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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list is growing.

Vote by midnight tonight! The Sweet 16 is in the books and we are down to just 8 contestants left vying for the No Quarter Trophy which is annually awarded to the person you decide is the Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape. March Madness is always full of surprises and this year is no different. The Number One Seed in the At Large Bracket, MSNBC Hard Ball host Chris Matthews turned out to a softball player. He was no match for the cajones of Donna Brazile. While she appeared to be fading as the tournament started, the DNC terror upped her game and sent Tweety packing 56-44. This sets up a dream matchup in the At Large Regional Final between Brazile and the Number Two Seed Oprah Winfrey. Oprah humiliated Bill “Judas” Richardson 66-34. This bracket final redefines At Large due to the girth of the contestants who can both claim to have the biggest asses in the field.

And what a battle in the Media Bracket. The claws came out and Andrew Sullivan held off a furious charge from Maureen Dowd. The final score 52-48 (just 14 votes). Sullivan now gets to go head-to-head with top seed Keith Olbermann.

For all the Elite Eight Matchups and your chance to vote. Read BELOW.

Just pick from the matchups below. You determine who you think is the Bigger Ass in each contest. It won’t be easy.

White House Regional Final. It doesn’t get any better than this!
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Capitol Hill Regional Final. This one re-defines tight man to man defense.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Media Bracket Regional Final. Who will be the one that comes out of the room at the end?
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

At Large Bracket Regional Final. This one is exactly what it says it is. AT LARGE! Big Asses battling to be the Biggest Ass.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Vote now. The polls close at midnight on Friday. On Saturday we will post the Final Four! And then join us on the Nocturnal Warrior show Tuesday night at 9:00 PM EDT when we do our National Championship Show and handicap the battle between our final two contestants. Feel free to post comments below as to how you arrived at your picks. Have fun with this.

The cream certainly rose to the top in the second round in the battle for the No Quarter Trophy. The second round of our March Madness tournament had few suprises and almost every match was a blowout. With the field narrowed to 16, we are down to the best of the best. To become our National Champion and wear the title of Biggest Ass on the American Political Landscape, someone will have to rise to the top over some of the most reprehensible people of our time.

BELOW, the scoop on the most suspenseful race last week (Michelle Obama vs. David Axelrod) and your virtual voting booth:

It was a surprising second round as three former National Champions were eliminated in matches that were not even close. Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter and Ted Kennedy (in a likely farewell performance) were all sent packing. The 12th seed in the Capitol Hill Bracket, Senator Claire McCaskill is the lone long shot left in the field as she easily disposed of the 4th seed John Boehner. The most exciting match occurred in the White House Bracket where number two seed Michelle Obama had her hands full with the 7th seed, David Axelrod.

Mrs. Obama pulled it out 54-46.

Your chance to vote in our Sweet 16 starts now. The polls will be open until 8:00 PM EDT on Tuesday. Here are the matchups.

White House Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Capitol Hill Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Media Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

At Large Bracket
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Just vote for who you think is the biggest ass in each matchup. Feel free to post additional comments below. Have fun with this. Don’t forget to join us on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio this Tuesday night at 9:00 PM EDT for the Sweet 16 results and Elite Eight preview.

The first round winners were determined by your votes and revealed last night on the Nocturnal Warrior Show on No Quarter Radio. You can listen to that here. We did a review of last night’s so-called press conference followed by the tournament results. The show includes the scores, a review of the next round matchups and all sorts of commentary that we just can’t fit here.

Remember, your votes determine the winners. We are asking you to look at each matchup and determine for yourself who is the bigger ass in each matchup (We are not asking who has the biggest ass, although that may have helped Oprah and Donna Brazile in round one). Without further ado here we go:

ROUND TWO

White House Bracket

6th Seed Rahm Emanuel vs. 3rd Seed Dick Cheney

Capitol Hill Bracket

Media Bracket

At-Large Bracket

There you have it. Just use the polls as set up at No Quarter to determine your votes. The Polls will be open until midnight Friday. This weekend, we will reveal the “Sweet Sixteen,” and open up the voting. The “Sweet Sixteen” winners will be announced on next Tuesday night’s Nocturnal Warrior Show where we will break down the Elite Eight.

Feel free to add your comments about the matchups below. The key is to have as much fun with this as possible!

The inner White House oversight of the caucus is indeed worriseom. I realize that it’s never partisan-free. But one can strive to have congressional districts decided, best as possible, along true population lines, not what Rahm Emanuel or even Judd Gregg might want for political reasons. (The first UPDATE is at the end of the story.)

Original: At least Senator Judd Gregg came to the realization that this was an idiotic arrangement — how he could fit in with the Obama administration — he who had voted in 1995 to eliminate the Commerce Dept., who had ties to Jack Abramoff, who opposed progressive measures on the census, who the Obama administration took the census away from and put directly under White House control … that he knew that he PERHAPS (?!) was NOT a good fit for the Obama administration?!?!?!

How does Obama come up with these ideas anyway? And WHO checks out these “ideas” thoroughly before they’re announced? (Did no one at the White House realize — before they appointed Gregg — that the census was coming up, and that a conservative Republican would have had control as Secretary of Commerce, since that department has traditionally handled the 10-year census? What else was the White House going to take away from Gregg to render him incapable of having sufficient influence?) And which knuckleheads are allowing him to make these decisions that he comes to regret — and which aren’t sufficiently researched and vetted?

How can Obama appoint a Commerce secretary who was so conflicted by Obama’s stimulus package that he had to “abstain” from voting? That surely didn’t bode well for their future relationships in administration matters.

The Washington Post, through Chris Cilizza’s blog The Fix, reports that Gregg cited “irreconciliable conflicts” — and do note the problems that Cilizza lists that this withdrawal creates for Obama:

New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg has withdrawn his name from consideration as President Obama’s commerce secretary, a major blow to an administration seeking to put a series of Cabinet problems behind it.

“It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the census there are irresolvable conflicts for me,” Gregg said in a statement to be released by his office. “Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns.”

Gregg abstained from the Senate vote on the stimulus package, which passed the chamber 61 to 37. He had not previously offered any public comment on the White House’s plan to have the Census director report to White House officials. Many Republicans, however, had voiced serious concerns about the potential politicization of the department given that move.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) praised Gregg’s decision as “principled” and added: “It’s great to have him back.”

Just days ago, Gregg stood side-by-side with the president to accept the nomination as commerce secretary and declared that partisanship should not get in the way of repairing the country’s
problems.

“This is not a time for partisanship. This is not a time when we should stand in our ideological corners and shout at each other,” Gregg said on Feb. 3. “This is a time to govern and govern well. And therefore, when the President asked me to join his administration and participate in trying to address the issues of this time, I believed it was my obligation to say yes, and I look forward to it with enthusiasm.”

At that event, Obama noted that “Clearly, Judd and I don’t agree on every issue — most notably who should have won the election. But we agree on the urgent need to get American businesses and families back on their feet.”

But even as Gregg and Obama were shaking hands, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill were blasting the stimulus package then making its way through the House of Representatives. In a statement, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said that day that “let no one be mistaken that this bill is the result of bipartisan negotiations. While Republicans were courteously consulted at the member and staff level, we were never at the negotiating table.”

Gregg is the second of Obama’s nominees as commerce secretary to withdraw. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) stepped aside earlier this year after allegations of a pay to play scandal involving him came to light.

The decision has any number of wide-reaching political consequences.

First, it creates another opening in Obama’s Cabinet, which saw former South Dakota senator Tom Daschle (S.D.) step aside last week after questions were raised about his failure to pay taxes on a car and driver service.

Second, it slows the momentum that the Obama administration was hoping to build for its economic stimulus plan, which is expected to clear Congress tomorrow. Obama and his team had worked diligently to put the “vetting problems” stories regarding his Cabinet picks to bed but now will watch them dredged back up for the next 24 hours — at a minimum — and perhaps far longer.

Third, Gregg’s return to the Senate means that Republicans have one less open seat to defend next fall. ….

Read all.

UPDATE: Oh boy! I bet the Obama White House is hysterical! Why couldn’t have Gregg dropped this bomb on late Friday afternoon?!?!?! But on Thursday? The day BEFORE the House votes on the stimulus package??? OUCH.

(Which has me wondering … is this meant to throw cold water on the House vote, what with both the Blue Dog Democrats and far-left liberal House members unhappy with the stimulus package? Maybe not. Just a thought. … But the Republicans surely are eager to create some turmoil right before this bill gets the final vote to be enacted and signed by Obama into law. )

Our bus is special, has lots of cool people and besides there isn’t any more room.

So, we decided that from now on we will not be accepting Obama rejects under the bus. These lowlife of the political world. These supposed friends of Hill and Bill who turned on her. These ones who almost made it through the O’Vetting will now get thrown in the dumpster.

The job requires him to work unnoticed, even in plain view, so Jon Favreau settles into a wooden chair at a busy Starbucks in the center of Penn Quarter. Deadline looms, and he needs to write at least half a page by the end of the day. As the espresso machines whir, Favreau opens his laptop, calls up a document titled “rough draft of inaugural” and goes to work on the most anticipated speech of Barack Obama’s life.

Isn’t this the very same paper that published THIS photo of Favreau:

And they think no one recognizes him? Yeah, okay. This is the extent of the Post’s dealing with that reprehensible action by Favreau and his buddy:

Especially now, as Favreau and the rest of Obama’s young staffers begin a transition that extends far beyond new job titles. Three months ago, Favreau lived in a group house with six friends in Chicago, where he rarely shaved, never cooked and sometimes stayed up to play video games until early morning. Now, he has transformed into what one friend called a “Washington political force” — a minor celebrity with a down payment on a Dupont Circle condo, whose silly Facebook photos with a Hillary Rodham Clinton cutout created what passes for controversy in Obama’s so far drama-free transition.

Blech. Blech. BLECH. The author completely dismisses the blatant sexism demonstrated by Jon Favreay. In his mind, it’s just a silly little thing. Yes, Teflon Man isn’t touched by ANYTHING, it seems, even the degrading treatment of his Secretary of State to be! Grrr.

Not to quibble, but the author thinks this has been a drama-free transition?? I guess this is where the MSM tells us what to think rather than report what actually happened. I am pretty sure more than a few people were shocked – SHOCKED – by Obama’s choice of Secretary for State, for example. Dr. Rice? Susan Powers?? GATES (not that he was a bad choice, but all of those folks who thought Obama was going to immediately cease the Iraq war must have had mini-head explosions)? Bill Richardson, also under investigation for “Pay for Play”?? Seems like they are continuing to redefine words, just like they did for Bush. Now, surprise and outrage at choices will be considered “drama free”! Wow. Just sayin’.

Now, a whole lot of this article is singing Favreau’s praises, so feel free to go read it for yourself. But there are several quotes that deal directly with the relationship between Obama and Favreau:

During the campaign, the buzz-cut 27-year-old at the corner table helped write and edit some of the most memorable speeches of any recent presidential candidate. When Obama moves to the White House next month, Favreau will join his staff as the youngest person ever to be selected as chief speechwriter. He helps shape almost every word Obama says, yet the two men have formed a concert so harmonized that Favreau’s own voice disappears.

“He looks like he’s in college and everybody calls him Favs, so you’re like, ‘This guy can’t be for real, right?’ ” said Ben Rhodes, another Obama speechwriter. “But it doesn’t take long to realize that he’s totally synced up with Obama. . . . He has access to everything and everybody. There’s a lot weighing on his shoulders.”

Ah, yes, Favreau and Obama are all linked up:

Still more daunting is the list of things Favreau can’t think about as he writes the inaugural. He went for a run to the Lincoln Memorial last month and stopped in his tracks when he imagined the mall packed with 3 million people listening to some of his words. A few weeks later, Favreau winced when Obama spokesman Bill Burton reminded him: “Dude, what you’re writing is going to be hung up in people’s living rooms!”

Oh, but just wait. It gets better: Obama sometimes jokes that Favreau is not so much a speechwriter as a mind reader.

He carries Obama’s 1995 autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” with him almost everywhere and has memorized most of his famous keynote speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He has mastered Obama’s writing style — short, elegant sentences — and internalized his boss’s tendency toward reflection and ideological balance.

So, let’s be crystal clear here: all of those speeches that had people fawning all over Obama were written by a 27 yr old who lived in a house with 6 other people, often playing video games into all hours of the night (according to the article). And this man is completely simpatico with Obama. Competely:

In four years together, Obama and Favreau have perfected their writing process. Before most speeches, Obama meets with Favreau for an hour to explain what he wants to say. Favreau types notes on his laptop and takes a crack at the first draft. Obama edits and rewrites portions himself — he is the better writer, Favreau insists — and they usually work through final revisions together. If Favreau looks stressed, Obama sometimes reassures him: “Don’t worry. I’m a writer, too, and I know that sometimes the muse hits you and sometimes it doesn’t. We’ll figure it out together.”

“The president-elect understands that Jon is a rare talent. He knows what he’s got,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, who also worked in the Senate office. “There’s a mutual respect and appreciation between them, and the president-elect trusts Jon’s instincts and ability. It’s a partnership.”

Wow. Oh, the article goes on and on about Favreau, probably more information than you really want to know about this 27 year old who acted in an incredibly sexist manner toward Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and Favreau wrote the speech on race, too, with a little retooling from Obama. Huh. I wonder if Favreau also wrote Obama’s “listen to what I say, not what I do” speech at his recent press conference, detailed in this Washington Post article, defense for why he chose Rick Warren to give his Inaugural Invocation:

President-elect Barack Obama this morning defended his choice of evangelical megapastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at next month’s swearing-in, saying that although he differs with the conservative pastor on social issues, he wants to have diverse voices at the ceremony.

“I am a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency,” Obama said at a morning news conference to announce several financial appointments. “What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues…

“During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented,” Obama said. “And that’s how it should be, because that’s what America is about. Part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated…

Obama added: “That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign’s been all about: That we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”

Oh, well, okay. So we are not supposed to pay attention to what you DO, but what you say. And those of us who continue to be oppressed in this country should just go ahead and take it because Obama wants “diverse voices” at his inauguration. He thinks we should just go along to get along. Because THAT has worked out so well in the past. Hahahaha.

Apparently, Favreau and Obama don’t understand that some of us actually do see through these false claims. When Obama, not his transition committee, but OBAMA, picks this minister to give the invocation out of ALL of the ministers in this entire country, then tells us that we should just take this huge slap in the face because, in his most patronizing fashion, we should just be able to accept differences.

See, it’s OUR problem, not Obama’s, for choosing this man. WE just need to get over it, and stop being upset that Obama purposely chose a minister who is opposed to same sex marriage, who is a creationist who thinks homosexuality should have already been weeded out of the gene pool (H/T to AF Catfish, alert NQ reader, and who is anti-choice. Once we let go that Obama surrounds himself with homophobes in the name of diversity, this won’t be upsetting to us anymore. Got that? Good – lay off the man already, he’s just trying to Unite us, after all, by choosing this Divider to kick off his gala. And if you don’t get it this time, maybe the next speech Favreau writes will convince you. If not, Obama will re-tool it and sprinkle magic dust or something on it so you won’t remember all of the other crap he’s pulled. Hey, it’s worked before for the ‘N Sync team of Obama/Favreau, I’m sure it will work again.

While the President-elect eventually won over most of the American Jewish community by throwing a few folks under the speeding bus and speaking in centrist tones, there have always been concerns by some Israel supporters about his close associations to fervent Palestinians like Rashid Khalidi and anti-Israel advisors like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Andrew Malley.

Caroline Glick does an excellent job of listing those concerns in the Jerusalem Post. You can read that here

If Glick is right and the United States is ready to change its stance towards Israel, this policy will need to be sold to an Israeli government that always puts the safety of its nation first (in other words, we’ll blow up Iranian nukes whether the U.S. likes it or not) and the American People. If he tries to sell that, the only person who could sell it is Hillary Clinton.

While we have had numerous posts on the political implications of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, we haven’t had much discussion about what her presence would mean to Obama administration policy around the world.

While the world is excited about Barack Obama’s election, he has no credibility on the world stage and has not yet earned the trust of our allies. Through her own work and the goodwill former President Clinton has abroad, Senator Clinton has that trust and credibility. Whatever President Obama wants to sell, he may just need Hillary to sell it.

The concern is, would he use her to try and sell this:

As for direct talks with Iran itself, the question immediately arises, what could Obama offer Teheran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program that Bush hasn’t already offered?

What it can offer is Israel.

Over the past few years, Obama’s top nuclear nonproliferation adviser, Joe Cirincione, has repeatedly advocated placing Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the negotiating table and offering it up in exchange for an Iranian pledge to end its nuclear program. Defense Secretary Robert Gates – whom Obama is considering retaining – insinuated in his 2006 confirmation hearings that Iran is only building nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel. Gates, it should be recalled, has been instrumental in convincing Bush not only not to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, but not to support an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear installations.

What is profoundly distressing about statements by men like Cirincione and Gates is what they tell us about the strategic reasoning informing the incoming Obama administration.

Again, I have no idea if this is what an Obama administration will do. Would Senator Clinton as Secretary of State even go along with this kind of policy? What I do know is this, if the new President really wants to change our foreign policy approach radically, John Kerry or Bill Richardson won’t be able to do the job. They can’t walk into a room with other world leaders and say trust me. Hillary Clinton can. That may be why she really is being considered for the job.

By the way, while the Obama supporters are no doubt saying, “See? He’s great offering this to HER,” they miss the point. His word cannot be taken at face value. That is, he’s a LIAR. His attacks on Hillary fueled a misogynistic rage in the US the likes of which I have never seen in my fifty years on this planet. Meanwhile, his smearing of her was joined in GLEEFULLY by his supporters, who bought every lie and smear against her he threw out there – are they not seeing the conundrum this presents for THEM?? How can they hate her so much and keep demeaning and belittling her if The One makes her the Secretary of State? Uh, yeah.

If he does offer it to her, I hope she says no. Hell no. Hell TO the no. Not that I don’t think she would be BRILLIANT at it, of course she would. She has the experience, the ability, and the personality to be an outstanding Secretary of State, and if this was John McCain asking her, I’d say she should go for it. The difference? McCain RESPECTS her, and has always TREATED her with respect. He would value her input, and would trust her to do the heavy lifting without micromanaging.

Obama, on the other hand, has not shown her the respect she deserves, and since all cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president, there is absolutely NOTHING to guarantee that he wouldn’t fire her at the least provocation. So, there’s that little piece. How do I say this? He doesn’t deserve to have her in his cabinet after the way he and the ONC stole the nomination from her and US in the first place. Makes me nuts.

And then there is this. I had just been wondering the other day what in the world Obama was going to do now that he can’t borrow off the smart kid’s work any longer like he did all during the Primary and the Election seasons. I mean, really, what was he going to do for policies once he slithers his way into the White House? Lo and behold, SOMEHOW the news leaks out he is considering Hillary Clinton for the Secretary of State. Call me cynical, but I don’t think it’s because of his great care and concern for the country. I think it is to use her to create his work for him (again), have someone to blame if things don’t go well, and take the credit for things that go well. But that’s just my opinion…

Senator Clinton can do great work in the Senate, assuming she can get past The Old Boys Club, who seemed determined to mess with her. She is a leader, though, and her constituents are counting on her. WE’RE counting on her. Senator Clinton will do what she thinks is best for her, and the country. At least THIS time, we won’t have to go through 18 months of her being dragged through the mud to to find out how this will be resolved. Either way, though it might be a hard pill to swallow…

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.

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?

First, I want to address those supposed internal poll numbers that have McCain ahead in PA, MI, NJ and closing in on CA. I have not been able to verify those numbers. They could be true, they might not be. I said back during the primaries that a Pampers nomination would put PA, MI, and NJ in play. Since we know that the pollsters have not been releasing accurate numbers, as their models are weighted heavily to Pampers, with interviewees being mostly Democrats, I think it is safe to say that this race is tied, and will be decided by the undecided voters, which have been breaking for McCain, and will continue to do so. Why? Because if you haven’t made the commitment to Pampers by now you are nervous enough about his fraudulent fascist ass that you are going to hold your nose and vote for McCain; at least he is a known quantity. Internals cannot always be trusted either.

In NC internal numbers had Clinton within 5 points and shaving a point each day off Pampers lead; she lost by 15, but we know now that was due to double counted ballots, and other methods of fraud. Numbers can be given to motivate workers, volunteers, and voters. I think the best strategy is to not put faith in numbers and work your asses off in the next 24 hours to defeat Pampers. Keep making calls. Keep canvassing, get out the vote, and go vote yourselves. The Pampers fraud machine is in full force so we need every vote for McCain to count (we can deal with the “what should have been” with Hillary later). DO NOT ALLOW ANY POLL NUMBERS MAKE YOU FEEL THIS IS OVER.

And lay off the conscientious abstainers. They have made their decision based on their ethics. Respect it. If, in the privacy of the voting booth they have a change of heart, they will do that without being cajoled by us (my entire immediate family is voting for Pampers, guess how that feels?). Now, on to Pennsylvania.

I believe that John McCain is going to win the 21 electoral votes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Tuesday. In 2004 Bush lost the state by 144,248 votes (see the above map of the 2004 result). The cities of Philadelphia, Allentown, Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre, Scranton, and Erie went to Kerry, while the entire rest of the state voted for the Shrub. Pampers will no doubt take Philadelphia. But McCain doesn’t need Philadelphia to win. He needs, and he’s going to get, Allegheny County.

In 2004 Kerry won Allegheny, and outlying counties, by slim margins:
Allegheny: 96,987

Beaver: 2,230
Washington: 552
Fayette: 4,075
That’s 103,844 votes. Leaving a margin of 40,044 votes in the 2004 totals.

There is one reason and one reason only that Kerry took these counties: Tereza Heinz-Kerry. Knowing this, Obama tried to trot her out in the run-up to the Pennsylvania primary. Her lack of enthusiasm for the candidate was pretty obvious. Obama has no such connection. In fact, the one thing he had going for him in the area, John Murtha, decided to pick the scab off the bitter/cling incident by calling his constituents racists, and then rednecks. Personally I think Murtha fell on a grenade, potentially ending his political career to prevent Obama from getting into the White House. Between that, Joe the Plumber, Bittergate, the Hillary/PUMA effect and Obama’s ever shrinking tax break income threshold (it used to be $250,000…now his ads say $200,000….his VP says $150,000….Bill Richardson says $120,000….we know it’s really around $42-50,000…middle class, get ready for the mugging) chances are McCain is going to win all four of those counties.

Another Kerry stronghold was Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties. Margins were not that wide there either.
Lackawanna County (Scranton is County Seat): 14,807
Luzerne County: 4,620

I believe that it is the PUMA effect that will have the greatest impact in drawing Democrats away from Obama. Forget Biden’s connection to Scranton. He hasn’t had any there in decades. No one is seeing his appearance there as a homecoming. It’s a hey I used to be from here vote for me kind of feeling. When Democrats for McCain and Harriet Christian are leading PUMAs on major canvassing safaris, reminding everyone what Obama and the DNC did to Hillary, the candidate they still love, what Obama said about them, etc. I see both counties in play big time. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication up there!

Joe the Plumber will also pull in votes in Allentown, and Erie. We hear time and time again that working class voters are “values voters,” meaning that they vote with the candidate whom they feel represents their beliefs, even if they are voting against their economic interests. In 2008 the McCain/Palin ticket not only speaks to them more, especially with a woman who comes directly from the working class, but will better serve their economic interests by not taxing them into the poor house, or taxing their employers into laying them off (and with those ever lowering tax thresholds that is exactly what is going to happen).

The simple fact of the matter is that if McCain’s internals didn’t have him in striking distance he and Palin wouldn’t be wasting their time. And if Camp Pampers didn’t think the same thing he and Biden wouldn’t be there either.

One final factor working for McCain: Pampers fatigue. Pennsylvania was the state that shocked the nation when polls came out saying they were sick and tired of hearing Pampers’ voice and seeing his face everywhere. They felt that way during the primaries. I can only guess how they feel now. I would imagine there are a lot of people in PA doing what I do…turning down the volume on the TV, changing the channel, or throwing random objects. No one overkills like Pampers whose motto must be, “Too much of me is never enough.” Pampers, I’ve got news for you; too little of you is too much of you. PA is also the state where Pampers told Ed Rendell, “We don’t need the people, we just need the checks.”

Don’t be surprised if it’s going to be Pennsylmania for McCain tomorrow. Sorry Pampers, you need the people, not just the checks.

[More of Shtuey Van Shtuey's superb writing can be found here]

Well, my principles have officially become inconvenient. Still, I find that I just cannot stand in lock step with a Party I consider to be hopelessly corrupt: a Party that conducted a phony roll call and cut the best candidate off at the knees in order to push their puppet king. The Democratic Party is broken and not even Hillary can put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.

Hillary Clinton gave an eloquent, passionate speech at the Convention Tuesday night. She was on her game, in command, and so committed to the goals and values she campaigned on that she emerged as the most exciting person at the Convention by far. Transcendent is the appropriate word.

All the endless media bashing and back stabbing by the losers’ club in her Party seemed to have no effect. She has emerged an icon, bigger and better than all of them. Someone the DNC wrongly pegged as a woman to be reviled has become an admired, even beloved figure; perhaps a martyr to their corrupt cause of nominating an empty suit.

How frustrating for the blogger boyz, media dogs like Keith Olbermann, and the heavy hitting DNC thug squad comprised of Dean, Pelosi, Kerry and Brazile, to name a few, that they couldn’t keep her down. She looked radiant, composed and in charge. That must have really frosted their bananas.

‘We all know what happened here,’ she seemed to say, ‘but I am going to do my job tonight.’ And she did. Extremely well. But in so doing, she only made the travesty of this nomination more evident. As Anglachel brilliantly pointed out in her analysis of Hillary’s speech, she now owes the party nothing.

So Hillary transcended. What about the rest of us?

My principles prevent me from voting for this man. He is unqualified and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Based on his past voting record, his behavior, his actions and those of his campaign, I do not trust anything that comes out of his mouth.

Do you know how I know he’s lying? His lips are moving.

Remember FISA, Senator Obama? He may pay lip service to the policies Hillary campaigned on – but I do not trust my future to him. And I will not reward the DNC’s behavior. Perhaps the nominating process was always this rigged. It just went on too long this time so we actually got to peer behind the green curtain and see the wizard.

This fixed process is the reason we always wind up voting for the lesser of two evils, never really excited about a candidate. I think voters are so beaten down by years of this, they are used to voting in lock step with their Party, shrugging: ‘Well, that’s they way it is. Where else are you gonna go?’ That’s exactly what David Axelrod and Co. count on. Sorry. No dice.

In the middle of a haircut the other day, the stylist innocently asked my thoughts on the Democratic Convention. She is a kind young woman and we have never discussed politics. I nearly exploded that Obama is useless and this whole Convention was a sham. She, you see, is ready to ‘shrug’ at the voting booth, as we all usually do and I’m sure she was mortified to find that I will not vote for Obama, though I’ve been a solid Democrat all my life.

I am equally sure there are those who feel exactly as I do – many more than the arrogant pundit class, the DNC or Senator Obama would care to admit.

What to do about my inconvenient principles? Should I just stay silent these next two months? Should I hope that people will do their own due diligence? The same due diligence that millions have not bothered to do up to this point? The same due diligence that the mainstream media will not help them do because the pablum we are fed is, indeed, a fairy tale? The media narrative about Obama’s ‘historic’ candidacy seems to take complete precedence over whether he is qualified or honest enough to lead.

And for the hundredth time, this is no longer about Hillary.

The only reason I hung with this Democratic Party of losers for 30 years was because I was confident they occupied the moral high ground. Why did they keep nominating losers; elitists that could not speak to Middle America – do Democrats think these people are unworthy of inclusion? Surely, that can’t be true. Bill and Hillary spoke to them. The DNC didn’t like that.

Lately, the DNC is all for show. Just pretend you’re pushing to pass legislation to help those in need. ‘Oh, but we don’t have a majority so we can’t do it.’ ‘Oh, but we don’t have a big enough majority so we can’t do it.’ ‘Well, we tried.’ Well, that’s a crock of crap. Hillary worked to pass SCHIP and got insurance for 6 million kids who didn’t have any. She worked with none other than Newt Gingrich.

If you really want to push legislation through – make your case to the American people. Create pressure. Get off your ass, Congress! How’s that for an idea?

How much do those cushy Dems really want change? Senator Obama certainly doesn’t. His actions completely belie all of his campaign promises. And he chose a good ole’ boy from the old guard: a Senator of 36 years; a sexist himself; his own son a lobbyist.

Remember when Pelosi, our newly minted Speaker of the House, said “impeachment is off the table”? Uh huh. Now I think I’ve got it.

With some very honorable exceptions, there are many in the party just playing kick the can and making a big dumb-show to no avail. You’ll pardon me if I don’t trust the likes of Dodd, Kerry, Pelosi, Richardson et al to push the candidate really capable of CHANGE.

Principles. They sure are inconvenient. But when is it a good time to stand up for what you believe in? I want my country back. I don’t want to be choked by an unscrupulous media telling me who my President should be. People are losing their homes. Our economy is in the toilet. We are in a mess abroad. Senator Obama just spent Six Million Dollars for a faux Grecian temple and he’s talking about reform? Bullshit.

I thought my party was the ‘better’ one but now that McCain named Sarah Palin as his VP, the sexist attacks have already begun. I thought Democrats supported equal rights for women? Guess I was wrong about that, too.

Sarah Palin is the Governor of the State of Alaska. She also commands the National Guard there: a very crucial task because of Alaska’s location. Some of the sexists might want to look at a map.

This woman has more governing and executive experience in her little finger than Obama has in his whole body and she is running to be #2 on the ticket, not #1. And his campaign is talking about her lack of experience?

She may not be Hillary Clinton, but this woman will make Obama look pale. Trust me, it’s not that hard. I can smell that Governor Palin has more grit than the phony teleprompter-addicted Obama from a mile away.

Pundits on networks and the Obamarama blogosphere are insulting her, calling her a cheerleader and a joke. How about doing a little research before you defecate on yet another woman? They are also saying disgusting and cruel things about her child with Down Syndrome – and these filthy people dare to call themselves Democrats? Not a smart campaign strategy in my view. Might piss me off even more. Principles, remember?

Hillary can sit back ruefully and note that at least she won’t be the only one to suffer the outrageous onslaught that is surely coming.

But this time, we’ll be ready.

As to my principles, no, I will not keep silent, even if it is inconvenient.

I know many thoughtful, caring and educated people who have actually lost friends because they are not willing to drink the stuff the DNC is selling. I am not happy that a couple of my friends who are still sipping the “Democrats only” kool-aid think I’m over the top. I understand why. It is entirely too frightening for them to conceive of the fact that they cannot trust the only group they’ve ever trusted. Nobody likes their world turned upside down. First of all, it’s too much work to fix it.

Perhaps if I got my ‘news’ from the Obama pillow-fluff and leg-tingle network, MSNBC, I’d think Obama was great, too. But I don’t, so I don’t.

Hillary’s entire argument, as an eminently capable candidate, was that she just wanted to be judged on the merits. Plenty of people actually did that and voted for her. The big reason she doesn’t have the nomination right now is because of the idiotic DNC riding shotgun for a charlatan.

Competence: what a concept.

Well here’s a good suggestion for everyone regardless of party affiliation or your eventual voting decision in November: do your own due diligence on the candidates. Learn who they really are and what they stand for. Up is down this entire year so assume nothing. Look at what the candidates do and have done, not just what they say. Talk is cheap. Actions speak.

Judge on the merits – not on packaging.

If people had been smart enough to do that, we wouldn’t be stuck with Senator Obama, the American Idol candidate.

And my principles wouldn’t have propelled me to abandon the corrupt Democratic Party.

Obama objected on CNN this week to “this obsession with Ahmadinejad” and explained guardedly: “I would be willing to meet with Iranian leaders if we had done sufficient preparations for that meeting.

“Whether Ahmadinejad is the right person to meet with right now, we don’t even know how much power he is going to have a year from now,” Obama added. “He is not the most powerful person in Iran.”

He said he would expect “to meet with those people who can actually make decisions” in Iran on its nuclear program, its aid to terrorists and destabilization in Iraq.

Well true, the Ayotollah Khomeini is the Supreme Leader of Iran but he doesn’t run the day-to-day affairs of the Iranian government. Ahmadinejad has more day-to-day control and while the Ayotallah Khomenini is likely to sign off on any high level contact between the United States and the Islamic Republic, it is unlikely that the Iranians would want to exclude Ahmadinejad from those deliberations.

And who in Iran is going to be willing to meet with a President Obama if Ahmadinejad is being purposefully excluded from a meeting?

And the “experienced’ foreign affairs expert Bill Richardson is beyond lame with this argument:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, for one, is drawing distinctions between Iran and Cuba.

A veteran of semiofficial negotiations with dictators, he said Obama should be open to meeting Cuban President Raul Castro, but “I think you don’t talk to Ahmadinejad. You talk to some of the moderate clerics.”

Those conversations with moderate clerics would have to be, ipso facto, behind close doors and through back channesl. For which cleric in Iran is going accept a public meeting with Obama that sidesteps the leadership of Iran? This is the most inane argument I have ever heard. From Richardson? This is sheer stupidity and they are giving McCain an opening.

As I have said before, many issues that have not been an issue in the Democratic primary for a variety of reasons from media bias to Clinton’s unwillingness to really crucify Obama will jump to the fore-front in the general election.

In this instance, Obama’s comments from July 2007 at the Citadel CNN/Youtube Debate are now front and center in the campaign. Furthermore they are likely to stay front and center because the GOP won’t let go of them. And Obama doesn’t play defense very well, does he? The Obama camp keeps on digging themselves a deeper hole.

______________________________

Visit my blog, By The Fault.

The former president tells Jay Leno Wednesday night that the two states’ delegations should not be seated at August’s convention because they “disqualified themselves.”

“It would be a catastrophe for the party.” (Via Mark Halperin’s blog)

So here’s the new logo for the Democratic party convention, via New Hampster:

And HERE’S a t-shirt for these LOSERS:

BUY YOUR T-shirts here at New Hampster’s ZAZZLE page.