Good grief.

While the message of these protesters is still a bit muddled, they are clear on their contempt for corporations, bankers, and the 1% who make more than $700,000 a year – you know, like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, people like that. What? Not them? Huh. Did they get a waiver or something? Ahem.

Anyway, their message is all too clear: they hate those damn corporations, dontcha know. Below is a “Day in the Life of an OWS Participant” to drive home that point (h/t to Gina):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uh, yeah. Let’s just go grab a table at Starbucks and reflect on that there thing (as Andy Taylor would say to Opie).

Speaking of another classic TV icon, I think Jim Rockford sums up beautifully many of our feelings about people demanding what is not theirs in the clip below (h/t Helenk):

Click here to view the embedded video.

You tell ‘em, Jim!

It’s Friday – time to take a deep breath, and relax a little. Here’s a little something from one of my favorite Broadway (and “Glee”) stars, Kristin Chenoweth (hey Cuzy’n Cindy, she’s an Okie, too!). Love her (and Dolly, too):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hope you enjoyed it, too. Have a good Friday, everyone!

is upset over Democratic plans to take up immigration legislation this year – he accuses Democratic leaders of pushing forward immigration “haphazardly” and calls it an election-year political gambit.

John Kerry said in a statement on Saturday:

“We all believe that this year is our best and perhaps last chance for Congress to pass a comprehensive approach. We believe that we had reached such an agreement and were excited to announce it on Monday, but regrettably external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily,”

Kerry also commented that:

“I remain deeply committed to this effort which I have worked on for more than twenty years. We have no choice but to act this year. The American people deserve better than for the Senate to defer this debate or settle for an energy-only bill that won’t get the job done.”

Reading between the lines, I assume he thinks the Dems have “no choice” but to act this year because after the November elections, they will no longer have the numbers to ram this through. Understandably, voters who are still reeling from the passage of confusing health care legislation are deeply concerned about more sudden change and its effects on our troubled economy.

Ben Gemen of The Hill also reported earlier this week on Graham’s specific cause for concern regarding the Dems rush to ram through immigration policy:

Graham has been working with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on an immigration plan, but reacted critically to reports that Democratic leaders may try to move on the issue.

“If immigration comes up then that’s the ultimate CYA politics,” Graham said. He warned against bringing up a bill in a “haphazard way.”

“This comes out of left field,” he said. “We haven’t done anything to prepare the body or the country for immigration.” Graham said the measure he has discussed with Schumer is not ready, and wondered aloud what could be brought to the floor.

“It would be news to me if we’ve got one done [an immigration bill],” he said. “I have been working with Chuck, we have been making progress, but business and labor are not together on a temporary worker bill.”

Graham noted that the climate change and energy bill that he’s crafting with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is supposed to be unveiled Monday.

“What am I supposed to do, write an immigration bill between now and Monday with Chuck?” Graham said.

We will see what transpires. As of now, Graham is no longer on board with cap and trade.

Look, the Dems won in 2008 and all things being equal, I can understand all the horses wanting to race at the same time as they attempt to pass all manner of legislation that has been whirling around in their hot little brains for many years. However, we are still in such a difficult place with the economy. If this administration doesn’t wake up and focus on jobs, jobs, jobs right now, they may find that voter outrage grows beyond anything that can imagine or manage.

While it is certainly possible to multi-task and push on more than one front at a time, what we have seen thus far does not inspire confidence. The health care legislation that just passed is “historic.” It is also a historic mess that requires a lot of fixing. If there is more careless and hasty legislation on the horizon re reform for Wall St., immigration and cap and trade — likewise pushed through with the same lack of care in the crafting — there may be more mutlitasking required in the repairs department than our legislative bodies have any idea how to handle.

Do it once. Do it right.

I’m waiting for some of the adults in the room to emerge and think something through before putting more junk on the books. It is much easier to make a mistake than it is to repair one.

Colleen O’Connor, San Diego News Network, penned a fun article: King Obama v. Queen Clinton — Check or Checkmate? Her thesis is that the patient “Queen” is slowly but surely vanquishing the foes who betrayed her for Obama last year. I have another theory. Political operatives who backed Obama, turning their backs on the more qualified Clinton, are winding up under Obama’s big bus because they were not motivated by his qualifications, but a quest for power and influence they thought they would have in his new “kingdom.” One by one, they are finding out that their loyalty is not reciprocated by the master they chose to serve. As my father used to say “lies have short legs.”

O’Connor’s need to speculate proves two things, Hillary’s actions and career are endlessly fascinating and as in the primary, Obama was far more exciting when contrasted with her. When it was down to Obama and McCain, pundits complained of boredom. This harkens back to John King of CNN saying that reporters did not vet Obama because they were “obsessed with Hillary.” Guess they never heard of multitasking. That very obsession still fuels all manner of speculation about palace intrigue, true or not. O’Connor posits:

The Queen has the greatest maneuverability of all the chess pieces. She can be the most lethal. The King, by contrast, is often barricaded behind a wall of defenders, with little room to escape-save in a bold and risky fashion. The King is dying. Long live the Queen.

Quietly, and under almost everyone’s radar, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been vanquishing her foes, while President Barack Obama has been multiplying his.

Furthermore, she has been paying off her debts, while Obama has been multiplying his (and the country’s) I.O.U.s.

Obama is down in the polls. Clinton is up. He is losing his liberal base and taking heat on health care, the wars, broken promises, gate crashers, the bailouts, and a grand design that leaves his base behind.

As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Sunday, “The Obama White House is morphing into the Bush White House with frightening speed. Its transparency is already fogged up.”

No one can say we didn’t warn them. O’Connor recites the litany of failed foes, i.e. Obama backers who have seen their popularity slip, legal troubles ensue, lose lucrative posts and otherwise have an awful time capitalizing on their betrayal of the “Queen.” Let’s not forget the disappearance of Howard Dean and Tom Daschle. She also discusses AG Martha Coakley as another potential victory for Hillary:

If Clinton supporter and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley wins that will make the ninth score that Clinton has settled. And it will have happened in the state that the Kennedy family once ruled.

And so this prediction came to pass as Martha Coakley won the Dem Primary for Teddy Kennedy’s senate seat. Bill Clinton’s last minute endorsement and his 500,000 robocalls were nice touches. And instead of Caroline Kennedy getting Hillary’s Senate seat … “the Governor of New York appointed Kirstin Gillibrand — a Clinton, not an Obama ally — and it is no secret that the Clintons made it happen.”

Many have tried to write Hillary Clinton’s political obituary. Even after she was appointed Secretary of State, the press pointed to special envoys Holbrooke and Mitchell as signs that Hillary was being “marginalized” not remembering she had campaigned on appointing them herself.

The King’s chess move, thought to be “brilliant,” underestimated the patience of the Queen.

The more likely truth is that these envoys were warming up her seat, functioning as a buffer zone while she was hunkering down, figuring out the terrain and her colleagues, just as she did when she first became the junior senator of New York. The work horse did not feel the need to show off before having accomplished something.

Obama’s lifelong habit of being cautious, voting “present” and splitting everything down the middle, may not get him re-elected.

If as the Clintons might already sense, that Obama is in trouble, his biggest threat remains Clinton.

O’Connor lists the disgraced philanderer John Edwards, Bill Richardson, now in “political purgatory,” John Kerry, coveting the SoS spot and being left in the cold, Chris Dodd, with approval ratings “on life support” “…saddled with financial scandals galore-involving all those marquee companies that all Americans have come to hate-Countrywide Financial, AIG-as well as sweetheart real estate deals, with convicted inside-traders; the very people and firms Dodd was supposed to regulate.”

Joe Biden is a particular under bus dweller, his wife lately mentioning he would have preferred the spot Hillary now occupies.

He is on the losing side of the debate over sending additional troops to Afghanistan. … Unflattering pieces about his gaffes and his “standing in the Administration” have begun to circulate in the liberal press — like in a recent column by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post.

Add to this his less than competent role on overseeing the stimulus package and detailing its success (with exaggerated numbers and made up Congressional Districts) and you see where his “standing” is headed. The latest poll showed Biden’s approval rating lower than Dick Cheney’s in the same period!

But offering political cover and spin is the price Biden paid for pushing a candidate who even he noted was not yet ready for the job. Here is the sweetest payback according to O’Connor:

However, the most stealth-like, damaging, and perhaps satisfactory capture, came from the inelegant dismissal of former Clinton White House counsel, turned Obama-supporter and Clinton basher, Greg Craig.

Craig, who turned on Clinton during the primaries, did so in a rather nasty, but effective email arguing that she failed the test as commander-in-chief, that her claims of involvement in foreign affairs were bogus, and that she “never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue-not at 3 a.m. or at any other time of day.”

Currently, Craig is out of the White House-dismissed in a manner that brought howls, from the liberal activists, and have accelerated the disbelief, doubt, and defections among the Obama “believers”.

As Elizabeth Drew wrote in Politico, the firing was “the shabbiest episode of his presidency.”

Craig did damage Clinton as he was a deeply respected operative in Washington. I cannot imagine Mr. Craig saw that payback coming. Even huge Obama allies were mortified at this episode. But it was his own President who threw him under the bus, not Hillary. O’Connor even mentions Sen. Max Baucus…

Baucus has admitted — after repeatedly denying — that he was intimately involved with his state director, when he nominated her for the position of U.S. Attorney from Montana on “her merits.”

Currently under possible ethics violation for the nomination — not the lying, or the tryst, as both parties were separated at the time — Baucus’ political capital has eroded. He, too, competes with Tiger Woods for late night comedy jibes. Baucus’ year is ending badly.

It is fine to magically attribute these “paybacks” to the “Queen” but these guys are just being themselves – they don’t need anyone to show their true nature. They are doing a fine job all by themselves. The press doesn’t have its Hillary-obsession to buffer these guys from the spotlight any longer. In fact, the press tries everything it can to cover her as little as humanly possible. She has won huge awards and accolades this year, barely any of which have received more than a cursory mention.

On other fronts, it was reported many Norwegians were incensed that President Obama collected his Nobel Prize and snubbed them by not attending certain traditional events including lunch with King Harald of Norway. This is but another example of what happens when you become a notch on the bedpost. King Harald is just one of many on the list. I wonder how happy the Nobel committee is that they offered the prize to Obama now, particularly since his acceptance of the peace prize came hard on the heels of authorizing an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, however late his action was taken.

To top it all off, the members of the press corps are sad that the Obamas have done away with the traditional receiving line at many of the WH parties, so reporters will not be able to greet and pose with the President. Politico reports:

…for the White House to do away with the formal line is no small matter to those who work this beat every day: many guests feel it’s the main reason to attend, no matter who’s in office.

“It’s always been a big deal,” said [Dee Dee] Myers, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton. “It’s exhausting [for the president] but it’s the one time when reporters feel like they’re treated like human beings and not just some guy behind the rope line. It’s the one time they can actually say hello.”

“Under the Bush administration, invites went out before Thanksgiving, reporters said. “I’m wondering if they just don’t have their act together on the social stuff,” one print reporter said…

“This year’s process seems so screwed up. It’s one big horrible mess,” said one veteran White House reporter. “The White House knows who covers the beat and they also know who should be attending. A lot of people have their feelings hurt.”

Hurt feelings? Hardly on top of anyone’s list of concerns, yet the press corps has also been hoist by their own petard, sensing the ingratitude of the White House after these guys functioned as the President’s own personal PR firm lo these many months.

In contrast, however, O’Connor points out that it was a “good year for the queen”, Hillary:

• The last minute save of the Turkish-Armenian accords opening the borders between these two longtime enemies.

• Bill Clinton’s dramatic feel-good rescue of the two female reporters held hostage in North Korea

• Clinton being named No. 4 of the 25 “smartest people” of the decade by the political blog The Daily Beast: “If anyone has a more intellectually rigorous resume for the decade, we have yet to see it.” High praise.

• A flattering article about Clinton in the December issue of Vogue magazine, complete with photos by the legendary Annie Liebowitz.

• Clinton’s approval rating in the high 60-percentile while Obama’s flirts under 50.

• The near “irrelevance” of those special envoys Mitchell and Holbrooke. They have been sidelined or mired in diplomatic quicksand.

• The success in adoption of her preferred Afghan strategy — and in securing NATO troop support over the expected 5,000 offered. (Something Clinton lectured Obama about in a primary debate: never get on the plane unless the deal has already been done.)

I think the crème is rising to the top. But while O’Connor’s article is entertaining, I don’t see vengeance here, unless stepping up and doing one’s job can be seen as vengeful. I suppose one could make an argument that by continuing to work diligently and faithfully, Hillary is “plotting” to show up her boss. I think one of the few adults in the room has better things to do. But I can’t say I’m not enjoying watching the dominoes fall – all those who badmouthed her are now finding themselves on the receiving end of a big dose of their own medicine.

The list is growing.

Below the fold is a video of a speech Mr. Phillips gave in Seattle in September, 2008. It is long, I grant you, which is why I am putting it up today so you can take the time to watch it when you have time. That being said, his talk is so compelling, the time flies by. The information it contains is shocking. What we have heard about what happened in Ohio in 2004 is but a drop in the bucket compared to Mr. Phillips’ findings. Oh, and I should add, he is being humble when he says he is simply a musician and hiker (he helps to make trails). He has four degrees, and was a university professor.

Now I understand that, at least in India, the voting by electronic machines has not been as flawed as it has been, according to fellow NQ writer, pm317. But there seems to be some differences there insofar as their machines are made in keeping with government regulations. Since Diebold (now ES&S) and other companies claim their software is proprietary and NO ONE can know what’s in there, I think there is a difference from the get-go between the two countries. Moreover, according to the post:

Diebold system works on Microsoft software, it has no seals on locks and panels to detect a tempering. It has a keyboard interface (!!!) and the server was tested to have “Blaster” virus. One report on Wired says a lady stumbled upon some files from Diebold, and found that the votes were stored in MS Access files. It also has a PCMCIA SanDisk card for local storage. A touchscreen GUI and a network connection to send the results to a server after encrypting it with DES.

The Indian EVM is just plain circuit, with some assembly code. A few LEDs, and two Seven Segment LED displays. One EVM can list 16 candidates, but up to 4 EVMs can be Linked to accommodate 64 candidates. (In a country of a billion people its possible to have 64 candidates for one single constituency.)

That’s a big difference in terms of security. It’s an interesting read, and adds to this conversation.

At this point, though, it seems that our elections as they stand are fatally flawed, especially as you listen to Mr. Phillips’ experiences. What do you think? Come to our Live Chat at 9:00pm on Weds., May 20th to discuss this critical issue.

Hours before a Senate hearing on struggling newspapers, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said steps must be taken so the news media can stay diverse and independent.

Diverse and Independent. Excuse me while I cough and laugh….

“As a means of conveying news in a timely way, paper and ink have become obsolete, eclipsed by the power, efficiency and technological elegance of the Internet,” Kerry said in prepared remarks. “But just looking at the erosion of newspapers is not the full picture; it’s just one casualty of a completely shifting and churning information landscape.”

Kerry, chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet, said newspapers resemble an endangered species. The panel was scheduled to hear from Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who has proposed allowing newspapers to choose tax-exempt status and operate as nonprofits similar to public broadcasting stations.

Oh goodie. NPR in writing. We all know how objective they are. And now they can be “obsolete” and not pay taxes besides.

Readers, if you would also like the option of being Tax Exempt, please raise your hands.

Papers would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns. Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible under Cardin’s plan.

I’m rolling my eyes here. Let’s take the New York Times. They endorse people in their slanted news coverage every single day. Who the hell is John Kerry kidding?

Kerry said he was concerned that traditional journalistic standards on fairness and accuracy could suffer as newspapers falter.

Really? How will we be able to tell the difference, John?

But have no fear, readers, some newspapers have a Savior. Or more accurately, a Savior Couple–who just happen to be thinking the same thing John Kerry is thinking! Isn’t that a coincidence!?? Don’t you just love when great minds are…..um…..sympatico?

Now, surely you are asking: Which benevolent couple could possibly be interested in ”helping out” sinking big newspapers, especially if they become “Not for Profits”?

Why……..it’s Herb and Marion Sandler! In case that name doesn’t ring a bell:

WASHINGTON – With newspapers dropping dead like the flies they once swatted, a new non-profit riding to the rescue with free, ready-made “independent investigative reporting” is accepting money from a billionaire couple with a far-left agenda and dubbed “the king and queen of toxic mortgages.”

Herb and Marion Sandler, who sold their Golden West Financial Corp. to Wachovia and nearly bankrupted the buyer with its portfolio of subprime loans, committed $10 million to Pro Publica Inc., the non-profit that promises underwritten hard-hitting investigative journalism that has a “moral force” to newspapers facing cutbacks in staff and elimination of editions.

Let’s see now. John Kerry thinks certain newspapers should have the option of being Not For Profit and the Sandlers just happen to have the same goal. Isn’t that a coincidence? After all, the Sandlers are perfect champions of “fairness” and lord knows they really care. After all, look at the nice things they have done for America in the recent past:

Time magazine named the Sandlers in its list of “25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis.” The Sandlers company “offered several ways to back-load your loan and thereby reduce your early payments, with increasing zeal and misleading advertisements,” Time reported. Then the Sandlers dealt the company to Wachovia before the subprime loan crisis hit.

Even “Saturday Night Live” mocked the Sandlers, accusing them of pushing the bad loans on to Wachovia. That show was even tougher on the couple than Time, captioning the characters playing them with these words: “People who should be shot.”

Capital Research Center say Pro Publica has not lived up to its non-partisan, non-ideological billing.

Rather than investigating ACORN last fall, when accusation of voter fraud were being widely revealed, Pro Publica began probing the background of the public affairs group that blew the whistle on ACORN.

Pro Publica also invested resources in investigating Sarah Palin’s “pork history” and her connection to the “road to nowhere.” There was no similar interest in Barack Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers or Rev. Jeremiah Wright or any other similar controversies during the presidential campaign, notes the center.

Capital Research Center sees Pro Publica as another front in the battle by “progressive” organizations in promoting a left-wing policy agenda through the media – noting on-going efforts to silence talk radio, intimidate dissent through groups like Media Matters and even bail out newspapers

Golly, these sure are nice people!

Herb and Marion have some great “objective” friends too!

But, according to a report by Capital Research Center, the Sandlers have donated hundreds of millions of dollars to MoveOn.org, George Soros’ Democracy Alliance, David Brock’s Media Matters, John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, the William J. Clinton Foundation, the Tides Foundation, the Institute for Public Policy, the Natural Resources Defense Council and two affiliates of the voter-fraud tainted ACORN, the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now – and many other groups and causes with a portside tilt.

Somebody please check John Kerry’s bill for Sandler fingerprints, would you?

Note: To read more about the Sandlers and how they helped bring down America’s economy, see Uppity piece, dated 9/30/08, entitled “‘One Big Happy Anti-Capitalist Family“.

It is not humanly possible for someone so inexperienced, with limited understanding of the tangled economic issues we face, a less than sophisticated understanding of foreign policy, or even the machinations of Congress, a man with no governing or executive experience, and precious little legislative experience to be able to step up to the plate at this critical juncture and perform miracles. Even to perform decently. That would be ridiculous. Nothing in President Obama’s life thus far has trained him for these challenges. No offense, but community organizing won’t cut it.
You can’t know what you don’t know.

The true problem, greater than all of the above, is that his pathology involves his believing naively, or narcissistically, in his own ability to move mountains on the force of his own personality. And further, that the DNC elite and the media enabled him at every turn to believe this was true.

No wonder he has that lemon-sucking look we were all too familiar with from President Bush; as he is very displeased that we are not all happily falling in line for his stimulus bill.

I believe he made a statement over a year ago, “anywhere Barack goes is Barack country.”

How’s that working out in Washington so far?

Likewise, I remember a stump speech of Secretary Clinton’s during the primary. I am paraphrasing, but her intent was clear: while it is romantic to believe that we could all hold hands and be bi-partisan, the reality is, special interests and the opposition dig their heels in deep – and you have to be prepared to go to the mat.

A person of some humility, at least willing to acknowledge what he doesn’t know, would have spent every spare moment these past two years “hitting the books” so to speak, instead of surrounding himself with those who echoed the message that the cult of personality was enough to sustain him. Otherwise, I can assure you, he never would have dared to stand before the American people as unprepared as he was for certain questions; or required his trusty TelePrompTer as a buffer zone wherever he went.

Harnden begins his article:

During last year’s epic election campaign, Hillary Clinton said that in the White House “there is no time for on-the-job training.” Joe Biden, too, remarked that the presidency was “not something that lends itself to on-the-job training”. Both were aiming barbs at their then primary opponent. Mrs. Clinton has since brought what she would refer to as her “lifetime of experience” to the role of Secretary of State, while Mr Biden has traded 36 years in the Senate for the vice-presidency. And the rookie they derided is President.

Well, I don’t know how derisive it is to tell the truth. He is a rookie. And Mr. Harnden doesn’t need to put Clinton’s “lifetime of experience” in quotes, because quite obviously, that is what she has. And I, for one, would prefer her at the helm right now. As she herself put it, in addition to her experience as a two term Senator with six years on the Foreign Armed Services Committee, as one of our most active first ladies, she “apprenticed in the White House for eight years.”

What a formidable advantage this would have been for us at this difficult time – and one the DNC wasted: to have someone assume the office of the Presidency who for eight years stood so close to the ultimate decision maker and was privy to information you and I can only guess at; someone who understands the players on the world stage and the workings of Congress, who has reached across the aisle effectively, not to mention the depth and breadth of her knowledge on the economy and foreign policy.

How could he possibly compete? You see, that is where all of the “enabling” comes in. His closest advisors, Daschle, Kerry, Axelrod et al urged him to run too soon because they figured it would be better that he not have a Senate record with controversial votes that could be pinned on him. They wanted a “symbol of change,” a blank slate, and forgot the most important factor: know-how. They enabled this rookie by filling his head full of sugar plums, as have some of his other mentors of questionable motives and integrity.

Mr. Harnden’s next statement makes this quite clear:

Now, the words of his former rivals are returning to haunt President Obama. After a distinctly rocky start to his presidency, he has admitted he “screwed up” and is returning to one thing in his political career that he has perfected – campaigning. In Elkhart, Indiana, today and Fort Myers, Florida, tomorrow, Mr Obama will try to seize back control of the political agenda with question-and-answer sessions with voters in two of the swing states that gave him victory.

Already, however, he is struggling, and the product he is now selling is not himself but a near-trillion-dollar economic “stimulus” package loaded with pet Democratic spending projects that has awakened slumbering Republicans in Congress and is now supported by barely a third of Americans. In between the Indiana and Florida stops, he will return to the White House for a prime-time press conference in which he will appeal directly to citizens and seek to rekindle the magic of his campaign.

But we don’t need any more campaigning, and we don’t need to “rekindle” any magic. We need him rolling up his sleeves and hashing this bill out around the clock with the full Senate. I am not interested in any more sales pitches, just solutions. Beyond chanting, “yes, we can” – and believe me, for the sake of our country, I’d love nothing better than to be able to do so – the reality is when people are afraid of losing their homes and their jobs, their patience runs thin awfully fast with slogans and a dazzling smile.

Harnden points out Obama’s naivété in assuming that once in office, he could continue his honeymoon in the media or with the American people:

…Last week, [Obama] began as a wide-eyed bystander buffeted by events as he lost his key confidant, Tom Daschle, amid an uproar over $128,000 in unpaid taxes for a chauffeur and limousine. Mr Obama and his advisers believed the oversight did not matter because the over-arching virtue of the new White House could not be doubted. He was wrong and seemed out of touch in believing that ordinary people would not notice the contrast between the practice of politics as usual and his campaign slogans against it.

“We lived it for two years, and we forgot it for a couple of weeks,” Mr Gibbs remarked ruefully when asked about why Team Obama rationalised away their own principles because they wanted their old friend in the Cabinet.

In my view, Mr. Obama and his team forgot ‘their principles” for more than a couple of weeks – this is nonsense and his whole campaign was built on do as I say, not as I do. And again, enabling came into play. The media called him on almost none of this. Further, in his presser last night, he promised total transparency and after only a few weeks in office , even the media is complaining this is not the case. “Words. Just words.”

Contrary to what one would expect, his ‘delivery’ and his smile are a part of his armor — designed to distance, to protect, rather than to invite in or clarify. More sales; less substance. I find, particularly when reading from his prompter, he is hitting the notes in his phrasing, but it is mechanical. With rare exception, there is a disturbing disconnect from his words. Last night, he came across as rather angry, as if he is trying to boss the American people into doing what he wants. Er, he is the boss. But it still feels like a performance. And why in the hell can’t he just look into the damned camera and talk to us? Uh, you can arrange to have a prompter right in a large format camera screen, dear. Then at least Obama would look like he is talking to the American people, not pretending he is a lighthouse.

The “performance” is not enough, especially when he cannot back up those words with true passion and understanding for the policies he is trying to sell. And his record of taking action merely for political expediency is likewise worrisome.

Harnden continues:

In the early days of his presidency, Mr Obama has seemed passive and uncertain. Instead of drawing up his own economic stimulus bill, he sub-contracted the job to Democrats on Capitol Hill. They opted to spend money on projects for contraception and beautifying the National Mall – their doorstep – and gave Republicans an plenty of ammunition against the package.

Slipped into the small print was a “Buy America” provision that sent shock waves through capitals from Brussels to Beijing and triggered fears of trade wars and a new American protectionism. It was hard for the President to defend a bill he perhaps didn’t fully support himself. He neither championed the package as imperfect but essential, nor sought to make meaningful changes to it. He attempted to charm Republican centrists with his own personality and the trappings of the White House by inviting them over for cocktails and a Super Bowl party. It didn’t work. Of 219 Republicans on Capitol Hill, only three voted for the bill. Introducing a $500,000 pay cap for some Wall Street executives was empty – and possibly counter-productive – populism.

Mr. Obama cast aside his emollient talk to deliver the red meat at Williamsburg. It was an abrupt change of tone that will come with a price, just as the double standard of preaching about the evils of influence-peddling and lobbyists and then giving Mr. Daschle a pass on his tax evasion will not be forgotten by many ordinary Americans.

Again, this is the politics of personality at work. President Obama could not possibly believe he could simply charm Republicans with cocktails and that would do it. As anyone from a dysfunctional family can attest, you create a Frankenstein when you protect the offending family member from the truth, or fail to hold them accountable for their actions.

Interestingly, Harnden observes:

The activists who formed the backbone of Mr Obama’s election campaign appear less than energised. Few answered his call for house-party gatherings at the weekend to build support for the economic stimulus plan…

Where are all of his supporters who need to go to bat and work the phones and emails for his stimulus package? Perhaps they too are fearful that Speaker Pelosi’s creation isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Governing, as Mr Obama is finding out, is not like an election campaign. Mr. Bush’s failures will give him some leeway and his transformative appeal remains potent. But making decisions and operating the levers of power is something completely new to him. And it shows.

Indeed, getting out on the national stage as the new president, part of his job is to calm and reassure the American people that no matter how tough things may look now, we will get back on the right track. Standing up there last night at his presser, petulantly complaining ‘I inherited this deficit’ is childish and churlish under the circumstances. We know he inherited it. He also wanted the job. And he was in the Senate when the roots of this disaster were happening in the banking sector and with increased spending on the Iraq war. He was a willing participant and cannot claim ignorance or innocence now. I have had quite enough of him saying “I didn’t know.”

Since many of us wondered how he might handle the pressure cooker that is the White House, and navigate the treacherous waters of Congress, it would have been a true service to the American people had the media ever echoed our concern back when it counted for something, and really hit him with the full force of the fourth estate, such as it once was.

If that were the case a year ago, perhaps we might have seen what he is truly made of, and whether or not he was equipped to be more than a salesman or a campaigner. Leadership is not petulant. Leadership does not complain “hey, don’t blame me.” Leadership finds a way to inspire without scolding. And leadership does not use the politics of fear to get an agenda passed. We’ve just experienced eight years of that behavior, thank you very much.

The DNC elite were so focused on what they assumed would be the future of their party, filling their coffers with the donations he could generate; and the media was concerned with romanticizing Obama as a candidate instead of applying rational thought to what might actually happen if someone that untested were to assume the office. The result is that President Obama – at least at this moment – must revert to the thing he does best: campaigning.

He is going to have to grow an entirely new skill set. Over 60 million people took a leap of faith that he is his word. That leap of faith was pretty much all they had to go on. His handling of this stimulus package thus far is, however, more of the same old Washington song and dance. I wonder how long the American people will likewise ‘enable’ the cult of personality.

Then I have been mislabeling myself for the past 36 years. See, I thought a feminist was someone who believed in women’s equality, who believed that women’s rights were human rights, who believed that women had the right to make decisions about our own bodies, that women had the right to equal pay, and that women had the right to self-determination, not being ruled by a man, to name a few. See, that’s what I thought it meant. What a surprise to discover at this late date that, at least according to Ms. Magazine, I have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Evidently, in their opinion, a feminist is someone who plays songs like, “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One” when he enters a hall (and I intentionally picked the link to go to Huffington Post since so many of those people claim there is no way this happened. Hell to the yes, it DID.). A feminist is someone who flips off – in public – in a speech that is televised – a female US Senator who is also a Former First Lady of the US and a Former First Lady of Arkansas who, coincidentally, believes women’s rights are human rights. She even gave a little speech about it. But I digress…

Apparently, a feminist is someone who chooses for the chair of the Democratic National Committee a man who is anti-choice (oh, and as a bonus, anti-gay). A feminist picks a pastor, Rick Warren, to give a major prayer who equates abortion to Nazism. Once again, as a bonus, is tremendously anti-gay, comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia. So much so that he will not ALLOW gay people into his church.

A feminist, as it turns out, believes that women who are “feeling blue” should not be able to have an abortion. And a feminist believes any real discussion of abortion is above his pay grade.

A feminist, at least the one Ms. Magazine is revering, is free to make sexist comments about his competitor, allow vulgar, degrading sexual statements to be made and WORN on t-shirts (forget it – I’m not linking to those despicable shirts) without uttering ONE WORD against it, and pays the women on his staff less than the men.

And, lastly(but by no means the end), a feminist is someone who not only has retained on his staff, but ELEVATED to the top speech-writing post in the White House, this young man, Jon Favreau, who demonstrates his “affection” (read: sexist pig incredibly inappropriate actions) for Senator-Soon-To-Be-Secretary-Of-State, Hillary Clinton in the photo below:

Yep – no doubt about it – all my adult life, I have been completely and utterly wrong about what it means to be a feminist. Turns out, it is the exact opposite of what I always believed it to be.

I thought, I hoped, I prayed that after Bush was out of office, our country, our media, our leaders, our organizations, would return to the reality based community. Sadly, it seems that too many are continuing to perpetrate the charade of who Obama is. I guess it would just be too embarrassing to admit they, like so many others, had been completely duped by him (hey, if you want to know what it is like for all of those people who gave everything for Obama only to be dissed by him, just ask that sexist pig Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama’s campaign manager who threw not just Hillary but his own FATHER under the bus for Obama; or Jay Rockefeller; or John Kerry who shilled for Obama, hoping for that Secretary of State position; or HOWARD DEAN, who wasn’t even invited to the introduction of the new DNC chair, what it is like to realize they’ve been had. Frankly, it couldn’t have happened to more deserving people, especially Howard Dean, who allowed the Rules Committee to proceed in a completely unethical, immoral way all the while making it very clear who the DNC wanted for its nominee. So, Howie – what are you doing with your time under the bus?? Just wondering…). But to promote Obama, the most sexist, MISOGYNISTIC candidate I have ever seen as a FEMINIST is grotesque. Ms. Magazine has lost all credibility. Its editors have lost their minds. And they have sure lost me.

If this is what it means to be a feminist, freakin’ count me out. I don’t want to be lumped in the same group with a misogynistic (homophobic) pig like Obama. Clearly, we need another name for those of us who DO care, and work for, rights for women because as of this date, “feminist” has become a disparaging word, at least for me.

“Obama Hopes to Calm Americans With Series of Boring Speeches, Economic Address Contains Opposite of Stimulus:

Hoping to calm a nation whose nerves have been rattled by economic woes, President-elect Barack Obama today delivered the first in a series of numbingly boring speeches designed to put the nation to sleep.

Viewers who were able to remain awake for the entirety of his speech could boil down Mr. Obama’s economic plan to two points: stimulate the American economy while tranquilizing the American people.

“The President-elect is well aware that Americans are having trouble sleeping,” said chief of staff designee Rahm Emanuel. “These speeches are designed to fix that.”

By that criterion, Mr. Obama’s speech on economic matters today was a huge success, with over half of his audience losing consciousness five minutes in.

“That speech was a home run,” Mr. Emanuel said. “If he gives more speeches like that, you can throw away your Ambien.”

But even as Mr. Emanuel was touting his boss’s sandman-like oratory, Mr. Obama’s Surgeon General nominee, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, offered Americans the following warning: “If you are listening to one of President-elect Obama’s speeches on the radio, do not attempt to operate heavy machinery.”

FINALLY – finally someone acknowledges that Obama is not the Wordsmith he’s been portrayed to be. And honestly, Hillary would not have had to look at notes while speaking on this issue like Obama had to do the other day, swiveling his head left and right looking at his notes, like a bobble head. Don’t take my word for it, just take a look at this (I recommend leaving the sound off myself):

Remember when she was on Jim Cramer? She could speak extemporaneously on a number of economic issues and not miss a beat, and she sure as hell didn’t check any notes:

I have to say, I am really of two minds about this: on the one hand, I am GLAD Clinton isn’t the president during these trying times because you KNOW she would be blamed for the mess this country is in as if she had been in office for the past 8 years. Oh, and everything going on with Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon would be her fault, too.

On the other hand, I wish she WAS our president because I trust HER to actually know how to affect some positive change for the country. Obama? Not so much…To put it mildly.

Okay, so maybe I am just cranky about this comment John Kerry made regarding Clinton’s hearing for her new position (Clinton Confirmation Hearing Set): Kerry said in a statement.

“My friend and colleague Hillary Clinton will bring her years of experience and acute intellect to her position as America’s top diplomat.”

Well, NO DUH, Sherlock!! So why didn’t you back the one with the “years of experience” instead of this unprepared, ill-prepared PEBO we have now?? Holy cow.

Oh, but get this. Besides Dr. Gupta becoming our Surgeon General, guess who might end up being the US Ambassador to Great Britain? Indeed, it is another TV personality, only this one, unlike Dr. Gupta, has no experience for it (there’s that theme again). Are you ready? OPRAH!!!! Yes, Oprah. (Major H/T to alert NQ reader, Capt Howdy for this.) I swear I am absolutely not making this up. Holy frijole.

I feel another head explosion coming on. In honor of Oprah’s potential new gig, how about a song from Duffy? I might add, this could well be the Obots’ theme song (sorry – the embed link has been disabled). Click HERE.

He was apparently measuring drapes for the office over in Foggy Bottom (trimmed with French lace, I’m sure) and now will have to try and have them installed in his cramped Senate Office back on Capitol Hill. In the Globe, Joan Vennochi reminds us, just what a good little Obot, Kerry was:

The Massachusetts senator helped to launch Obama on the national stage. As his party’s presidential nominee, Kerry chose Obama as the keynote speaker for the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Ever since then, Kerry did everything right by Obama.

He walked away from his own presidential dreams and embraced Obama’s. He helped with fund-raising and organized a Web-based fight against the kind of negative campaigning that helped derail his own presidential bid. He also delivered a powerful speech when Democrats gathered in Denver to nominate Obama. …

Both Kerry and Senator Edward M. Kennedy endorsed the Illinois senator at a critical point in his primary battle. Back in Massachusetts, Kerry took most of the heat for the Obama endorsement. An enraged contingent of Bay State women for Clinton badgered Kerry for his failure to back their candidate. They were so angry, the women helped a Democratic rival win enough votes at the state convention to earn a spot on the ballot. As a result, Kerry faced his first primary challenger in 24 years.

You can read her entire article here

Perhaps the junior Senator from Massachussets should have studied the President-elect’s history a little more. “Change you can believe in” is a new slogan, the one he has always lived by is “what have you done for me lately?”

The more conservative Herald is a bit more blunt.

Word from Capitol Hill is that, despite his kind words for Hillary Clinton yesterday, Sen. John Kerry is angry and disappointed about not being considered a serious candidate for Barack Obama’s secretary of state.

“He’s pretty PO’d,” said Someone Who Knows. “After going from the early front-runner to not even being considered, he’s pretty disappointed.”

You can read the rest of that article here.

Bottom line, Kerry lost out. Why, because he is a loser. Losers lose, that’s what they do. Getting elected as a Democrat in Massachusetts, does not count. Britney Spears could win that Senate seat if she had the Democratic line. Several reports in recent weeks indicated that for all of his loyal Obot status, Kerry would have been more than willing to endorse Hillary Clinton had she promised him the Secretary of State position (something she apparently was unwilling to do.) Perhaps that’s another reason why Obama and Clinton seem to be getting along these days, they probably have had a couple of laughs together over the thought of Kerry as S.O.S..

The Herald article did add this unrelated nugget.

As for Hillary, we hear that one of the reasons she decided to abandon the Senate to serve under her former rival was Sen. Ted Kennedy’s snub on health care.

Kennedy declined to put the former first lady on his health care task force – the group that will shape the Senate’s health care bill.

Word is, the senior senator, who is battling brain cancer, hopes to get the bill through the Senate as soon as work is completed on Obama’s economic plan, and he didn’t believe Clinton had the juice to get it done.

I would have thought the “Liberal Lion” wouldn’t need any additional juice to get anything through a 58 seat Democratic Senate.

That reminds me, after all the work Kerry and Kennedy did for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton easily won the Massachussets primary. Enjoy the Cabernet.

Hillary’s name did not just “happen” to leak out. It was a deliberate act and sends a clear message to others who thought they had the Sec State job in the bag. This news has come as a complete surprise to many in the Hillary camp. Unless Hillary comes forward in the next few hours and knocks down these rumors and insists that she wants to stay in the Senate, you must assume she wants the job. The move makes sense on several levels. Hillary and Bill could have sabotaged his Presidential campaign but did not. While some of us who backed Hillary in the primaries declined to board the Hopium Changey Express, she worked hard to get Barack elected. This also will put her in a position particularly suited to her talent and abilities.

But if she is not given the job, oh, oh!!

Trotting her name out like this and then not giving her the job will be viewed as one more insult of a woman who has been the consummate team player. Rather than sit and sulk at the betrayals inflicted on her by the likes of Howard Dean and Bill Richardson, she sucked it up and campaigned enthusiastically for Barack. In fact, some of her supporters were put off by the support for Obama and credit her efforts with helping him seal the deal on election day, particularly in Pennsylvania and Ohio. So to dangle this new opportunity and then give it to a Kerry or a Richardson would be another slap in the face. That in turn would further enrage Hillary fans and supporters.

Putting Hillary’s name out there and then not following through will create a story-line that the Obama transition effort is inept and amateurish.

Conversely, giving Hillary that job would be seen by most Hillary supporters as a great peace offering and the kind of gesture that many believe should have been extended when she suspended her campaign. It would go a long way in healing the rift among many of the Hillary backers who voted for McCain. This will not remove all of the bitterness, but it is an important first step. Of course, this won’t make Kerry and Richardson happy, but neither of those guys can claim any credit for helping turn Pennsylvania and Ohio into a Barack victory.

The economic crisis Barack Obama inherits is so severe and so pervasive that he will need a steady, experienced hand at State Department. With Hillary in place he will be certain that the Senator from New York and her husband, Bill Clinton, will be in the boat with Obama rowing for their lives to try to rescue the Republic. Putting Hillary in place also will send a reassuring message to Israel that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama can be trusted to deal fairly with Israel.

Unless Hillary turns this down, she should be the one. If, by chance, the Obama folks floated her name and then go in a different direction, that will ignite a new and furious round of criticism raising the question about President-elect Obama’s competence. I cannot imagine that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Chief of the Transition team, John Podesta, are that stupid or vindictive. It looks like Hillary will be Secretary of State come February.

UPDATE–This is not a rumor started or fanned by Clintonistas. Important to note that Hillary is not a weak sister like Colin Powell. Powell had his cojones clipped in a Bush Administration because he was too weak to go to the President and push back against the bullying of Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Powell was and is the quintessential butt snorkeler aka brown nosing ass kisser. A competent, smooth guy but he perfected the role of catering to those above him. Cheney and Rummy conspired together and effectively walled off Powell.

No way in hell the same thing happens to Hillary. There is no comparable Rumsfeld/Cheney lash up in the Obama Administration that I can see. Also, Hillary is not a weak personality like Powell. She does not have an inner need to cater to the every whim of a President Obama. She will give honest, smart advice. If she is confronted with a situation where she is asked to do something or represent a position that is diametrically opposed to her core values she will not just go along.

I think Hillary has the potential to be the best Secretary of State since James Baker and will leave a positive mark on history if she is offered the job.

The image above was posted on Post Secret on November 8, 2008. I have no doubt that the dominate narrative of this campaign — the forceful suppression of women — is responsible for the author’s “secret.” In the Obama-realm, feminism isn’t just bad, it’ll ruin your life. One only need to look to Hillary and Sarah Palin as examples.

Dr. Violet Socks writes:

A few days ago I was asking you all to think about why there is still so much deeply-felt resistance to women’s equality. This is the lesson of radical feminism: that the gender revolution requires just that — a revolution.

Why does there need to be a revolution for equality? Because this year misogyny was used a political tool. As many of us witnessed, this election was so poisoned with hate speech against women that it’s not an exaggeration to say that the FBI would have been investigating the perpetrators if it had been against any other oppressed group.

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton was the choice of most Democrats this year. The Democratic establishment, consisting of Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and many others, worked furiously to keep Hillary Clinton from receiving the Democratic nomination. Their left-wing allies and the media worked to sabotage her campaign at every turn.

It’s not entirely clear why there was such intense animous towards Hillary by such a large and diverse group. We do know, however, that the most vile tactics were used to suppress Hillary’s campaign; caucus fraud, race-baiting, and outright misogyny comes to mind. As examples, the Obama campaign initiated a not-so-secret whisper campaign that President Clinton was a racist when Clinton called Obama’s Iraq War position a “fairy tale,” Hillary was accused of waiting for the unthinkable to happen to Obama when she mentioned the length of the 1968 campaign and Bobby Kennedy and, from January on, there was a constant drumbeat that she must leave the race.

Running below the murky currents of this campaign, however, was a sexism so deep and so pervasive that it can be said that sexism defined this campaign. Indeed, I believe the subtext and central narrative of Obama’s campaign was sexism. Because two women were the biggest political threat to his campaign, Obama needed to unleash sexism.

Dr. Socks continues:

Narratives: think about narratives. Anthropologists of gender, like Peggy Reeves Sandy, talk about “scripts”: the stories that a society tells itself to explain the world. How men are. How women are. How they should be.

The Obama campaign, with the help of the media and “progressives” blogs, pushed a narrative against Hillary and later Sarah Palin, that invalidated them as public servants because on their gender. Misogyny, wrapped in the protective shell of race-baiting, was the central narrative of the Obama campaign.

I subscribe to the bumper sticker view that “feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” My wife and I are expecting a girl in January. I want this girl to live the full and free life our son enjoys, without gender being an obstacle in her path. I don’t want my daughter to be called a “bitch,” or for someone to wear a t-shirt calling her a “cunt.” Put in those terms, the Obama movement unleashed something very ugly into the culture. The Obama campaign, in its subterranean narrative, encouraged the hatred of women. It is little wonder then that the author of the Post Secret card blames feminism for her unhappiness; she’s witnessed that women who expect equal treatment will be beat down.

Barack Obama’s mantra of change sounds eloquent on the campaign trail, but as we have pointed out repeatedly there is an enormous gulf between what he says and what he does. It is one thing, for example, to tout womens’ rights. But those exhortations ring hollow when we learn that Barack pays his women staffers a fraction of what he pays his male buddies. Is that change you believe in?

We are promised a movement that rises above the crass partisanship of the past 8 years. Great!! Except Barack’s team during the last week of the campaign bans three major newspapers, who just happened to endorse John McCain, from riding on this campaign plane. That’s just good old fashioned hardball politics. I get it. But spare me the sanctimonious bullshit that Barack is espousing a new, kinder form of politics.

So excuse my doubts that Barack is anything other than another clever, traditional, self-serving politician. I remember the promises of George W. Bush being a uniter not a divider. Well we all know how that promise turned out.

I am glad we will soon be rid of the Bush national security team. Not only will Bush go down in history as the worst President–a man who squandered international support, an 80% favorability rating, and a budget surplus–but his National Security Council was particularly dysfunctional.

The key mission for the National Security Advisor is to play traffic cop. He or she must force the various bureaucracies to come to agreement on contentious policies. Bush’s team was a complete fucking joke on this front. Neither Condi Rice nor her successor, Stephen Hadley rose to this task. During much of Bush’s first term the Department of Defense ran circles around Bush. Rumsfeld and his old protege, Dick Cheney, conspired successfully to force their will on others. Rice and Hadley just watched and did nothing.

James Risen reported an excellent account of one this behavior (see here):

Author James Risen notes the US military’s rules of engagement in Afghanistan states that if US soldiers discover illegal drugs they “could” destroy them, which is “very different from issuing firm rules stating that US forces must destroy any drugs discovered.” An ex-Green Beret later claims that he was specifically ordered to ignore heroin and opium when his unit discovered them on patrol. Assistant Secretary of State Bobby Charles, who fights in vain for tougher rules of engagement (see November 2004), will later complain, “In some cases [US troops] were destroying drugs, but in others they weren’t. [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld didn’t want drugs to become a core mission.” [RISEN, 2006, PP. 152-162]

Let’s watch carefully who Obama tabs for his National Security Advisor. If it is Susan Rice then we are looking at a reprise of the Bush Administration’s administrative dysfunction. Obama’s Rice, like Condi, is a very intelligent person, but has a well-earned reputation for not being able to organize a three car funeral. Alternatively, someone like Richard Clarke, another Obama supporter/advisor, is an accomplished bureaucratic manager. He would be a definite upgrade.

Over at State the Bush Administration was a bust. Colin Powell helped lie the country into the Iraq war and Condi Rice has continued her same “stellar” performance at Foggy Bottom (the nickname for State Department reflecting its location on what once was swampland). Two names have emerged in the running for the State job–John Kerry and Bill Richardson. It is probably worthwhile to go back and figure out who was the first to throw Hillary Clinton under the bus. Each is likely to insist that their critical endorsement paved the way for Barack’s victory and therefore each, at least in his own mind, deserves to be the Secretary of State and help lead the world to a new era of peace and justice.

Some Obama disciples–obviously folks accustomed to using hallucinogens–suggested bringing back Powell for an encore. WHERE THEY ASLEEP DURING POWELL’S U.N. PERFORMANCE? If Barack goes down that road, we should really call into question the insistence that he is a “brilliant” guy. Some have suggested that a Republican like Chuck Hagel or Dick Lugar would be an excellent gesture that Barack is serious about a bipartisan approach to policy. There are two ways this would happen–No Way and No Way in Hell!!!

My guess is we are likely to see someone with a Chicago connection snag the State slot. This is the fun part of the election, watching the rearranging of the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Stay tuned.

UPDATE–After further checking it looks like John Kerry, who endorsed boy wonder on January 10, 2008, wins the sychophant contest for sucking up to Barack. He beat out Richardson by more than two months. Does that give him the edge?

I have watched in horror and amazement as deeds, gaffes, falsehoods and gross errors in judgment that would have taken down any other politician just slide from Obama like Teflon, much like George Bush. Bush’s problem is not that he’s a Republican. It is that he is a petty, arrogant bully who thinks he is anointed by God, much like Barack Obama.

I believe Obama’s supporters are voting for a carefully crafted narrative; a symbol rather than a man. Symbols don’t govern. Men do. Women do. A symbol is nothing if there is no substance behind it. Here is my closing argument that he is “words, just words” and the substance of Barack Obama is as thin as tissue paper.

Campaign manager David Axelrod had to find a way to propel an affable but rather wishy-washy, under-achieving legislator from Illinois with only a couple of years in the Senate under his belt past a host of far more accomplished candidates. Therefore ‘experience’ became a dirty word.

With Senator Obama’s silvery speeches, his slick, evasive way around all direct questions and no policy decisions one could pin on him, he was able to move close to the front of the field. But he could not get past his biggest obstacle: the brilliant Joan of Arc in a pantsuit, Hillary Clinton. All eight guys sharing the debate stage piled on, including Obama, but still, she came out on top with her preparedness and smarts. So the narrative had to be amended. Not only is experience a dirty word, “Clinton” had to become a dirty word as well.

We were reminded of Republicans hunting Bill Clinton endlessly in the 90’s and told that we didn’t want to support political dynasties, i.e., Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Well, Hillary is Bill’s wife, so technically, she’s a Rodham. No dynasty there, but no matter. So first “experience” became a dirty word and “Clinton” became a dirty word, too.

After seven years of George Bush, Democrats, starved to retake the presidency, were sick and tired of partisan bickering and infighting. Whether people loved the Clintons or not, some were afraid that perhaps the Clinton name meant that the “hunt” would start all over again so they were willing to buy Axelrod’s first narrative in order to escape the second.

And then the third narrative was born: Barack Obama is post-racial, post-partisan and stands apart from inside-the-beltway politics. He will cut through the gristle and build consensus because he has no enemies and is not set in his ways like some old pol.

Axelrod then had to create a fourth narrative: Barack as rock star. He needed to draw the eye in order to bypass the Clintons’ rock star status within the Democratic Party and to distract the American public from the most important reason not to vote for him: he didn’t know what he was doing and had a paper-thin resume.

Hence we got the super-sized rallies, the soaring speeches, the ‘fainting,’ people screaming “I love you, Barack” from the throngs in the audience. We now know that many of his enormous rallies had freebie giveaways – rock concerts and the like. But that was a well kept secret, like the rest of this well-crafted stage farce. So the mystique of Obama was born.

The Democrats’ antipathy toward the Iraq war also helped to birth the fifth Obama narrative – Obama as the anti-war candidate, because of a speech he allegedly gave in the ultra liberal Hyde Park district of Illinois in 2002, at no political cost to himself. He was the man of “good judgment” for his war opposition. Not that he had the power to vote on any such a thing at the time. If he did, surely he would have found a way to do as he had always done in the State Senate when challenged by a politically risky vote: vote “present” as he did there 130 times.

But then, an all too compliant media started to get the collective tingle up their leg. Whether this was out of fear of being called racist if they didn’t ‘treat the black guy nicely’, or just their obsession with taking Hillary down or both, I don’t know. But they willfully decided not to do their jobs. He received no vetting whatsoever.

Still, Hillary Clinton had a formidable lead in the polls and was winning the majority of primaries before Super Tuesday (including Michigan and Florida), so he needed a new narrative to blunt her momentum and I’m sure everyone remembers what that was. It was born after Hillary’s unexpected win in New Hampshire and solidified with the South Carolina primary in January – ‘Bill Clinton is a racist and Hillary is insensitive to the plight of the African American community.’

When the campaign started, Obama was ‘bi-racial.’ That wasn’t working for him so well, so he became ‘African American.’ Another new narrative – is that number six? I am beginning to lose count.

Axelrod knew that Obama’s exotic background and dispassionate, professorial demeanor was not connecting well with the black community. Therefore, he had to drive a wedge between the Clintons and the AA community who were so fond of them. Professor Sean Wilentz published a brilliant article in the New Republic called “Race Man” detailing exactly how this was done. Again, the media played an important role here because they gave carte blanche to any nonsense that came out of Obama’s mouth, or that of his surrogates. This narrative of Hillary and her supporters as racist, low-information “Archie Bunkers” grew legs, although it had no basis in fact.

Even the clueless Senators John Kerry and the bloviating Joe Biden told us we had to vote for Obama because he is black. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is just as racist to vote for someone based on the color of their skin as it is not to. So I guess narrative three (post-racial, post-partisan) was discarded.

Then, against the will of most of the mainstream media in March and April, word of Obama’s malignant associations started to bleed out: the now convicted criminal Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and more. Another new narrative was born: the “I didn’t know” or the “it was boneheaded” narrative: a convenient way for Obama to avoid taking personal responsibility for any of his past actions or associations. Good judgment, you say?

Sometimes I think Senator Obama gets up in the morning, walks to the mirror, smiles at it and challenges himself to see how many dissembling statements he can make to the press without getting called on them. I think it must be a game to him, otherwise, how could he dare to be so cavalier with the truth before the American people.

I’m not going to detail his lies about these close associations, or his involvement with ACORN, nor am I going to detail his reneging on his important policy promises like FISA, NAFTA, Iraq, Israel, don’t ask don’t tell, women’s rights, gun control, Bush’s faith based initiatives and so on. All of these are egregious breaks in faith and trust not only with his supporters but with the entire party. Worse still were the press and DNC elite riding shotgun for him at every turn helping him to steal the Democratic nomination through caucus fraud, blocking re-votes and illegitimately being awarded delegates he did not actually earn. Let’s leave that aside for the moment, too.

To me, the worst break in faith was his reneging on public financing, for one very simple reason: his entire candidacy was built on the notion that the American people needed a new way of doing business in Washington. That lobbyists, special interest groups or billionaires cannot buy the Presidency.

So far, he has spent nearly a billion dollars trying to buy the Presidency.

Much of this money has come to him from questionable – and untraceable – donations on the internet. He just spent millions blanketing five networks with a thirty minute infomercial; this after spending six million for his faux-Greek column event at Invesco Field bullying all into submission at the Convention; this after his Barack-apolooza celebrity European Tour, trying to overwhelm the multitudes, foreign and domestic, into believing he is the President without him actually having done anything to earn the title.

He has said that he rejects lobbyists but the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandal have revealed that aside from his ardent supporter, Senator Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Obama has received more lobbying money from them than anyone. A new way of doing business?

Pollsters are cooking the numbers shamelessly in Obama’s favor. Until this last week, where we finally had the likes of CNN’s John King admitting to the ridiculously biased media coverage, it was a veritable love fest for Barack and a sandstorm for Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Had Obama kept his word to accept public financing, as John McCain did, and just campaigned on the issues, as McCain has worked to do – do you think Obama would still be in this contest at all?

These are his fighting tools: Experience is a dirty word. Clinton is a dirty word. I take lobbying money but I pretend I don’t and no one calls me on it. I change my tune daily on different networks and no one bothers to compare my false statements. I am not bi-racial, I am black. I insult the white grandmother who raised me by labeling her a “typical white person.” I insult people who don’t vote for me by calling them “bitter voters who cling to God and guns.” The Clintons and their supporters are racists. Everyone who says anything bad about me must be racist. If the press does not write glowing reports about me, I kick them off my plane, although they have paid good money to be there. “I didn’t know” (about Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Pfleger, my aunt living illegally and in squalor in Boston). Everything you find wrong with me or my campaign I either didn’t know about or it was ‘boneheaded.’

This is a new, cleaner way of doing business in Washington? What is cleaner about trying to overwhelm everyone else out of the race before the American people notice that your policies won’t hold water, and that you won’t hold any position long enough to stand against the changing wind. Obama promised hope and change. He, like George Bush, proclaimed himself a great ‘uniter,’ yet he has rapidly emerged as the most divisive figure in politics. How ironic that he, and the media, tried to paint Hillary as ‘divisive and polarizing’ when he and his supporters are responsible for more hateful vitriol than I have yet seen. Friends and couples are actually breaking up over supporting or not supporting this man.

His careless ‘let’s throw money at the problem’ attitude is horrid, particularly in such difficult economic times.

Obama and Biden deriding the “Joe the Plumbers” of this world belies not only their rhetoric but basic Democratic principles. Further it shows Obama to be an elitist, out of touch with the needs and concerns of average Americans. He postulates on “spreading the wealth around” from the safety of his Chicago mansion, and says it is “selfish” not to do so, while he and his wife, millionaires, give relatively little to charity, and his ‘favorite aunt’ in allowed to contribute $260 to his campaign yet lives illegally and in squalor in Boston. Oh, he “didn’t know.”

More do as I say, not as I do. That is the most damning and devastating part of his candidacy. It was always built on a lie built upon yet another bunch of lies.

How can anyone run on their “good judgment,” yet say “I didn’t know” to breaking revelations at every turn and be given a pass? How can we trust such a man ‘to know’ enough to take care of us when he doesn’t know enough to take care of himself or his own? Or willfully turns a blind eye to crooked and divisive behavior?

A grossly inexperienced, under-qualified man is poised to take the most difficult job in the world at one of the most challenging times in our recent history. And the entire narrative the svengali Axelrod and the media have crafted for him is built on nothing but smoke and mirrors. Hope and change indeed.

Contrary to his image, he is nothing more than an old style politician, an opportunist borne of the Chicago Daley machine, a man who has worked to buy the presidency and changes his policy positions as one would change their socks. After the Joe the Plumber debacle, the myth of Mr. Hope and Change has been debunked. What was initially appealing about his candidacy no longer exists. What is left?

I can find no good reason to vote for him.

I certainly hope the American people will come to the same conclusion this Tuesday.

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates.

Wendy goes on to explain how she was first inspired by Edwards but not getting a job with his campaign, came to work for Obama:

I helped with his announcement speech and others. I worked in the Senate when he was in D.C. One day after a hearing on Darfur, we were walking back to the office. I was still hobbling from a very bad ankle injury and in a very kind and gentle way he offered his arm when we approached the stairs. But later in debate preps and phone conversations and meetings, I realized that I had made a mistake. I didn’t belong. No matter how hard I tried, my heart wasn’t in it anymore.
…
This drift started on a personal level with the fall of former Senator John Edwards. It got stronger during the Democratic National Convention when I counted the substantive mentions of poverty on one hand and a whole bunch of bad canned partisan lines against Senator John McCain. Some faith was lifted after Senator Hillary Clinton’s grace during a difficult hour. But that faith was dashed when I saw that someone had raided the Caligula set and planted the old columns at Invesco Field.

The final straw came the other week when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a Joe the Plumber) asked a question about higher taxes for small businesses. Instead of celebrating his aspirations, they were mocked. He wasn’t “a real plumber,” and “They’re fighting for Joe the Hedge-Fund manager,” and the patronizing, “I’ve got nothing but love for Joe the Plumber.”

Having worked in politics, I know that absolutely none of this is on the level. This back and forth is posturing, a charade, and a political game. These lines are what I refer to as “hooker lines”—a sure thing to get applause and the press to scribble as if they’re reporting meaningful news.

As the nation slouches toward disaster, the level of political discourse is unworthy of this moment in history. We have Republicans raising Ayers and Democrats fostering ageism with “erratic” and jokes about Depends. Sexism. Racism. Ageism and maybe some Socialism have all made their ugly cameos in election 2008. It’s not inspiring. Perhaps this is why I found the initial mocking of Joe so offensive and I realized an old line applied: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party left me.”

Wendy then delivers the most blistering indictment of the current Democratic Party and certainly I agree with her reasons for holding them in such low esteem now:

The party I believed in wouldn’t look down on working people under any circumstance. And Joe the Plumber is right. This is the absolutely worst time to raise taxes on anyone: the rich, the middle class, the poor, small businesses and corporations.

Our economy is in the tank for many complicated reasons, especially because people don’t have enough money. So let them keep it. Let businesses keep it so they can create jobs and stay here and weather this storm. And yet, the Democratic ideology remains the same. Our approach to problems—big government solutions paid for by taxing the rich and big and smaller companies—is just as tired and out of date as trickle down economics. How about a novel approach that simply finds a sane way to stop the bleeding?

She correctly addresses the DNC’s outdated talking points and ideology in the midst of the economic storm we face. If Obama had any real clue as to policy, post–partisan genius that he is purported to be, he would think outside the box and propose something new. Clearly he is not capable of doing so, only stealing others ideas for his own; riding in late to take credit after doing none of the hard work required to get there. Remember “Congress will call me if they need me.”

…Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.”

Ms. Button remembers this outrage as well as the rest of us. All of Senator Clinton’s accomplishments and great policy ideas were tossed under the bus in favor of every negative speck of dust the press and Obama’s campaign could find to magnify.

But here we are about a week out and it’s déjà vu all over again. Really, front-page news is how the Republican National Committee paid for Governor Sarah Palin’s wardrobe? Where’s the op-ed about how Obama tucks in his shirt when he plays basketball or how Senator Biden buttons the top button on his golf shirt?
…
Here we are discussing Governor Palin’s clothes—oh wait, now we’re on to the make-up—not what either man is going to do to save our economy. This isn’t an accident. It is part of a manufactured narrative that she is stupid.

Most interesting to me was Wendy’s take on Sarah Palin. It was encouraging to me that a die hard Democrat would take the time to put aside any preconceived notions and actually looks at Palin’s record:

Governor Palin and I don’t agree on a lot of things, mostly social issues. But I have grown to appreciate the Governor. I was one of those initial skeptics and would laugh at the pictures. Not anymore. When someone takes on a corrupt political machine and a sitting governor, that is not done by someone with a low I.Q. or a moral core made of tissue paper.

Obama, who wouldn’t know strong moral code if it bit him, and can’t seem to find a policy he likes well enough to hold on to against the changing winds, might want to take a page out of Sarah Palin’s book — instead of belittling her.

When someone fights her way to get scholarships and work her way through college even in a jagged line, that shows determination and humility you can’t learn from reading Reinhold Niebuhr. When a mother brings her son with special needs onto the national stage with love, honesty, and pride, that gives hope to families like mine as my older brother lives with a mental disability. And when someone can sit on a stage during the Sarah Palin rap on Saturday Night Live, put her hands in the air and watch someone in a moose costume get shot—that’s a sign of both humor and humanity.

Has she made mistakes? Of course, she’s human too. But the attention paid to her mistakes has been unprecedented compared to Senator Obama’s “57 states” remarks or Senator Biden using a version of the Samuel Johnson quote, “There’s nothing like a hanging in the morning to focus a man’s thoughts.”

Her statements about Iraq were also surprising; certainly unusual coming from a Democrat:

But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don’t understand the details about Senator Obama’s plan with Iraq. When he says, “all combat troops,” he’s not talking about all troops—it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That’s not ending the war; that’s half a war.

I was dead wrong about the surge and thought it would be a disaster. Senator John McCain led when many of us were ready to quit. Yet we march on as if nothing has changed, wedded to an old plan, and that too is a long way from the Democratic Party.

In closing, I think Wendy echoes the sentiments of a great many Hillary supporters who, alternately, sit in wonderment and horror that the Democratic Party they fought for, donated to, campaigned for and believe in all these years would exhibit the behavior Ms. Button discusses here:

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, [McCain] is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

Before I cast my vote, I will correct my party affiliation and change it to No Party or Independent. Then, in the spirit of election 2008, I’ll get a manicure, pedicure, and my hair done. Might as well look pretty when I am unemployed in a city swimming with “D’s.”

Whatever inspiration I had in Chapel Hill two years ago is gone. When people say how excited they are about this election, I can now say, “Maybe for you. But I lost my home.”

Just yesterday, Senator Biden made another mind bending statement when he said “this is a new Democratic Party not the party of the 70s and 80s. This is a party that has adjusted to the realities of a new world order.”

I am not sure what ‘new world order’ he is talking about, but if it includes demeaning women, belittling working class voters and ignoring the issues that weigh heavily on our country at the moment in favor of pretty, vacuous sound bites and “word salad.” obviously I am not a part of it.

Thanks Wendy, for having the courage to speak up and tell the Democratic Party off.

What else is going on?