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?

It seems that others are noticing the rampant sexism/misogyny, and the hypocrisy of the “liberal elite” when it comes to who can be a feminist or not. Victor David Hanson would be one such person in his article,An Instructive Candidacy: What Sarah Palin taught us about ourselves. In his excellent piece, parts of which are excerpted here, Mr. Hanson takes on not just the Feminist Police, but the journalists who have been “reporting” during this campaign season:

Soon this depressing campaign will be over, and we can reflect on what we learned from our two-month introduction to Sarah Palin.

Clearly, it is more than we would have ever wished to know about ourselves.

First, there turns out to be no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. Palin’s career as a city councilwoman, mayor, and governor of Alaska was never seen as comparable to, or — indeed, in terms of executive experience — more extensive than, Barack Obama’s own legislative background in Illinois and Washington. Somehow we forgot that a mother of five taking on the Alaskan oil industry and the entrenched male hierarchy was somewhat more challenging than Barack Obama navigating the sympathetic left-wing identity politics of Chicago.

Well, true that. Everyone seems to have convenient amnesia when it comes to the accomplishments of the Governor of Alaska. Far too often, I have seen letters to the editor or comments at blogs claiming she is “just a mother of five.” No, she is that, which is no small thing, by the way, to which my mother can attest, but she is One of FIFTY governors in the entire United States, with the highest approval rating of any governor, as well as one who has taken on her own party, and WON, thank you so much.

But I digress:

So we seem to have forgotten that the standards of censure of her vice-presidential candidacy were not applied equally to the presidential campaign of Barack Obama. The media at times seems unaware of this embarrassment, namely that their condemnation of Sarah Palin as inexperienced equally might apply to Barack Obama — and to such a degree that by default we were offered the lame apology (reiterated by Colin Powell himself) that Obama’s current impressive campaigning, not his meager political accomplishments, was already an indication of a successful tenure as president. The result is that we now know more about the Palin pregnancies — both of mother and daughter — that we do the relationships of Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Father Pfleger with our possible next president.

No FREAKIN’ KIDDING! Obama hasn’t had a tenth of the vetting in eighteen months that Palin has had in two months - nice that some people are keeping score here. Hanson continues:

Indeed, the media itself — in private, I think — would admit that while (we? they?) have learned almost everything about Tasergate and the Bridge to Nowhere, we assume that at some future date a publicity-starved, megalomaniac Rev. Wright will soon offer his post-election memoirs, detailing just how close he and a President Obama were. Or we will learn Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, as long-time friends, in fact, did communicate via phone and e-mail well after Ayers had told the world, about the time of 9/11, that he, like our present-terrorist enemies, likewise wished he had engaged in more bombing attacks against the United States government. And the media never wondered whether a Palin’s falling out with those who ran Alaska might have been more of a touchstone to character than Obama’s own falling in with those who ran Chicago.

Uh, yeah. For some reason, while still in the Primary season, the MSM were all too happy to do their level best to ignore anything to do with Wright. They downplayed the videos, believed Obama when he claimed he certainly didn’t hold the same beliefs that Wright does even though his butt was in the pew in that church for over twenty years, and even though he called Wright his “uncle.” Oh, no - we must take him at his word that he would NEVER believe in that hate mongering theology. Just like we are supposed to take him at his word about Bill Ayers, Domestic Terrorist-Who-Wishes-He-Had-Been-More-Successful! Never you mind that they have been hanging around with each other for the past 13 years, working together, living near each other, and handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote Ayers’ “unique” ideology to the youth of Chicago, through Wright, of course. Obama is such a straight shooter, naturally we must believe every word that escapes his lips, right?? Evidently.

And now is when we get to the issue of feminism:

Second, there does not seem to be much left of feminism any more. Of course, feminists once gave liberal pro-choice Bill Clinton a pass for his serial womanizing of vulnerable subordinates, and Oval Office antics with a young female intern. But they gave the game away entirely when they went after Gov. Palin for her looks, accent, pregnancies, and religion, culminating in assessments of her from being no real woman at all to an ingrate — piggy-backing on the pioneer work of self-acclaimed mavericks like themselves.

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

So there was something creepy about droves of irate women, in lock-step blasting Sarah Palin from the corridors of New York and Washington, when most of them were the recipients of the traditional spoils of either family connections, inherited money, or the advantages that accrue from insider power marriages. Indeed, very few of Palin’s critics on their own could have emerged from a small-town in Alaska, with an intact marriage and five children, to run the state of Alaska.

We have come to understand that — for a TV anchorwoman, op-ed columnist, or professor — it would be a nightmare to birth a Down Syndrome child in her mid-forties, or to have had her pregnant unwed teen actually deliver her baby. In the world outside Sarah Palin’s Wasilla, these are career-ending blunders that abort the next job promotion or book tour— or the future career of a prepped young daughter on her way to the Ivy League.

Right? I’ve known people who couldn’t endure the stress of their partner getting a PhD., for cryin’ out loud, much less the stress of moving from one level of government to another with five kids, one of whom is a Special Needs child. Add to that the lack of support from her own party in doing these things, and you got yourself some stress. Which Sarah Palin has handled with seeming ease, a feat that should have been CELEBRATED by feminists, not ridiculed.

Hanson then takes on the whole Biden v. Palin contest:

Third, from the match-up of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, we discovered that our media does not know anything about the nature of wisdom — how it is found or how it is to be adjudicated. For the last eight weeks, Palin has been demonized as a dunce because she did not, in the fashion of the class toady with his hand constantly up in the first row, impress in flash-card recall, the glasses-on-his-nose Charlie Gibson, or clinched-toothed Katie Couric.

Meanwhile Joe Biden has just been Ol’ Joe Biden — which means not that he can get away with the occasional gaffe, but that can say things so outrageous, so silly, and so empty that, had they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin, she would have long ago been forced to have stepped aside from the ticket.

Factual knowledge? Biden, in the midst of a financial meltdown on Wall Street, apparently thinks that the last time it happened in 1929, we heard FDR rally us on television. And such made-up nonsense came in the form, as many of Biden’s gaffes do, of a rebuke to the supposedly obtuse George W. Bush…

Amazingly, very, very little is made of either Biden’s OR Obama’s gaffes, though BOTH of them have PLENTY. Had Clinton, or McCain, or Palin, or anyone else made the factual inaccuracies or flat out lies that either of these men have made, they would be running across the bottom of your screen for days on end. But Biden and Obama? Hahaha, they made a mistake, move along, nothing to see here. Sheesh. Here are just a few for you:

Silliness? Imagine the following outbursts, mutatis mutandis, from the mouth of a Sarah Palin — “John McAmerica,” “a Palin-McCain administration,” “Senator George Obama,” “Congressman Joe Biden,” who is both “good looking,” and “drop-dead gorgeous.” Or “I guarantee you, John McCain ain’t taking my shotguns. . . . If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break.”

Or “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Or “Mitt Romney is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly he might have been a better pick than me.”

Holy toledo. Reversing the positions helps to highlight just how absurd all of this has been…I agree with the following assessment:

The list could go on ad nauseam. But we got the picture. Biden has devolved from the ridiculous to the unhinged, confident that in-house journalism would understand that the law graduate with 36 years in the Senate was simply being Joe, while a Sarah Palin, who flinched when asked to parse the Bush Doctrine, was a Neanderthal creationist. I thought by now the You-tubed exchange of a Congressional Finance Committee hearing between the pompous Harvard Law School graduate Barney Frank and the conniving Harvard Law School graduate Franklin Raines — at the proverbial moment of conception of the financial meltdown — would have put to rest the notion that graduation from law school was any proof of either wisdom or morality.

I don’t know whether Sarah Palin would make a great vice president. But I did learn that by the standard of John Kerry’s pick of John Edwards, and now Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden, as running mates, she is wise and ethical beyond their measure.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

He’s got a point, don’t you think?

And in conclusion, while looking for videos for something else, I stumbled upon the following video. From this person’s lips to the powers-that-be in the universe:

- Democrat John Kerry has a lead as high as 6 percent over President Bush in the key battleground state of Ohio, according to a survey completed Thursday night at Ohio University’s Scripps Survey Research Center.

Among registered voters, Kerry leads 49 percent to Bush’s 43 percent, with 2 percent saying they will support third party candidates and 6 percent undecided. Among likely voters (people who say they are committed to voting next month) Kerry’s lead is 50 percent to 46 percent, with 3 percent undecided and 1 percent going to other candidates.

Ooops. Guess not. Where the heck was ACORN when they needed them?

…………

From my blog, Uppity Woman.

Yes, it is true, in the conversation Charlie Gibson of ABC (”American Barack Broadcasting,” as my aunt says) with Barack Obama the other day, Obama threw down a challenge to John McCain. In this interview, which was VERY different from the interview with Palin, by the way (this one, they were practically playing Barry White and using mood lighting), Obama said this:

Yeah, right. McCain is afraid to confront Obama face to face. Now, you know damn well what would have happened if McCain HAD brought this up - Obama would have whined and cried that it wasn’t the issue they were supposed to be discussing, and besides that, McCain was involved in the Keating 5. And honestly, I think that is the only reason he is making this challenge, so he can throw that in McCain’s face. Never mind that McCain was exonerated - we all know facts don’t matter to Obama and his minions as his response to Gibson made quite clear.

(As to the Ayers component, Larry Johnson had an excellent piece on this exchange, “When It Comes to Ayers, It Is Participation That Matters“, which I recommend to you.)

But it is this claim of cowardice with which Obama and his camp are painting McCain that is just startling to me, and it is not confined to a discussion of Ayers. My sister sent me an article recently from Rolling Stone by Tim Dickinson claiming the Bush and McCain families are very much alike. Oh, please, spare me. One of the issues he raised in this article was about the Forrestal Explosion, of which I knew nothing, I have to admit. My sister added this little tidbit when I responded that they were nothing alike:

We’re talking about Johnny. Those were NOT “his men” in the POW camp and he DID abandon the men who were fighting the fire that HIS plane caused. Hell, he could at least have used a fire extinquisher (sic)!

I hadn’t the FOGGIEST about what she was talking until I saw John McCain’s biography on bio.com. I realized as I watched the ACTUAL footage from the plane to what she must have been referring. It seems that Obama’s pawns are spreading this vicious lie all around the Internet community that McCain caused the devastating explosion on the Forrestal aircraft carrier by “wet-starting” his plane, a hot dog stunt to mess around with a flight deck crewman. And that he was such a coward, he didn’t even bother to help anyone else on the aircraft carrier, so says the Democratic Underground anyway.

Wow. Aren’t these the SAME people who were livid (myself included) about the Swiftboating of John Kerry’s military service, and his heroics during the Vietnam war? Aren’t these the very same people who decried tactics of blatant lies, of character assassination, and now are engaging in those very same tactics? (Well, and why not - now voter fraud is perfectly acceptable to these folks, too, so why am I surprised??)

So, having seen this, I wrote back to my sister:

The other day, were you talking about when McCain’s plane blew up on the flight deck? I just saw the actual footage from that event on tv and realized that must have been about what you were talking. In case it was, what happened was a missile fired accidentally from another plane across the flight deck, and hit McCain’s plane in the fuselage right after he had started his pre-flight check. He had started the engine, but once he got hit, he turned it off. He dropped and rolled through the burning jet fuel (over 400 gal)from his plane. He saw the pilot next to him try to do the same thing, but failed. He got up to run to him, and as soon as he stood up, there was another explosion, which knocked him back 10 ft. After that, other missiles started exploding. It was the worst disaster outside of war, with 134 crew dying. It took 36 hrs to get the fire under control. One fire extinguisher was not going to do it, and he was lucky to get out of there alive (as it was, he was hit by shrapnel). It was in no way, shape, or form, his fault, nor was there anything he could do to help anyone, as is clear from the flight video.

She claimed she was being rhetorical (uh huh) about the fire extinguisher, and said the least he could have done was stayed to help instead of watching on closed circuit tv (the claim from the Rolling Stones article). Yeah, what a freaking coward - he jumps from a burning plane into burning jet fuel, tries to help another pilot, gets blown back by an explosion from which he took shrapnel, and the wimp turned tail and ran. How dare he! Obama would NEVER have done anything like that, I am CERTAIN. And I am certain of that because Obama did not spend 22 years of his life in military service to our country, and has not exhibited anything close to the intestinal fortitude that McCain has demonstrated over his long career in service to this country.

Once again, don’t take my word for all of this. Here is the actual video footage from the Forrestal aircraft carrier (and this accident completely changed standard operating procedures by the Navy on aircraft carriers). The first thing you should notice is that McCain’s jet tail is pointed OVER the deck toward the ocean, thus debunking the whole “wet-start started this whole thing!” claim. Here it is:

Here is eyewitness testimony about the fire on the Forrestal:

Finally, this is one made in response to the vicious smears by Obama supporters on this tragic accident:

Now shut the hell up. Or, as I said to my sister:

It sure would be nice if you bothered to look into the character of Obama, and the FACTS about him, as much as you are willing to listen to innuendo, rumor, and bald-faced lies about McCain and Palin. Obama has a HISTORY of unsavory characters as CLOSE friends/colleagues/bosses in his life, INCLUDING A MAN WHO BOMBED THE PENTAGON AND THE CAPITOL BUILDING, who said after 9/11 he wished they had done MORE!!!!!! How about Tony Rezko (convicted)? Auchi? Blogajevich (under investigation)? Wright? Meeks? Kilpatrick (convicted)? Clark (under investigation)? Farrakhan?? The people who got Obama into Harvard? Being a card-carrying member of the New Party wing of the Dem. Socialist Party, a group that endorsed him for his first run (in which he got EVERYONE thrown off the ballot)? *

And you are going to focus on a bogus claim that McCain didn’t do anything after his PLANE got shot by a missile and burst into flame???? A man who gave 22 yrs of his life in military service to this country?? HOLY SHIT.

Obama has done next to NOTHING in his life but be associated with the kinds of people mentioned above, and organizations like ACORN, which is under investigation in TEN (make that thirteen now) states for voter registration fraud. He has funneled money through them, has given them money this year, which his campaign admitted, and tried to get them to receive a HUGE chunk of the bailout repayment (which fortunately the Senate didn’t agree to). But hey - don’t worry about voter fraud. It’s already happened this year and too many people were willing to look the other way.

All I know is if Hillary or John or ANYONE had just ONE of those kinds of associates in their closet that Obama has in plain sight, they would have been drummed out already, but clearly, the FACTS about Obama mean nothing to his followers (I might add, my sister kept bringing up the Keating 5 - I told her that John Glenn was also one of the Keating 5, and is now campaigning for Obama, but that is okay, of course. No matter how many times I told her McCain AND Glenn were exonerated, she continued to maintain McCain was guilty. Sigh.). You’ll just listen to his (plagiarized) speeches, stolen policies, and bask in the shine of The One. (Oh - and now he is MAD at McCain for taking Hillary’s mortgage policy, and giving her CREDIT for it, because he was going to claim it for his OWN. And since McCain beat him to it, he is now claiming it won’t work. Gimme a break - at least McCain gives credit where credit is due - Obama just thinks every idea someone else has is due him and takes it without remorse.)

Whatever. If you care more about attacking other people based on lies rather than actually looking at your candidate, his character, his lack of judgment, his lack of qualifications, and his nefarious friends, there is nothing I can say that will change that.

True that. But it doesn’t mean that we can stop fighting the good fight, and getting this information out there. Fight on we must, good people. For our country, for voter rights, to combat voter fraud, and to keep the biggest fraud who has ever run for president out of the White House. To restore our honor and our integrity. Fight on!

* Each of these claims has been covered in full at No Quarter, so I am not going to add in links for every single one. Alert readers alreayd know these facts anyway.

Couple of observations. First, it doesn’t come off as Presidential as all. Finger pointing in such a hesitant manner looks weak. Second, you are dead wrong. The wheels came off when Democrats controlled the Congress and ignored repeated warnings from Bernake and Paulson about the impending crisis. Try to sell that.

Then there is the matter of the money you, Barack Obama, pocketed over the last four years. When Senators Dodd and Kerry, not exactly newbies on the Hill, are the only legislators who have taken more money than you from Fannie Mae, how do you maintain the lie that you had nothing to do with this? Fannie Mae just gave you money cuz you’re a nice guy?

What about the $600,000 plus from Goldman Sachs or the almost $400,000 from Citi Group? Dude, you’ve only been in the Senate for less than four years and you’ve pulled more money from financial lobbyist fat cats than any other Senator on a per annum basis. How long before the media catch on and ask you to explain?

Fox News has picked up the scent:

And now your buds at ACORN are trying to get their nose into the bailout trough to the tune of $140,000,000.00 Are you shitting me? One of the reasons we are in this mess is because your buds, Dodd and Frank, kept pushing to raise the amount of money that could be loaned to the low income housing efforts advocated by ACORN. I venture to say if ACORN had not been called out in the blogosphere for the corrupt thugs they are you might have pulled this off. But not now. The American people are awakening to the fraud perpetrated on them by the likes of ACORN and others. On this one we are saying no way, now how.

You can’t find a video of the head of Fannie Mae celebrating any Republicans. But Barack, the CEO is praising the Congressional Black Caucus while you are sitting there beaming. Not on your watch?

If you want to read more about ACORN’s complicity in this mess go here (hat tip Nancy).

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.

started running the “stages of grief” trope on Hillary supporters way back in February—you know, from anger, through denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance. It’s an easy riff to run, even for bad writers, so it’s been all over the Obama blogs

Of course this “stages of grief” narrative oozed with sexism and condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary’s female supporters, emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy throughout the summer.

McCain’s selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to halt Obama’s bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks. It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain has taken the lead in the electoral college.

The panic from the Obamabots in palpable.

Let me suggest that there are 3 levels of panic.

1. Wunderwaffen.

During World War Two, Hitler forced his beleaguered arms manufacturers to produce “miracle weapons,” strange armaments which he believed would turn the war in Germany’s favor.

Like armchair generals in a losing battle, losing political campaigns have supporters who desire the Wunderwaffen, a magical weapon which can sink the other side or a proven winner who can take the reins of the campaign and guide it to victory. In 2004, while Kerry was being hammered by Bush, many pleaded for James Carville to take over Kerry’s war room and provide the message discipline from 1992. From the Democratic Underground, August 27, 2004:

I have been saying this for over a month now…I wrote Mr Carville the following email:

Mr. Carville, please save the Kerry campaign!
He is throwing out sound bites that are perfect ammo for Rove and his evil crew. You can train this man.You can save this campaign and this country. We need you Mr. Carville.

In 2008, as victory becomes increasingly uncertain, Obama supporters are banking on voter registration and the belief that cell phone users are not accounted for in national polls. The same theories were trotted out in 2004 but the polls then fairly predicted the actual vote. However, there are even stranger ideas floating around Obama-land. At TalkLeft, there’s an armchair general named mmc9431 who believes that Obama should announce part of his cabinet now and turn them into roving ambassadors for the campaign:

Obama needs to come out with something very bold on his own if he’s going to have any chance of regaining the advantage.
Maybe he should announce ahead of time, 3 of his cabinet choices that would motivate his base. Sec of State, Attorney General and Sec of Treasury. These 3 could then go out and campaign of their platform. We’d have three people out there constantly pounding on issues rather than personalities.

Likewise, over at Daily Kos, Ursa Majority’s Wunderwaffen is one good television ad that will convince all the “low information” rubes to vote for Obama:

Yes, you heard it right. We need a killer ad (radio and TV) to get back onto message while shrinking McCain. And, with middle and low information swing voters, you’ve got to try to tie it all together in one digestible message. So, let’s get back to our effective messages of the post “Obama as Britney” era (i.e., McCain isn’t taking the issues seriously) and use McCain’s words and actions against him.

2. Denial

Obama supporters are now somewhere between searching for the magic bullet and denying that anything is wrong. The Kerry campaign is also rich with similar examples at a similar time in the campaign.

On September 17, 2004, almost exactly four years ago, Cartooner, at Democratic Underground, predicted that John Kerry would win in a landslide:

Call it an epiphany; call it crazy, and it’s just a hunch; but hey, A HUNCH made Quasi Modo famous…

~snip~

The economy, health care, jobs, LIES,

the messages are FINALLY STARTING TO RESONATE …

Ok… Maybe I’m an optimist; but I think Kerry will win on a
LANDSLIDE …

This campaign is also filled with delusion. A poster on Craig’s List gives Obama odds I’d like to take to Las Vegas:

Date: 2008-09-12, 12:32AM EDT
Location: new haven

He’s definitely going to win. No question.

What chances would you give him? I’d give him 100%.

3. Acceptance

The last stage is filled with sadness and recriminations.

Lentinel writes:

my heart sinks.
I lay some of the blame at Obama’s door.
As soon as he was assured of the nomination he turned South, figuratively speaking.
He voted for FISA.
He disowned public financing.
He went on preaching to evangelicals.
He waffled on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.
He waffled on his commitment to the right of women to an abortion.
And, of course, he went on to treat Hillary Clinton and her supporters like dirt.

And Daily Kos’ DaveinSiliconValley has a diary titled: “Why (Sadly) Obama Will Probably Lose”

A few days ago I had a conversation with a mid-fifties nonreligious, pro-choice, Caucasian, suburban mother who thinks the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, that Bush was a terrible president, and is concerned that McCain may get us into another war, but she is “seriously thinking” about voting for McCain. I will give you a clue. She is absolutely going to vote for McCain.

I asked, given the way she feels on the issues, why isn’t she voting for Obama? She said “I don’t know.” I pressed her. She said, “I don’t trust him.” I asked why and she said “I don’t know.”

Obama can hit this lady with a thousand commercials explaining his stand on the issues and why his plans for the country are better than McCain’s plans and it will have no effect whatsoever on her vote. Zero. She is issue-proof.

What’s going on? Is it just subliminal racism? It’s not that simple.

After the 2004 election, Democrats became obsessed with psychoanalyzing the electorate. I engaged in some of this myself. Searching for answers, we read What’s the Matter with Kansas? but failed to find the answer. Believing, like DaveinSiliconvalley, that Republicans controlled the electorate with subliminal powers, we read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant, but we found that framing issues is only one small part of winning elections. Framing can come across as patronizing, e.g., you’re pushing your agenda on the electorate instead of listening to their needs.

In 2006, as I began thinking about the next presidential cycle, I finally got around to reading Hillary’s Living History and President Clinton’s My Life. The Clintons, both policy wonks, believe that winning campaigns put forward good policies which appeal to the electorate’s aspirations. The voters do not need to be cajoled or hypnotized into voting for a candidate. The voters decide the issues and the politicians offer solutions.

The Clintons taught Democrats how to win elections. Remember, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat elected to a second term since 1936. Also, let’s not forget the magnitude of Hillary’s victories; she won Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky; she won West Virginia by 40%. A few caucus states and Obama’s delegate stealing in Michigan made the difference. Let’s not pretend that Obama was the people’s choice. The primary campaign was not a decisive win by either candidate, and millions of Hillary supporters will never forgive the way she was treated by those within the Party, to say nothing of the media.

The Clintons win by offering proposals to make people’s lives better. On the campaign trail, they talk incessantly about helping working people, and they both have an unwavering commitment to the nation’s defense. The Clintons reject flowery rhetoric and use a clear communication strategy. Their strategy is effective; they know how to build winning coalitions. I have no doubt that Hillary would now be locking down battleground states on her march to the White House.

Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the Party’s infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org, and he was supported by the netroots and the media.

Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized during the primary as “low information” and hopelessly bitter. No one television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic.

Sadly, the answer from too many people is, “No.” No, they don’t understand the words coming out of my mouth (or in this case, laptop). No matter how many times I have said this: I will not vote for Obama. Ever. See the sidebar on my blog? “NOBAMA.” “I Own My Vote.” “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Hillary!” All of that? No, apparently not. I have received SO much pressure to cave, and vote for this man. No matter how many times I say no, and no matter how politely (I am a Southerner, after all), people still try to get me to commit to Obama. Or call me a Republican. I will not, and I am not.

But since no one seems to be able to understand me, let me share with you a piece by Victoria Brownworth (or part of it anyway, from Curve, Vol. 18#8, pp 30-31). Unfortunately, it is NOT online - it was in an honest-to-goodness magazine (apparently John McCain isn’t the only one who is not wired - oh, they do have a website: curvemag.com, but it does not contain the contents of their recent issues. If you want to read it for yourself, I’m afraid you’ll have to go down to the newsstand to do it.)

Anywho, Ms. Brownworth’s article, “My November Surprise: What Will It Take To Get A Real Progressive In The White House?” could have been written by a number of us, I suspect. No, I know. It could have been written by me, at least, at least 2/3 of it. So, here it is, typed out with my own hands, in an effort to get those who are trying to cajole/manipulate/shame/demand I vote for Obama:

It’s a secret I and many women have been keeping, but the time has come to reveal my big surprise. I will not be voting Democrat in November.

I worked for Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign from February through her withdrawal from the race in June. I worked hard, doing action alerts, writing column after column, alerting the media to information about Clinton’s stances on various issues and calling voters in key primary states. I felt that Clinton was the best presidential candidate the United States had seen in years, and I was excited to work for her.

When Clinton came within a hairbreadth of winning the popular vote (RRRA here - she DID win the popular vote), but the superdelegates went in a wave with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recommendations rather than their constituents, I was beyond disappointed. I was outraged, and that outrage did not dissipate, as I thought it might, after Clinton did the good-girl thing and threw her support behind Sen. Barack Obama, rather than contest the primary outcome as previous candidates, including Sen. Ted Kennedy, had done.

I assumed that I would feel the way I usually feel when I am at odds with the Democratic Party: disappointed, but nevertheless aligned with them against the Republican candidate.

That didn’t happen this time.

Instead, my outrage grew exponentially as each new story revealed yet another of Obama’s defections from the Democratic Platform. First, it was his embrace of the faith-based initiatives program of President George W. Bush, which has not only failed, but has been grossly prejudiced and bigoted. Then it was his vote for Bush’s telecom immunity in the FISA debate (Clinton and other Democratic senators voted against Bush, so Obama’s assertion that this was the only choice simply isn’t true.) Then it was back-pedaling on his stance on the war in Iraq and a ramping up of the war in Afghanistan.

All those issues affect me politically, not personally, but when I read reports alleging that Obama pays his female staffers markedly less than his male staffers in comparable positions, I was appalled (RRRA here - it is not an allegation - it is a FACT. There are a number of articles on this, including this one HERE along with SusanUnPC’s excellent piece at No Quarter on this topic). Then Obama, who had secured the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice America over Clinton (despite his sketchy record on choice and her strong record on the issue), announced that a pregnant woman’s mental illness should never justify a late-term abortion…

…(T)he Democratic Party has consistently disappointed me in the past eight years. In 2000, I felt Al Gore should have fought to be president, since he actually won the election. The United States is not a banana republic; there was no threat of the nation falling into disruption while votes were properly counted and tallied and the actual president was ensconced in the White House.

Had Gore been president in 2000, I have no doubt we would not be in Iraq, even if the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 had still happened.

In 2004, the Democrats disappointed me again, throwing their weight behind Sen. John Kerry instead of Howard Dean (RRRA here - to whom my partner, on a recent DNC request for money, responded, “F–k YOU, Howard Dean!”, summing up my feelings about him perfectly). Four years into the disastrous Bush administration, the Democratic Party went with the safe candidate instead of the progressive, anti-war candidate, once again, moving to the center instead of standing firmly to the left.

Both the Gore and Kerry campaigns were poorly run (RRRA again - that means YOU, Donna Brazile - on Gore, anyway), emphasizing defense instead of offense. Gore should have run on the progressive record of the Clinton administration, of which he was an integral part. Instead, he failed to reveal Bush’s inadequacy, even though Bush was an untested, unproven candidate (RRRA - hmmm - just who does THAT sound like?!?!) whose only political strength was the fact that his father had been a one-term president.

Kerry’s campaign regrettably mimicked Gore’s…

I thoroughly understood Clinton’s frustration during the primary: While she voted and acted progressively, Obama talked hope and change, with nothing to back it up. After she withdrew from the race, he was given his first opportunity to cast a pivotal vote for progressivism and vote against telecom immunity. He didn’t. While Clinton continued her progressive agenda and voted against it, Obama not only voted for it, but asserted that it was a good compromise, the same line anti-progressive Democrats have been proffering for years…

I remember wen being a Democrat meant being for change and actually acting on behalf of it. The first president I actually remember was LBJ, whose War on Poverty and programs like Head Start helped move the nation forward out of the divides of race and class.

There hasn’t been a more progressive American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt; he not only got the country out of the Great Depression, but initiated the New Deal and other safety net programs that would protect Americans if we ever had similar economic disaster.

When Clinton was running, some pundits referred to her as the New Deal candidate with a sneer. But given the economic disaster that the Bush administration has created, being compared to FDR should not have been seen as a negative.

I will not be voting for the Democrats this November. I’d like to, and wish I could, but I can’t. The last eight years of the Democratic Party and its refusal to take on the Bush administration have broken my faith in it…

I won’t deny that part of my decision has to do with the realization that I can no longer continue to vote against my own best interests. I have done that repeatedly, being guilted into voting Democrat when I should have taken a different route. I have argued in my newspaper columns that third party candidates are not the answer, but the past two elections, plus the current presidential race, have made me rethink that position.

The two major parties have failed a majority of Americans, but they have failed queers, women and minorities most definitively…

Vote for yourself this November instead of a party that has failed you. It’s the only way we will ever move toward real and lasting change in the United States. (Ms. Brownworth will be supporting Cynthia McKinney, the Green candidate, in November.)

I will not vote against my own self-interests again. If more WOMEN, in particular, did the same, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee now, if for no other reason than Nancy Pelosi would have supported HER instead of “the one God has blessed us with to us,” or whatever whackiness she said about Obama, and we would have, according to the polls anyway, the best PRESIDENT we have had in years. But no. Once again, the Democratic Party went with the weaker candidate instead of the sure bet.

Here’s a sure bet, though - they will not be getting my vote this year. They have done nothing to deserve it, and everything to make sure I didn’t give it to them.

Now do you understand the words I have been saying?

Despite Kerry’s literally running away from having any debates with O’Reilly – I guess John thinks he’s too good to have to explain himself to his constituents after 24 years in the Senate – several papers have come out to endorse O’Reilly and encourage everyone possible not to accept Kerry’s win as a fait accompli, and get to the polls on Tuesday.

Surely, I can think of no better way to send shockwaves through the Democratic Party – particularly to Pelosi, Dean, Brazile, Reid et al; i.e., the wackos who are currently holding the Party hostage, than to tell John Kerry his days in the Senate are numbered.

Last month, I wrote a piece John Kerry Proves the DNC Cannot Pick a Winner. Please take a look if you missed it the first time, so you can better see why I have little use for John Kerry these days.

The Editorial Board of The Boston Herald, a paper which has time and time again connected with the working people of Massachusetts, endorsed Ed O’Reilly in Friday’s edition:

There is a reason 24-year-incumbent Sen. John Kerry has an opponent in this Tuesday’s Democratic primary, and frankly it has little to do with the war in Iraq and Kerry’s convoluted and frequently tortured stand on it.

O’Reilly is an engaging populist with a down-home touch…he has worked hard to build the kind of bridges with communities and local officials that Kerry has for too long neglected. When was the last time (or the first time) John Kerry attended the Leominster Stroll or visited a firehouse or a ham and bean supper in the Berkshires? We will say what so many people in Massachusetts have whispered for so very long: John Kerry needs to pay far more attention to the people who have sent him to Washington year after year than he has in the past. And if voters want to send him that message by casting a vote for Ed O’Reilly - well, we can’t disagree.

The Belmont Citizen Herald has this to say:

Gloucester attorney Ed O’Reilly is to be commended for attempting a left-flank challenge in the U.S. Senate race. He has earned your vote for having the guts and integrity to stick his neck out and run …

As well, what difference does seniority make when you’re flat out wrong? Voters should also be incensed by the arrogance of power shown by the incumbent who was too busy partying on Nantucket this summer while everyone in the real world has had to deal with pinched pocketbooks and an unstable world. All the silly handshaking events around the state don’t make up for being so out of touch at such a critical time in our nation’s history.

WBZ’s Jon Keller, a Belmont resident, should also be thanked for figuring out a way to corner the incumbent for 20 minutes to answer a few questions in a Sunday morning debate last week. But it was all too little, too late.

There are many other blog sites and smaller papers getting the word out on Mr. O’Reilly. Among other complaints, John Kerry’s blatant disregard of the will of the voters in the MA presidential primary, who chose Hillary Clinton by a large margin, and his in your face support of Senator Obama has angered many. And there are plenty out there aching for payback. More important, many constituents are voicing their displeasure at his out-of-touch, out-of-reach behavior.

I had the opportunity to have several email exchanges with Ed myself and was so pleased he took the time to write and tell me about himself. His frank communication and down-to-earth demeanor impressed me and I believe that is precisely the type of person we need in the Senate. Obviously, John Kerry and his band of elitist brothers – and sisters, like Claire McCaskill, for example, really have no understanding of a broad spectrum of the needs, agenda, or outrage of a good part of the Democratic base, or disaffected voters of any Party. Why would we want them representing us on a state or national level?

Lawyers Weekly asks, “Who Is Ed O’Reilly?”

The product of a large, politically active family, O’Reilly likes to remind people that he had to make his own way in the world. “I was born into a housing project,” he says. “I was just a regular kid; I went to Watertown public schools; I put myself through college. That’s the big difference between me and Kerry. The big difference is that I know what it’s like to work for a living.”

Prof. Heidi Li Feldman, co-founder of the wonderful Denver Group likewise became interested in Ed’s campaign and reached out to him. Ms. Feldman is a courageous and whip-smart woman for whom I have a great deal of respect. She sat down for a lunch with Ed O’Reilly and her impressions upon meeting him convinced her to likewise offer up her endorsement:

[A]ny legitimate Democratic candidate, especially one who understands and embraces the idea of genuinely universal health care and the mechanics of what has to be done to achieve it, deserved whatever podium I could provide, particularly if the candidate was running against a well-heeled, very powerful opponent such as John Kerry.

My sense of Ed is that he judges people based on intuition, honed by years of criminal law practice. He is also a true raconteur …. But like all truly good storytellers, his stories have a point: He made me understand what it is like to run against a Goliath of an opponent; what made him lose faith in Kerry, how he felt that Kerry’s inattention to Massachusetts had become excessive.

Ed has no pretensions, no airs. He would be a true progressive in the U.S. Senate.

Best of all, let’s hear the words of Ed’s own campaign:

Instead of a bag full of wind, wouldn’t it be nice to have a breath of fresh air?

I couldn’t have said it better.

To find out more: www.EdOReilly.com

Note from Ed’s Campaign Staff:
You can really help make Ed our next U.S. Senator by volunteering at the polls on Tuesday or by doing visibilities this weekend. Just a couple of hours of your time can make a huge difference! Please call Rebecca Kennedy at 617 924-2008.