And again, the top cars being purchased are FOREIGN – Toyotas and Hondas are the ones being bought the most, with Ford Focus thrown in there. Just to be clear. (Toyota and Honda are non-unionized, just in case you are keeping score.)

NY state dealers have had it with the program:

Hundreds of auto dealers in the New York area have withdrawn from the government’s Cash for Clunkers program, citing delays in getting reimbursed by the government, a dealership group said Wednesday.

The Greater New York Automobile Dealers Association, which represents dealerships in the New York metro area, said about half its 425 members have left the program because they cannot afford to offer more rebates. They’re also worried about getting repaid…

“(The government) needs to move the system forward and they need to start paying these dealers,” said Mark Schienberg, the group’s president. “This is a cash-dependent business.”

You betcha it is. Check out just how quickly the dealers are getting reimbursed for their cash outlay:

The program offers up to $4,500 to shoppers who trade in vehicles getting 18 mpg or less for a more fuel-efficient car or truck. Dealers pay the rebates out of pocket, then must wait to be reimbursed by the government. But administrative snags and heavy paperwork have created a backlog of unpaid claims.

Schienberg said the group’s dealers have been repaid for only about 2 percent of the clunkers deals they’ve made so far.

Many dealers have said they are worried they won’t get repaid at all, while others have waited so long to get reimbursed they don’t have the cash to fund any more rebates, Schienberg said.

“The program is a great program in the sense that it’s creating a lot of floor traffic that a lot of dealers haven’t seen in a long time,” he said.

“But it’s in the hands of this enormous bureaucracy and regulatory agency,” he added. “If they don’t get out of their own way, this program is going to be a huge failure.”

“If they don’t get out of their own way…”Wow. That’s a pretty telling comment right there, isn’t it? And that sounds SO like the Federal Government, too, doesn’t it Uh, yeah, sure:

The program is administered by the Department of Transportation. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Wednesday that dealers will be repaid for the clunkers deals they have completed.

“I know dealers are frustrated. They’re going to get their money,” LaHood told reporters. He said the Obama administration would soon announce how much longer the $3 billion car incentive program will last.

Through early Wednesday, auto dealers have made clunkers deals worth $1.81 billion, resulting in 435,102 new car sales, according to the DOT.

This begs the obvious question: if the Federal Government is incapable of reimbursing these automobile dealers for less than half a million cars, how in the HELL do they think they are going to be capable of running health care for millions and millions of people? That is to say, their track record just isn’t great in this area.

And that is what makes the current threat by Harry Reid to use the “Nuclear Option” to push through what the Wall Street Journal says is “the most expensive part of the plan.”

Oh – and the “Nuclear Option,” in case you don’t know, is a simple majority. Not a veto-proof one, a simple one of 51 – 49.

And they WONDER why so many people are hesitant to have the Feds control our health care? Really?? Wow – kinda makes you wonder about them making decisions for us about, well, EVERYTHING, doesn’t it? Holy smokes…

See the Update about how many of our Elected Officials will/not be holding Town Hall Forums at the bottom of the page.

Friend to NQ, Kathleen Wynne from HandCountPaperallotsNow made a suggestion after seeing the negative spin the MSM is putting on reports of concerned citizens calling out their representatives on the issue of health care reform, even if all they want is for them to READ the damn thing. Here are some of her suggestions:

After watching the reporting by the usual suspects in the media, who are turning these protests into orchestrated, manufactured outrage, it’s clear that having a number of town hall meetings where those reps either chose not to participate in one or who chose to have a conference call instead, will help prove that they are merely trying to discredit these protests and undermine the citizens true feelings about the health care legislation. Or how Senator Boxer ridiculed citizens voicing their concerns as trying to “hurt our president” and too well dressed for this NOT to be orchestrated

:

Another point that should be put out there for all to see is that during the primary and general election, it was Obama, himself, who told his supporters to have debates with those who did not support him and “get in their face.” Here is a reminder of Obama saying that, along with some other actions by his supporters

:

More importantly, we want citizens to realize how important it is for them to participate in democracy and recognize how important they are in making these reps accountable and to expose their total indifference to the citizens’ concern, not to mention their total lack of knowledge of exactly what’s in the bill. This is a pivotal moment to increase citizen involvement in “taking to the streets” and keeping the pressure on. The longer citizens stay engaged in these protests, the less the MSM can dismiss them as “astro turf” (i.e., not real grassroots concerns), as Nancy Pelosi refers to them in this clip

:

Ms. Wynne is:

asking citizens in those towns where the representatives have chosen NOT to have a town hall meeting or worse, canceled them, to “BE THE MEDIA” by organizing and conducting town hall meetings themselves and having a public discussion about what they don’t like about the health-care bill and any of the other bills that have been rammed down our throats and videotape the event. In particular, they should make it clear that they are having the town hall meeting despite their representative’s choice to not have one or to cancel one. That should be made clear at the beginning, and then say that they would not be silenced.

Then request that clips of these events be sent to NQ, here, and other websites of their choosing in order to make the people’s outrage at not being listened to be seen and heard by other citizens, so that we know that this isn’t just a group of fringe groups being sent out to disrupt town hall meetings.*

It’s an end-run around the MSM’s attempt to ignore and not report what the people are really feeling about the Obama Administration’s policies.

Now word is coming that unions are being sent in to counter those who oppose this plan. And videos are already rolling in, including footage of union members (SEIU) getting into it with Tea Party protesters.

This is our country, and we have every right to speak out, to dissent, to question. And we have the right to speak out without fear of harassment, violence, or intimidation by those in power or their surrogates. We have the right to demand accountability of those whom we have elected to represent us, and that they REPRESENT US. That is their job, after all.

So, are you game? If so, feel free to send this post to whatever sites you frequent, and let’s get this thing rolling.

UPDATE: Check out how many of our elected officials are NOT meeting with their constituents:

So, I was reading the email, thinking, “hey, this is a really nice email. I wonder who wrote it?” And then I got to just who it was. Check it out:

The military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is an unjust, outdated, and harmful rule that violates the civil rights of some of our bravest, most heroic men and women.

That’s why I have been working, along with my colleagues in the Senate and so many of you, to overturn this wasteful and destructive policy.

Today, I have great news: Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has agreed to hold the first Senate hearings on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell this Fall.

We have to prepare for these hearings, so I’m launching a nationwide call to action and need the help of everyone at VoteVets.org. My goal is to get thousands of people to stand with me and show that this country is ready to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Click here to help end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I want to show my colleagues that America is ready to do the right thing.

Numerous military leaders are already telling us that this policy should be reversed. Having lost over 13,000 of our best and brightest to this policy, including over 800 in “mission critical” areas such as 10% of our Arabic and Farsi speakers, and wasting nearly $200 million in training and recruitment costs, the time for change is now.

We must all join together now and speak up on behalf of the brave men and women who only want to serve their country.

The announcement of hearings this fall is great news and a critical milestone on the road to repeal. But our work is not yet done.

Click here to help end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

I need your support right away, but moreover, I need you to share our call to action with your friends and colleagues who want to repeal this policy, too. Earning the broadest support possible is the only way to convey the message this Fall that the American people want to undo this harmful policy.

I want to thank VoteVets.org for helping to lead the fight to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Together, I am sure that we can make America stronger and bring equality to our Armed Services.

Sincerely,
Kirsten Gillibrand
U.S. Senator

Paid for by VoteVets.org PAC and Authorized by Gillibrand for Senate

Dang, I know, right? She’s following in Hillary Clinton’s footsteps! I am not being sarcastic when I say that New Yorkers should be very proud that Gillibrand has followed Clinton’s lead, and is taking up one of the issues important to Secretary Clinton. Good for her; good for US, good for the U.S.

And I received another email recently. This time about Secretary of State Clinton. It was a petition request to thank Secretary Clinton for all of her work on behalf of women and children, sponsored by the United Nations Foundation through care2.com. Nice, right? And about damn time, too:

Thank Secretary Clinton for Protecting Women’s Rights
Target: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Sponsored by: United Nations Foundation

A nation’s economic health is directly impacted by the health, education and workforce opportunities of its women. Yet the current economic crisis is overshadowing critical discussions about women’s rights, putting women and girls worldwide at greater risk.

Fortunately, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to champion women’s rights on an international stage, and has drawn much-needed attention and funding for family planning and reproductive health issues – both critical to women’s long-term success and welfare.

Under Secretary Clinton’s leadership, a new day is dawning for the world’s women and girls. The Administration has requested a considerable increase over last year’s assistance for family planning and reproductive health programs, overturned the Global Gag rule, and established the first Office for Women and Girls and an Office of Global Women’s Issues in the White House and State Department.

Send a letter thanking Secretary Clinton for her dedication to women’s rights and empowerment – and for her work in improving women’s lives around the world.

The letter they have written is quite nice, and you can add your own two cents worth to thank Secretary Clinton for her lifelong work toward women’s equality.

Oh, and one last thing, and this has nothing to do with an email. It’s more of a question, really. Why is it that Lucia Whalen, the woman who made the 911 call in Cambridge for another woman, who has been threatened, called a racist, and generally had her life turned upside down by being a good citizen, has not been invited to the Beer-Fest at the White House tonight? I’m just wondering – it seems to me that she at least deserves a damn beer after all she has gone through, including having to hire an attorney. I guess it’s “Men Only” and she is, after all, just a woman. No need for HER to get an apology from anyone, apparently. So, while we now know the beer of choice for Obama, Gates, and Crowley, we know Whalen wasn’t invited. Nope:

White House officials declined to respond to questions whether Whalen should be invited as well.

Uh, yeah, no – no more mention of Ms. Whalen attending.

Here’s what I think should happen. I think Secretary of State Clinton should invite Ms. Whalen out for drinks (in whatever form that takes be it cappuccinos, wine, what-have-you). Then they can discuss the various and sundry ways in which the Old Boys’ Club is alive and well. Oh, and what it feels like to be saddled with a horrible moniker like, “Racist,” when one is nothing of the kind.

And I have one last question if that happens: Can I come?

In the 2010 Senate primaries, should the dashing retired Navy Admiral who currently represents Pennsylvania’s 7th district as a Democrat in Congress take on the grisly, high-profile, five-term Republican Senator who only recently dumped the GOP to declare himself a Democrat? Either man would likely prevail over the right-wing conservative Republican contender.

Rep. Joe Sestak says that he “intends” to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter . Sestak has apparently set a date of June 30th (an FEC quarterly deadline) to be more forthcoming about his plans, although he recently stated on CNN that he also needs to discuss the matter fully with his family.

I have heard arguments about Joe Sesrak taking on Arlen Specter going both ways.

In favor of Sestak entering the race and making it interesting, at the very least:

1. Joe has paid his dues to the Democratic Party and should have a chance to be the Democratic candidate for the Senate.
2. The people of Pennsylvania should be able to choose who they want, not what the Washington Democratic Establishment dictates.
3. Joe has guts to stand up to the Establishment that is trying to dissuade him, and we need more people of courage in government.
4. Specter is self-serving. All polls show that he could not have won as a Republican this next time around. His primary concern is keeping his career going.
5. Is Specter really a Democrat? How can Democrats know for sure? Will he really compromise on issues important to Democrats?
6. Specter is too old (80 next birthday) and has health issues.

In favor of Sestak staying put in the House:

1. The House is a good place for Sestak to be. He is valuable there.
2. Specter received instant high level support from the President and later the Vice President and Governor of Pennsylvania.
3. Everyone in Pennsylvania knows who Specter is. Sestak is not yet well enough recognized throughout the state and does not show competitively in the current polls.
4. It is best for the Democratic Party to avoid a mud slinging battle in the primaries. Specter has already declared, so first come first served.

Both men have had impressive careers. And right now it is kind of a David v. Goliath situation. But early polls can change, as Hillary Clinton discovered the hard way.

I personally like Sestak best. I’m tired of these big money politicians. Sestak strongly endorsed Hillary Clinton very early on, which made him a favorite of mine. But, I have admired Specter’s sometimes moderate views, and I don’t think age should be an issue if someone can do the job. And if the two men could agree to stick to the issues and not get into the cannibalistic duel-to-the-death that we saw in California in 2006 when Phil Angelides and Steve Westly decided to blow each other up, it might be an exciting and educational race. Otherwise the party could suffer more damage than it needs. (In California, Arnold Schwarzenegger retained the Governor’s mansion without breaking a sweat. He only had to recite the primary loser’s [Angelides] TV ads!)

So, what do you think? Should Joe run?

I saw the following story this morning on the news, and was pretty surprised by it: One-Fourth of Overseas Votes Go Uncounted, Study Finds. Some of you may recall that John McCain asked for an extension to count votes in VA for absentee ballots requested by military personnel that were delayed in being set out. That was back in November.

Well, a new study has just come out from the US Senate, and you are not going to believe this. This is certainly timely given our conversations regarding our votes being counted, continuing tonight at 9:00pm (EST). Get this:

One out of every four ballots requested by military personnel and other Americans living overseas for the 2008 election may have gone uncounted, according to findings being released at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said the study, while providing only a snapshot of voting patterns, “is enough to show that the balloting process for service members is clearly in need of an overhaul.”

Uh, ya THINK, Chuck?? No freakin’ kidding! These people put their lives on the line, and then one of their most basic right as Americans, the right to have vote and have it counted is treated so cavalierly? Yeah, I think that warrants an “overhaul.” SO astute.

There’s more:

The committee, working with the Congressional Research Service, surveyed election offices in seven states with high numbers of military personnel: California, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

It said that of 441,000 absentee ballots requested by eligible voters living abroad — mainly active-duty and reserve troops — (emphasis mine)more than 98,000 were “lost” ballots that were mailed out but never received by election officials. Taking into account 13,500 ballots that were rejected for such reasons as a missing signature or failure to notarize, one-quarter of those requesting a ballot were disenfranchised.

The study found that an additional 11,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable.

Holy smokes. Twenty-five percent of the votes cast were not counted. I’m still trying to get my head around that, especially in light of the clear intention TO vote as expressed here:

Schumer’s office said that because a person living abroad must request the absentee ballot and show a clear intention to vote, voter negligence is not thought to be a major factor.

Rather, the New York Democrat said in a statement, there is a chronic problem of military voters being sent a ballot without sufficient time to complete it and send it back. He cited estimates that a ballot can take up to 13 days to reach an overseas voter.

Among the states surveyed, California had 30,000 “lost” votes out of 103,000 ballots mailed out. An additional 3,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable and 4,000 were rejected.

And that is exactly the issue McCain was trying to address in VA, where it was CLEAR that the fault lay with those responsible for mailing out the ballots. They failed to do so in a timely manner, especially considering the length of time it takes for the ballots to be received overseas.

So, what is the plan to correct this unacceptable situation? Well, this:

The hearing was to take up possible problems in the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a Pentagon program that handles the election process for military personnel and other overseas voters.

Oh, whew. I feel better now. That should take care of it, right? Ahem.

This just boggles my mind. Come to think of it, this isn’t just unacceptable, it is a breach of trust with those who are serving in our military abroad. They should be able to know that if they ask for an absentee ballot, they will receive it in a timely fashion. And, they should be able to know that their vote cast is a vote counted. We all should be able to trust that. Clearly, not only can those serving and living abroad not be able to trust in that, even when they do all that is required of them to cast that vote, but we cannot either. Not now, not with electronic voting machines, and not with rampant voter fraud. Something has to change, and it has to change now. At the very, very least, we all, every American, should be able to know with CERTAINTY that the vote we cast is counted, first of all, but counted correctly, second of all. And those who put their lives on the line for us deserve that at the very least.

Twenty five percent. 25%. One-fourth, 1/4th, of the votes not counted. Simply unacceptable.

Some prisons are buildings, like the one in which Aung San Suu Kyi resides. Others are emotional, psychological, and most definitely physical, as described by Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s issues, Melanie Verveer, in this testimony before the US Senate:

Hundreds of THOUSANDS of women raped as a war technique. Yes, a human rights issue to be sure. Frankly, that is a massive understatement.

One of the consequences Ambassador Verveer mentioned was the spread of HIV/AIDS as a result of rape. No doubt, this must be stopped, and it begs the question, how is it still going on? But even in this country, something that has received little press, is the following article on women in the US and HIV/AIDS:

President’s Budget Flat Funds Services for Women & Families

Women living with HIV throughout the U.S. were disappointed at some details of the President’s FY 2010 budget, released late last week. The overall budget calls for a modest increase in funding to fight the growing domestic HIV epidemic, but flat-funds the Ryan White Part D program, the only federal funding stream designated to serve women, children and families living with HIV. The HIV epidemic among women has worsened over the past two and a half decades, with the Centers for Disease control estimating over 300,000 women to be living with HIV in the United States.

“We commend the Admininstration’s focus on HIV prevention based on sound science — but given recent information by the Kaiser Family Foundation that general public awareness of HIV has decreased over the last few years, underinvestment in HIV programs is impractical and sends a dangerous signal to the public,” commented Naina Khanna, Coordinator of the U.S. Positive Women’s Network, a national membership body of women living with HIV. “And even in these hard economic times, only 5% of Americans believe the U.S. is spending too much on domestic HIV/AIDS. There is broad public support for preventing new infections and keeping people in care.”

Ryan White Part D provides funding for services designated to women, children and families affected by HIV/AIDS. Data consistently shows that women are less likely than men to stay in care once diagnosed. Approximately 76% of women living with HIV have at least one child under 18 in their homes, and services for women must reflect that reality in order to keep women in consistent care, say advocates.

“Without the services provided by Part D funding, I don’t know if I would have been able to overcome the depression, loneliness, fear and stigma of my HIV diagnosis,” says Linda Scruggs, an HIV-positive woman living outside the District of Columbia, where one in ten African American women are estimated to be living with HIV. Loren Jones, a Ryan White Part D services recipient and co-chair of the Community Input Task Force in Oakland, CA adds: “These are the only services entirely dedicated to HIV-positive women and men with dependent children. It is a major part of our attempt to provide services including whole family emotional support, legal assistance, and education to those members of the community that are not often highlighted as being impacted by HIV disease.”

Organizations receiving Part D funding have been funded at the same level for the past five years, though the number of women they are serving has continued to grow. Women’s organizations are fearful of the repercussions this cut will have on services to women. “Level funding is essentially a cut in funding – and is just another sign that women’s needs are not being taken seriously,” says Maura Riordan, Executive Director of Women Organized to Respond to Life-threatening Disease (WORLD) in Oakland, CA.

Liz Brosnan, Executive Director of Christie’s Place in San Diego adds: “I am shocked to see that the vast majority of the Ryan White program is slated for increases, while Part D, serving women and children, will not receive any additional funding — though the need to serve women continues to grow exponentially. These are successful programs that provide clinical and support services for women and youth. We should fund what’s working.”

The Positive Women’s Network calls on members of Congress to increase FY 2010 appropriations for Part D of the Ryan White program. “We will be in Washington, DC next week to discuss this with our legislators,” says Pat Kelly, an HIV-positive woman from Orangeburg, South Carolina. Statistics show the epidemic is over 50 percent female in some counties in the Deep South. “We urge HIV-positive women, families and those who work with them to join us in demanding funding levels that correspond to the needs of the epidemic.”

***
The U.S. Positive Women’s Network is a project of WORLD (Women Organized to Respond to Life-threatening Disease) in Oakland, CA. We are a national membership body of women living with HIV and allies. For more information and to join please visit: www.womenhiv.org/positivewomen

Again, the “disappointment” in President Obama, that is, the disappointment in grasping the reality that there is a growing disparity between what he says and what he does. I want to believe Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Verveer. I want to believe that this Administration is really committed to women here and abroad, but when funds are kept level (essentially cut given a growing number of patients and related costs) to women in the US living with HIV/AIDS, I am having a hard time doing so. I don’t doubt Secretary Clinton in her desire or Ambassador Verveer in hers, just in Obama’s commitment to women in general. His treatment of women thus far has done nothing to convince me he gives a damn, quite the contrary.

And how long do women in this country, and around the world, have to wait for justice, for human rights, just BASIC rights? Secretary Clinton gave an impassioned, brilliant speech years ago, equating Women’s Rights to Human Rights. Yet hundreds of thousands of women have been raped in Congo, millions around the world. When, WHEN, will it end?

Arlen Specter, you’re SEVENTY-NINE YEARS OLD. What in the hell business do you have switching parties and expecting anything, especially retaining your seniority?

What did Barack Obama and Joe Biden promise you? And you believed them? What a FOOL you are. Obama and Biden will screw with anybody to get that 60th vote. Even toss aside the Democrats’ best chance to win that Pennsylvania senate seat: Joe Sestak.

Here’s more Sestak — READY TO FIGHT:

UPDATE: Check out Politico’s “Meltdown: Specter stands alone.” How amusing:

Arlen Specter infuriated Senate Republicans when he bolted from their party last week. Now he’s alienated just about everybody in the Senate Democratic caucus, too.

Since declaring himself a Democrat last Tuesday, Specter has defied Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the White House on virtually everything that’s come down the pike: the budget, mortgage reform, the Al Franken-Norm Coleman race, even President Barack Obama’s appointment of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

All while quibbling over whether he said he’d be a “loyal Democrat” — and insisting that he had an “entitlement” to transfer his Senate seniority from one side of the aisle to the other.

The blowback came Tuesday night: On a voice vote, the Senate voted to strip Specter of his 29 years of seniority, effectively transforming him in a blink-and-you-missed-it-moment from one of the most senior senators in the body to a lowly freshman on most committees.

“There were concerns about his actions,” said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Senate Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, which sets committee assignments. …

Check out more blog reactions to this story at Memeorandum.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But her dreams didn’t end there:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.

I refer to Americans United, Karl Rove and MoveOn as idiots, as all of them are hopelessly misinformed.

Rove believes the coordinated effort of the White House to pressure moderate Democrats through various advocacy groups will backfire. He is partially correct, but his reasoning is flawed. I quote Rove:

Every White House is faced with finding ways to nudge Congress without antagonizing it. But this overt campaign could infuriate members who won’t appreciate being targeted by a president of their own party. They could react by becoming recalcitrant. Should that happen, team Obama will have to recalculate its efforts, especially as the public sours on big spending plans.

Members of Congress will not simply become “recalcitrant” as a result of their personal disdain for Obama’s tactics; they will become recalcitrant as a result of all the Republican support they will receive from their constituents. Hence why I believe MoveOn and Americans United are idiots: attempting to incite certain Democrats to pressure certain Democratic moderates, their efforts will simply alert Republicans who probably never supported these Democrats that their Senator or House Representative is indeed a moderate. And not only will this engender Republican support for the moderate Democrats in question; it will also compel the Republicans and Democrats who voted against Obama in certain states to oppose Obama’s budget in a more active and vigorous manner. Moderate Democrats in Congress will then have electoral justifications to oppose Obama, and Republicans, Independents and Democrats who oppose Obama will have a new political signifier around which they can mobilize.

Consider Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, two Senate Democrats who represent southern states. Mary Landrieu beat her Republican opponent John N. Kennedy by 6 points last cycle, warding off a Republican surge that delivered a 59-40 victory to John McCain. The reaction against Obama in Louisiana almost derailed her reelection efforts, but she managed to win by citing her centrism and independence. Not only has that centrism and independence been confirmed by the ads Democratic organizations are launching against her; the Republicans who opposed her will now support her out of sympathy. As a result, she will receive supportive telephone calls from Louisiana Republicans who will urge her to oppose Obama’s budget. Moreover, her approval ratings will increase, complicating liberal advocacy groups’ efforts to render her unelectable. And yes, many Democratic groups would be satisfied if Mary Landrieu lost a reelection. Some Democrats, in fact, believe she deserves no respect. But to the chagrin of these Democratic activists, their botched efforts to make her political life difficult will only garner her more support from the Republicans who would otherwise oppose her.

Blanche Lincoln will run for reelection in 2010, and the results of the 2008 Presidential election in Arkansas are certainly not in her favor. In fact, McCain clobbered Barack Obama by a margin of 20 points in Arkansas, a margin that would make any Democratic incumbent nervous. Republicans are targeting her for her potential support of Card Check, while some Democrats derisively characterize her as the Democrat of Wal-Mart. This is certainly a stressful position for a Democrat who hopes to cobble together the coalition required to win in 2010 in a state that rejects the current Democratic President to whom she will be tied. But now that liberal advocacy groups are airing advertisements and complaining about Lincoln on the telephone lines of Arkansans, Republicans will rally behind her, and they may even cast votes for her in 2010. Americans United and MoveOn think they are blackmailing Lincoln with the threat of political death, but they are in fact increasing her popularity in her state, thereby handing her justification to oppose Obama’s budget and agenda. Some actions have inadvertent consequences.

Rove is incorrect when he claims moderate Democrats will react personally to Obama’s efforts to manufacture grassroots opposition to their centrism, and MoveOn and Americans United are incorrect when they believe their Washington, DC, advocacy will yield results in Louisiana and Arkansas. All of them are idiots, as all of them are misinformed, and all their efforts are misguided. But at least Democrats who struggle to win south of the Mason-Dixon line will remain in office as a result of the idiocy of some groups’ version of advocacy. For similar to Bill and Hillary Clinton, these Democrats understand the predicaments and the paradoxes that sustain the Democratic Party in the South. Republicans and the operatives surrounding Obama, on the other hand, do not. Obama, after all, admires Reagan, and Reagan, to be sure, is anything but an expert on Democratic politics.

It cheapens the game, is horrible on the bodies of these athletes, and sets a BAD example for our youth. I hope he is telling the truth that his use was limited to those two years, and that his apology is sincere.

I bring this up because this issue was raised to Obama the other night at the big White House press conference. His response:

The president’s strongest answer was in response to the evening’s fluffiest question, about Alex Rodriguez’s confession that he had taken steroids.

After an honest baseball fan’s lament (”it tarnishes an entire era”), Obama jumped to a larger point that transcends sports–the lesson in A-Rod’s downfall for the young: “There are no shortcuts; that when you try to take shortcuts you may end up tarnishing your whole career.” (Emphasis mine.)

I about fell out of my chair laughing. Obama claims there are “no shortcuts”??? His ENTIRE political career has been one of “shortcuts”! He gets everyone else thrown off the ballot so he can run unopposed for the IL Senate. While in the IL Senate, the primary legislation that passed with HIS name on it was thrown on there by “kingmaker,” Emil Jones. Obama did little, if any, of the work for the legislation passed in his name. His handlers exposed SEALED information on his Republican opponent in his run for US Senate, thus ending up with Alan Keyes thrown on the ballot at the last minute. And, he did not even complete his first term as US Senator! (All of the above information, and more, can be found HERE.) Could Obama BE any more duplicitous?

Well, it turns out the answer is yes! It seems that Obama is claiming there is NO pork in this humongous stimulus package he is traipsing around the country trying to sell. Perhaps he is unclear on the definition of “pork.” Given how much pork Obama tried to get for IL while a US Senator, $740 MILLION, you would think he would know what it was. And he’s supposed to be so smart and everything. But he claims that there is NO pork in this stimulus package. None. That’s what he said. And right after he said that while in IN, he gave examples of some pork that would benefit IN! I’m not kidding:

OBAMA: “Not a single pet project,” he told the news conference. “Not a single earmark.”

THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill.*, $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added, “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

* Remember, that coal plant was shut down for being “inefficient,” and they want to throw $2 BILLION at it.

There are numerous examples of the pork stuffed into this stimulus package, and I have detailed some in previous posts. But you can click HERE for a reminder. But there most definitely IS pork in this package, despite Obama’s nonsensical claims to the contrary.

And speaking of pork, how about this little payback for ACORN? Ah, yes. ACORN – the organization under federal investigation for voter fraud. But hey – they did their job, and accomplished their goal, so no doubt, Obama has to “show them the money” (and this isn’t the first time ACORN has found its way into one of these bills spending OUR money):

Bear in mind, your taxpaying dollars have already been shelled out to ACORN, despite the numerous investigations into its wrong doing over voter fraud/voter registration fraud. Yes, just as a reminder, back in April, ACORN and La Raza were the beneficiaries of $100 MILLION of your dollars in another Housing bailout. I’m sure ACORN and La Raza thank you. I’m CERTAIN Obama thanks you, since he most definitely benefited from the work of ACORN this past year. I’m going to bet Obama wouldn’t consider this pork, either…

I realize I should have offered this warning earlier, but if you have high blood pressure, you may want to skip the following video of Senator Chuck Schumer, a senator I USED to like, but how can you respect someone who says this:

You know what is surprising about this? That Senator Schumer seemed to have no qualms about insulting American citizens who actually do care how our taxpaying dollars are being squandered on pet projects and paybacks. His arrogance is staggering, referring to us as “the chattering class” simply because we do not want to have our great-grandchildren paying for some 36 hole Frisbee golf course, or billions to an organization under federal investigation, or inefficient power plants, or any other of the numerous pet projects tucked into what is SUPPOSED to be a JOB stimulus package. “Chattering class” indeed.

Feel free to contact Senator Schumer and tell him how you, one of the “chattering class,” feel about his contention that we do not care about the pork in this bill HERE. We, the “chattering class,” actually care about the course our nation is on, and the path down which it is currently being steered. It’s about damn time our representatives act like they care, too, especially when they are spending OUR money. We the “chattering class” care, all right – a lot. And we care when a US Senator dismisses our concerns about a tremendously flawed bill as if we should have nothing to say about it. That is not just hubris, that is condescension and arrogance toward the very people who gave this man a job. Senator Schumer has sure shown HIS true colors, and they are not pretty…Let him hear about it.

It looks like President Obama hasn’t gotten acquainted to his White House surroundings. On the way back to the Oval Office Tuesday, the President approached a paned window, instead of the actual door — located a few feet to his right.

Uh, yeah. That would be a window, as evidenced by the fixed nature, lack of hinges, and a doorknob. Ahem.

As a reminder:

Doors didn’t open automatically for Obama’s predecessor either. While making a hasty exit from a 2005 press conference in Beijing, former President George W. Bush tugged on the handles of a door, only to find it locked.

Bush laughed off the blunder, but the pictures still live on as part of Bush’s lame duck legacy. However, there was little note taken of Obama’s rookie mistake.

Really? The media is going to ignore yet another “mistake” of Obama’s? What a new and different approach for their treatment of Obama! Cough. Ahem.

C’mon, already – this is pretty damn laughable. How can they ignore this? Shoot, at least Bush was somewhere unfamiliar – this was at the freakin’ Oval Office!! You better believe if this had been ANYONE else, ANYONE, it would be leading all of the news stories. Oh, well, I guess I should be thankful SOMEONE is covering it. The article finishes up with a bit of an excuse (again, oh what a surprise):

Obama, who was returning from meeting with Congressional leaders, may have been distracted by Republicans’ icy reception to his $825 billion stimulus package, which is poised to pass on Wednesday even without a groundswell of Republican support.

Yeah, that’s the ticket. He was thrown off his stride by those schmucky Republicans! What is their problem not wanting to hand out even more money for things like, oh, $600 million more for its fleet of 600,000 government cars? So what if the US Government is already spending a cool $3 BILLION a year on these cars? Sheesh! Skinflints.

Anywho – let’s just see if this photo has the shelf life of the Bush photo. I, for one, am not holding my breath.

Oh, but WAIT, there’s more that just came out!!! (Major H/T to Andy for this story.) It seems that before Obama tried to enter through the window at the Oval Office, he tried to take the wrong elevator after meeting with Republican Senators. He was a bit “disoriented,” it seems. Wow. This stuff practically writes itself. Though that was not as much of a faux pas, since he was trying to use the Senators’ elevator. Come to think of it, consider how little he did while in the Senate, it’s kind of a surprise he even knew about that elevator! Ahem.

Yep – I’m thinking there are going to be a whole lot more of these kind of episodes. As my buddy, Divine Democrat reminded me, we’ve already had his “57 states” thing, and I know he’s made a ton of gaffes while on the campaign trail. At least that’s something toward which we can look forward, right? Ahem.

What are some of the ones Obama made that stand out to you?

Going through my paper this morning there was a podium picture of those who came to Albany to support Governor Paterson and his choice Rep. soon to be Senator Gillibrand. Front and center in the front row is former Senator Alfonse D’Amato from the other side of the aisle.

Also present was the County Executive from upstate Monroe County Maggie Brooks who is also a Republican. Not often you see two Republicans attend the announcement of the appointment of a new Senator from the other party.

Also with the new Senator’s rating from the NRA, a 100% rating, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from Long Island, is not happy with the choice, and “snubbed” the announcement as my paper Newsday put it and has vowed to run in a primary against Senator Gillibrand if nobody else does. For those of you who do not remember or do now know, Congresswoman McCarthy’s husband was among 6 killed and her son was among 19 injured on a Long Island Railroad Train when Colin Ferguson took out a gun and starting shooting for no reason in 1993. She was elected to congress on a strong anti-gun and gun control platform.

So job one is to get everyone familiar with the Senator who when all the paperwork is filed in Washington will be sworn in as the junior Senator from New York sometime Sunday. Her first meeting/appearance is with Rev. Al Sharpton at his weekly rally at headquarters in Harlem. Now for someone from upstate, you don’t get more downstate than that. She said the economy was her first priority and she did take some questions about her gun control issues. I am sure there are many more downstate appearances and “get to know you’s” scheduled in the coming weeks and months. After all, once she takes the office she immediately has a seat to protect and a race to run.

Funny though, I have not seen anything on what will happen to her seat in NY’s 20th CD. Are Governor Paterson and the state party going to concede that seat back to the Republicans in what was a major upset just 4 years ago when the now Senator won that seat from an entrenched Republican incumbent in a conservative leaning county.

This choice is obviously to bolster the governor with upstate voters for his pending election in 2010 the next state wide election when he, the entire state leadership and both US Senators (Senator Gillibrand in a special election to serve out the final 2 years of Hillary’s term and Chuck Schumer for his full term) will be up. But here downstate she is not only not only not well known or known at all but does not seem all that popular. It appears there are major splits in the NY Democratic party over this. Another against the pick was Kennedy supporter Mayor Mike Bloomberg a registered Republican who has plenty of money and influence to help elect the newly minted Senator or an opponent of his choosing. Mayor Bloomberg said in a story in the Washington Post this morning, “She has actively opposed the efforts of New York City, and cities around the state and nation, to enact common-sense measures that keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals,” he said in a statement. “For instance, she has voted to keep critical data needed to track illegal gun traffickers from law enforcement, has voted to tie the hands of the ATF, and has also voted to protect dealers who sell guns illegally.” You can read the whole Post story here.And as you can see it is not the gun control people who have problems with the new Senator’s voting record.

Now I know many out there in the NQ readership and radio audience are looking at this appointment as the governor appointing a woman to finish out Hillary’s term. And there is something to that. However I am not sure how I feel about this appointment. I am looking at it on the issues, not on gender. I don’t care if a candidate is a man or a woman, black, white, red, blue or green. I care what they have to say and what they do. It is one of the reasons I supported Hillary Clinton in her runs for Senate and in the primary. In this case I am not happy with my new Senator’s stance with the NRA. You see I have had gun violence touch my life. I don’t want to get in to details but years ago a co-worker was gunned down and murdered in an incident that garnered some national attention due to the sensational nature of the case. So yes, gun control is an issue in my life and something I happen to agree with Congresswoman McCarthy with. So as far as my opinion of this appointment to be honest I don’t know. I am going to have to do my homework on it and see how I feel. And if there is a primary contest I am going to really have to do my due diligence.

I guess this is as good a place as any to plug my NQ Radio show, “No Topic Taboo…Everything Else with Jay” which will be in it’s usual slot, Wednesday night at 9PM Eastern…you know the rest depending on where you live.Now to be perfectly honest I was not sure what the topic of this week’s show was going to be but I guess this qualifies. As always everything is on the table, in addition to the new Senator from NY we can discuss the upcoming Super Bowl in Tampa, the first 8 days of the new administration, oh and here’s something. I got my hands on the Nielsen ratings of the top 58 markets for last week’s coronation I mean inauguration. You might be a little shocked to see who was #1 and where a certain mid-west city landed in the list.

I am really interested what you out in NQ-land feel about this. And you can let me know. You can leave comments here and I may print them out and read them on my show, you can email me at my show email address, ntteewithjay@me.com, or you can call me on show night at 347-677-0792. It’s going to be open line night, you will be my guest so I really can’t do this week’s show without you.

So that’s all I have to say. What about you?

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy,” said President-elect Obama.

Oh, no. Obama is “extremely disappointed.” Well, join the freakin’ club, Obama. You aren’t the only one. There are millions of us who are disappointed. Heck, despairing might even be the word of choice. But I digress.

Now, Obama has changed his tune (surprise!!!!!). According to this CBS Report, Obama is now saying:

Mr. Obama was just asked about the Burris appointment during his morning press conference. The president-elect did not take a position, saying it was “a Senate matter.”

Mr. Obama noted he had known Burris for years, adding: “If he gets seated, then I’m going to work with Roland Burris, just like I work with all the other senators.”

Newsflash from the Department of Duh: You already took a position, Mr. Obama. Perhaps YOU should learn hot to use that whole Google thing to remind yourself of what you said about a week ago. Just sayin’.

And for the record, the Senate does NOT get to decide who they will allow in or not. It’s a matter of who each state sends. You might want to go take another little look-see at that pesky piece of paper you find to be so “deeply flawed,” the Constitution. Just a thought!

But Obama isn’t the only one who is probably making Burris’ head spin (and mine). The above-mentioned Senate owner (hey, that’s how he is acting), Harry Reid. His constant stand that Burris will now be admitted to his playgroup is now weakening:

After repeatedly saying they wouldn’t accept him and turning him away Tuesday, it now appears that Senate Democrats eventually plan to seat Roland Burris after all.

After Burris met privately with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, Reid told reporters today that he hopes “sooner rather than later” the full Senate will vote on whether to accept Burris.

And get this:

Reid said he and Burris met for 45 minutes and since he had “never met the man,” it was “very enlightening,” calling Burris “obviously very engaging, a very nice man.”

Well, by all means, Harry, if the only criterion you have is if you think someone is “nice” enough, glad to hear Burris suits you on that level.

I have written about this before, but holy crap – our Senate is a very small junior high school. Grow the hell up already, Harry!! Sheesh!

By the way, in the article linked above about Reid, there is a link to a US News and World Report article (by Michael Barone)regarding issues of legality and seating Burris. I’ll bottom-line it for you: they have to seat him.

In the meantime, I think the following should be Burris’ theme song:

So, what will it be? Will he stay or will he go?

Barack Obama on Thursday stated the following:

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject. I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat. I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact,” Obama said at a Chicago news conference. “I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

But on Friday we learned the following:

Emanuel, who has long been close to both Blagojevich and Obama, has refused to respond to questions about any involvement he may have had with the Blagojevich camp over the Senate pick. A spokeswoman for Emanuel also declined to comment Friday.

One source confirmed that communications between Emanuel and the Blagojevich administration were captured on court-approved wiretaps.

Another source said that contact between the Obama camp and the governor’s administration regarding the Senate seat began the Saturday before the Nov. 4 election, when Emanuel made a call to the cell phone of Harris. The conversation took place around the same time press reports surfaced about Emanuel being approached about taking the high-level White House post should Obama win.

Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be “acceptable” to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.

Where do we begin with Obama’s statement on Thursday?

“I am confident that no representatives of mine would have any part of any deals related to this seat.”

I am confident you phrased this statement in the manner you did, for you knew Emanuel was in contact with Blagojevich through his Chief of Staff and through other advisors and operatives. I am also confident that Emanuel is avoiding reporters, for Emanuel knows his voice is recorded on wiretaps gathered by Fitzgerald and his investigators. It is time for Emanuel to resign and to vacate his House seat. And by the way, is not former Daley operative Valerie Jarrett Co-Chair of your Transition Team? Why was the Co-Chair of your Transition Team in contact with Tom Balanoff, the SEIU Representative, who according to page 69 of the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain “stated that he would find out if Senate Candidate 1 [Valerie Jarrett] wanted SEIU Official to keep pushing her for Senator with ROD BLAGOJEVICH.” Maybe it is time you answer questions about Valerie Jarrett’s contact with Blagojevich and his operatives.

“I have never spoken to the governor on this subject.”

You claim you did not speak to the Governor, but Emanuel submitted a letter with a list of candidates you preferred to Blagojevich. In other words, you communicated with the Governor about the open Senate seat. Moreover, news reports you and your operatives have attempted to remove from the Internet reveal you met with the Governor the week following the Presidential election. You met with him, and you sent him letters. This website contains two screen shots and a press release from Blagojevich’s office documenting that meeting. I recommend you read them and explain their existence to the media during your next press conference. Thank you for your prompt and anticipated cooperation.

“I think the materials released by the U.S. attorney reflect that fact.”

Perhaps you need to think again, for the criminal complaint filed by Special Agent of the FBI David Cain reveals that a line of communication existed between your team and that of Blagojevich. We also know that members of your team, including Emanuel, were engaged in conversation with members of Blagojevich’s team about the open Senate seat and the possibility of positions for Blagojevich since November 4, 2008. Maybe you need to read and reread the criminal complaint until its full import and significance is understood. And besides, no one cares what you “think;” we care about what is known.

“I’ve asked my team to gather the facts of any contacts with the governor’s office about this vacancy so that we can share them with you over the next few days.”

Ask your staff again. Obviously they are incapable of compiling information, for it is Sunday, and no documents have been made available to the public. Do you have any intention of sharing any and all communications between your staff and that of Rod Blagojevich? And while your seemingly inept, incompetent and corrupt staff compiles these records for the perusal of the traditional media and writers online, I recommend you ask them to create a dossier on your dealings with Rezko. This staff, after all, is housed in the Kluczynksi Federal Building on Dearborn Street in Chicago. Access to records from your days as a state Senator of an inner city Chicago state Senate district should not be difficult for a group of overpaid operatives in your Transition offices to obtain. I imagine they are not very bright, but if they refrain from engaging in drunken gang rape simulations with your speechwriter Jon Favreau, the lazy and inept lot will probably have the energy and focus to locate and compile these documents in a timely manner.

=========================

One paragraph, one lie, two equivocations and one false promise: how and why does anyone take Barack Obama seriously?

UPDATE: