does:

As for controlling the uncontrollable Bill Clinton, Obama’s aides drew up a series of checks on his fundraising for both Clinton Global Initiative and his work on HIV/AIDS across the world. But they really counted on Hillary to be the ultimate safeguard – against both her husband and her own ambition. “It’s in her interests to keep him in line,” warned one senior Obama aide. Others in Obama’s inner circle said the president-elect believed Clinton needed to demonstrate that she was a team player and to shape her own career and legacy. “There are plenty who don’t trust her and think she still harbors something,” said another senior adviser. “It’s still potentially problematic down the road. Barack’s thinking on this is that it’s not in her interests to mess with us. She can’t win that fight internally and she’s smart enough that she won’t want that fight publicly.”

Her own ambition? Again, ambition in a woman is something dirty to be rejected, but a man with less than two years in the Senate under his belt running for President – that vaunting ambition would not be considered negative. Clearly, Hillary put ambition aside and graciously opted to help Obama get elected to push forward a Democratic agenda. Disloyal? How dare these arrogant asses say anything of the kind? If Secretary of State Clinton has any failing at all, it is that she is loyal to a fault – and has certainly received no end of slaps even from some of her own supporters for that very attribute.

Several weeks into the administration, even Clinton’s internal critics believed the relationship was a success. “They have both worked really hard at it,” said one senior White House official. “There’s a natural affinity and respect that ironically grew out of being opponents. You get to know someone really well after all that.”

What respect? Obviously, if Obama and his camp had any respect for her, we would not be reading any of this tripe. President Obama’s aides and advisors once again exhibit their complete lack of class by stating this drivel. They will never forgive Hillary Clinton for outclassing their chosen messiah on preparedness, knowledge and stamina. Clearly, he will not forgive either, as he must always remind everyone how superior he is. I would gently like to remind Mr. Obama that he is the President. So we don’t need any reminding. Perhaps he needs to remind himself as he still feels somewhat insecure in this regard. Hillary Clinton encouraged us all to look behind the curtain to see the Wizard and for that she must forever be punished, as though anything she is given by Obama is a favor for which she should get down on her knees and thank her lucky stars.

To the contrary, it is President Obama who is extremely fortunate to have her on his team. And frankly, I think he well knows that. She made 180 campaign appearances for him to drag him across the finish line and to signal to her supporters that it was okay to vote for him. She must be in his prayers at night because certainly he needs an adult minding the store on foreign affairs, something he is woefully unprepared to handle.

At first, I was so angry writing this it took twice as long to get my fingers to work properly. However, the more I think about it, I take their obsession with diminishing Secretary of State Clinton as a huge compliment. Surely if you feel a constant need to deflate and degrade another person and make it appear as though you have your boot on her throat, she must be quite intimidating indeed. Further, I think it an odd coincidence that this book comes out now, when Hillary Clinton’s popularity in the polls has eclipsed that of President Obama. Clearly, popularity polls are not something this lady is worried about. She is busy quietly doing her job to the best of her ability as she always does.

All this goes a long way to illustrating that sexism is alive and well in this country. The woman must be kept in her place at all costs. As much as Hillary Clinton’s supporters are constantly told we need to “get over it,” by the tenor of the comments Wolffe quotes in his new book, clearly, it is Obama’s people who are not yet “over it.”

Buying Brand Obama

Barack Obama is a brand. And the Obama brand is designed to make us feel good about our government while corporate overlords loot the Treasury, our elected officials continue to have their palms greased by armies of corporate lobbyists, our corporate media diverts us with gossip and trivia and our imperial wars expand in the Middle East. Brand Obama is about being happy consumers. We are entertained. We feel hopeful. We like our president. We believe he is like us. But like all branded products spun out from the manipulative world of corporate advertising, we are being duped into doing and supporting a lot of things that are not in our interest.

What, for all our faith and hope, has the Obama brand given us? His administration has spent, lent or guaranteed $12.8 trillion in taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and insolvent banks in a doomed effort to reinflate the bubble economy, a tactic that at best forestalls catastrophe and will leave us broke in a time of profound crisis. Brand Obama has allocated nearly $1 trillion in defense-related spending and the continuation of our doomed imperial projects in Iraq, where military planners now estimate that 70,000 troops will remain for the next 15 to 20 years. Brand Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, including the use of drones sent on cross-border bombing runs into Pakistan that have doubled the number of civilians killed over the past three months. Brand Obama has refused to ease restrictions so workers can organize and will not consider single-payer, not-for-profit health care for all Americans. And Brand Obama will not prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes, including the use of torture, and has refused to dismantle Bush’s secrecy laws or restore habeas corpus.

That is EXACTLY what MANY of us have been saying ad nauseum for MONTHS now – Obama is another Bush, further evidenced by his saying one thing and doing the exact OPPOSITE:

Brand Obama offers us an image that appears radically individualistic and new. It inoculates us from seeing that the old engines of corporate power and the vast military-industrial complex continue to plunder the country. Corporations, which control our politics, no longer produce products that are essentially different, but brands that are different. Brand Obama does not threaten the core of the corporate state any more than did Brand George W. Bush. The Bush brand collapsed. We became immune to its studied folksiness. We saw through its artifice. This is a common deflation in the world of advertising. So we have been given a new Obama brand with an exciting and faintly erotic appeal. Benetton and Calvin Klein were the precursors to the Obama brand, using ads to associate themselves with risqué art and progressive politics. It gave their products an edge. But the goal, as with all brands, was to make passive consumers mistake a brand with an experience.

“The abandonment of the radical economic foundations of the women’s and civil-rights movements by the conflation of causes that came to be called political correctness successfully trained a generation of activists in the politics of image, not action,” Naomi Klein wrote in “No Logo.”

Well, ain’t that the damn truth. Sad, but the truth, nonetheless. And it led to this:

Obama, who has become a global celebrity, was molded easily into a brand. He had almost no experience, other than two years in the Senate, lacked any moral core and could be painted as all things to all people. His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests. He was happy to promote nuclear power as “green” energy. He voted to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He reauthorized the Patriot Act. He would not back a bill designed to cap predatory credit card interest rates. He opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. He refused to support the single-payer health care bill HR676, sponsored by Reps. Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers. He supported the death penalty. And he backed a class-action “reform” bill that was part of a large lobbying effort by financial firms. The law, known as the Class Action Fairness Act, would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits and deny redress in many of the courts where these cases have a chance of defying powerful corporate challenges.

While Gaza was being bombarded and hit with airstrikes in the weeks before Obama took office, “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel,” according to Seymour Hersh. Even his one vaunted anti-war speech as a state senator, perhaps his single real act of defiance, was swiftly reversed. He told the Chicago Tribune on July 27, 2004, that “there’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” And unlike anti-war stalwarts like Kucinich, who gave hundreds of speeches against the war, Obama then dutifully stood silent until the Iraq war became unpopular.

Oh, yes – a man of SUCH conviction. Hahahaha. As long as it scores him some points, he’s ALL over it.

But get this – if there was any doubt whatsoever in any way, shape, or form, that Obama is the sole result of marketing, check this out:

Obama’s campaign won the vote of hundreds of marketers, agency heads and marketing-services vendors gathered at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference in October. The Obama campaign was named Advertising Age’s marketer of the year for 2008 and edged out runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Take it from the professionals. Brand Obama is a marketer’s dream. President Obama does one thing and Brand Obama gets you to believe another. This is the essence of successful advertising. You buy or do what the advertiser wants because of how they can make you feel.

Yep, pretty much – so it doesn’t matter HOW empty the promises, or vague the rhetoric, doggone it, he just makes us feel all tingly inside (blech, yuck, ick).

Hedges has an explanation for how we got to this place:

Celebrity culture has leeched into every aspect of our culture, including politics, to bequeath to us what Benjamin DeMott called “junk politics.” Junk politics does not demand justice or the reparation of rights. Junk politics personalizes and moralizes issues rather than clarifying them. “It’s impatient with articulated conflict, enthusiastic about America’s optimism and moral character, and heavily dependent on feel-your-pain language and gesture,” DeMott noted. The result of junk politics is that nothing changes – “meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage.” It redefines traditional values, tilting “courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains.” Junk politics “miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It’s also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized.” And finally, it “seeks at every turn to obliterate voters’ consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst.”

An image-based culture, one dominated by junk politics, communicates through narratives, pictures and carefully orchestrated spectacle and manufactured pseudo-drama. Scandalous affairs, hurricanes, earthquakes, untimely deaths, lethal new viruses, train wrecks—these events play well on computer screens and television. International diplomacy, labor union negotiations and convoluted bailout packages do not yield exciting personal narratives or stimulating images. A governor who patronizes call girls becomes a huge news story. A politician who proposes serious regulatory reform, universal health care or advocates curbing wasteful spending is boring. Kings, queens and emperors once used their court conspiracies to divert their subjects. Today cinematic, political and journalistic celebrities distract us with their personal foibles and scandals. They create our public mythology. Acting, politics and sports have become, as they were during the reign of Nero, interchangeable.

Yet another reference to Nero – and appropriately so.

But here is yet another sad truth:

In an age of images and entertainment, in an age of instant emotional gratification, we do not seek reality. Reality is complicated. Reality is boring. We are incapable or unwilling to handle its confusion. We ask to be indulged and comforted by clichés, stereotypes and inspirational messages that tell us we can be whoever we seek to be, that we live in the greatest country on Earth, that we are endowed with superior moral and physical qualities, and that our future will always be glorious and prosperous, either because of our own attributes, or our national character, or because we are blessed by God. Reality is not accepted as an impediment to our desires. Reality does not make us feel good.

In his book “Public Opinion,” Walter Lippmann distinguished between “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He defined a “stereotype” as an oversimplified pattern that helps us find meaning in the world. Lippmann cited examples of the crude “stereotypes we carry about in our heads” of whole groups of people such as “Germans,” “South Europeans,” “Negroes,” “Harvard men,” “agitators” and others. These stereotypes, Lippmann noted, give a reassuring and false consistency to the chaos of existence. They offer easily grasped explanations of reality and are closer to propaganda because they simplify rather than complicate.

Pseudo-events—dramatic productions orchestrated by publicists, political machines, television, Hollywood or advertisers—however, are very different. They have, as Daniel Boorstin wrote in “The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America,” the capacity to appear real even though we know they are staged. They are capable, because they can evoke a powerful emotional response, of overwhelming reality and replacing reality with a fictional narrative that often becomes accepted truth. The unmasking of a stereotype damages and often destroys its credibility. But pseudo-events, whether they show the president in an auto plant or a soup kitchen or addressing troops in Iraq, are immune to this deflation. The exposure of the elaborate mechanisms behind the pseudo-event only adds to its fascination and its power. This is the basis of the convoluted television reporting on how effectively political campaigns and politicians have been stage-managed. Reporters, especially those on television, no longer ask if the message is true but if the pseudo-event worked or did not work as political theater. Pseudo-events are judged on how effectively we have been manipulated by illusion. Those events that appear real are relished and lauded. Those that fail to create a believable illusion are deemed failures. Truth is irrelevant. Those who succeed in politics, as in most of the culture, are those who create the brands and pseudo-events that offer the most convincing fantasies. And this is the art Obama has mastered.

Ah, yes – convincing people to ignore reality and just listen to the sound of his voice. Great – just what we want in our elected officials – to create a little fantasy world in which we can live and not have to deal with all that icky reality stuff:

A public that can no longer distinguish between truth and fiction is left to interpret reality through illusion. Random facts or obscure bits of data and trivia are used to bolster illusion and give it credibility or are discarded if they interfere with the message. The worse reality becomes—the more, for example, foreclosures and unemployment skyrocket—the more people seek refuge and comfort in illusions. When opinions cannot be distinguished from facts, when there is no universal standard to determine truth in law, in science, in scholarship, or in reporting the events of the day, when the most valued skill is the ability to entertain, the world becomes a place where lies become true, where people can believe what they want to believe. This is the real danger of pseudo-events and why pseudo-events are far more pernicious than stereotypes. They do not explain reality, as stereotypes attempt to, but replace reality. Pseudo-events redefine reality by the parameters set by their creators. These creators, who make massive profits peddling these illusions, have a vested interest in maintaining the power structures they control.

The old production-oriented culture demanded what the historian Warren Susman termed character. The new consumption-oriented culture demands what he called personality. The shift in values is a shift from a fixed morality to the artifice of presentation. The old cultural values of thrift and moderation honored hard work, integrity and courage. The consumption-oriented culture honors charm, fascination and likability. “The social role demanded of all in the new culture of personality was that of a performer,” Susman wrote. “Every American was to become a performing self.”

Hard work?? Thrift? Moderation? Oh, my – that is SOOO Twentieth Century! It’s a brand new day, folks, and along with that is a new brand, OBAMA, and his “listen to what I say, and ignore everything I do”:

The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about performance. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.

Chris Hedges’ new book, “Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle,” will be out in July and can be preordered on Amazon (and please remember that No Quarter benefits if you click the Amazon button at the No Quarter site) or at your local bookstore

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Both Obama the Brand and the man are dangerous with his marketing to mask his real actions. Too many people did not wake up before granting Bush a second term (though even THAT is debatable given the state of our elections, particularly electronic voting machines – shameless plug for “Hacking Democracy” Live Chat and voter fraud in general). We can only hope, and work (in the good ol’ Twentieth Century way), to help more people move back into the reality-based community. To move from the illusion of Obama the Brand to the reality of Obama the Politician. The sooner, the better. And “sooner” can’t come fast enough for me. How about you?

As much as I hate to admit it, Maureen Dowd hits the nail on the proverbial head in her column today, “A Complicated Question“:

“He should not have run,” Elizabeth Edwards writes in her new book, “Resilience.”

John told her a little about Rielle a few days after he announced in 2006, and she told him to drop out to “protect our family from this woman, from his act,” she writes.

She said she cried, screamed and threw up when she found out. But she ended up going along, helping sell the voters on her husband’s character as a truth teller and charm as a loving husband and father. She had put so many quarters in the shiny slot machine of their mutual ambition. It was hard to walk away.

Can you imagine how differently the 2007-2008 primaries would have gone had he not been a candidate, with millions of supporters?

And I keep thinking about the “little people” who sacrificed to find a few dollars to send to his campaign because, of course, they were constantly begging for money.

This entire affair (pun intended) infuriates me. And I hold Elizabeth Edwards culpable as well as her husband.

I am INTENSELY CURIOUS TO FIND OUT how YOU think the primary races would have gone minus John Edwards.

This is not about Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, or even US Senator, or First Lady of the USA, or even First Lady of Arkansas. Not even Hillary Clinton, “Top 100 Attorneys in the USA,” first ever student valedictorian of Wellesley, or any of that. Nope. This is about Hillary Clinton, the child. From ABC News, Kirit Radia gives us this story, Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her “Ah-Ha” Moment.

This is the story of how she CAME to be all of those things mentioned above:

In an appearance at the Women’s Museum in Dallas on Friday, a transcript of which was released over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke candidly about the challenges she faced in breaking the glass ceiling, and referenced her run for the presidency last year.

Clinton revealed that she was “sort of a tomboy” when she was a young girl. “I did love to play sports and played with a lot of the boys in my neighborhood,” she said. She said the experience instilled a thirst for competition that served her well later.

“I wanted to be a baseball player,” she told an amused audience. “I wanted to be a journalist. I know you’ll never believe that.”

I can sure understand that. I had three brothers, so a built-in team there, but also the boys across the street. We played football – TACKLE football, that is, basketball, soccer, you name it, I played it. And I loved it. Still do love sports, for that matter.

But can’t you just see the young Hillary at a baseball game , or listening to it on the radio, or watching it on TV, cheering her team on (Cubs or Yankees – and yes, you CAN have two different favorite teams – one’s in the National League – Cubs, and one’s in the American League – Yankees. Makes perfect sense to this Braves/Yankees fan!)? I sure can. No doubt, she brought the same level of enthusiasm to her love of baseball that she brings to the work she has been doing as an adult.

But her dreams didn’t end there:

Clinton (told) the story about her aspirations to be an astronaut, one of her earliest encounters with the glass ceiling.

“I think I was thirteen or so, and so I wrote to NASA to ask how I could become an astronaut. And I got a response back which was, ‘We’re not interested in women astronauts,’” she said.

She spoke of the obstacles she faced in pursuing her professional and academic goals.

“When we were growing up, there were just so many overt and implied obstacles to what young women could aspire to. There were certainly schools you couldn’t go to, scholarships you couldn’t apply for – jobs that were not available to you,” Clinton said.

Again, I can relate. Not just in sports – Title IX came too late for me – but in professions like the ministry. My own father did not support women’s ordination, but I went to seminary anyway.

Sadly, there are still too many obstacles to women, Clinton’s being Secretary of State notwithstanding:

“You really have to prepare. And you have to get knocked down, and you have to pick yourself up, and you have to keep going,” she added later.

Clinton referenced her lost bid for the Democratic nomination last year. When asked about an “ah-ha” moment that she was going to be able to meet the lofty goals she’d set for herself, Clinton said there was another “ah-ha” moment of another manner.

“I had an ah-ha moment that I wasn’t going to be the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States,” she said as the audience laughed (according to the transcript). “That’s a kind of different ah-ha moment.”

Uh huh. That “ah-ha” moment was probably more of the “I can’t believe I actually have more votes, more experience, and won every major state except Illinois – and I know that it does NOT border Arkansas like Obama thinks it does – have devoted my LIFE to this party, put up with all kinds of crapola, and they are STILL picking the inexperienced, unqualified guy over ME!” But that’s just a guess on my part.

But Secretary of State Clinton carries on, with a passion for people and the issues we face rarely seen among politicians. And she continues the good fight for women to, some day, truly have equality, a dream that took quite a beating this past election season, unfortunately. But she will keep carrying on, like she always does, working for us. Some day, some how, we will get there. We CAN get there, we MUST get there, and we WILL get there, when we have leaders like Hillary Clinton. Thank you, Madame Secretary.

Thank you for modeling a woman “standing in her own skin.” The importance of doing so cannot be downplayed. And thank you for the “Ah-Ha!” moments you brought to all of us this past election season. You showed them all – the naysayers, the ones who bullied you, who put you down, who cheated you out of your votes, all of them. You stood with us, and we will stand with you.