I agree that the debasing attacks on the former Governor are ridiculous. Hannity just conducted an interview with Palin which brought him huge ratings. He was respectful to her and I’m sure the principles she trumpets are similar to his own. That is fine. What is not fine is the nonsense he spewed with his panel as they all got fired up defending Sarah Palin. Hannity made the remark that you can bash a conservative woman all you want – but no one would touch a liberal woman. He basically said if you’re Hillary Clinton, you’re safe from this kind of treatment.

Well, Sean, if you’re reading this – here is a little refresher course on what the left did to Hillary in 2008. And by the way, you and your right wing cronies taught them well with the fifteen years of Hillary bashing she and we have had to put up with. Here are a few examples…

“A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario.” ( Keith Olbermann, MSNBC)

“The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC)

“When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. She’s castrating, overbearing and scary.” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC)

“Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way?” (David Shuster, MSNBC)

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s cunt.” (Bill Maher, HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher)

“If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out.” (Jonathan Alter, Newsweek)

“Some women deserve to be called bitches.” (Castellanos, CNN)

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” (Leon Wieseltier, literary editor, The New Republic)

“She’s an aging, resentful female.” “She’s a ludicrous embarrassment.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, MSNBC)

“Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.” (columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune)

“She’s the most secretive politician in America today.” (David Plouffe, Obama campaign)

“We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House….She’s got a testicle lockbox.” (Rush Limbaugh)

“Someone needs to go there and take her out behind the barn.” (Pete Snyder, FOX)

“It cries.” (Glenn Beck, FOX)

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future.” And when Hillary Clinton speaks men hear, “Take out the garbage.” She does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.” (Marc Rudov, FOX News)

“She is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex…” (Bob Ellis, ABC Unleashed)

“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” (Maureen Dowd, NY Times)

“…when I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry. I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.” (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews Show)

Readers, please feel free to add your own.

You see, Mr. Hannity, there are several big reasons why Sarah Palin said she would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a cup of coffee. Those two ladies have a lot to commiserate about. They were both trashed by the left.

The majority of the comments above came from the liberal media. This was but a mere fraction of the daily filth spewed by the likes of these arrogant cowards. Never mind the shameful General T. McPeak who said “Hillary is not fit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier,” or some of the horrid, betraying comments made by the backstabbing elite in her own party. Further, the daily commentary from the likes of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so many lefty blogs who bashed Hillary, the more qualified candidate, in favor of a brand name with no experience seems to have escaped Mr. Hannity’s attention as well.

I’m sure Sarah Palin has a great deal of admiration for Hillary – her toughness, her resilience and her body of knowledge. What a shame, Mr. Hannity, that you cannot see fit to extend the same courtesy to a woman clearly deserving of your respect – even if your political philosophies differ.

This is the big problem with punditry from either side. I appreciate that Mr. Hannity has been brave enough to cover topics others news stations will not. I also appreciate that FOX News is the only network daring to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on policy, rather than cheerleading. While I may not agree with the conservative bent of the network, I do at least get some news rather than pillow fluffing. Hannity’s show clearly is more opinion than anything else, but when he ignores the experience of Hillary Clinton and the insults her supporters had to put up with in the campaign last year – his credibility takes a nosedive.

It was interesting that just before he mentioned her name, he paused for a moment – he knew he was lying about her, saying liberals gave Hillary a pass – but he just couldn’t help himself. Integrity is not selective.

It is said that character is what you do when nobody’s looking. Perhaps Mr. Hannity thought no one would be paying attention. Well, I was looking and his character last night was found wanting.

Dear John,
Just. Shut. Up.

The occasion of her instruction came because Edwards is now pondering

… “publicly” acknowledging paternity of his mistress’s baby, [though he] had not yet brought his wife around to the idea. With his mistress, baby in arms, testifying before a grand jury about the payments she received from Edwards’ associates, and the campaign aide he had pushed to claim paternity now shopping a book about the deceit, Edwards is reportedly considering a public affirmation of paternity as a way to spin the story in his direction — make it look like he is standing up to take responsibility, doing the “right thing.”

Ms. Estrich phrases the following like a delicate soufflé, perfectly timed as it comes out of the oven, piping hot and puffy:

Message to John Edwards: We know it’s your baby. Everyone knows that. You want to do the right thing? Do it privately. Do penance for the next 20 years. Wash your wife’s feet and help the poor. But don’t make public pronouncements or expect public forgiveness.

Nothing John Edwards can do will change the judgment we have reached about him. World-class scumbag doesn’t begin to describe it. I can think of no one in recent political history whose betrayal matches his.

While Ms. Estrich states that other politicians have likewise had affairs and does not excuse any of them, she points out in this case, his actions really go above and beyond the term “dog”:

How many times did I say that an extramarital affair is not an impeachable offense? It isn’t. But when your wife has metastatic breast cancer, when you use everybody around you, when you lie to her and your aides and the voters, when you distort a presidential race you had no business being in and bring a child into the world because of your arrogance and cruelty, then it’s an unforgivable one.

Therein lies the problem. His wife and campaign manager knew about the affair and advised Mr. Edwards not to run for the President in 2008. He did it anyway. I’m not going to play woulda coulda shoulda here, but the man campaigned in Iowa for two years. What if he were not part of the equation? He also took campaign contributions knowing he had this damning secret.

There was no way he could have believed he would get away with this all the way to election time. He was crucified for getting a $400 haircut. Although one could argue another man who is a political lightweight possessed of heavy personal baggage currently occupies the White House, we must remember that Edwards didn’t have the advantage of playing the race card daily to silence any critics or opponents.

Ms. Estrich rightly points out the continuing humiliation Elizabeth Edwards and her children must endure in processing this continuing mess, played out in front of a grand jury as it is determined whether or not Mr. Edwards acted illegally in funneling campaign monies to help support his mistress. Ugh.

I am reminded of the Democratic Convention last August. The second night was devoted to the accomplishments of women. Elizabeth was one of the scheduled speakers – until John Edwards’ actions were discovered. Suddenly not only he was scrubbed from the Convention, but her speech was cancelled as well. He did something wrong. She did nothing. Yet she must hide out along with him. She is an accomplished, respected woman who set an example with her courageous fight against cancer and should have been allowed to speak. She is not his chattel.

Just more of an unfortunate double standard that shows no signs of dissipating. I appreciate Ms. Estrich for saying what many should have said long ago.

It is cold comfort to discover that there is more than one politician who suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.

Huffington Post featured an exclusive excerpt from Wolffe’s book on Obama’s ascent to the Presidency. You can run over and see it for yourselves if you feel so inclined, I will not link to it. Much as I would wish otherwise, I must express bottomless contempt for the continuously disrespectful way the Clintons are discussed and regarded by the Obama camp. Apparently Wolffe appeared on the “Today” show this morning to discuss his book and the internal debates within the Obama campaign regarding offering Hillary Clinton the job of Secretary of State:

Of all his transition choices, none was easier to make, or more complex to execute, than Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Obama had long wanted his former rival on his team, no matter what his friends and aides said about her aggressive campaign… His staff opposed the idea for the most part, arguing that Clinton would never be truly loyal. But Obama was willing to leave the primaries behind, including his own strong feelings at the time. “I don’t hold grudges,” he told his aides. “I don’t worry about the past. I’m concerned about what happens now. If she can help me and Bill Clinton isn’t too much of a liability, we should seriously look at this.”

Hillary’s aggressive campaign? Heaven forefend a woman actually have the temerity to step up to the plate and compete for the nomination the way any man would. Bill Clinton a liability? Tell that to the thousands, perhaps millions who now benefit from the Clinton Global Initiative. Tell that to those of us old enough to remember the nineties when Bill and Hillary presided over eight years of peace and prosperity, a balanced budget, an enormous surplus, and unemployment cut in half.

According to Wolffe, Obama stated:

“I’m really interested in pursuing this, but I know she has some hard feelings coming out of this campaign.” Emanuel and John Podesta, the former Clinton official who ran the transition, assured Obama that she was over those hard feelings now. Obama smiled and said, “Believe me. She’s not over it yet.”

He smiled? I bet he did. Again with “over it.” Just because Obama’s surrogates daily intimated the Clintons were racists, I can’t imagine why any of us would have a problem getting over it. But this is the piece de resistance:

[Obama’s] decision to offer her the job of secretary of state came surprisingly early. Well before the end of the primaries, when his staff and friends still felt hostile to her, Obama decided that Clinton possessed the qualities to carry his diplomacy to the rest of the world.

So during the primaries when he had ‘already made this decision,’ he campaigned daily with the meme that Hillary had no foreign policy street cred and her visits to over 80 countries as First Lady were nothing more than “tea parties, even though he knew that was a bald faced lie. “Carry his diplomacy to the rest of the world” …like his grateful, supine hand maiden. Wolffe’s writing here sounds like a bunch of school boys fantasizing about a hareem. Don’t look now, but Wolffe just betrayed his own paradigm.

And no, I am not over it so don’t even go there. Nor should anybody be over it who actually cares about democracy or decency. Further, Obama states:

“We actually thought during the primary, when we were pretty sure we were going to win, that she could end up being a very effective secretary of state… I felt that she was disciplined, that she was precise, that she was smart as a whip, and that she would present a really strong image to the world…I had that mapped out.”

Obama had that mapped out. Wow. He really is brilliant. And her voters had it mapped out a long time ago that she could dance circles around Obama. Guess we should have all had degrees from Harvard, too. According to Wolffe, Clinton had “issues” including settling her campaign debt and Obama informed his senior aides:

“I’m not begging her to take this job. If she wants it, I could help. But I’m not willing to go out in these difficult economic times to do a flashy fundraiser in California.”

“In these difficult economic times?” So that’s why he has a ½ million dollar pizza party on Wednesday nights? Or jet sets around to different parts of the country to sign a bill on the taxpayers’ dime. Or why he spent $6 million of his supporters hard earned dough on faux Grecian temples at his nomination festival? Or why his Inauguration festivities cost twice as much as that of President Bush? Guess times must not be quite that tough.

But here is really the lowest insult of all. I wonder who this quote is coming from – a senior aide? Who is unnamed? What Senate Democrat actually said this – if any?

As it happened, plenty of people in the Senate were begging Obama to offer Clinton the job. Obama’s aides believed that many Senate Democrats thought Clinton had extended her presidential campaign far beyond the point where she had lost the election. Her negative advertising wasted Democratic money, threatened to undermine the party’s nominee, and suggested that she was disloyal to the party. They were unwilling to offer the junior New York senator a position ahead of her lowly rank, and she stood little chance of becoming majority leader. “There was a lot of encouragement from inside the Senate to get her into this job,” said one senior Obama aide. “They wanted her out of there.”

Why in God’s name would Wolffe write this? If he is so enamored of Barack Obama that is fine, but surely at this difficult point in our history, if President Obama actually cares about the country and our standing in the world, he would never want to undermine his Secretary of State. Would he? Giggle, giggle. And let me go on the record as saying if the knuckle draggers at the Obama campaign are anything like his frat boy speechwriter Jon Favreau, who put a picture on his Facebook page of he and a pal groping a life sized cardboard poster of Hillary Clinton and forcing a beer down her throat, that should clarify the level of some of the folks who helps to get our current President elected. Is it any wonder that we read quotes like these: “They wanted her out of there…”

And if it is in fact true that the Senate Democrats “wanted her out of there,” it is because they couldn’t bear their shame in looking her in the face at work every day. She was forced out after a nominating contest that was razor close, and was not even allowed to legitimately have her name in nomination, though she had won the popular vote. She outclasses every single one of those cowardly back stabbers. And if anyone wants to complain about who depleted voters coffers so there was no money left for Senate Democrats, you have to look no further than the Obama campaign, who outspent her three to one. After Mr. Obama promised he would help Harry Reid with down ticket races, he reneged. So how real is this complaint anyway? Furthermore, the Clintons have raised more money for the Democratic Party over the years than anyone.

After the Presidency, Secretary of State is the biggest and most important plum post– everyone from John Kerry to Governor Richardsion was begging for it. I’ll bet VP Biden would have rather had SoS than the position he now holds, so to pretend they had just successfully farmed Hillary Clinton out to the minor leagues for the sole purpose of “getting her out of there” is laughable at best.

Further, Glenn Thrush of Politico chimes in to note that:

Wolffe may be overstating the case. According to my reporting at the time, some Senate Democrats admired Clinton’s grit, and many others thought she’d earned the right to ride out the campaign to the end.

It looks as though Wolffe’s blockbuster reporting is just more revisionist history coming from Obama’s sour aides who were pissed that an amazing sixty year old lady in a pantsuit actually made their candidate sweat for something he wanted. It is no less than horrifying to appoint a Secretary of State who clearly knows what she is doing and is a huge asset, only to constantly disparage her as being no more than an egregiously disloyal, irritating inconvenience. I wonder if Wolffe realizes how bad and how petty he makes Obama’s aides look for their negative characterizations of SoS Clinton when clearly, she has repeatedly demonstrated her willingness and ability to rise above all of this. Then again, Wolffe is a “contributor” to Newsweek/MSNBC. Uh, need I say more. Oh, but he does:

As for controlling the uncontrollable Bill Clinton, Obama’s aides drew up a series of checks on his fundraising for both Clinton Global Initiative and his work on HIV/AIDS across the world. But they really counted on Hillary to be the ultimate safeguard – against both her husband and her own ambition. “It’s in her interests to keep him in line,” warned one senior Obama aide. Others in Obama’s inner circle said the president-elect believed Clinton needed to demonstrate that she was a team player and to shape her own career and legacy. “There are plenty who don’t trust her and think she still harbors something,” said another senior adviser. “It’s still potentially problematic down the road. Barack’s thinking on this is that it’s not in her interests to mess with us. She can’t win that fight internally and she’s smart enough that she won’t want that fight publicly.”

Her own ambition? Again, ambition in a woman is something dirty to be rejected, but a man with less than two years in the Senate under his belt running for President – that vaunting ambition would not be considered negative. Clearly, Hillary put ambition aside and graciously opted to help Obama get elected to push forward a Democratic agenda. Disloyal? How dare these arrogant asses say anything of the kind? If Secretary of State Clinton has any failing at all, it is that she is loyal to a fault – and has certainly received no end of slaps even from some of her own supporters for that very attribute.

Several weeks into the administration, even Clinton’s internal critics believed the relationship was a success. “They have both worked really hard at it,” said one senior White House official. “There’s a natural affinity and respect that ironically grew out of being opponents. You get to know someone really well after all that.”

What respect? Obviously, if Obama and his camp had any respect for her, we would not be reading any of this tripe. President Obama’s aides and advisors once again exhibit their complete lack of class by stating this drivel. They will never forgive Hillary Clinton for outclassing their chosen messiah on preparedness, knowledge and stamina. Clearly, he will not forgive either, as he must always remind everyone how superior he is. I would gently like to remind Mr. Obama that he is the President. So we don’t need any reminding. Perhaps he needs to remind himself as he still feels somewhat insecure in this regard. Hillary Clinton encouraged us all to look behind the curtain to see the Wizard and for that she must forever be punished, as though anything she is given by Obama is a favor for which she should get down on her knees and thank her lucky stars.

To the contrary, it is President Obama who is extremely fortunate to have her on his team. And frankly, I think he well knows that. She made 180 campaign appearances for him to drag him across the finish line and to signal to her supporters that it was okay to vote for him. She must be in his prayers at night because certainly he needs an adult minding the store on foreign affairs, something he is woefully unprepared to handle.

At first, I was so angry writing this it took twice as long to get my fingers to work properly. However, the more I think about it, I take their obsession with diminishing Secretary of State Clinton as a huge compliment. Surely if you feel a constant need to deflate and degrade another person and make it appear as though you have your boot on her throat, she must be quite intimidating indeed. Further, I think it an odd coincidence that this book comes out now, when Hillary Clinton’s popularity in the polls has eclipsed that of President Obama. Clearly, popularity polls are not something this lady is worried about. She is busy quietly doing her job to the best of her ability as she always does.

All this goes a long way to illustrating that sexism is alive and well in this country. The woman must be kept in her place at all costs. As much as Hillary Clinton’s supporters are constantly told we need to “get over it,” by the tenor of the comments Wolffe quotes in his new book, clearly, it is Obama’s people who are not yet “over it.”

In his article Obama morphs into old rival Clinton, Politico’s Alex Conant posits that all Obama’s campaign promises which distinguished him from Hillary have now been thrown out the window:

A year ago today, with returns rolling in from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, the late Tim Russert so famously declared, “We now know who the Democratic nominee will be, and nobody is going to dispute it.”

Russert was right, but Hillary Clinton, nevertheless, kept campaigning for several more weeks, fueled by her supporters’ convictions that her proposals were better than Obama’s. After barely 100 days in office, it now appears Obama agrees: Since taking office, he has dropped virtually every position that distinguished him from Clinton. Granted, there were not many policy differences between Obama and Clinton during the campaign. But those that existed were sharply debated and helped Obama define himself as the pragmatic change agent that many voters now believe him to be.

Change agent, my foot. The late Timmy was right, much to our chagrin and dismay. And perhaps, much to the dismay of his lefty supporters, who now see what we Hillary voters saw coming all along: She had the better platform. She knew it. Obama knew it, and what’s more the DNC knew it. The only difference is, they wanted a brand, not a leader. Barack Obama is the face they wanted on the jar of spaghetti they were selling to the American people and to the world – not hers. It is as simple as that.

Politico, who did as much electioneering for President Obama during the primary as anyone, should now also admit that, unlike Obama, Hillary was indeed honest about her platform and held the best and most sensible positions on important issues. She was always running as the general election candidate and never bamboozled anyone into believing she held one position in order to cull votes from another candidate, only to drop that position like a hot potato once those votes were in her pocket.

Politico, in this self serving little treastise, omits serveral other important points, however. Whatever policies Obama is adopting now that may resemble Hillary’s does nothing to diminish the fact that he is also maintaining plenty of policies of George Bush. Hillary never reneged on FISA, as Obama did, nor would she ever go so far as to expand these wiretapping provisions as Obama is doing. She would never expand Bush’s faith based initiatives, as Obama did. She vowed to put an end to signing statements. Obama is using them.

Conant states:

Take Iraq. …[U]nlike Clinton — [Obama] had a hard date for ending the war. Clinton repeatedly questioned the wisdom and sincerity of Obama’s pledge to remove all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. It was the biggest difference between the two candidates — and one of the top reasons Obama won the nomination.

Yet just weeks after entering office, Obama largely dropped his campaign plan. Rather than withdraw all combat troops on a set timeline, Obama opted for a conditions-based withdrawal that will leave as many as 50,000 troops in the war zone at the end of 2011 — exactly the sort of drawdown he maligned Clinton for proposing.

Well, of course, because, as her husband famously said, Obama’s plan for Iraq was “a fairy tale.” But Conant is also oversimplifying the differences in their plans here.

Health care is another example. While Obama was outflanking Clinton on the left on Iraq, she made up for it by criticizing his health care plan as inadequate. Both candidates claimed to support universal health care, but only Clinton’s plan included a government mandate that would force all Americans to have health insurance.

Primary voters will recall Clinton and Obama endlessly debating this, with Clinton accusing Obama of leaving about 15 million people without health care and Obama warning voters that Clinton’s plan would require “harsh, stiff penalties on those who don’t purchase it.”

Just as with Iraq, Obama is now moving toward Clinton’s position. His budget outline proposes a health care plan that “must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.” That strongly suggests a mandate, since any volunteer system would see some opting out.

But does that mean Obama is adopting Hillary’s exact plan, which was always better and far less expensive than his own?

Lobbyists are another case in point. Obama criticized Clinton for her connection with them and she said “a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it not, represent real Americans.”

…Obama promised to ban anyone who had recently worked as a lobbyist from serving in his administration. But that promise was broken even before he took office, when the president-elect chose several lobbyists for high-level posts, including deputy secretaries at the Defense and Health and Human Services departments. (Ironically, Obama even nominated a lobbyist to be an assistant secretary of state under Clinton.)

Conant also states that Obama capitalized on the old “Hillary is divisive and polarizing” moniker hung around her neck by the Republicans, intimating that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a return to partisan politics. I guess that’s why Obama met with Republicans a couple of days after being inaugurated to arrogantly proclaim, “Well, I won.” So much for the new era of bipartisanship.

As Obama confessed at his prime-time press conference last week, he’s fallen short on that front, too. Since taking office, the president’s agenda has been demonstrably partisan; nearly every bill he has so far signed into law passed Congress on a party-line vote. If Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office instead of Obama, it’s hard to imagine how Washington would be any more partisan.

And since Hillary Clinton has a proven record of reaching across the aisle, I doubt she would have conducted herself in such an arrogant fashion. Conant concludes:

Clinton lost the battle for the Democratic nomination, but a year later, it appears her campaign has won the war of ideas within the Democratic Party.

She won more than the war of ideas. She won the damned primary. If the DNC hoi polloi wasn’t so busy putting their finger on the scales to tip them toward Brand Obama, perhaps the American people would have had a chance to see that.

One week prior to the election, John King of CNN excoriated his colleagues in the media, blaming their “obsession with Hillary Clinton” as the cause for not vetting Barack Obama properly. That is no excuse, of course. While this national obsession of ‘blame Hillary’ may have died down in other circles, as Secretary Clinton is now enjoying untold popularity, higher than that of the President, places like Politico have not caught up. Is this article trying to capitalize on her great popularity now by saying that Obama is more like her — thereby basking in some of her current glow, or are they tacitly blaming her unseen, magical and all powerful influence for him reversing course on his campaign rhetoric. This doesn’t quite work for me, as even Prof. Jonathan Turley came out recently to note that President Obama is expanding policies beyond those of George Bush. I do not believe Hillary would do this.

Furthermore, there is a big difference between a leader and a brand. A leader is someone who proposes smart policies from the beginning and makes every effort to see the entire chess board in so doing. A leader does not just pick a policy, run it up a flagpole to see if he can get away with it, then if there is a hue and cry, drop it like a hot potato and pretend he was never trying to do it in the first place.

Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton, were she our President today, would have made the rookie mistake of reneging on closing Gitmo, then bow to pressure from the left the next day, sign an Executive Order to close it, then get stuck leaving it in place, possibly returning to military tribunals after all, only after the fact realizing she had nowhere to put these prisoners? That no one wanted to take them? No. That was President Obama’s rookie mistake.

Unlike our current President, a President Hillary Clinton would have thought through the ramifications of such actions and figured out where she was going to put these prisoners before making such an empty proclamation. You know, Senator McCain would have thought it through, also. And even said as much when he was interviewed about this very situation months ago. That is the difference between leadership and a brand. That is the difference between experience and empty theories or armchair quarterbacking.

A leader lets you know who they are up front and then stands by those principles. It is not only a matter of platform, it is about understanding how to execute that platform. Even CNN’s Anderson Cooper acknowledged, re the current AFPAC talks, that Hillary is “large and in charge.”

Further, leadership is about understanding the real facts on the ground. Platform notwithstanding, I suspect Hillary would have known better than to try and ram every part of the agenda down the American gullet at once. Since she has a far better understanding of the economy than he, I am confident that finding the financial floor and helping the housing situation would have been her first priority. I also doubt she would have stood before the American people to terrorize them into thinking America was on the verge of collapse.

I wonder if President Obama is figuring out Hillary knew what she was talking about after all. He’ll certainly never admit it.

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.

One can debate the pros and cons of the ‘do as I say, not as I do’ attitude of having a veteran Democratic political operative speak at a non-partisan event, but when that event regards Women’s History Month – how can Donna Brazile of all people show her face? She will forever be infamous for her Obama Derangement Syndrome. Let me offer up my own definition of someone suffering from this ailment: a person who will trumpet an unqualified candidate over a more qualified one beyond all reason, to the point of selling any and all opposition down the river to do so.

Perez reports that “already some of the same “politicization” charges are being flung at the Justice Department” and…

A flyer sent to Justice Department employees advising of the March 31 Brazile appearance, says “Supervisors are encouraged to grant official time to employees to attend this event.”

In an effort to allay such concerns, Ms. Brazile made the following outrageous statement:

“During my remarks, I will pay tribute to women who dare, women of courage and the many milestones we have achieved and the path ahead,” Brazile said in an e-mail. “I am going in my capacity as an Adjunct Professor in the Women and Gender Studies at Georgetown University — not as a CNN contributor, ABC news consultant or Vice Chair of the DNC [Democratic National Committee]. Perhaps, I am going as a woman of valor — a woman of courage to pay tribute to women who work at the DOJ and elsewhere.”

Women who DARE? I am apoplectic reading this. I am less concerned with the fact that she is a Democratic operative going to speak at the DOJ, than I am with the fact that this woman has no right speaking at an event touting Women’s History Month – or “women who dare” when she spent the entirety of last year trampling on a truly worthy “Woman Who Dared” in Hillary Clinton.

“A woman of valor?” She calls herself a woman of valor? Perhaps Donna Brazile once had valor. But now? She used her position both as a CNN commentator, a frequent guest on This Week with George W. and her senior status within the DNC to influence the outcome of the primary in Barack Obama’s favor at every turn. She was downright insulting to Secretary Clinton and at the RBC on May 31st, Ms. Brazile went completely over the top to help arrange the absolute theft of rightfully earned Clinton delegates, thereby gifting them to Obama.

Perhaps Ms. Brazile is trying to rescue her reputation by speaking on behalf of women — it is far too little far too late. I wager this is her effort to calm the raging correspondence she has received from many women for selling out the most qualified one to come down the pike in 30 years.

I had a back and forth email correspondence with Ms. Brazile the morning of March 4th just preceding the Texas and Ohio primaries. I asked her very respectfully to be unbiased on the news and to give Hillary Clinton a chance. I also made my argument that she endorse then Senator Clinton as the more qualified candidate who offered better policy solutions and who had the gravitas and know-how to be President.

I expressed my fear that Barack Obama had not yet been vetted in the press and made my case for the necessity of doing so. While I will not share her exact words, suffice it to say Ms. Brazile felt that vetting was a useless endeavor that only led to lies and distortion. Oh really? You see where that’s gotten us now. She also, on many occasions called Hillary Clinton out on the carpet for running an arrogant campaign. Really? Barack Obama, the American Idol candidate, has run the most arrogant campaign in history. Six million dollars spent on faux Grecian columns ring a bell?

Matthew Miller, a Justice spokesman, said “Donna Brazile was selected as a speaker by a committee of career employees who believed she would offer an informative perspective on Women’s History Month.”

An informative perspective, indeed. If she stands there and dares to talk about Hillary Clinton putting 18,000,000 cracks in the glass ceiling, then truly there is no justice on earth. As Perez reports further below, I find it interesting that there is outrage from the Republicans that a Democratic political operative would speak at the DOJ, but no outrage – so far—that someone would claim to speak on behalf of women when she sat on top of that glass ceiling with every ounce of her power and influence to make sure Hillary couldn’t break through:

At about the same time as the prosecutor firings scandal was raging, the Bush Administration acknowledged that political operatives, including Karl Rove, held partisan briefings at more than a dozen government agencies. At the briefings in 2006 and 2007, employees were told of House Democrats who Republicans were targeting for defeat, as well as the prospects for some Republicans. The White House at the time defended the briefings as appropriate.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer who worked in the civil rights division during the Bush administration, first wrote about the Brazile event for National Review. Von Spakovsky himself was drawn into some Bush-era Justice controversy over accusations that he made politically tainted decisions in the civil rights division.

Von Spakovsky had this to say:

“What I find amazing about it is if DOJ had invited a Republican campaign consultant to come speak to employees when John Ashcroft or one of the other prior Bush Attorney Generals were there, there would have been a tremendous outcry about it”.

Yes, there probably would have been an outcry. But this is the “do as I say, not as I do” administration. We don’t hire lobbyists, until we do (and write a special dispensation exception letter allowing us to do so). We don’t make personal attacks, until we do (Joe the plumber, anyone? Gov. Palin, anyone?)

I can’t waste any more copy over this except to note that Donna Brazile is atop of the list of women who broke my heart last year. She knows all too well the great qualifications and smarts Hillary Clinton would bring to the job of President. For Ms. Brazile to irrationally betray her own knowledge and good sense in order to tout a man for the job who is clearly not ready to handle it is not indicative of a woman of valor.

Rather these are the actions of a “woman who dared” to turn her back on her own principles. These are the actions of a woman who dared turn her back on other women by trumpeting a less qualified man – once again telling women to go to the back of the line. Forgive me, but I truly believed Donna Brazile, with whatever struggles she has had to face in her own life, would be the last person to do such a thing.

Good news for Michigan and Florida Democrats. You might not get cut out of the party’s messy primary voting process again in 2012.

Of course, with an incumbent Barack Obama, the Democrats’ presidential-candidate-picking process may be moot:

Assuming the rookie Great Change Agent quickly fills five dozen empty slots at Treasury, fixes the nation’s economy, creates multiple millions of jobs, reforms the country’s entire education system, makes it affordable to ever Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskilly American, creates a thriving green economy, reduces dependence on foreign oil, solves the housing crisis, keeps interest rates low, prevents inflation, avoids an Afghan quagmire, cuts taxes for 95% of Americans, screws over the other 5% and halves the national debt.

Oh, and cleanses the culture of greed and entitlement on every U.S. street including the one named Wall.

Last year’s Democratic primaries were hardfought even bitter affairs, not helped by the initial banning of the results of those important twin states, which denied Hillary Clinton two crucial albeit sneaky victories.

What the hell does THAT mean?? The only one who was SNEAKY in this process was OBAMA!! He’s the one who took his name taken off the ballot, and encouraged others to do so as well, to try and embarrass Clinton out of the win! He’s the ONLY one who campaigned in Florida, and Clinton still won in a landslide. And SHE’S the one who is sneaky? Okay – I see how they are revising history on this one. Because we can’t have anyone better than Precious, can we? Ah, yes, because EVERYONE wanted Obama, apparently – except for the majority who voted for Clinton, but let’s not allow facts to influence the storyline. Ahem.

Back to the article:

And all presided over by another former unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate, Howard Dean.

Dean is gone now, unceremoniously dumped and denied a Cabinet job by the Obama camp, in favor of parttime chair, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia. He”ll take over fulltime next year to earn his D.C. chops and, come 2012, probably replace aging Joe Biden as Obama’s VP who, you may remember, was a senator way back when Obama was a sixth grader. (Although keep your eyes on Missouri’s most Twittering senator.)

But watch out. CNBC announced today that Dean has signed on there as a commentator. Now, all that cable channel needs is some viewers and Dean can be heard to get even on-air.

Oh, yippee. But this is where is gets good:

The 37-member Democratic Change Commission will be headed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (who likes to Twitter) and Rep. James Clyburn, both ardent Obama backers. And Obama’s ex-campaign manager David Plouffe is also on.

The goal, Kaine says, is “to put voters first and ensure that as many people as possible can participate.” A complete list of commission members is below; scroll down or click on the “Read more” line.

The commission, which grows from a convention resolution by Obama last August, will have three goals: chop the number of superdelegates, reform the caucus system and change “the window of time” for caucuses and primaries. Should Iowa and New Hampshire be worried?

The commission’s report is due by next New Years Day.

I’m sorry, but how are the same people who created the problems we had this past Primary going to REFORM it?? You have my back-stabbing, lying, conniving representative, James Clyburn in there, the one who pushed the meme that the Clinton’s were racist. And DAVID PLOUFFE!!!! The man who orchestrated Obama’s campaign, the one in which he engaged massive caucus fraud, and the above mentioned shenanigans.

This is just great. I wonder how they are going to reform it, exactly? Abolish it completely so Precious can forever on out be the Democratic Nominee?? Having these folks on this committee is a whole lot like having the foxes guard the chicken coop. I am not expecting a whole lot of protecting our votes here since this was the tack Plouffe took during the vote controversy: What we’re interested in is a fair resolution; we don’t think it’s fair to seat them fully,” Plouffe said.

“We’re not going to support something that gives her too many delegates. We all last year played by the rules. It was only after the fact when they needed the delegates that they tried to change the rules. I don’t think you can at the 11th hour change the rules that you try to live by because it benefits you.” But Obama’s stance on the issue, like his opponent’s, has just as much to do with politics as principle; the Obama campaign clearly doesn’t want Clinton to close the delegate gap enough that she can possibly convince enough superdelegates to throw their support her way, or give her a chance to claim a victory in the popular vote.

The One was the one who was trying to change things, but the key statement is the first one, “We’re not going to support something that gives her too many delegates.” Never mind that she WON those delegates with OUR votes. And taking lawfully cast and certified votes from one candidate to give to another is so far from any sense of fairness and decency, that I cannot imagine how someone like David Plouffe is going to “reform” the nominating process. All primaries will now be caucuses with ACORN running them? All voting precincts will be staffed with ACORN members, or Obama Army personnel? Only people whose last name beings with “O” and end in “a” can run? Whatever it it, I think they just may have to remove that pesky word from title – you know the one, “Democratic.”

Here’s the rest of the gang:

Membership of the 2009 Democratic Party Commission on Change:

Co-Chairs: Sen. Claire McCaskill, Missouri, and Rep. James Clyburn, South Carolina.

Members: Jeremy Alters, Florida; Jeff Berman, Washington, D.C; Ashley Bliss, Georgia; State Rep. Dan Blue, North Carolina; Bill Carrick, Los Angeles; Mayor Michael Coleman, Columbus, Ohio; Jeff Forbes, Washington; Joan Garry, New Jersey; Kansas state chairman Larry Gates; Adelita Grijalva, Arizona; Rob Hampshire, Pennsylvania; Ned Helms, New Hampshire.

Also on the commission: Alexis Herman, Virginia; Tribal Chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Teamsters Pres. James Hoffa, Michigan; Roseanne Hope, Minnesota; Nevada state senator Steven Horsford; Suzie LeVine, Seattle; UAW CAP Director Dick Long, Michigan; Andres Lopez, Puerto Rico; Patricia Madrid, New Mexico; Debbie Marquez, Colorado; Illinois state senator Iris Martinez; Jennifer McClellan, Virginia; Montana secretary of State Linda McCulloch.

Also: Iowa attorney general Tim Miller; Minyon Moore, Washington; Sunah Park, Pennsylvania; Plouffe, Washington; Rebecca Prozan, California; James Roosevelt, Jr., Massachusetts; Rep. Linda Sanchez, California; Randi Weingarten, New York; Oregon state chair Meredith Wood Smith; Martin Yeung, South Dakota.

I am referring to the Employee Free Choice Act, the brainchild of the large unions in this country, who paid a whopping $67,500,000 (round figure) to elect Obama. And now they want their payback.

I hasten to add, as I have said before, I am NOT anti-Union. As long as the unions are acting in the best interest of their employees, and the industry in which they work. But I gotta tell you – when we are having to essentially bailout unions, and then find out they have spent over 67 MILLION dollars this past year to get Obama elected, or find out that AFL/CIO officials are meeting in a very swanky resort in Miami, it gets just a tad irritating. We are bailing them out, and they are hanging out by the pool at a resort which bills it’s CHEAPEST room at approximately $400 a night.

And now, the big unions, along with the help of President Obama, want to remove the secret ballot to determine if a shop becomes union or not. The following video highlights the problems with that:

To provide a fuller view, and to hear from the other side, there is this exchange:

Lou Dobbs also considers this issue on his program (as well as another union bill):

Here’s the thing. The right to vote in secret, without fear of threat or intimidation, is a fundamental DEMOCRATIC right. For Unions, and DEMOCRATS, to push to remove that option is hypocritical in the extreme, and a dangerous precedent.

The DNC already demonstrated May 31, 2008, that they do not give a damn about the rule of law when they took lawfully cast, certified votes from one candidate to give to another. The one receiving the votes declared it “fair,” which it was only to him, not the hundreds of thousands of people who did not vote for him. So, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that the Democrats are now pushing for even more unfair voting, in this case, a payoff to a group that gave them tens of millions of dollars. BUT – that is so far from the concept of free and fair elections, of the right to cast a SECRET ballot, as one can get. And it is flat out undemocratic, no matter how anyone wants to spin it.

What’s in a name? A lot, to be sure, but only when the name is accurate. The “Employee Free Choice Act” is not free, and not a choice.

It has become one of MSNBC host Chris Matthew’s most infamous lines of the 2008 presidential election:

“I felt this thrill going up my leg,” Matthews said the night Obama resoundingly defeated rival Hillary Clinton in the Virginia and Maryland Democratic primaries.

In case you need a little reminder, here you go:

If you feel the need to go take a shower, I understand. Blech. Apparently, Goldberg shared my sentiment:

And former CBS News Correspondent Bernard Goldberg, who has long alleged liberal bias in the media, highlighted that line as indicative of the media’s “slobbering” press coverage of candidate Obama during his campaign for the White House.

“That’s not commentary, that’s a man-crush,” Goldberg declared on CNN’s Reliable Sources Sunday.

Goldberg, the author of the new book “A Slobbering Love Affair,” credits the media coverage of the 2008 presidential election for ultimately resulting in Barack Obama’s victory.

He specifically faulted coverage of the prolonged Democratic primary campaign, during which two historic candidates contentiously squared off.

“I think in elite liberal circles, certainly inside the media, race trumps gender, and that’s why they slobbered over Barack Obama, and took Hillary Clinton to the back room and beat her with a rubber hose,” Goldberg said.

You’ll get no argument from me. There is no doubt the media was biased in his favor, running far more positive articles than negative ones. Clinton, by contrast, had more negative press than positive. Surprise!! Um, not so much.

And then, Mr. Goldberg took the media to task for their lack of, well, journalism:

Goldberg also faulted political journalists for not digging up controversial sermons of the president’s longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, until Obama had already effectively captured his party’s nomination.

“These tapes were available, you didn’t have to be Woodward or Bernstein to dig them up,” Goldberg said. “If those tapes had come out six months earlier, certainly a year earlier, I don’t think Barack Obama would have been the nominee.

“I think Hillary Clinton would have been. And I think she would have been the president today,” he continued. “And in that sense, she’s the biggest loser in all of this.”

Uh, no kidding. Even Bernstein is no longer a Bernstein, having fallen into CDS (that’s Clinton Derangement Syndrome, for those who don’t know), and being a part of that negative press. Even when Clinton was beating the PANTS off Obama, you would scarcely have known it by the reporting…

I do take exception to one comment by Mr. Goldberg, and that is this: “And in that sense, she’s the biggest loser in all of this.”

No, Mr. Goldberg. WE are the biggest losers. Our trust in the democratic process is the biggest loser. Our sense of fair play and decency is the biggest loser. The United States is the biggest loser.

But thank you for speaking up. It would have been nice had it been sooner, but I guess we’ll just have to take later…

I published this satire script about a month ago here at No Quarter.  It hit the front page the same day as Governor-Gate hit and right after Cardboard-Cutout-Gate was all over the place.

You remember back in mid-December, right after the infamous picture of Obama’s speech writer copping a faux feel-up of a cardboard-cutout full-size replica of Secretary of State (to be) Hillary Clinton.  And immediately after that outrageous fiasco, the news hit about Governor Blagojevich trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Right between those two major events, that’s when this little skit got published.  It may as well not have been published at all, for all the attention it got.  (pout)

And, taking some of the blame on myself (mark your calendars), I didn’t really set it up properly.  I just published it as a script, with no intro, except to belabor the obvious point that it was satire and not an actual transcript of a real recording.

So let me do a little set-up now:

All through 2008, we’d been wondering how in the hell it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee decided to throw its weight behind Obama, and to deliberately sabotage Hillary’s campaign for the nomination.

It had to be a conspiracy of some kind!  You know it’s true!  People were talking about Hillary being the next president even before 2004!  So what happened?

Well, believe what you want, but this is how it might have happened, IMHO.  I was thinking, “Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that conversation!”  And this script was the result of my daydreaming about what that fly might have heard.

———————————————————————————————-

“Fly on the Wall (do-over)”

In an office meeting room are The Fetid Four: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Donna Brazile. They are stewing over the Democratic loss in the election of 2004, and starting to think ahead to 2008.

HOWARD: (both hands pressed to his temples in anguish) I can’t believe Kerry lost!  Bush is so awful!

NANCY:  He’s a war criminal.  He should be impeached!

DONNA:  Yes!  And Cheney, too!  And you know what that means… (nudges Nancy) …Madam President!

(room erupts in nervous laughter)

HARRY:  Even if you had the votes to impeach in the House, you know that in the Senate we only have a one-vote majority…

NANCY: (cutting him off) That is so not gonna happen, so let’s just play the cards we’re dealt.

(general murmur of agreement)

HOWARD: (peering over his glasses) Well, one thing is for certain, we’ll win the next one, no matter who we run!

NANCY:  Absolutely!

DONNA:  Hell, even I could win it!

HARRY: (shaking head) Let’s not get carried away.

DONNA: (indignantly) Oh, thanks!

NANCY:  But I get your point.  Doesn’t matter anyway, because Her Nibs, Queen Hillary, is the heiress-apparent.

HARRY:  It’s an abomination!  What has she got, like two years in Congress?

DONNA:  Hillary… (makes gagging noises)

HOWARD: (laughing cautiously as he loosens his tie) I don’t think we can stop her… unless…

NANCY:  Unless what, Doc?  You planning on running again?

HOWARD: (wistfully) No, no, no… unless you think I should…

HARRY:  Oh, for the love of…

DONNA:  I don’t think so!

HARRY:  OK, so who can beat her?  She’s got all the momentum right now.  And the money.  She’s a walking ATM!

NANCY:  Let’s worry about the money later.  Even assuming she has the most cash, money’s not everything.

DONNA:  True.  If it was,  Soros would be running!

(Big laughter all around)

HOWARD:  Problem is, he’s not Natural Born.

HARRY:  You mean… he was born Caesarian?

HOWARD: (laughing) Good one!

HARRY:  Huh?

NANCY:  Natural born citizen!  Have you ever actually read the Constitution?  Article II?

HARRY: (blushing and flustered) Yes, I’ve read it!  Twice!  What do you think I am, an idiot?

(uncomfortable silence for several seconds)

HARRY: (struggling to recompose and assume an air of authority) Look, you know what I meant!  It was a joke!

NANCY:  Of course.

DONNA:  Sure it was.

HOWARD:  Well, I thought it was funny!

DONNA:  You would!

NANCY:  Medical humor, doc?

HOWARD:  Sure!  I mean, from an obstetrician’s point of view.

HARRY: (snorts and snickers)

DONNA:  Let’s not go there!

NANCY:  Come on, children! Let’s focus!

DONNA:  Well, anyway, like I was TRYING to say before… I think anyone we nominate is a shoo-in!

HARRY:  I thought it was “shoe-in.”

NANCY:  What?

HOWARD:  That makes no sense at all!  You mean like a boot?

NANCY:  No, it’s “shoo!” Like in “shoo fly!”  Or you “shoo” the horse into the barn.

DONNA:  What are you talking about?

HOWARD:  Horse shoes?

DONNA: (shaking her head in bewilderment, pronounces words studiously) Shoo.  Shoe.  Sorry, I don’t hear any difference!

NANCY:  Well, it’s “shoo.”

HARRY:  Are you sure?  Because I always thought it was like “shoe in,” like … (pushes with foot)

NANCY:  What, you’re going to kick the candidate into office against his will?

HOWARD:  I agree.  It’s “shoo.”  Like you’re just shooing them through without effort, because there’s no resistance.

HARRY:  I still think it’s “shoe.”

DONNA: (getting visibly agitated) Look! It doesn’t matter!  Our guy is going to win, that’s my point!

NANCY:  Or girl… woman I mean.

(all eyes turn to Nancy warily)

NANCY:  Well, not me, obviously…

HARRY:  Obviously…

DONNA:  Although it would be great to have a woman president… I just don’t want it to be Hillary!

NANCY:  No shit!

HOWARD:  Well, I agree to an extent.  I mean, as liberals, and as leaders of the Democratic Party, I do think it’s our duty to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make some history.  “The first female president!”

NANCY:  Yes! But not that female!

DONNA:  We agree on that, sis! (high-fives Nancy)

HARRY:  Then who?  Kathy Sebelius?

(general mumbling of discontent)

HOWARD:  Claire McCaskill?

NANCY:  Oh, please!  She’s… (shakes her head) No. Not her!

DONNA:  What if it’s not a woman?

HARRY:  Claire McCaskill’s not a woman?

(others ignore him)

HOWARD:  What do you have in mind, Donna?

DONNA:  What if…?  What if it’s a man, but a man of color?

HARRY: (does double take) You mean Bill Richardson?

HOWARD:  Oh, good lord…

DONNA:  No, I was just thinking about our keynote speaker at the convention.

NANCY: (smirks, knowingly) You still carrying a torch for him?

DONNA: (elbows Nancy sharply, glaring) No!

HOWARD:  Something I should know about?

HARRY:  I think she’s talking about Senator Obama, but we can’t run him.  He’s totally green behind the ears!

HOWARD:  Green behind the ears?  What the hell does that mean?

NANCY:  Well, Donna thinks he’s hot!

DONNA: (pouts and kicks Nancy under the table) Shut up!

HOWARD:  OK, so we know he’s hot and green behind the ears.  What else do we know about him?

HARRY:  Well, I hear he’s pretty much broke.  Had to do some financial flim-flam just to buy a house.

HOWARD:  Anything illegal?

HARRY: (clears throat) I don’t know all the details, but I heard some rules were bent at the bank.  Some third party, a shyster lawyer or mob guy or something…

HOWARD:  O-keeeeeeeeeeeeeee!  “Next!” Who else we got?

DONNA:  Now wait a minute!  Let’s not rule him out yet.  Look, you know a lot of women are still mad at Hillary for staying with Bill after he had sex, or whatever he had, with Miss Fatty Blue Dress.

NANCY:  True.  She should have at least done a Bobbitt on him. (makes scissors gesture)

HOWARD:  Ouch! For a BJ?

HARRY:  Don’t forget the cigar.

NANCY:  Oh gaaaaaaaawd… I’ve been trying to forget it!

DONNA:  My point is that just because she’s a female, doesn’t mean most women will vote for her.  She’s not a shoo… I mean it’s not written in stone.

HARRY:  “Etched in stone.”

HOWARD:   I agree. It’s “etched.”

DONNA: (slams both palms on the table) Whatever!  I’m just saying “forget Hillary!” The next election is ours!  We can’t lose!  Let’s make some real history!  Now, while we can!  It’s a chance of a lifetime!  Let’s elect a black man!

NANCY:  Agreed.  We can do the woman later.

HOWARD:  Woohoo!  Sounds like a party!

HARRY:  Are you sure he’s black?  I heard he was Indonesian or something?

HOWARD: (enunciates the name slowly) O-bah-ma… I don’t know, that sounds pretty African to me!

DONNA: (frowning) He’s half white, half African.  In fact, you can’t get much more African than him.  He says in his book that his daddy was from Kenya.

HARRY:  He’s written a book?

NANCY:  An autobiography.

HOWARD:  How many pages?  Three? (laughs loudly)

DONNA:  Look, he’s an excellent speaker!  He’s handsome, he’s got charisma, he’s a cool guy, and he’s… good-looking.

NANCY:  I think you’ve established that you think he’s attractive.

DONNA:  Well?  Isn’t he?

NANCY:  Not to me.

DONNA:  Why?

NANCY:  Oh, I don’t know, he’s just not my type, I guess.

DONNA:  You mean black?

HOWARD: (gasps) Uh-oh!

HARRY:  You’re a racist?

NANCY:  No!  That’s not what I meant!

DONNA:  Uh-huh.  Then what do you find not attractive about him?

NANCY:  He’s just, I don’t know, too skinny, for one thing.  And those ears!

DONNA:  That sounds pretty racist to me!

NANCY:  What?  Are you kidding me?

HOWARD:  Wait a minute, I think we’re onto something here!

HARRY:  America isn’t ready for a black president.  Let’s face it.

DONNA:  You too?

NANCY:  See?  I’m not the racist, he’s the racist!

HARRY:  I am not a racist!

NANCY:  Well, neither am I!  I’d vote for him!

HARRY:  Well, so would I!  But will the teamsters?

HOWARD: (cynically) The teamsters will do whatever we tell them to, as usual.

NANCY:  OK, so let’s be serious a minute…

DONNA:  I am serious!  Think about it.  If the four of us get behind one candidate, we can stop Hillary.  I know we can!  We just need to get my friends at Acorn to get the vote out in the first couple of primaries and take the momentum away from her!

HOWARD:  Acorn?  In Iowa?  Have you ever been to Iowa?  I have!

NANCY:  Yeah, so we’ve heard.

HARRY:  How could we not hear?  As loud as you yelled… Yahoooooo!

NANCY:  No, it was more like Yeehaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

DONNA:  If we can try to stay on topic… I really think we can pull this off!  Seriously!  Just let me spell it out for you.  First, it’s our turn, the Democrats I mean, and after Bush and Cheney, it doesn’t really matter who we nominate.  We will win!  That’s why everyone thinks Hillary has it made.  But it doesn’t have to be her.  We can take her down if we play it right.  We’ve got Acorn on our side!

HOWARD:  Not in Iowa, we don’t!  In Iowa, it’s about corn, not Acorn.  Hell, it’s more white-bread than New Hampshire.  And do you think Acorn can even find enough voters in Iowa to win?  You’ve got the Clinton Machine, you’ve got pretty-boy Edwards…

DONNA: (quickly draws a crude map) Lookie here.  You’ve got Iowa here, and right next door, Illinois.  That’s Barack’s state.

NANCY:  Oh, I see!  Illinois is close enough to Iowa, you think voters will identify with the guy from the next-door state!  That might help.

DONNA:  Well, that’s part of it, but think about this.  These are caucuses, not elections.  And we can run a shitload of buses from Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City… all full of brand new Iowa voters.  They swamp the caucuses, because even in Iowa hardly anyone goes to those things.  It would only take about one or two busloads per precinct.  Our guys swarm in, make a lot of noise, a little intimidation, and before the Clintons know what hit them, Hillary’s toast!

NANCY:  I think you’ve got something here!  But are you sure we can sell America on voting for an African-American man with a name that rhymes with Osama?

HARRY:  There you go being racist again!

NANCY:  I am not a racist!

DONNA:  I can’t believe you’re so racist!  Stop the hate!

HOWARD: (slaps table hard) That’s it! That’s how we sell it!  If anyone questions his name, his character, his background, anything… we play the race card!  And good old white liberal guilt will shame them into voting for him!

HARRY:  Brilliant!

NANCY:  I love it!  It gives me hope! Maybe we canchange candidates!

DONNA: Yes, we can!

HOWARD: (scribbling notes furiously) This is the best idea we’ve had in a loooooooooong time!

DONNA:  Too long!

NANCY:  Much too long!

HARRY:  That’s what she said!

Perhaps you have now heard that a 1996 questionnaire for Barack Obama has mysteriously reappeared AFTER he was elected (which of course he could not have done without the DNC’s new take on voting, i.e., it doesn’t really matter for whom you cast your vote – they will give it to whomever they damn well please). Yes, it is a questionnaire that Obama filled out, and signed himself (though he’ll probably blame it on some staffer pretty soon here) in which he says he SUPPORTS same-sex marriage!

Say, WHAAA??? Yes, indeedy! Ben Smith of Politico.com has this article, “Obama Backed Same Sex Marriage in 1996“:

A document has emerged suggesting that Obama had taken more public, liberal stands in the past than had been revealed in the digging of reporters and opposition researchers over two years of campaigning, the latest of several pointing to a rightward shift as he moved into national politics.

In a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper, then called Outlines, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage, which he has opposed on the public record throughout his short career in national politics.

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement.

There was no use of “civil unions,” and “no compromise whatsoever,” the Windy City Times story today notes.

On another questionnaire the same year, Obama said he would support a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

The editor of the Windy City Times, a successor of Outlines, Tracy Baim, said she hadn’t deliberately held onto the news until after Obama’s election. Baim, who had been the editor of Outlines at the time, said that just before the election, she ran across the old Outline story saying Obama backed same-sex marriage, but only dug his forgotten questionnaire out of an old box this week, having assumed that she’d lost it.

Obama now says he opposes same-sex marriage, though he backs giving gays and lesbians a parallel package of marriage-like rights, and opposes a federal ban on same-sex marriage.

Here is a copy of the document:

Okay, now why does ANYONE believe Obama on ANYTHING he says? He changes like the wind. You never know which way he will turn.

Oh – and did you notice his response on #10? He has dialed down that rhetoric a bit now, too. Here is but one take on his position. A quick search will provide many more.

Next on the list is Obama’s choice of dining companions last night. Marc Ambinder has a report in this article, Obama Dines With Conservative Opinion Leaders“:

It’s true.

He motorcaded to a house in Maryland this evening, and if the press pool report is accurate, he is breaking bread with William Kristol and David Brooks. (If Brooks and Kristol seem to be unusually briefed about Obama’s thinking, you’ll know why.)

CBS News’s Dan Raviv tells the pool that the house, on Grafton Street in Chevy Chase, belongs to George Will. (Unless he’s moved.)

Tomorrow, I hear Obama has another private meeting with non-Republican opinion columnists.

Ellen Moran, the incoming White House communications director, set these meetings up.

Again — establishment opinion matters to the Obama communications team.

Oh, I just can’t wait to see what’s next with Mr. Slippery. But I won’t have to wait for long, thanks to Comcast. Oh, yes — Comcast has decided to run an All-Obama-All-The-Time Channel. No, I am NOT making this up. Seriously — it’s for real.

I know I have said before that some Obama supporters (oh, all right – many) are just delusional, not accepting the reality of who this man is and for what he stands (if you can figure it out, that is – except we do know he is at least anti-gay, so there’s that). But this has morphed into flat out insanity. I honestly thought we had reached the zenith of nut-job-iness (yes, that’s a technical term!) with the Bush supporters, but Obama’s supporters are making them look like the most well-balanced, intelligent, grounded folks around. Except for those of us in the reality-based community, that is.

This is just crazy. Crazy!! Can you IMAGINE what all of these exact same people would have said if Comcast has an All-Bush channel?? You know that everyone would be screaming BLOODY murder about that! But now, our nation has collectively crossed the line, and this has become acceptable. Holy crap.

There are two bright lights in the news this week, though. One is that Caroline Kennedy is being edged out in her Camelot quest for Senator Clinton’s Empire State seat. Yes, the people of NY, you know, the ones who really SHOULD have a say in all of this since it is their representation at state, are backing Andrew Cuomo. Assuming their governor is paying attention, it will be nice to see that at least one person doesn’t sell out to the highest bidder and actually listens to their constituents (oh, you know about what I am talking – all of those senators and representatives who didn’t give a WHIT who their constituents wanted for the Democratic nominee – I know, I know, not that it would have mattered since the DNC didn’t care, either, but still…It would have been, um, nice if SOMEONE had a backbone. Maybe Paterson does!).

And the other bright light – well, bittersweet, really – is seeing Senator Clinton display her brilliance and command of the issues during her confirmation hearing (if only C-Span would STOP tossing it from channel to channel to online back to channel).

Watching her, though, is just a reminder of who we SHOULD Have had, this brilliant woman who knows policy. Who makes it CLEAR where she stands, e.g., with women and girls who are being abused as she did yesterday, when she said this:

“They want to maintain an attitude,” she charged, “that keeps women unhealthy, unfed, uneducated, and this is something that results all too often in violence against these young women.” (NYTimes Live Blog)

“This is not culture, this is not custom, this is criminal,” she said.

She’s got that right.

And to all of those women who supported Mr. Misogynist, you blew it. BLEW it. He is not the one who will ensure that women’s rights are human rights. Hillary Clinton will. Obama is a perpetrator of sexism. Clinton is on the side of equality. But I digress.

Back to the hearings: She has a mastery of issues and policies that should be the envy of Obama. Yes, she looks tired. Unlike Bush, I mean, Obama, she has not had a vacation (Obama has had two since the DNC gave him the nomination, in case you are keeping score – TWO). Clinton has continued her tireless work. So, yes, she looks pretty tired, but she can still talk circles around Mr. “Uh, Um, Uh, Well, Look.”

Bittersweet, indeed. Watching Senator Clinton talk is just an ugly reminder of how the DNC and Obama screwed the majority of Democrats in this country. Seeing her is a reminder of who we COULD have had, who we really needed to get us out of this mess we are in. Because Mr. First Term Senator With No Record On Which To Stand is not going to be the one to fix it.

The one saving grace is the comfort of knowing Secretary of State Clinton will be handling some major issues facing us, at home and abroad. (I still cannot get over the way Obama LIED about her extensive Foreign Policy experience, with his minions buying it. No sooner had the last state reported, for all intents and purposes, he announces Clinton for this very important foreign policy post, citing her experience!! Oh, but the Obots will excuse that, too, just like every other damn thing they refuse to acknowledge.)

So that’s the quick round-up. Feel free to add other goings-on of the day!

Oh, wait – sorry, I am getting ahead of myself now. See, there was this article on Sunday, Anne Hathaway Against Rick Warren, But Won’t Turn Back On Him at Inauguration.

Now, in case you somehow missed it reading your issue of People or OK! or wherever it is they have this kind of info, Ms. Hathaway is a big Obama supporter.

What a SURPRISE! Not. Well, she was mighty upset at him over his choice of Pastor Rick Warren to play an important role in the Coronation. Here’s what she had to say about this offensive choice, along with the generous set-up by the author of the article:

Hathaway is also proving to be incredibly articulate, and, as the year passed, politicized in a way that puts her in the legacy of Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon. She speaks her mind about issues she feels passionately about.

One of them is Barack Obama—whom she backed—and his choice of Rick Warren as the Obama Inauguration’s clergy of choice.

“I am against it,” Hathaway told me at the after party last night amid champagne toasts to her, to Streep, and to her “Rachel” co-star Rosemarie Dewitt. “My older brother is gay, and so its a family issue for me. My father is coming with me to the Inauguration. At first we discussed not going, and then we thought we’d just turn our backs when he [Warren] speaks. But we didn’t want to be disrespectful. So we’re going to wear ribbons protesting his appearance.”

So she’s outspoken, and polite. That’s a combination you can’t beat.

Wowie freakin’ zowie, Anne – you are practically another Norma Rae, I tell ya! Way to stand up to the man, especially in solidarity with your gay brother! Hell to the yeah, wear that ribbon! That oughta learn Obama that you are not happy with his choice of YET ANOTHER homophobe for the big occasion! Of course, it isn’t stopping you from GOING, or from supporting him in the FIRST place, this misogynistic homophobe who has surrounded himself with anti-gay, anti-choice men at EVERY turn.

I don’t know about your brother, but speaking for me only, I gotta tell you, it just does not feel like a whole lot of support. If someone consistently surrounds himself with actively anti-gay people, it should tell you something about him. And if all you do is make excuses for him, or protest by wearing a ribbon while still participating in his Coronation, well, that has about ZERO impact. But you just go ahead and tell yourself you are taking a stand while still participating in the event. Oh, yeah – that’ll sure learn ‘em, as we say down here in the South. Power to the people!

I cannot even begin to tell you how sick and tired I am of this. People who claim to care about GLBT issues and rights, who have family members who are GLBT, or even GLBT people themselves who continue to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to who Obama really is. What the HELL is it going to take to get through to you? He does not give a DAMN about the GLBT community. If he DID, he would not associate with The IL Senator Rev. James Meeks, who is rabidly anti-gay . Or Donnie “God Delivered Me From Homosexuality” McClurkin. Or Doug “Hell No, You Gay People Can’t Marry!” Kmiec. Or invite one of the big haters of Gay people – Rick Warren – a man who will not even allow us into his CHURCH – to be up front and center in his Big Event. Or who chooses Tim Kaine, another big time gay hater, to be THE CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, the very party the GLBT community has, by and large, supported.

Oh, that’s not a slap in the face or an affront at all!! Oh, and Ladies – both Warren and Kaine don’t think you should be able to choose what happens to your own body your self either! What a GREAT feminist minded guy he is! Treats women like crap in the open for eighteen months, and yet still is lauded as being a FEMINIST by Ms. Magazine! That is just obscene.

And yes, I have heard that The Right Rev. Gene Robinson has now been asked to give an invocation at a Sunday night Lincoln Memorial Inaugural event. Oh, well, that just makes EVERYTHING okay now, doesn’t it? A last minute addition to an event that is not exactly the main event will make all of us gay people all of a sudden forget that Obama chose a rabidly homophobic, misogynist to be on the Main Stage. Oh, yes, I am so thankful for this crumb dropped from the table. Maybe Obama isn’t such a hater after all, right?

Freaking spare me already. I have had it. Sorry if I am being pissy, but this is just sheer stupidity. Yes, I said it. At what point are his followers EVER going to hold him accountable?? EVER??? This is like the people who thought George Bush could do no wrong no matter WHAT he did – the refusal to join the “reality-based community” is just as strong among the Obama supporters as it was for the Bush supporters. You know, the same ones we ridiculed. Enough already. Stop with the excuses. Stop the denial. And stop pretending that wearing a little ribbon will make any difference to the issue at hand – Obama’s homophobia. Here’s a newsflash: Obama is not the Saint you created him to be.

Frankly, Warren and Kaine are not all that different from Ken Blackwell, the potential RNC Chair, who said, “Homosexuality is a compulsion that can be contained, repressed or changed.” Please tell me why that is any more unacceptable than the crap Warren spews about unrepentant gays not being allowed to attend his church, and equates us to pedophiles and incest perpetrators. Or Kaine spewing this:

Marriage between a man and a woman is the building block of the family and a keystone of our civil society. It has been so for centuries in societies around the world. I cannot agree with a court decision suddenly declaring that marriage must now be redefined to include unions between people of the same gender.

Or this:

And finally in the area of adoption. Virginia has adoption laws right now that I agree with. The adoption laws say the only couple that is allowed to adopt is a married couple.

I’m just saying – not a whole helluva lot of difference there.

Here’s the deal: no amount of ribbons are going to change who Obama really is, Anne. He is a homophobe who surrounds himself with homophobes. And don’t tell me that this is just one issue among many. This is not an “issue” – it is my LIFE. Just as being a woman is not an issue, but my LIFE. Who Obama chooses to elevate is telling, telling indeed. That is the reality.

It is WAY past time for his followers to come back to the reality-based community and take a good, hard look at the man who was given the Democratic Nomination while they covered their eyes and ears, no matter how much we tried to tell them who he really was. Because let me tell you something – Hillary Clinton would never in a bazillion years pick someone so offensive to women and GLBT people. She NEVER would have appointed an anti-gay, anti-choice man to be Chair of the DNC. So when you stood by, and allowed the RBC/DNC to engage in vote theft, when you stood by while Obama engaged in caucus fraud, when you stood by while ACORN engaged in rampant voter fraud, you gave your tacit approval to Obama’s homophobia and misogyny.

Stop turning your back on THAT, and FACE the reality of what you have done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, he’s had watermelons (Rezko, Ayers) and apple boxes (Wright, Auchi, Kilpatrick) thrown at his house of cards, too, but the MSM has been fast to rebuild it. Just like they are now in scrubbing news sites of stories following the election about his meeting with Blagojevich regarding his Senate seat. No, I am not kidding you. News sites that just yesterday had the story now have a recant that they didn’t mean it. I am not making this crap up. Just look HERE (h/t to AmericanGirlinItaly for this link). Which country is this again, when we have news sources scrubbing their own sites of news that might cast aspersions on Obama by TELLING THE TRUTH when he is lying – from public view?? Wow. I think it is safe to say when that happens, we no longer have a Fourth Estate, but a government-run propaganda arm. I didn’t think that was supposed to happen in a democracy.

Oh, right – we no longer have a democracy after this year, which is how Obama even got to be the Democratic nominee. If we did, he never would have BEEN the Democratic nominee because his lying (which we are seeing daily on the whole Blagojevich thing), cheating, stealing, and nefarious associates would have brought him down LONG ago. As well they should have. And it WOULD have, had this indeed been a democracy in which the people’s voices, and VOTES, mattered. But, hey – why quibble now – that’s what the Obots say! After all, Obama is the President-Elect now, so we should all band together and sing his praises! Um, no, not me. Because democracy actually matters to me. And how someone got where they are matters to me.

Anyhoo, I don’t know that the PEBO can actually scrub the FBI files, and that may be the watermelon and apple box to his House of Cards. One can only hope. He has gotten by with too many lies, too many deceptions, too much duplicity by the colluding MSM as it is. If it takes a federal agency to expose Obama for who he is, more power to them. Their record of the two-hour conference call with Blagojevich and his buddies discussing the whole Obama replacement – with “the various Washington advisers” should make for some interesting reading, I would think…

And he can’t scrub the governor’s site, either, which has a little press release about discussing the whole Senate seat thing. Oopsie daisy!! Ahem. Do you think that Gov. Blagojevich is going to keep any secrets now that Obama, who WORKED FOR HIS ELECTION AND RE-ELECTION, is now calling for Blagojevich’s resignation? Uh, yeah, no. Should be an interesting few days.

This is an Open Thread. What’s on your mind?

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…