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…

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…

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.

Part 1
In this clip, Geithner wears both the political and policy hats. While promoting the Obama agenda initially (housing, education, healthcare, energy), he then turns toward the specifics of unlocking the consumer credit securitization markets via the TALF (Term Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility). This facility attempts to restart the securitization market and model which I wrote was broken back on November 12th (The Wall Street Model Is Broken…and Won’t Soon be Fixed). That market provides approximately 40% of the financing to a wide array of consumer finance markets. Geithner attempts to portray a measure of confidence and aggressiveness. The market has currently responded with a vote of no confidence.

Part 2
Geithner addresses further specifics about the TALF and the public/private partnership that would be connected to the effort. The specifics of this public/private partnership are not addressed but, in essence, the government would provide financing (loans) for private entities to purchase asset-backed securities currently clogging bank balance sheets. Geithner does not provide specifics on the terms of the loans and MORE IMPORTANTLY does not address the fact that the government will likely share in the losses on these securities going forward. I believe many private investors are salivating at the potential for this program. Our Economic All Star John Mauldin commented that this partnership is the equivalent of government money coming in the front door and going to hedge funds out the back door. Mauldin proposes a suspension of the “mark to market” accounting rule that forces banks to mark these securities to depressed levels in the presence of no buyers.

Geithner defends his aborted initial delivery on his grand plan as “mismanaged expectations.” He also inaccurately describes mortgage rates as being close to 5%. The “mortgage mirage,” in which many people can not get a mortgage, has 30 year conventional mortgage rates closer to 5.5% and Jumbo rates in the 7% range, but virtually inaccessible.

Part 3
Geithner is forceful in this clip in stating that the government will stand behind the 20 largest banking institutions. These banks represent approximately 70% of the banking industry and - without using the phrase - Geithner is saying they’re “too big to fail.” He defends the capital injected as ultimately being in the best interests of the economy and taxpayers. He rails on the mismanagement and gross compensation practices at many of these institutions. He appreciates the anger and outrage of responsible people who are sufferring from the damage caused by those who have been irresponsible. All good.

When addressing the need for global regulatory changes as well as domestic regulatory changes, I suggest Secretary Geithner listen to former Australian Prime Minister and Treasurer Paul Keating who undressed him this past weekend. Keating opines that the IMF and World Bank will see a massive shift in power to the surplus economies of the East from the debtor economies of the West. Here at home, when Geithner talks about focused accountability, let’s see if he and the Obama administration effect the necessary changes in the corrosive influence of lobbyists as well as addressing the incompetence displayed at the SEC and FINRA.

Part 4
Geithner attempts to make the case that investors, both foreign and domestic, will continue to invest in our country and our U.S. government debt if they have confidence. The administration has the obligation to maintain that confidence. The first step in maintaining the confidence is displayed in the budget proposed by President Obama. Geithner puts his political hat back on in promoting the Obama agenda as being economically sound, laced with fiscal discipline, and promoting their moral obligation.

Investors are less sure about Geithner’s feelings and have voiced their indecision by exiting the markets since this budget was proposed.

Geithner further addresses the necessity for individuals, corporations, and governments to live within their means. Investors have roundly responded that they believe this administration and Congress are doing anything but living within their means given the undisciplined spending in the Stimulus plan, the budget, and the Omnibus Bill.

Geithner uses the lessons of the ’90s as justification for raising taxes going forward. He prefaces his remarks that taxes will only be raised “when the economy recovers.” Charlie Rose appropriately challeneges him on the overly optimistic economic assumptions utilized in the budget. I would ask why the base case GDP in the Bank Stress Test of 2% growth in 2010 is not the same level of GDP used in Obama’s budget. The budget assumes 3.2% !!

Part 5
In this clip, Geithner is largely wearing his political hat. He defends the Administration’s vetting process as he staffs Treasury. He further pushes the Obama agenda. In regards to criticism he has experienced, he responds that it is purely part of the job.

On the auto front, he dodges the question of bankruptcy.

Charlie Rose then questions him on what he has learned so far in his role as Treasury Secretary. Geithner responds that many may not know that he spent a large part of his career at Treasury serving under Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He holds them in very high regard and seems to promote that respect for them is universal. He does not address that Rubin was at the core of the lack of regulatory oversight that we have had for the last decade, as well as being the prime architect of the massive systemic risk that Citibank has developed.

When asked if he could see the problems developing that now envelop our economy, Geithner ducks in stating that most people missed it.

Part 6
Geithner remarks that both capitalism and our financial system have already changed and will continue to change as the necessary regulatory systems are put in place.

Geithner further adds that he is confident America will respond to this crisis because it is not a question of ability but a question of will. He believes this Administration possesses the will to make every necessary move to restore our economy.

In my personal opinion, it is also most definitely about ability as well. Do we have the measure of integrity and quality in our elected officials? Chuck Hagel, Leon Panetta and others have railed on the corrupt system of lobbying, campaign contributions, and persistent fundraising that has polluted our country and the process of government. While the Obama Administration has spoken about addressing parts of these issues, their actions and policy proposals to date indicate otherwise.

I found the Geithner interview to be interesting, while not exactly enlightening.

He is both politician and policy maven. To this point, the markets have graded him as decidedly mediocre. Although, to be fair, Washington as a whole is graded no better.

LD

Video provided by CheneyWatch.org for NoQuarterUsa.net YouTube channel

The nation can’t afford to wait for the economy to recover before tackling out-of-control medical costs, President Barack Obama is telling some of the most powerful players in the health care reform debate.

“If we want to create jobs and rebuild our economy, then we must address the crushing cost of health care this year, in this administration,” Obama says in remarks prepared for delivery to a White House forum on the issue Thursday. Excerpts were released by the White House.

“Making investments in reform now, investments that will dramatically lower costs, won’t add to our budget deficits in the long term — rather, it is one of the best ways to reduce them,” Obama said.

Okey dokey. How will we pay for it? WHO is going to be working on this critical issue? A whole bunch of folks, it seems:

Obama has invited to the forum more than 120 people who hold a wide range of views on how to fix the world’s costliest health care system, one that still leaves an estimated 48 million people uninsured. Doctors, patients, business owners, insurers and drug industry representatives were to gather in hopes of building support for big changes. Republicans are invited, and they’re expected to speak up.

“The president wants to engage with Congress in a transparent and bipartisan fashion,” said Melody Barnes, who heads White House domestic policy.

Among the invitees are some who helped kill the Clinton administration’s health care overhaul in the 1990s. Everyone is supposed to be on his best behavior, but will that last?

“This is a different day, ” said Chip Kahn, a hospital lobbyist who opposed President Bill Clinton’s plan and was to attend Thursday’s gathering. “I think among most of the stakeholders, everyone wants to see this work. There is a tremendous feeling that it’s time.”

Now president of the Federation of American Hospitals, Kahn worked for the insurance industry in the Clinton years.

The difference this time, Obama argues, is that health care costs have become unsustainable, particularly in a sinking economy. The U.S. spends $2.4 trillion a year on health care, yet an estimated 48 million Americans lack coverage. Obama’s goal is health coverage for everyone.

A different day why, exactly, Mr. Kahn? I mean, the plan back then was pretty darn good, and MAYBE if people like you hadn’t worked to kill it, health care would not be the horrendous mess it is right now. Just a thought. Oh - and did anyone else notice that Kahn is a lobbyist?? Just asking…

Anyway, you know that hard-working (snark), hoops-shooting Obama - he is Johnny On The Spot with this issue:

Barnes said Obama is determined to pass health care legislation this year, and while he wants it to be bipartisan, he will not be deterred by obstruction from interest groups or ideological partisans.

“The president will make clear this has to be a bipartisan effort,” Barnes said. “As for people who are there to set up hurdles, from his perspective that isn’t tolerable. It’s crucial to families, businesses and our nation’s budget that we address the issue of exploding costs.”

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky released a letter to Obama, saying his party is ready to work with the administration on health care, but warning that reforms should not lead to a government-run system, and must balance coverage expansions with curbs on costs.

Barnes said that Obama “walks into this conversation being pragmatic, being open. He knows that the American people are hurting” and are seeing their premiums rise.

But Barnes, interviewed Thursday on NBC’s”Today” show, also said that “we have to be transparent about it. … We will also hear the voices of the American people … to make sure that health care reform gets before the president for his signature before the end of the year.”

In support of Obama’s efforts, liberal activists have mobilized to keep the pressure on Congress to pass legislation this year.

“It would be a mistake to dismiss this as a gabfest,” Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said about Obama’s meeting. “It’s an effort to keep the momentum going. The details are not going to be worked in two or three hours at a White House summit.”

There were concerns Wednesday about some of those details.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., who will play a leading role in writing health care legislation, raised questions about the proposed $634 billion “down payment” for expanded coverage that Obama included in the 2010 budget he released last week.

Bipartisan?? Are people still buying that hooey? And, Obama walks into this forum being “pragmatic”? Well, can someone please tell me why, then, this person is missing?

Yes, Hillary Clinton, the one who had the BEST health care policy according to Paul Krugman, and even Obama’s TV Star doctor, Dr. Gupta, both favored Clinton’s plan, and SHE IS NOT IN THE ROOM??? Remember when we were all saying that maybe since she was the Secretary of State, she might indeed have some input in this area? Uh, yeah, NO. Obama brings in people who derailed her policy and hard work back in the ’90’s, but he can’t bring HER into the room?

Such a big surprise that Clinton isn’t there for this important issue - hahahaha. It’s too damn bad, though - especially since HER Plan covered EVERYONE and cost less per person than Obama’s. He talks the talk, but walking the walk does not seem to be his forte. Once again, just like with the Stimulus Package, the Omnibus Bil, and the proposed Budget, the ones who will be paying for that is US. But even more, no way will his fragile ego ever acknowledge that Clinton’s plan was actually better than his, or that maybe, just maybe, because she has worked on this so much, that she migt actually be a good person to have around that table. I sure would have felt better about whatever they concoct there if she was. But, no.

It’ll be mighty interesting to see what these hospital lobbyists Obama invited to the Health Care Forum come up with on OUR behalf…

Update: After Bernie Madoff, it appears that the next largest fraudulent investment scheme is centered on an entity known as Stanford Financial. This company has offices in Houston, TX and operated an offshore bank in the Caribbean. While this story is developing it is not surprising that the main principal, Allen Stanford, knew how to play the “Legalized Bribery” game we highlighted yesterday. Who benefitted from his millions in gifts and lobbying? Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Greg Meeks (D-NY), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Pete Sessions (R-TX), former CA governor Gray Davis, and the Democratic Party.

Texas Businessman Sought Influence in Corridors of Capitol

Quality business relationships are always mutually beneficial. If they are not mutually beneficial, then they will not thrive or perhaps even last at all. A strong business relationship, like any personal relationship, needs a foundation of honesty and integrity. As in any relationship, there will be plenty of instances in which the parties have disagreements and misunderstandings. If the relationship is strong enough, it can not only endure through these times but often grow stronger as a result of them. The challenge in any relationship is when one party is conflicted and attempts to serve two masters. These conflicted relationships - whether personal, political, social, or business - must change in order to grow or are doomed to languish and underperform if not die completely.

On Wall Street, a business that so grossly prioritizes short term profits versus long term customer relationships will not grow. Perhaps for a period of time the excess profits will be addicting and mesmerize management, but over time that model will not work. Bear Stearns is a classic example of this principle. From having worked there for 7 years in the 90s, I evidenced it firsthand.

Measuring and assessing the nature of relationships in Washington is extremely challenging. While our elected officials on both sides of the aisle tell us one thing, the backroom dealings, heavy lobbying, and quid pro quo generate tremendous frustration on behalf of the electorate. Are our elected officials oblivious to the details of critical issues and thus ineffective in serving the public interest? I do think this lack of understanding is a serious problem but it is not the biggest problem. The fact is that the business of Washington is a BIG business and the elected officials are the beneficiaries of the largesse bestowed upon them from heavy money lobbying.

Why is it that legislation to support the banking industry does not have clearly stated restrictive covenants? Why is it that a large “stimulus” bill is so loaded with earmarks and lacks real meaningful IMMEDIATE stimulus? Very simply, our politicians on both sides of the aisle are beholden to those moneyed interests who put them in Washington in the first place. Is it truly any wonder why Congress has near single digit approval ratings? It shouldn’t because they are not working for the electorate, they are working for the lobbyists. While President Obama talks about “change” across the board and specifically in regards to lobbying, his campaign and initial maneuvers raise serious doubts about his integrity on this front.

These issues are highlighted in a Boston Globe review of the book, So Damn Much Money written by Robert G. Kaiser. The Globe offers:

Today, members of the House and Senate routinely spend “a fourth or a third of their working hours soliciting those campaign contributions” that once would have “looked a great deal like bribes.”

Kaiser corroborates his findings with the observations of a host of seasoned and savvy Washington insiders. A few will suffice to make the point:

– Former Nebraska Republican senator Chuck Hagel told Kaiser, “There’s no shame anymore. . . . We’ve blown past the ethical standards; we now play on the edge of the legal standards.” Hagel comes to believe that “money and its pursuit [have] paralyzed Washington . . . Nothing truly important for the country [is] getting done.”

– Leon Panetta, a former member of Congress, Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House, and Obama’s newly confirmed CIA director, says that “legalized bribery has become part of the culture.” Members of Congress “rarely legislate; they basically follow the money . . . They’re spending more and more time dialing for dollars.” Panetta laments the quality of people now running for Congress, echoing the conclusion reached by Hagel and other old hands: “It’s all about winning, it’s not about governing anymore.”

Stimulus? Financial Stability Plan? Bipartisan interaction? Campaign finance reform? No, Congress is too busy collecting money to worry about these issues. In point of fact, after having sent my opinion about the stimulus proposal to my new Congressman Jim Himes (D-CT), his office did respond electronically thanking me for my message and simultaneously asked me for a campaign donation for his re-election in 2010. Something is seriously wrong here!!

LD

P.S. For those who care to read more about the incestuous nature of these Washington relationships, a reader was gracious enough to share this link of an interview Bill Moyers had with Simon Johnson, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund.

Translation - Past Presidents allowed corrupt Lobbyists to set the agenda and place corporate greed and selfish needs above the needs of the people. I will not allow those with economic interests influence federal policies.

Reality - Spin?

“Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions,” Gibbs told the Associated Press. “Our waiver provisions are designed to allow uniquely qualified individuals like Bill Corr and Bill Lynn to serve the public interest in these critical times.”

“White House aides suggest the criticism is nonsense, since even transition officials warned months ago there would be exceptions to lobbying bans for people they consider exceptionally talented. Others point out that so many people leave government to earn money with consulting and lobbying that it would be tough to staff any administration without needing to bend the rules.”

“We’ve talked about the fact that there are people that are good public servants who wish to serve their government, again, who are, through some stringent ethics requirements and recusals - that will be able to participate in helping this government, but that we have, again, the strongest ethics and transparency policy that govern the executive branch and the workings of this White House that we’ve seen in the history of our country.” ~Robert Gibbs

“Any standard is not perfect,” Gibbs said. “In the case of Mr. Lynn, he’s somebody who obviously is superbly qualified, is experienced, going back to his Pentagon jobs during the Clinton administration, make him uniquely qualified to do this.”

At a separate briefing, Gates also defended the decision to choose Lynn. “I asked that an exception be made because I felt that he could play the role of a deputy in a better manner than anybody else that I saw,” Gates said. “We certainly owe the Armed Services committee whatever information they need to be comfortable going forward.”

“Stephen Wayne, a Georgetown University professor of government focusing on the American presidency, called lobbyist waivers necessary to achieving Mr. Obama’s goals, particularly given how Washington has worked. “It’s hard to find people in Washington who haven’t lobbied, because when they leave government they sell their knowledge and access and become lobbyists or PR specialists,” he said.”

“I think it’s impossible in our system not to have people that have been in the advocacy system,” he said. “They’re the people who know the issues and have the expertise.” said James Thurber, who teaches lobbying at American University.”

So, some lobbyists are given a pass because they are really smart and Geitner, while not a lobbyist, was given a pass because he is *too big to fail*? Is Obama basically is saying that it is ok to break the rules, and ignore ethical dilemmas if you are really smart? (does not understanding TurboTax qualify someone as being *really smart*?)

The internet is loaded with spin on why Obama made exceptions for his lobbyist hires. Here is a quick recap:

~ It’s hard to find people in Washington who haven’t lobbied, because when they leave government they sell their knowledge and access and become lobbyists or PR specialists.
~ They are people who know the issues and have the expertise.
~ Certain candidates, although lobbyists, are most qualified.
~ In the case of Mr. Lynn, he’s somebody who is superbly qualified, is experienced, is uniquely qualified.
~ They are good public servants, who want to serve their public again.
~ They are exceptionally talented.
~ Some are uniquely qualified individuals like Bill Corr and Bill Lynn, and we need them to serve the public interest in these critical times.
~ Obama sets a very high bar.

So, why did our former Presidents hire lobbyists? Because they can juggle? Make a mean lasagna? Do laundry?

If I understand this correctly, Obama breaks his own rules to hire Lobbyists, experts that sell their expertise, that are exceptionally qualified, despite their flaws, because they are too important and big not to hire. But lobbyists under former administrations are just “unethical industry folks?”

“Take lobbying, for example, you will recall, embarrassingly, that 17 of the 24 Americans who served in Bush‘s cabinet while he was president, took lobbying positions after leaving the White House — 17 of 24. they were industry folks who were effectively taking an ethics vacation while doing jobs inside the federal government.” ~Rachel Maddow

Obama slammed McCain in memos, and campaign ads for hiring lobbyists. Is it possible that McCain, following Obama’s practice, set a high bar, and hired experts who were exceptionally qualified?

(As of today, A USA TODAY review of Obama hires shows that 21 have registered as federal lobbyists, although most have not done so within the past two years. They include White House aide Cecilia Muñoz, who lobbied last year for the National Council of La Raza, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who lobbied in 2007 for a national teachers union.)

Openleft has an alternate take on lobbyists. They aren’t buying the idea that there are no qualified candidates outside of lobbyists. “In the CNN interview, Kiran Chetry plays devil’s advocate and asks whether preventing lobbyists from entering government would mean a presidential administration wouldn’t have its pick of the most experienced and best people for top government jobs. This is the standard argument in Washington, D.C. to justify the revolving door, and - of course - it’s absurd and insulting. I’m sorry, but there are 300 million people in America, and it’s simply not credible to claim that the only person qualified for a top government job is a person who lobbied the government for a corporation looking for a handout. The whole idea that qualifying experience means being a paid corporate shill is insulting.”

That’s how I feel about people like Geitner, Dascle and Rangle, i.e. tax cheats. I’m sorry, but there are “300 million people in America, and it’s simply not credible to claim that the only person qualified for a top government job” is a tax cheat.

So, in reality, when Obama said *no lobbyists* he could have stuck by that promise. I find it hard to believe that there are no other candidates in the country qualified for these positions. Someone without lobbyist ties, and tax problems. No one? Someone? Anyone? Bueller?

Can’t we just call it what it was, an empty campaign promise to make Obama look all hope and changey. The spin, loopholes and flip flops just make Obama look ridiculous.

And, it makes you wonder, are lobbyists really even the problem?

Do you think lobbyists get a bad rap in D.C. and elsewhere?
“I do.”

Unfairly so?
“Yeah. I think 99 percent of the members of Congress and lobbyists I know, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, are good, honest, decent people. There are a small handful of bad apples who I think have tarnished the reputation of the Congress and people like me who advocate for different interests.”

What do you think of the new fundraising rules and the fact that you can’t take a member out for a big steak?
“The rules are well-intentioned but missed the mark. I don’t think a member could be corrupted by an $8 hamburger.”

Then what is the problem?
“The problem is the way we finance campaigns in this country. We have to go to a system where no one with a stake in the political outcome can contribute to a legislator who is casting votes in that public policy debate. You would have campaigns funded by the public.”

So, the problems in Washington, according to Jack Quinn (served as Vice President Gore’s chief of staff and later as counsel to President Clinton), are not because of lobbyists, but the way campaigns are financed.

“Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees or registered federal lobbyists, but many of his top fundraisers have keen economic interests in federal policies.”

Obama blames a lot of the problems in Washington on lobbyists, but he turned down public campaign finance, won’t disclose his small donor list, and raised nearly one billion dollars…and “many of his top fundraisers have keen economic interests in federal policies”.

Interesting.

*I don’t need any lobbyists. Well, just this one. And this one. That’s it. That’s all I need. Well, and this one. And this one.*

Ed Morrisey from Hot Air wrote about an article in India Daily, discussing Obama and lobbyists. Apparently Obama has issued 17 exceptions in just two weeks, to his no-lobbyist rule.

From India Daily:
“It is easy to project yourself as a clean politician after making your debut in South Side Chicago with buddies like Rahm Emanuel. US president Obama has appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist Governance and rooting corruption out of the American Government.

Would you believe, Obama had to issue 17 waivers on his own rule in less than two weeks for allowing lobbyist enter his Administration and control Governance of America!”

From Hot Air:
“Well, that’s Hope and ChangeTM, isn’t it? When anyone has to issue more than a waiver a day on any standard, it ceases being a standard and becomes a joke. The no-lobbyist rule has become just that — an ironic joke on all of the saps who fell for Obama’s populist pap over the last two years.”

You know it must be bad if Campbell Brown is upset. Heck, even Rachel Maddow is losing that lovin’ feeling. “Change we can believe in, as long as we pay attention to the disappointing asterisk on the word ‘change,’ ” complained Rachel Maddow, a liberal talk-show host for MSNBC.

Miss Maddow on Friday night blasted Mr. Obama for having former lobbyists in his administration, saying that his campaign-trail promise that lobbyists would not run his White House “sounded great; too great to be entirely true, it turns out.”

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, criticized the new administration for so quickly bending the lobbying rules.

“He got the good headlines, and their intentions were really good, but carving out so many exceptions is silly. They should stop pretending they are following the rule when they are not,” she said. “They say they have a policy of no lobbyists, and yet every day we hear about a new lobbyist.”

“Nearly two dozen executive-branch hires, all the way up to Cabinet level, have been registered federal lobbyists, with the most-prominent being Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and William Lynn, the No. 2 man at the Pentagon.”

Nearly two dozen lobbyists? Wow. So, Obama apparently had some loopholes planned when he said *no lobbyists!* What’s next, loopholes on torture?

So, who’s the jerk, now?

MSNBC went all out to get Obama elected, but now they’re tiptoeing into dangerous territory! Criticizing The One is verrrrrrry risky — as all of us at No Quarter know only too well after non-stop attacks for the past 15+ months!

UPDATE: Besides that one Politico report, there are two more revelations about Obama’s failures to live up to his promises:

(1) “Obama team’s finances hard to access“

Even as President Barack Obama issued new rules to make government more open and transparent, his administration is relying on an antiquated and opaque disclosure system.

Anyone seeking copies of the financial disclosure reports recently filed by members of his Cabinet and his top aides has to navigate an arcane and intrusive bureaucracy reliant on faxes, dense government forms, snail mail, or proximity to Washington, plus an insider’s knowledge of an unpredictable schedule dictated by a host of government officials.

Simply put, it’s a system that seems to run counter to Obama’s talk and his new rules about using technology to open the halls of the federal government to the public.

To be sure, the process for filing and releasing disclosure reports is a legacy that Obama has inherited from previous administrations – and one not easily changed in the first days of the new administration.

But it’s one that he could bring into the 21st century on his own – without congressional action – by executive order, which he was urged to do in post-election meetings that his team arranged with advocates for heightened government disclosure.

It’s especially anachronistic for financial disclosure forms – which are intended to ensure government employees’ economic interests do not conflict with their officials duties – to be so difficult to get, said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.

The non-partisan government watchdog group recommended the new president tighten reporting requirements, make the disclosure forms electronic and searchable and put them online quickly. … Read all

(2) “An online promise unmet“

Barack Obama’s campaign realized the potential of the Internet in politics, but his new White House website is still scrambling to approach his campaign promises of a more interactive government.

The Transition apparently didn’t arrive with a readymade template for the site, which has been developing in fits and starts since Obama’s Inauguration. Today, the Sunlight Foundation’s Paul Blumenthal pointed out a broken promise: Today’s Liily Ledbetter Act was not posted online for five days in advance of signing, as Obama had pledged.

Another flaw: WhiteHouse.gov, which is the official website of the American presidency, hasn’t been updated to show that Hillary Clinton and other Cabinet officials have been confirmed in their posiitons.

What??? The White House Web site isn’t updated to show the cabinet officials who’ve been confirmed?

Just who is in charge of this government anyway?

Oh wait … right ….

Well, he’ll come back to life when the next campaign begins.

Maybe that honeymoon really IS over!

See also: “ Is it true? Did Obama’s honeymoon end before it had a chance to begin?”

Don’t think for a moment that just because the election is over, that President-elect Obama’s Kool-Aid drunk hordes of internet volunteer/bots/thugs are going to fade away and go back to playing Doom, Sims, Dungeons and Dragons or trolling for dates on Facebook.

In fact, one of the netroots’ great gurus, none other than Joe Trippi believes the Community Organizer in Chief will harness the power of his millions of devoted on-line minions to create one of the most powerful lobbying forces ever. Frank Greve of the McClatchy newspapers writes about that here.

Oppose the President at your own peril.

Joe Trippi, the Internet politics guru whose computer geeks made Howard Dean a contender in 2004 and who went on to design Obama’s socially networked campaign machine, offers a provocative and educated guess.

Trippi predicted that Obama would use his forces, first and foremost, to intimidate congressional foes of his agenda, rally his allies and forge “one of the most powerful presidencies in American history.”

Certainly, Obama reaches the White House with the biggest, best organized, fastest-acting grass-roots army in the history of presidential campaigning.

Moreover, because his Internet operation was miles ahead of Republican John McCain’s, Obama’s liberal-to-libertarian electronic activists are in a position to dominate the new political medium much as conservative Republicans dominate talk radio.

As for political utility, many thousands of volunteers such as Hood will be deployable within hours, with great precision and at almost no cost, thanks to the campaign’s state-of-the-art information-management systems.

The president-elect’s political operatives know, for example, the ZIP codes and hence the congressional districts of each of Obama’s million most active campaigners, those who volunteered via his Web site mybarackobama.com. It’s a social network that the campaign set up to communicate needs, events and assignments to volunteers.

We have already witnessed the power of his online intimidation network. Pro-Hillary websites shut down after thousands of false spam reports from Obots, personal e-mails of bloggers reported for spam and turned off as well and of course those lovely trolls who invade every site to hijack any discussion that deviates from the Obama party line.

Several media outlets were bombarded with harassing phone calls, e-mails and protestors minutes after the devoted received “Obama action alerts” letting them know that opposition voices were soon to appear on certain programs.

Those who read here are already well aware that the candidate who promised a new kind of politics also approves of a new kind of political dissent. That is of course, no dissent at all.

It really is scary to think of how he might use that power to pursue his agenda. All the more reason that we at No Quarter must begin to organize ourselves and grow our ranks. It will be the only way to combat the power of the mob.

Yet Another Barack Obama Baloney Alert!

Barack Obama had the Audacity Of Mendacity to pimp this brazen lie today. Lucky for him, his ears don’t grow every time he lies:

“Let’s be clear who John McCain is fighting for — he’s not fighting for Joe the Plumber, he’s fighting for Joe the Hedge Fund Manager,”

Increasingly arrogant because he knows his personal PR team in the main stream media won’t call him on any filthy lie he tells, Obama has once again not only lied in America’s face, but done it without a hint of conscience….a habit he has mastered, because it is becoming increasingly apparent that he has no soul.

Well I was just wondering then, Barack, since we are “being clear here”: If John McCain is fighting for Joe The Hedge Fund Manager, how come Joe The Hedge fund Manager has given you so much money?

Before you scrub the net, Barack, there are pages upon pages dating all the way to last year, that discuss how much Wall Street and Hedge Fund Managers are in love with you. Now why is that?

In fact, as I was researching this latest lie of yours, I could hardly keep up with all the links and all the names…..and all the money! Gratefully, the fast and efficient American Thinker got ahead of this issue in September.

Let’s keep one thing in mind. As even the liberal New York Times has stated:

Barack Obama is the candidate of the hedge funds because of the outsized support these titans of mismanagement have heaped upon him.

George Soros-hedge fund pioneer and titan-was early in his support. As emperor of a range of 527 groups, he has wielded his influence to help his largest political investment to date: Barack Obama.

But it’s not just the master of economic manipulation George Soros who loves Barack Obama. No sir. As if April 2008:

Many of the top 10 managers on Alpha magazine’s mind-blowing 2007 rich list, which was released last week, have put money on Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. They have each given the maximum donation allowed: $2,300. (Let’s face it, this is pocket lint to these guys.)

Obama’s hedge fund contributors include managers:

John Griffin, the founder of Blue Ridge Capital, who made $625 million in 2007, according to Alpha. Griffin is backing Obama after initially supporting Mitt Romney.

Kenneth Griffin (no relation) of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, who earned $1.5 billion. He contributed to the Obama campaign after the senator went to his office last year.

Stephen Mandel Jr. of Lone Pine Capital, who took home $710 million last year.

And, of course, George Soros, who earned almost $3 billion last year. It is no surprise that Soros, a Democratic stalwart, is backing Obama. Soros campaigned against President Bush in 2004, and Moveon.org, which Soros has plied with tens of millions of dollars, endorsed Obama in February.

Well now wait. If you were a very very rich hedge fund manager and you wanted to give WAY more money to your special candidate, you would have to be……..a……bundler. That’s a person who puts the hammer on employees and other people dependent upon him or her –and collects up large sums via small donations. That way they don’t look like lobbyists but they get all the “credit” for the “Bundle”–and the greasy political recipient gets to call all those donations gifts from “the little guy”. Sound familiar? As a matter of fact, some of them actually are lobbyists, but I digress.

Now why is it that hedge fund lobbyists bundlers have raised more than twice as much money for Barack Obama than for John McCain? I mean, John McCain is the one looking out for Joe The Hedge Fund Bundler right?

Right.

[July 2008 figures below]

New figures show the Illinois senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has drawn $822,375 in campaign contributions from employees of hedge funds, compared to $348,300 for his Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

The figures, compiled for Reuters by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance research group, reflect mounting concern over the rising cost of health care and other domestic issues where several hedge fund managers said Mr. Obama had an edge over Mr. McCain.
….snip….

[Now for the bundlers as of July 2008]

Employees at $20 billion hedge fund Citadel Investment Group, run by Kenneth Griffin, rank as Mr. Obama’s top hedge fund backers, donating $185,300 to their home-state senator so far.

Employees at New York-based Taconic Capital Advisors donated $42,650 to Mr. Obama and $500 to Mr. McCain, while employees at D.E. Shaw & Co, also headquartered in New York, gave $41,915 to Mr. Obama and nothing to Mr. McCain.

Now why is it that Barack Obama fancies that John McCain is looking out for Joe The Hedge Fund Manager when Joe The Hedge Fund Manager keeps giving more of his money to Barack Obama? Must be because Joe The Hedgefund Manager always gives more money to the guy who is going to screw him, right?

Right. Well that’s not what THEY think:

“People are clearly looking to gain influence with the candidates down the line and are making their bets accordingly,” said a hedge fund manager in Chicago who declined to be identified so he could speak candidly.

Well, I guess they must just be financial masochists then. Because, according to Barack Obama, it’s John McCain who is looking out for them, right?

Right. So then why is it that Hedge Fund “Heavies” have been hosting some very lucrative fundraising bashes for Barack Obama?

The first was co-hosted by George Soros, the financier and former hedge fund manager, and Paul Tudor Jones, who runs the giant hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation. That event, held in Mr. Jones’s $25 million waterfront mansion — which Vanity Fair’s Nina Munk has described as a “a cross between Tara and a national monument” — collected $2,300 from each of the approximately 300 attendees, the Greenwich Time reported.

Wow, nice digs, Mr. Jones! Way better than the digs Tony Rezko finagled for Barack, but Barack wants one just like yours.

Now wasn’t that sweet of Mr. Jones? I mean how many hedge fund managers would host a bash like that for Barack Obama, who “Isn’t looking out for him”? I mean, one would think that, since John McCain is the one looking out for him, he would have hosted that bash for John McCain, right?

Right.

So, Barack, are you sure you don’t want to withdraw that lie you told mistake you made regarding exactly who is looking out for Joe The Hedgefund Manager?

Oh and one more question, Barack. Where there any plumbers at these parties? Just wondering.

…………….

From my blog, Uppity Woman.

Anyway, watch this CLASSIC FLINEO VIDEO, and drag every one of your relatives and neighbors over to watch it too. Amidst the omniscient deification, there have to be a few people doing some reality checks on Obama:

Below are the notes Flineo attached to this video, along with a couple additional comments:

Flineo’s videos are so brilliant, and I’m upset with him for taking on a time-consuming task that makes it impossible for him to do more videos at the moment.

He launched this great video on — get this — March 27, 2008. Remember those days? Remember? Back then, when we still had a qualified candidate running for the Democratic nomination? Yes, Hillary has taken money from many lobbyists too (they all do), but Saint Barack has escaped the scrutiny of his associations that other candidates have historically been subjected to.

Here are Flineo’s accompanying notes at the YouTube page:

USA Today, April 15, 2008

Obama takes plenty of money from special interests (from individuals or groups) despite his rhetoric otherwise. Those who contribute $1000 or more constitute 60% of his campaign fund (www.fec.gov). Every politician takes special interest money. Only Obama preaches about not taking it, but backdoors just as much and more than anyone. Also, remember the pledge of “public financing”? NOT!

That USAToday article, which Flineo linked, checks out Obama’s claims in a primary battle ad (posted in the article) that he ran in Pennsylvania where — as you’ll recall — Hillary trounced Barack.

Hillary trounced Barack in Pennsylvania because, the PEOPLE KNEW, Hillary had the real goods and Barack is all smoke and mirrors.

From the article which reminds us of Obama’s ridiculous bragging that he doesn’t take money from oil companies, and more:

Obama’s claim of independence questioned

[...]

It’s accurate that Obama doesn’t take money from oil companies; neither do his opponents, because corporate contributions are illegal. But Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama’s case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama’s fundraising team.

[..]

“The Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference,” said a statement on the website of FactCheck.org, an affiliate of the University of Pennsylvania. “We’re not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron’s PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees.”

$193 million — and counting

The episode underscores the pitfalls confronting a candidate who rails against special interests while raising $193 million and counting — the most of any presidential campaign. Obama’s fundraising tests the limits of his claim that he is independent of Washington’s influence industry because he doesn’t take money from federal lobbyists and PACs.

Other examples that strain against that claim:

•Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig, whose lobbying clients include gambling and handgun interests.

Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment.

•Obama accepts money from spouses of federal lobbyists. In December, the campaign returned a $250 contribution from lobbyist Thomas Jensen of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, but a few days later, it cashed a $500 check from his wife, Sarah, records show. Jensen said his wife had “personally chosen” to contribute to Obama.

•Obama accepts contributions and fundraising help from state lobbyists. Florida lobbyist Russell Klenet hosted a fundraiser for Obama Aug. 25, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Two months before, Klenet had withdrawn as a lobbyist in Washington for a kidney dialysis company that relies heavily on federal revenue, Senate records show. Klenet did not return phone calls.

•Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He’s taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that “I don’t take pharma money.” …

(Read all of “Obama’s claim of independence questioned.”)

I’ve never seen such a fake get a huge pass from the media. It’s astonishing. And if the American people vote this fake into office, god help us all.

Top Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign Contributions, 1989-2008

Name Office Party/State Total
1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900

2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000

3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849

4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550

5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500

6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499

7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000

8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991

9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499

10. Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’ S R-MO $55,400

11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300

12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000

13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750

14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750

15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389

16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100

17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750

18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249

19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500

20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750

21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000

22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750

23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700

24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500

25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750

Includes contributions from PACs and individuals.
2008 cycle totals based on data downloaded from the
Federal Election Commission on June 30, 2008.

Absent from the list is the name of John McCain, John Sununu, Elzabeth Dole, and Chuck Hagel. Those Senators tried to take action in January 2005 but could find no Democratic sponosor nor any other Republicans willing to back them in cleaning up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Now that’s damn serious. If Raines’ behavior isn’t criminal, it should be. The billions that U.S. taxpayers will be paying to rescue Fannie Mae are due in no small part to Obama’s adviser Raines as well as Jim Johnson, another Obama adviser who headed his vice presidential selection committee. NancyA posted today’s McCain ad on Obama’s connections to the corrupt Johnson who, like Raines, stuffed his pockets while ruining Fannie Mae.

Then there’s the whole lobbying matter: Barack Obama, who’s only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, is the #2 recipient out of 354 lawmakers of lobbying monies from Fannie and Freddie (not to mention Lehman Bros. and AIG) — read Larry Johnson’s reports here and here. This should be a top topic at dinner tables around the country. How could someone with so little Senate service — two-plus years — be the #2 beneficiary of such huge amounts of lobbying monies?

Early today, still ruminating about Barack Obama’s predilection for questionable advisers who make their money on the backs of taxpayers, from Tony Rezko and the rest of the Chicago “machine” to Fannie Mae’s Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, I check Memeorandum.com and am FLOORED that this is the top story, from Time’s Karen Tumulty:

McCain Plays the Race Card — When politicians interject race into a campaign, they seldom do it directly. Consider McCain’s new ad, which the campaign says it will be airing nationally: This is hardly subtle: Sinister images of two black men, followed by one of a vulnerable-looking elderly white woman. …

First, when I watched that ad last night, it never dawned on me that Raines’ color was a factor. Furthermore, I’d already seen in my Inbox this morning that McCain has a new ad out today on Jim Johnson, Obama’s other adviser who scammed taxpayers while making millions at Fannie Mae.

Tumulty, in her article, complains that McCain singles out Raines because he’s black, but that McCain doesn’t go after Johnson, who’s white. Good god! If Karen Tumulty had picked up the telephone, she’d have known that John McCain released a new ad very early this morning titled, drum roll, “Jim Johnson.”

The simple logic to me is that it is easier to concentrate on one man’s thievery at a time in a very short TV ad. Hence, the McCain ad people created two ads. Not the first ad to make black people look “sinister.” (I literally just slapped my forehead with the palm of my hand.)

The silliness of the “race card” addressed, let’s focus more on Johnson and Raines:

These are NOT good people.

These are NOT people who stay awake at night worrying about the thousands of home owners losing their homes because they were screwed by shaky mortgage deals.

These are NOT the kind of “experts” that a presidential candidate should either seek out for advice — or even be seen remotely near (!).

If I’d been instrumental in bringing down one of the largest home financing institutions — and I’d been a major reason that taxpayers will have to shell out billions of dollars for decades to come — I’d be hanging my head in shame and hiding out in my basement, calling out for Domino’s pizza and donating $100,000 of that $110,000 monthly pension check to charity. But I’m clearly a fool. Consciences are so lame, huh.

Anyway, here’s some more history on Obama’s involvements with Jim Johnson at some very audaciously incongruent moments in his candidacy, courtesy of the excellent Commentary columnist Jennifer Rubin in June 2008 — with the highly apt title, “Let Me Get This Straight.”

On a day in which he is hip-deep in James Johnson goo, Barack Obama did a forum on mortgage lending practices? Nah, it can’t be. That would be the height of hypocrisy and the evidence that Obama’s fine-tuned machine had stepped on it’s own message. Oh, wait–it’s true. It has become clear that until Wednesday Obama still didn’t realize anything was amiss. As the New York Times noted:

Mr. Obama had defended Mr. Johnson as recently as Tuesday, saying that he had only a “tangential” role in his campaign and that he was not troubled by his business activities. He said he had not inquired about his mortgages and would not hire people to, as he put it, “vet the vetters.” But Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Republican Party officials kept up a steady drumbeat of criticism of Mr. Johnson. The case became a test of Mr. Obama’s professed independence from Washington insiders and supposed higher ethical standards. Mr. Obama has refused to accept campaign donations from lobbyists and had made criticism of the cozy financial and political relationships in the capital a hallmark of his campaign rhetoric.

Even aside from his poor choice of topics on Wednesday, the hypocrisy watchdogs had spotted the problem. Jake Tapper observed:

A consummate Washington, D.C., insider, Johnson’s leadership role in Obama’s campaign seemed to belie the candidate’s promise to voters that “the stakes are too high and the challenges too great to play the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result.”

But beyond that contradiction and Johnson’s controversial time at Fannie Mae was the issue of what Republicans termed Johnson’s “sweetheart” loan from Countrywide. Earlier this year, Obama and his campaign had impugned Sen. Hillary Clinton for taking money from Countrywide lobbyists and for allowing a senior campaign adviser to simultaneously do work for Countrywide.”

Tapper noted that, although Obama had excoriated Countrywide in a swing through the Rust belt in March,

[w]hen Obama was asked about Johnson’s special loan from Countrywide Tuesday in St. Louis, outrage seemed the furthest emotion he could muster.

“I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages,” he said after ABC News asked him about the apparent contradiction. “This is a game that can be played. Everybody you know who is tangentially related to our campaign I think Is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to vet the vetters.”

As Gail Collins put it, “Talk about unnecessary disasters.” Unnecessary but not unexpected. In no other instance of brewing trouble–Bittergate or Rev. Wright, to name two–did Obama’s early warning signal go off that something was amiss. When you believe your own press releases and listen to your media fan club, you wind up thinking that no one will call you on it when you hire a Washington fixer and go to predatory lending events on the day you fire a recipient of discounted loans.

And here is where Jennifer Rubin hits the NAIL on the HEAD:

It is becoming easier to understand how Obama got swept into the orbit of Tony Rezko: he seems to lack basic common sense about the appearance of ethical improprieties and possesses the arrogance to believe no one will question his motives. It’s a deadly combination. …

But not these guys. They have such gall that they have no guilt about stealing millions in compensation and pensions while living the high life in the midst of Washington, D.C. society and cozying up to Barack Obama.

Get this!

This Jim Johnson character was in hock to Countrywide up to his eyeballs! At the time he was forced to resign from Barack Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, the Wall Street Journal discovered that Jim Johnson’s monthly “obligations” were nearly TWICE his “stated monthly income.”

But Countrywide considered him a “High Profile Borrower” and awarded Johnson the Exception Processing System, “which the lender used to handle loans that didn’t comply with its own regulations.”

Within Countrywide, Mr. Johnson was designated both a Friend of Angelo and a “High Profile Borrower,” according to documents and people familiar with the matter. His loans were handled by Mr. Mozilo and his lieutenants Andrew “Drew” Gissinger III and Wes Lazear.

Bank of America Corp., which is acquiring the struggling Countrywide, has chosen Mr. Gissinger, a former San Diego Chargers offensive lineman, and several other Countrywide executives to help run its mortgage business after the acquisition. Mr. Gissinger will head several groups responsible for selling mortgages to consumers.

Perhaps the most unusual of Mr. Johnson’s loans was one for more than $1.5 million last year for a real-estate project in Big Timber, Mont. At the time he got the loan, what the records indicate were Mr. Johnson’s monthly obligations were nearly twice his stated monthly income, according to documents and to people familiar with the matter.

The records say Mr. Johnson’s “total income” was $55,834 a month, while his “total obligations” were $97,708.97 a month. The result was a total debt ratio of 175%, which Countrywide’s records say was “too high.”

Countrywide handled this as a house construction loan, which meant that Mr. Johnson wasn’t required to make a down payment apart from the $240,000 investment he had already made in raw land and a payment for construction. A requirement for a second appraisal was waived by Mr. Gissinger.

The loan’s size also exceeded Countrywide rules, but that limit was overridden as well. The document indicated that the size limit was $1.5 million for a second home. In addition, Countrywide borrowers are supposed to have no more than four currently financed properties at a time. Countrywide waived that rule, too. Mr. Johnson was in the processing of selling one of his properties.

“The borrower of this loan is the former CEO of Fannie Mae,” Countrywide records state. “This is a very high-profile and visible loan that needs…immediate attention.”

Senior executive Mr. Lazear overrode Countrywide’s rule prohibiting loans to a borrower with such a high debt-to-income ratio (DTI) in an April 19, 2007 memo. “Mr. Johnson’s profile in many ways, including the existing performing loans at Countrywide, supports the exception,” Mr. Lazear wrote. “This email gives you my approval for the DTI exception.” Mr. Lazear couldn’t immediately be reached including through messages on his personal mobile-phone number. …

ALL I WANT:

(1) That Obama’s relationships with these people who ripped off major mortgage institutions are exposed!

(2) That Obama’s huge take in lobbying funds — thanks to his cozying up to these fat cats who have ripped off both their companies and the American taxpayers — is adequately revealed to all Americans!

(3) And, please lord god almighty, don’t tell me that Jim Johnson’s Countrywide loans are going to be bailed out by the U.S. taxpayers!

P.S. MSM, We know you have a vested interest in the outcome of this election, but your pathetic use of the “race card” is laughable. Knock it off.

And, Karen Tumulty, learn how to use your telephone or get an editorial assistant who has the brains to fact-check your stories for you.

If Time doesn’t have the budget, just call me, Karen. I get the press releases from both presidential candidates, and I can get you the latest info.

It is highly ironic that Barack Obama chose to respond to today’s shocking news by attacking McCain while McCain/Palin are proposing a reform of federal regulations. Obama is also blaming the Republican party for our nation’s crisis.

Yet it is Barack Obama who is the #2 recipient of lobbying handouts, out of 354 lawmakers, from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Don’t miss Jennifer Rubin’s excellent post today, “Whoops!“: “The Agent of Change, it seems, didn’t exactly walk the walk on this one.”) Here is “Crisis,” the new McCain/Palin TV ad:

Here are the script and fact check list from the McCain campaign’s press release:

ANNCR: Our economy in crisis. Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it.

Tougher rules on Wall Street to protect your life savings.

No special interest giveaways.

Lower taxes to create new jobs.

Offshore drilling to reduce gas prices.

McCain - Palin.

Leadership, experience, for the change we need.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Crisis” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Our economy in crisis. Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it. Tougher rules on Wall Street to protect your life savings. No special interest giveaways.

· John McCain: “And Under My Reforms, All Aspects Of A CEO’s Pay, Including Any Severance Arrangements, Must Be Approved By Shareholders.” “In times of hardship and distress, we should be more vigilant than ever in holding corporate abuses to account, as in the case of the housing market. Americans are right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEO’s — in some cases, the very same CEO’s who helped to bring on these market troubles — bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders. Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while the offenders themselves are packed off with another forty - or fifty million for the road. If I am elected president, I intend to see that wrongdoing of this kind is called to account by federal prosecutors. And under my reforms, all aspects of a CEO’s pay, including any sever ance arrangements, must be approved by shareholders.” (John McCain, Remarks, Washington, D.C., 6/10/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Reform Our Mortgage And Financial Markets. “Fixing Fannie and Freddie, and reforming our mortgage and financial markets, is critical to getting the housing market and the entire economy moving again. A great deal of the savings and wealth of American families is wrapped up in the value of their homes. A house has traditionally been the wealth-building course to retirement. The housing industry employs millions of Americans. One of us, John McCain, said over two years ago, ‘If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose.’” (John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, Op-Ed, “We’ll Protect Taxpayers From More Bailouts,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/9/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Address The Role Speculation Is Playing In Energy Prices. “Congress already has investigations underway to examine this kind of wagering in our energy markets, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce, because it can distort the market, drive prices beyond rational limits, and put the investments and pensions of millions of Americans at risk. John McCain believes that where we find abuses, they need to be swiftly punished. To make sure it never happens again, we must reform the laws and regulations governing the oil futures market, so that they are just as clear and effective as the rules applied to stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments.” (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Lexington Project: A Comprehensive Plan To Break Our Dependence On Foreign Oil,” Press Release, 6/25/08)

· John McCain Fought For Financial Transparency In Stock Option Expensing. “U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today offered an amendment to the Accounting Reform Bill that would require companies to record the stock options that they grant to their employees as an expense on their financial statements. His floor statement follows: ‘Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that requires companies to record the stock options that they grant to their employees as an expense on their financial statements. If companies want to claim these expenses as a deduction for tax purposes, they ought to be noted as expenses on a company’s income statement. We must end the double standard for stock options.’” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “We Must End Double Standard For Stock Option,” Press Release, 7/11/02)

· John McCain Has Long Fought For “Transparency Of Our Financial Markets.” “As the incoming Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I plan to conduct rigorous oversight over those aspects of corporate governance that fall under the panel’s purview. I also plan to pursue further reforms that are desperately needed such as expensing stock options. We have an obvious, pressing obligation to investors to ensure the transparency of our financial markets. Reform is a process. It is not a one-time fight.” (Office Of U.S. Senator John McCain, “McCain Declares Reform Crusade Continues,” Press Release, 11/14/01)

ANNCR: Lower taxes to create new jobs.

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Keep Tax Rates Low. Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. Entrepreneurs create the ultimate job security — a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. John McCain will keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Small businesses are the heart of job growth; raising taxes on them hurts every worker. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Cut Taxes For Middle Class Families. John McCain will phase out and eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) — a tax that will be paid nearly exclusively by 25 million middle class families. Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year. Under John McCain’s plan, a middle class family with children set to pay the AMT will save an average of over $2,700 — a real tax cut for working families. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Double The Personal Exemption For Dependents. John McCain believes the tax code should be less of a burden on those, whether they are mothers and fathers or single parents, who are trying to raise a family. He proposes to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Establish Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D. This reform will simplify the tax code, reward activity in the U.S., and make us more competitive with other countries. A permanent credit will provide an incentive to innovate and remove uncertainty. At a time when our companies need to be more competitive, we need to provide a permanent incentive to innovate, and remove the uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make R&D investment decisions. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Allow First-Year Deduction, Or “Expensing”, Of Equipment And Technology Investments. American workers need the finest technologies to compete. Expensing of equipment and technology will provide an immediate boost to capital expenditures and reward investments in cutting-edge technologies. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Reduce The Federal Corporate Tax Rate To 25 Percent From 35 Percent. A lower corporate tax rate is essential to keeping good jobs in the United States. America was once a low-tax business environment, but as our trade partners lowered their rates, America failed to keep pace. We now have the second highest corporate tax rate in the world, making America a less attractive place for companies to do business. American workers deserve the chance to make fine products here and sell them around the globe. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Ban Internet Taxes. John McCain has been a leader in keeping the Internet free of taxes. As President, he will seek a permanent ban on taxes that threaten this engine of economic growth and prosperity. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Ban New Cell Phone Taxes. John McCain understands that the same people that would tax e-mail will tax every text message — and even 911 calls. John McCain will prohibit new cellular telephone taxes. (McCain-Palin 2008, “John McCain’s Jobs For America Economic Plain,” Press Release, 7/7/08)

ANNCR: Offshore drilling to reduce gas prices. McCain - Palin. Leadership, experience, for the change we need. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· John McCain And Governor Palin Will Expand Offshore Drilling To Reduce Gas Prices. McCain: “But I also believe that lifting the moratoria from offshore drilling or oil and natural gas exploration is something that we should place as a very high priority. And again, I don’t want to dictate to the states what they should do, but I think that the states can be provided with additional incentives such as a greater share of the revenues than is presently the case.” (Sen. John McCain, Remarks At Press Availability, Arlington, VA, 6/16/08)

· CNN’s Frank Sesno: “Expectations Of More Production Can Send Prices Down.” FRANK SESNO: “Obama’s criticized McCain for saying more drilling would have a positive psychological impact. But there is psychology in energy markets, worries about soaring demand in China or supply disruptions in Nigeria send prices up. Expectations of more production can send prices down.” (CNN’s “Situation Room,” 6/26/08)

· Harvard Professor And Former Council Of Economic Advisors Chairman Martin Feldstein: “Increasing The Expected Future Supply Of Oil Would Also Reduce Today’s Price.” “Any policy that causes the expected future oil price to fall can cause the current price to fall, or to rise less than it would otherwise do. In other words, it is possible to bring down today’s price of oil with policies that will have their physical impact on oil demand or supply only in the future. For example, increases in government subsidies to develop technology that will make future cars more efficient, or tighter standards that gradually improve the gas mileage of the stock of cars, would lower the future demand for oil and therefore the price of oil today. Similarly, increasing the expected future supply of oil would also reduce today’s price. That fall in the current price would induce an immediate rise in oil consumption that would be matched by an increase in supply from the OPEC producers and others with some current excess capacity or available inventories. Any steps that can be taken now to increase the future supply of oil, or reduce the future demand for oil in the U.S. or elsewhere, can therefore lead both to lower prices and increased consumption today.” (Martin Feldstein, Op-Ed, “We Can Lower Oil Prices Now,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/1/08)

· BMO Financial Group Global Finance Strategist Andrew Busch Wrote That Long Term Solutions To Energy Such As Drilling Can Have A Short Term Affect On Markets. “We need longer term plans to solve the longer term energy problems of United States. In case you aren’t familiar with how markets react, a coherent, logical plan of action towards providing long term solutions will have a positive impact now on the price of energy. Why? Because it will shift the short term psychology of the market away from doom and gloom towards a light at the end of the tunnel scenario. We only need to look at President Bush’s lifting of the moratorium on off-shore drilling to see an example of this in the markets. Did this act significantly change the short term outlook for oil? No, but it changed the discussion on the subject at a time when it was needed. In turn, this aided the shift in market psychology back to some fundamentals like demand…..which is dro pping.” (Andrew Busch, ” Busch: Long Term Energy Plans Can Be Short Term Solutions,” CNBC’s “Guest Blog,” http://www.cnbc.com/id/25803361, Posted 7/22/08)

· Omer Bhatti, The Head Trader At WorldSpreads, Said That The U.S. Offshore Drilling Plan Will Help Lower The Price Of Oil. OMER BHATTI (Head Sales Trader at WorldSpreads): “I think the offshore drilling plan that was agreed in the U.S. kind of helped the scenario to create that pullback scenario.” (CNBC’s “Worldwide Exchange,” 7/28/08)

Q. WHAT’S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT — LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY: WHAT’S THE MOST GUT WRENCHING DECISION YOU’VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AND HOW DID YOU PROCESS THAT, COME TO THAT DECISION?

A. WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS AS TOUGH A DECISION THAT I’VE HAD TO MAKE NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE WERE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES BUT ALSO BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A BAD PERSON AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT HE MET AMERICA ILL.

BUT I WAS FIRMLY CONVINCED AT THE TIME THAT WE DID NOT HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT AS I SPOKE TO EXPERTS KEPT ON COMING UP, DO WE KNOW HOW THE SHIITES AND THE SUNNIS AND THE KURDS ARE GOING TO GET ALONG IN A POST SADDAM SITUATION, WHAT’S OUR ASSESSMENT AS TO HOW THIS WILL AFFECT THE BATTLE AGAINST TERRORIST LIKE AL-QAEDA, HAVE WE FINISHED THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN?

SO I AGONIZED OVER THAT AND I THINK QUESTION OF WAR AND PEACE GENERALLY ARE SO PROFOUND YOU KNOW WHEN YOU MEET THE TROOPS, THEY ARE 19, 20, 21-YEAR OLD KIDS AND YOU ARE PUTTING THEM INTO HARM’S WAY THERE IS A SOLEMN OBLIGATION THAT YOU DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO GET THAT DECISION RIGHT.

AND NOW AS THE WAR WENT FORWARD, VERY DIFFICULT ABOUT HOW LONG DO YOU KEEP FUNDING THE WAR IF YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IT’S NOT AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST AT THE SAME TIME YOU DON’T WANT TO HAVE TROOPS WHO ARE OUT THERE WITHOUT THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEED. SO THAT ALL THOSE QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE WAR HAVE BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME.

Say WHAT, OBush?? YOU did not have to make ANY decisions on the War in Iraq! YOU were not in the SENATE yet!! How in the WORLD does this guy get away with these blatant lies and mind-boggling (delusional) revisionist history??

Wait - here’s another goody. Oh, dear goddess, McCain is going to have a FIELD day with this statement come August 28th. I’ll show you why after the question and answer:

Q. ABOUT THE COMMON GOOD, THE COMMON GROUND AND COMMON GOOD. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A TIME YOU KNOW A LOT — I’VE SEEN A LOT OF GOOD LEGISLATIONS GETS KILLED BECAUSE OF PARTY LOYALTY. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE YOU WIN(went) AGAINST PARTY LOYALTY AND MAYBE EVEN WIN (went) AGAINST YOUR OWN BEST INTEREST FOR THE GOOD OF AMERICA?

A. WELL, I’LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE THAT IN FACT I WORKED WITH JOHN MCCAIN ON AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE OF CAMPAIGN ETHICS REFORM AND FINANCE REFORM. THAT WASN’T PROBABLY IN MY INTEREST OR HIS FOR THAT MATTER BECAUSE THE TRUTH WAS BOTH DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS OR OF LIKE THE STATUS QUO AND I WAS NEW TO THE SENATE AND IT DIDN’T NECESSARILY ENGENDER A LOT OF POPULARITY WHEN I STARTED SAYING YOU KNOW WE’RE GOING TO ELIMINATE MEALS AND GIFTS FROM CORPORATE LOBBYISTS.

I REMEMBER ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHOSE NAME WILL BE UNMENTIONED WHO SAID, WELL, WHERE DO YOU EXPECT US TO EAT MCDONALD’S? AND I THOUGHT WELL, ACTUALLY, A LOT OF OUR CONSTITUENTS PROBABLY DO EAT AT MCDONALD’S SO THAT WOULDN’T BE SUCH A BAD THING. BUT I THINK THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET A BILL PASSED THAT HASN’T MADE WASHINGTON PERFECT BUT AT LEAST IT MOVING THINGS FORWARD.

Ready? Here is a letter from Senator John McCain to Senator Barack Obama from FEBRUARY 06, 2006 issued as a Press Release:

The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510

John McCain

Ahem. So it would seem that, once again, Obama was lying through his teeth. Like his “My mother was a poor single mother and I grew up without a daddy,” which is ALSO in this transcript regarding his “moral failings.”

Okay - as promised, here is the big event of the night in California. Ellen and Portia Get Married, Obama, on this night, also touched on same-sex marriage. When asked to define marriage, he told Warren, “It’s a union between a man and a woman.”

“For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God’s in the mix,” he said.

Obama added that he does support same-sex civil unions, saying, “I can afford those civil rights to others even if I don’t have … that view.”

Gosh, Obush - don’t tell Ellen and Portia that you think MARRIAGE is between a “man and a woman”! The night you made this pandering comment they did just that - so what are you saying to THEM?!?! And how freakin’ magnanimous that you are willing to “afford civil rights to others…” What a guy!! Gee - it must be hard to sleep at night with all that twisting and turning, flipping and flopping…

No wonder Obushits are becoming worried, seeing a tougher path than they thought…We could have told them. Wait - we HAVE been telling them!! After performances like last night’s, this should be another big ol’ WAKE UP CALL for the Superedelegates. This man is NOT COMPETENT to be the Democratic nominee, much less the PRESIDENT. *Ring, ring* - it’s the clue phone, SDs, and it’s for YOU!!!!

In order to “save” the Democratic Party, Brazile resolved back in 2003 that she might have to destroy it first. And who better to help her in this lofty pursuit than her new best friend, the man neoconservatives call “The Architect”.

…………………………..

BY ROSEMARY REGELLO

It’s not every activist politico who gets to write a post in the Washington Times that begins like this: "As I sat by my window and staring out at the wonderful Washington, D.C., landscape, my office announced a phone call from Air Force One."

Evidently, Donna Brazile was reminding all the little people on Capitol Hill that she had friends in high places. In summer of 2007, Bush senior advisor Karl Rove wasn’t answering any subpoenas from Congress, but he didn’t mind talking to Brazile. From his perch at 20,000 feet, he informed her that this was probably a good time for him to get out of Dodge.

“Mr. Rove’s resignation is not a retirement,” Brazile reassured readers of the right of center newspaper. “It’s just another opportunity for him to create that lasting Republican majority he envisioned years ago and to spend his waking days doing what he so enjoys — beating Democrats in the alleys and gutters. Just ask Sen. Hillary Clinton, Mr. Rove’s target when he called in to speak to Rush Limbaugh. He couldn’t help it. Mr. Rove just had to take one last shot before riding out of town. More to come, Team Clinton.”

Brazile’s breezy account confirms what many have long since suspected. Rove’s claim to be sitting out the 2008 race is hogwash. The mastermind of today’s unraveling U.S. constitution is in no position to kick back, down gin fizzes and watch the country collapse under an Administration he put into office twice. The list of crimes that Bush’s top henchman could potentially be charged with - everything from fraud to war crimes - should be enough to keep him and his fellow Sopranos in hair-trigger mode until the next president gets sworn in. And the notion that he’d leave the choice of commander-in-chief in less capable dirty hands than his own requires more than the willing suspension of disbelief. It requires medication.

That’s why the Rove-Brazile tryst merits further exploration. They first hooked up some time in 2002, according to a New York Times article. The connection might have been a means for Brazile to expand her clientele, but she dismissed that angle in an interview, implying she had bigger fish to fry. It was the Democrats’ lackluster relations with African Americans and poor track record in elections, she said, that led her to start trailblazing new frontiers. To put it in a Brazile nutshell, the Republicans had a better machine.

”The idea is to re-energize the African-American electorate and revive the Democratic Party at the same time,” she told Times reporter Katharine Seelye, ”I want to revitalize the party from the grass roots up. We’re losing voters.”

With that noble cause in mind, she and Rove began to "chirpily exchange e-mail, chat on the phone and write letters, indulging in their shared zeal for the inner workings of politics," Seelye wrote.

Rove said he’d sometimes call Brazile before a press appearance to get feedback on various Bush policy angles he planned to discuss. In exchange, he furnished Brazile’s clients with access to White House social events.

"People think I’m crazy talking to Karl Rove," the strategist confessed to the Washington Post a month after the Times story appeared, "but there’s something about this guy."

Yes, there certainly is something about Karl Rove. In consultation with Vice-President Cheney’s office, it was Rove who outed Valerie Plame’s C.I.A. identity over a flap about uranium in Niger. Three years later, those subpoenas were overflowing his in-box because he’d told Alberto Gonzalez to fire nine U.S. Attorneys who refused to do his bidding. Rove is also under investigation for an entrapment scheme that put Alabama Democratic Governor Don Siegelman in prison for two years.

Those Republicans sure do know how to close the deal in politics. In addition to basking in The Architect’s dapper charm and irresistible company, Brazile opened diplomatic ties across town with archconservative Grover Norquist. Norquist heads one of Jack Abramoff’s favorite charities, Americans for Tax Reform, and is famous for his remark that he’d like to see federal government crippled to the point where he can take it home and drown it in his bathtub. For a brief window of opportunity, he set aside that morbid fantasy to help one of Brazile’s closest friends, D.C. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes, push some legislation to increase revenues in her district.

According to the same Times article, “Mr. Norquist said he and Ms. Brazile, both Washington residents, were devising a plan to urge Congress to allow the city to raise the height limit on buildings as a way to broaden the tax base and improve schools.”

Brazile served as Holmes’ chief of staff and press secretary during the nineties. In that same action-packed year, her old boss teamed up with other D.C. officials to schedule an unauthorized, nonbinding earlybird presidential primary for 2004. DNC chair Terry McAuliffe sent sent out calls to the candidates to boycott the affair, but Howard Dean didn’t heed the directive. The former Vermont governor swept into D.C. and gobbled up almost as many endorsements as another candidate, Rev. Al Sharpton. Who needed those arcane DNC rules, anyway?

The Brazile Factor

At the time of these contentious political developments, Brazile chaired the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute, a program set up after the Florida recount debacle in 2000. During that earlier episode, she’d experienced firsthand Karl Rove’s unscrupulous knack for snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Now she was tasked with brainstorming new strategies to prevent any future gaming of the electoral system.

In 2004, Dean ended his presidential bid after the Wisconsin primary and Kerry lost the general election. This time, Rove generated thousands of extra Bush votes in key Ohio precincts where only a few hundred Republicans lived. Not surprisingly, Brazile remained unimpressed with her party. That winter, she submitted an essay for the left-leaning website Slate.com, which was running a series called “Why Americans Hate Democrats – A Dialog”.

Hard as it must have been to top that inspirational title, the political strategist managed with her piece “Tapping the Obama Factor”. The Chicago politician had just been elevated to the U.S. Senate, but instead of offering an introduction to him, she mostly dwelled on her own life story - rising up from poverty in Louisiana, listening to her grandmother read scripture, etc. etc. Eventually, the essay worked its way back to the stated topic.

"This is a new moment to identify and recruit better messengers," she wrote. "Perhaps it’s time to tap into the ‘Obama’ factor: Scour statehouses for young, energetic, inspiring, and emerging leaders with the ability to connect the head and heart. Too many of the old Democratic guard have stayed in Washington, D.C., too long to fully recognize how most Americans live their lives."

It was a novel way to spin the Illinois election. Obama did score a landslide victory that year, but it had little to do with his age, energy level or the obsolete nature of the Democratic Party establishment. His campaign manager David Axelrod ran the classic Rovian smear campaign, first accusing Obama’s top primary contender of sexual impropriety. After disgracing Blair Hull out of contention, Axelrod used the same device against the G.O.P. primary winner, Jack Ryan.

Of course, this is where things get interesting. House Speaker Dennis Hastert decided he must stick his oar into the battle, calling on Ryan to end his senate bid. The candidate dutifully bowed out, and in his stead, the Illinois Republican Party fielded an unknown, African American bible-thumper from Maryland named Alan Keyes. Clearly, the G.O.P. wanted Obama to win that election. No other explanation can account for the party sacrificing a senate seat to a (supposedly) liberal Democrat who’d (supposedly) spoken out against the Iraq War in 2002.

A Hollywood script writer couldn’t have come up with this storyline. Within a year of arriving in Washington, Brazile’s rising star – the product of a globe-trotting Kansas woman and a philandering tribal leader in Kenya - had launched his presidential exploratory committee. The Internet fundraising team of Howard Dean signed on for the ride. So, too, did some of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks, corporate law firms, and energy giants. By the end of 2007, Obama would post a record-breaking haul of $100 million in campaign contributions. And all while he was still "introducing himself", as Brazile and other analysts put it, to the American public.

Who exactly brought the banks and oil companies to the table still remains to be ferreted out, but it wasn’t Dean or Brazile, or even the man who placed Obama on the speaker’s list at the 2004 Democratic Convention, John Kerry. It’s more likely that Karl Rove huddled with top Bush fundraisers to set that gravy train in motion. Among the candidate’s money bundlers were George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar, both oil industry executives. Other Bush campaign pioneers joined the bandwagon soon afterward.

Now Brazile was impressed. Judging from another My Day installment penned in 2005, following Hurricane Katrina, she sounded like a woman who had been born again:

“While my family was hurting, when they were on the edge feeling left to fend for themselves, the last thing I wanted to do was whine. I got into the groove quickly and contacted Ken Melhman, Chairman of the Republican National Committee and an old friend, Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff for the White House.”

Then she started tossing out the cupcakes: “President Bush, who promised to rebuild the Gulf coast in a speech at Jackson Square, invited some African American leaders over to the White House on December 7th to discuss a broad range of issues…To my great surprise, the meeting with President Bush was cordial and candid. The President listened intently and reassured us that his Administration would not drop the ball.”

Funny how such innocuous fluff takes on a new and sinister meaning when read in hindsight. Yet even from the perspective of a contemporary audience, those claims were a stetch. For people living in New Orleans, the Katrina ball had already been dropped. When the levees broke, Sec. of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was attending a conference on bird flu, the President relaxing on his Crawford ranch. Back in Brazile’s home state, over a thousand people drowned during three days of waiting for rescuers to reach their homes. Several million homeless residents survived, homeless, only to a second disaster called FEMA.

But Brazile didn’t let facts on the ground spoil her picnic. Continuing her upbeat dispatch, “Since then, I have met once more with President Bush and other leaders who are committed to working together to restore the lives and the communities devastated by these two hurricanes…I can tell from the meetings that the rebuilding of Louisiana remains high on his list of priorities.”

Preparing for Battle

One can only speculate on Brazile’s motives in streaming out that hallucination. As she would mention in the Washington Times article two years later, her “old friend” Rove had hit the ground running with the start of the 2008 election cycle, appearing on talk shows to bash frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Behind the scenes, G.O.P. rank and file activists were organizing crossover voting drives to knock Clinton out of the race before November. In the red states, they could easily outnumber Democrats at the caucuses, enriching Obama’s delegate count and allowing him to boast later “I’ve won more states.”

To recruit additional foot troops for this effort, New Hampshire G.O.P. leader Stephen DaMaura started the Facebook website “Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary).”

On the Democratic side, it became Brazile’s job to smooth over Obama’s path to the nomination. That required manipulating the primary calendar. Picking up on the diversity argument of Eleanor Holmes and the D.C. coalition, she pressed for an earlybird South Carolina primary and a Nevada caucus to augment the Iowa and New Hampshire dates.

While the advantages of South Carolina were obvious, by necessity the second contest required a less obvious, more covert action plan to avoid any accusations of stacking the deck. Although the Clinton camp didn’t realize it at the time, a caucus in Nevada (like a caucus anywhere) would naturally benefit Obama, since her base of blue-collar, older and non-English-speaking supporters would not be driving across town to attend some meeting run by disorganized volunteers. On the other hand, motivated Republicans could be counted on to show up, especially if the G.O.P. candidates could be persuaded not to campaign in the state. (They didn’t.)

Nevertheless, the reason for adding more earlybird contests in the first place centered on ethic diversity, so selling the DNC (and the public) on Nevada required some tweaking of those caucus parameters. That’s why arrangements were made to allow the state’s casino workforce of some 60,000 predominantly Latino workers to attend specially set up caucus sites just for them.

But wouldn’t this huge Hispanic voting block put Clinton over the top in Nevada? Not necessarily. It turns out that the union representing casino employees, S.E.I.U., would be backing Obama, just as they had supported Dean in his presidential bid. So those voters could now be added to the Obama column.

Thus, with caucuses scheduled in Iowa and Nevada, a primary in South Carolina with its near majority African American demographic, and the New Hampshire Republican brass on the job in that state, the chance of Clinton heading into Super Tuesday at cruising altitude had spectacularly diminished.

“Including two more states will not only be good for our country, it will be good for our party and good for our nominee," Brazile told the Los Angeles Times in August 2006.

Sounding an early portent of doom, the South Carolina delegate on the rules committee said in the same article, “If you campaign in a state that is outside the rules, then you’re not entitled to delegates from that state."

A year later, that scenario unfolded like a bad dream for the DNC. Over the objections of Florida’s state Democratic Party, a Republican-controlled legislature moved its primary to January 29, 2008, one week before the official February 5^th cusp adopted by both the Republican National Committee and the DNC.

On August 25, 2007. the DNC rules and bylaws committee met to adjudicate this unspeakable crime. State party chair Karen Thurman testified at the meeting, walking the committee through the chronology of her long and fruitless battle to overturn the date switch. The Republicans had attached it as a rider to another bill, one authorizing the replacement of electronic paperless voting equipment with more traditional optical scanners. Unable to defeat the rider on a partyline vote, the Democrats begrudgingly approved the larger measure.

Anyone who has watched the re-broadcast of those DNC proceedings on CSPAN can’t help but be dumbfounded by the discussion that followed Thurman’s presentation. A slam-dunk case for a rule waiver turned into a shameless bout of piling on, as committee member Brazile and several others accused the state party of not trying hard enough to change the date. (One also noticed from the broadcast the unusually high number of African Americans on the 30-member committee, as opposed to near zero representation for other minorities.)

When asked by Brazile why she hadn’t made any plans to hold a caucus in place of the primary, Thurman balked. The logistics and $8 million price tag, she said, were beyond comprehension, given that Florida boasts 4 million eligible Democrats.

"I understand how states crave to be first,” Brazile blustered in a Washington Post interview the next day, as if none of what Thurman told her had registered. “I understand that they’re envious of the role that Iowa and New Hampshire have traditionally played, The truth is, we had a process . . . We’re going to back these rules."

Later, the head of the DNC Voting Rights Institute published an op-ed in the same newspaper, this time under the combative heading, “Why We Stood Up to Florida”. With the cockiness that was fast becoming her trademark, Brazile griped, “It was hardly an extraordinary act, although you wouldn’t know it from the furious reaction that ensued in some quarters…Why the uproar? It’s simple: state envy.”

She went on to list all the economic benefits coveted by states vying to hold early primaries, again diverting from the core issue of Republican meddling in Democratic affairs. Inexplicably, the press coverage of the showdown also overlooked the G.O.P.’s role in moving up the primary date.

The same week the rules committee stripped Florida of all its convention delegates, Michigan’s state legislature voted to move up its primary to January 15th. Both states could have easily been pegged as Clinton strongholds, making their exclusion from the election cycle suspect. Michigan is an industrial blue-collar enclave with few of the upper-middle-class voters and college students that represent Obama’s base. Florida’s Hispanic population is huge, and combined with an abundant supply of New York retirees, would likely also resist the Obama "surge".

Moreover, using Republican crossover voting to shave points off Clinton’s victories posed problems in both states. In Michigan, native son Mitt Romney had a significant campaign apparatus in place, while Rudi Giuliani was expecting to draw his line in the sand in Florida. Where these battleground territories were in play, neither gentleman would appreciate Rove siphoning away their voters. Better just to invalidate the primaries on the Democratic side. That way, Clinton’s delegate lead could be held in check on Super Tuesday.

"Seeds of Doubt"

With the votes of the country’s fourth and eighth largest states thus consigned to the junk heap, Brazile turned to other pursuits. Hired as a paid election analyst for CNN, she carried on a double life - one as an official DNC spokesperson, the other as a partisan campaigner for Barack Obama. In February, when best-guess estimates gave Clinton the support of two-thirds of the superdelegates, she declared, "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party."

If party leaders were as worried about negative fallout and damage control then as they claimed to be a month later, they might have reeled in their contract employee at this point for a heart-to-heart chat. That didn’t happen. Brazile just reloaded her pistol and repeated her empty threat to all who would listen. On another occasion, she accused former President Bill Clinton of being a racist. It was inexcusable, she said, that during a speech Clinton referred to Obama as a "kid" and suggested his presidential bid amounted to little more than a "fairy tale".

"And I will tell you," Brazile bristled with emotion, "as an African American I find his words and his tone to be very depressing."

To be sure, Clinton said Obama’s evolving position on the Iraq War was a fairy tale, not his candidacy. As for alluding to his youth, Brazile and other cheerleaders for the Illinois senator had been doing it themselves for the past four years. It was a classic example of the Mark Twain quip that a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth has put its shoes on. Only CNN’s presence in the equation gave the adage literal meaning. Surely, the DNC would intervene now that Brazile had insulted a former Democratic president on national television. But nothing.

Notwithstanding the character smears and 24/7 swiftboating by the American media, Sen. Clinton persevered, scoring big wins in the Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio on March 4^th. On March 5th, she was accused of engaging in a “negative” campaign designed to "destroy" her adversary.

“Despite Obama’s impressive victories in February, Clinton’s comeback is based on sowing political seeds of doubt,” Brazile informed the Associated Press that day, “If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate. But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

(ABC’s Jake Tapper went Brazile one better, claiming Clinton was exercising the "Tanya Harding option".)

In response to the call to arms, Dean promptly petitioned Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to intervene in the protracted race, while Senators Dodd, Richardson and Leahy demanded that Clinton end her candidacy for the good of the party.

Now this sounded familiar. Jack Ryan must have been chuckling to himself from his perch inside a bar, drinking rot-gut whiskey. In Washington, meanwhile, Reid promised that “things will be done” to determine a nominee before the convention. Pelosi told George Stephanopolis on his Sunday talk show that the superdelegates should not overturn “the will of the people”, but denied rumors that she was telling members of Congress that Clinton, if nominated, would be a "drag" on their own campaigns. As the Democratic Party version of the Adams Family was thus occupied in their hand-wringing, chest-beating and sharing of apocalyptic visions, Clinton pressed ahead, picking up 9 out of the final 13 primaries. Three of them she won by more than 30 points.

But no sooner had the daylight begun to shine at the end of the tunnel when another Rove-Brazile shoe dropped. For some reason, her triumph in the popular vote was not matched proportionally by delegates earned, and it had something to do with Obama’s phenomenal gains in the caucus states of Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, etc. One would not have expected an African American liberal to clobber his opponent by a two-to-one margin as he did in many cases. More importantly, her delegate gains in the primaries involving millions of voters seemed to pale in comparison. This made no sense.

In late May, a disability activist named P. Cronin appeared on scene to sort out the Twilight Zone phenomenon. Cronin, who like most disabled people is not a big fan of caucuses, spent some time in late May analyzing the tallies from the 2008 Democratic contest, comparing the impact of the two different voting methods on the race.

According to Cronin’s study, nearly all of Obama’s 138-delegate lead over Clinton could be traced to 12 red state caucuses. In most of these contests he routinely won by 2-1 margins, even though polls in those states showed the candidates much closer. In Idaho, for instance, with its scant African American population, few colleges and relatively few Starbucks outlets, he captured 15 of the state’s 18 delegates.

Something fishy was going on here. Did Dean’s so-called 50-state strategy include the recruitment of pro-Obama activists to organize on the candidate’s behalf in caucus states? Did the number of DaMaura’s G.O.P. crossover voters wildly exceed expectations? Or was there just downright lying in the computation of the vote tallies?

The case of Washington state underscores the mystery of this Bermuda Triangle for Clinton delegates. On February 9^th, Obama earned a whopping 52 of the Washington’s 78 delegates after a 36-point victory in the party-run caucus. Over 240,000 allegedly eligible voters cast ballots in that contest. But a week later, just ahead of a state-run certified primary, the polling data showed that Clinton might actually win the election. On February 19th, after 650,000 ballots were counted Obama eked out a 5-point victory, hardly the 2-1 margin responsible for his 26-delegate net gain in the state. Unfortunately, the primary was non-binding.

Cronin notes in the study that those states that furnished the newcomer’s vast delegate booty contribute a grand total of 69 electoral votes in the general election. Few of these territories have voted Democratic since 1964.

It also appears that the votes of those lucky caucus-goers counted for 5-10 times more than the traditional Democrats who attended primaries. Obama netted more delegates in his Idaho win, for instance, than Clinton in her entire Ohio-Texas-Rhode Island romp on March 4th. The following table illustrates the questionable validity of these dispersements. Notice that the last column shows the delegate gain for the winner:

2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Election © 2008 P. Cronin
—————————-

Even in the Navada caucus that Clinton won, Obama was awarded more delegates. The New York senator couldn’t seem to win for winning. There, the S.E.I.U. endorsement dissolved into wishful thinking when the casino workers broke for Clinton two to one, giving her a 6-point victory. A few months later, Obama left the state convention with 3 more delegates.

While there’s no evidence implicating Dean in Obama’s caucus routs, the DNC had maintained staff on the ground in all 50 states since 2005, when he first became the chair. In August 2007, a few weeks before his rules and bylaws committee stripped Florida of its delegates, he announced in a press release that his 50-State Strategy project, the Voting Rights Institute and another DNC division known as the National Lawyers Council were collaborating on a nationwide survey of voter databases, registration procedures and other "election mechanics". According to the release, DNC staff would work with local election boards in gathering information in advance of the 2008 presidential election. "Protecting the right of every eligible American to vote is a top priority for our party," Dean and Brazile said in a joint statement. "Every eligible American deserves the confidence that when they go to the polls to cast their ballot they can do so without fear of intimidation or harassment, and that their vote will be counted fairly and accurately."

Throwing Mama Under the Bus

On May 31, 2008, the rules committee reconvened to discuss those "eligible Americans" living in Florida and Michigan. A week before the meeting, the Democratic Party tried to attach an air of legitimacy to the proceedings by having legal counsel weigh in on the dispute. Although by Brazile’s own account, the Supreme Court gives political parties wide latitude for determining how they pick their nominees, the lawyers claimed it would be unlawful to fully honor the certified votes of January 15^th and 29^th . The committee could do no more than restore half the nearly 350 convention delegates up for grabs.

Always amenable to compromise, the Clinton campaign accepted that limitation but rejected a proposal for Obama to receive some of her Michigan delegates, plus those of all the other candidates in the Michigan primary. After all, the Illinois senator voluntarily withdrew his name from the ballot, then vetoed a re-do primary which Clinton donors raised $10 million to fund. In a sane world, one could argue that he forfeited the state and therefore deserved no delegates.

Former Governor of Michigan Jim Blanchard didn’t present that line of attack, however. The Clinton spokesman stuck to the modest request that the candidate receive delegates in proportion to the votes cast for her. A few minutes later, it was Brazile’s turn to speak, and the CNN analyst first took the opportunity to congratulate herself for displaying restraint in the meeting up until that point. Then she repudiated Blanchard as if he were a child.

"My mama taught me to play by the rules and respect the rules…When you decide to change the rules, especially, in the middle of the game, it’s called cheating."

Dispatching the governor to go stand and in a corner and contemplate the error of his ways, Brazile’s committee allocated the Michigan delegates according to a fruitcake-like recipe involving exit polls, alleged write-in votes for Obama, the palm-reading of a psychic (just kidding) and the actual tally. In the end, Clinton gained a mere 4.5 delegates from the contest.

Any masochist following the 2008 election knew by then that Brazile had disregarded her own mother’s counsel long ago. Neither she nor her co-horts have lost any sleep over the thousands of complaints filed about the conduct of the caucuses, including some 2,000 submitted in Texas alone. Voter intimidation, stacks of fabricated sign-in sheets slipped in with the legitimate records, phony declarations from Republicans about their intention to switch parties, votes delayed until deep into the night, inaccurate tallies called in by phone, and other dirty tricks have yet to warrant even a cursory investigation by those who preach that playing by the rules represents a core value of the Democratic Party.

Even in the aftermath of her power grab, Brazile continues to denigrate those who challenge the authority of the party’s new African American leadership. In a July 22nd post on Daryl Cagle’s website, she groaned, "How many ways do these Hillary delegates, voters and supporters need to hear it before they get it? Sen. Barack Obama is the party’s nominee. He won. He will get to choose his running mate. Obama sets the agenda for the convention, and, while I understand their passion in wanting Hillary to be on the ticket and to have a prominent role at the convention, it’s not her decision… As much as we all would have loved to see a woman in the Oval Office, it wasn’t Hillary’s time. Period."

It’s ironic when you think about it. The DNC’s Voting Rights Institute was created to stop exclusionary practices and increase participation at the polling booth. Now its chairwoman is presiding over one of the most hostile and fraudulent campaigns since those newspaper delivery trucks ran over the boy scouts in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

"Mr. Rove proved you can win elections with rumors, fear, division and manipulation." Brazile wrote back in 2007, after that friendly exchange with Air Force One. "But you can’t win hearts that way."

No, you can’t. But then, this influential political fixer no longer appears to have use for that particular organ. Which may be why she finds men like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist so appealing.

- Rosemary Regello editor@thecityedition.com

(For more on the G.O.P. manipulation of the Democratic Primaries, see our in-depth report Bamboozling the American Electorate Again)

Copyright 2008 TheCityEdition.com

Last week, the Obama campaign reported that it had a $52 million haul in the month of June. In releasing this information, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to supporters that:

“You continue to prove what ordinary Americans committed to change can accomplish, despite the Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs funding so much of our opponents’ campaign.”

Two articles in the US media point to what I have long been saying about Obama’s duplicitous statements on where his money is coming from and it is not from “ordinary Americans”. It is from corporate interests and Washington lobbyists and yes PAC money. The only difference is that backhanded manner in which Obama collects his millions.

The first article is from the Los Angeles Times in article by Dan Morain entitled Donations to Obama campaign include some biggies:

Even as he touts his base of small donors, Barack Obama is relying heavily on well-heeled contributors who have given $28,500 or more each to Democratic Party committees that will campaign on his behalf.

Obama aides emphasized that the average donation to his campaign in June — during which he brought in $52 million — was $68. Over the course of his campaign, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee has raised $340 million. By law, an individual can give no more than $2,300 to a candidate for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

Obama has established joint fundraising agreements with the Democratic National Committee and two other party committees. Those entities can raise larger sums and spend unlimited amounts on behalf of individual candidates.

Of the $20.3 million Obama’s joint fundraising committees amassed in June, 86%, or $17.6 million, came in chunks of $5,000 or more; 64% came in increments of $28,500 or more, campaign finance reports filed over the weekend show.

Frank Clark, head of Commonwealth Edison, which supplies electricity to Chicago, gave $2,300 to Obama early in the campaign and $28,500 last month to the Democratic White House Victory Fund.

John Rogers, founder of the Chicago investment house Ariel Capital, also gave the maximum to Obama’s presidential account, and $13,000 to Democratic White House Victory.

According to the campaign, Clark and Rogers are among Obama’s largest fundraisers, each having raised more than $200,000 from friends and associates.

Employees at Exelon, the parent company of Commonwealth Edison, have given more than $180,000.

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt noted that the campaign, unlike the Democratic Party and the fundraising committees, has tapped small donors, raising the bulk of its money in increments of less than $90.

Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, said that although Obama had raised an unprecedented $165 million from those who donated in increments of less than $200, “he cannot raise $150 million or whatever his budget says he needs without going to large contributors.”

The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, also has joint fundraising committees and will probably rely heavily on them in the fall.

Such committees appeal to candidates and donors because contributors can write a single check and have it split among the candidate, the party and related committees.

A review of the campaign finance reports filed over the weekend with the Federal Election Commission showed that attorneys accounted for at least $2.4 million of the $20.3 million the three Obama joint committees raised.

People who listed their occupations as investors or said they worked for investment houses contributed at least an additional $2.85 million. Individuals who said they were chief executive officers, company presidents or board chairmen chipped in $1.8 million. The entertainment industry accounted for $1.5 million.

McDonald’s President Donald Thompson and Pepsi Chairman Robert Pohlad each gave $28,500. The Pohlad family, including Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad, gave a combined $170,000 to Democratic committees.

Entertainers who donated $28,500 to the committees include producers Frederick W. Field and Steven Bochco and his wife, Dayna, and actors Samuel L. Jackson and Edward Norton.

NBA star LeBron James donated $20,000.

In several instances, couples doubled their donations. Professional poker player Phil Ivey and his wife, Luciaetta, for example, each gave $33,100 to the Obama Victory Committee. New York writer and entrepreneur Steven Brill and his wife, attorney Cynthia Brill, donated $61,600 last month, with $4,600 going to Obama’s presidential campaign and the rest going to one of the party’s joint fundraising committees.

The Exelon donations are particulary interesting. Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and another $180,000 for President. That’s $400,000 from the upper echelons of the nation’s largest nuclear power firm. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate. In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002.

You got to love this one degree of separation because in 2005 during Obama’s first year in the Senate, Exelon Corporation failed to disclose some radioactive leaks from a nuclear power plant sixty miles south of Chicago. Naturally when the leaks came to light, residents were less than thrilled. Obama railed against the firm publicly but then proceed to help out the company in the subterfuge that is the United States.

First, Obama worked to pass a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.” The only thing it passed was its committee; the bill died on the Senate floor.

In March 2006, Senator Obama introduced a bill known as the Nuclear Release Notice Act of 2006. The bill S109-2348 stated flatly that nuclear plants “shall immediately” notify federal, state and local officials of any accidental release of radioactive material that exceeded “allowable limits for normal operation.” Like all of Obama’s legislation, the bill never became law. This was largely due to the fact that Exelon objected to the provisions of bill and complained to Senator Obama’s office. Facing pushback from his major donor, Obama then worked with Senator James Inofe of Oklahoma to insert provisions into another bill that gave the Nuclear Energy Institute whose chair is also the CEO of Exelon to assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in writing the technical standards of what constitute “allowable limts for normal operation.” The language of the bill was also changed. In place of Obama’s original straightforward reporting requirements was new language giving the nuclear commission two years to come up with its own regulations. The bill said that the commission “shall consider” — not require — immediate public notification, and also take into account the findings of a task force it set up to study the tritium leaks.

Oh the things that money can buy. In this case, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon and chair of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry association that was now assisting US Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the technical standards of what constitutes a leak, bought in effect the words “shall consider.” Of course, John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” as Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggests. John W. Rowe is just an “ordinary American” who according to Forbes’ 2005 list of Executive Pay was paid $11.5 mil in total compensation. But don’t fret, this “ordinary American” is on up and up. According to Reuters, John W. Rowe earned $19,491,556 in total compensation in 2007.

The second article is from US News & World Report in article written by Bonnie Erbe entitled Barack Obama’s Fundraising Hypocrisy—a Lobbyist by Any Other Name…:

The latest campaign finance figures show Sen. Barack Obama’s pledge not to take money from lobbyists is a distinction without a difference.

He clobbered Sen. John McCain in fundraising last month, netting more than twice the amount of money raised by his rival. From Bloomberg:

Obama took in $51.9 million in June, including $1.4 million from a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee, while McCain reported raising $21.5 million, including $5.1 million from his fundraising effort with the Republican National Committee.

But consider whence much of Obama’s money comes. While donations to his campaign are not accepted from lobbyists per se, they are proffered by corporate executives. These same executives face a mountain of federal issues on which they will most surely need Obama’s help, should he win the White House in November. So what’s the difference?

To wit. Bloomberg reported that donors to Obama’s joint fundraising committee included Jay Grinney, president and chief executive officer of Birmingham, Ala.-based HealthSouth Corp., who gave $10,000, and Donald Thompson, U.S. chief of Oak Brook, Ill.-based McDonald’s Corp., who gave $28,500, the maximum.

As I’ve noted before, Sen. Obama’s fourth-largest corporate donor is Exelon, the nation’s largest provider of nuclear power.

Did he take donations straight from the pockets of the company’s lobbyists? No. But did he accept largesse in the amount of more than a quarter million dollars from Exelon’s CEO and top executives? Yes. In the process, he watered down to oblivion an antinuclear amendment he had sponsored, originally to force nuclear power producers to report even the most negligible of radioactive leaks. He then went on to tell mesmerized campaign audiences he had “passed” his antinuclear bill, which never passed the U.S. Senate.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign disinvited Democratic war hero and former Sen. Max Cleland to appear at an Obama event in Atlanta earlier this month. Why? Sen. Cleland is a registered lobbyist.

John McCain openly accepts lobbyists’ donations. And some voters find that as much of a conflict (because Senator McCain has his name attached to the most important campaign finance reform bill of the last two decades.) The difference between McCain and Obama on this issue is McCain has never pledged not to take lobbyists’ donations. He has only pledged to fight to make the process as transparent as possible.

It is, of course, reassuring to see these articles in the media. However is anybody reading them?

From my blog, By The Fault.

Max Cleland–a beloved Democrat who lost three limbs in a hand grenade accident while engaged in combat operations in Viet Nam–is a guy you would definitely want to have at your party, especially if you want to be President of the United States. Aside from being a decorated war hero, Cleland was the administrator of the Veterans Administration under Jimmy Carter, a United States Senator, and remains a vocal critic of the Bush Administration.

So, it was a no-brainer for the Obama campaign to invite Cleland to appear at a fundraising event in Atlanta earlier this month. But at the last minute, Cleland’s invitation was yanked from right under his wheelchair.

Why? Well, it turns out that Max Cleland is a registered lobbyist. No, he has never lobbied in Washington. No, he does not represent a huge, greedy corporation. Cleland is a senior policy advisor for Tissue Regeneration Technologies (TRT), a health care company that, according to its motto, believes in “doing well by doing good.” And from all indications the company appears to living up to it. TRT is sponsoring clinical trials as part of the Combat Wound Initiative at Walter Reed Army Medical center, testing the effectiveness of noninvasive technology on soft tissue and bone injuries sustained by American soldiers from blasts, penetrating fragments, and burns from IED’s. Cleland stated, “We [TRT] will be working diligently on behalf of our men and women in uniform to advance this innovative technology into the military arena. I believe it will greatly benefit our soldiers and veterans. Our soldiers deserve the best, and I am very proud to be part of this truly worthy endeavor.”

Well, you don’t want that kind of person at your party.

But let’s look at the larger question, and things quickly turn from a stupid PR decision to downright scary possibilities!

Obama says he will not have anything to do with lobbyists. But does anyone with more than a handful of frontal cortex cells believe that dumping lobbyists will bring an end to influence peddling in Washington? Never mind that “Mr. Hope and Change” enlisted James A. Johnson, a former lobbyist now drawing scrutiny for his ties to subprime-mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corporation, as a member of his Vice Presidential vetting team. Obama has taken in huge sums of money from corporations and big business and, if you can believe Robert Novak, Obama has been holding closed meetings with undisclosed industry CEOs.

Wouldn’t it be better to shine a bright light on influence peddlers by keeping them registered so we know exactly who they are and who they work for?

Read more about Max Cleland’s “disinvitaion” at Politico.com.

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them - FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words - just speeches - just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short - he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy.