They are creating an opportunity for people who are not part of the establishment of either party to get on the presidential ballot. While I cannot profess to know much about the organization behind this movement, the idea itself is an intriguing one:

For the 68 percent of Americans who said in an ABC/Washington Post poll released Wednesday that they had a negative view of government, the possibility of having a presidential candidate free of the currently gridlocked political parties could be just a few clicks away.

The nonpartisan, nonprofit Americans Elect has collected petition signatures – millions of them [1.6 million in California alone] – in all 50 states to put a “candidate of the people” on the ballot in November 2012. This candidate would be selected through an online draft and nomination process instead of through the traditional Republican and Democratic parties primary and caucus schedule.

“We are creating competition for all these folks who are politically homeless,” said Elliot Ackerman, Americans Elect’s chief operating officer. “A lot of the folks that engage with us are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and those people don’t really have a voice in our political system right now. What we’re doing is really creating an incentive structure so that those individuals will be competed for.”

I understand the sentiment. I too have felt politically homeless since I witnessed the shenanigans of Democrats in the 2008 primaries. Whether one is in favor of Hillary Clinton or not, for her to have achieved a virtual tie in delegates, lead in the popular vote and still be cast aside at the Convention as the clear loser was the final disgrace in a contest fraught with sexist hazing and character assassination. Her opponent, however, received rose petals and caresses from the media daily, coupled with a startling lack of examination for his pie-in-the-sky – and often contradictory — campaign promises.

But Hillary’s treatment – and the disgraceful treatment her 18,000,000 supporters received at the hands of the mainstream media had another effect on the populace. We saw that the media, in the name of anointing their favored candidate was not above calling millions of Americans racist to threaten and keep them in line. Not to mention fellow Democrats calling us every dirty name in the book for supporting the “ho” and not the “bro.”

When we were called “low information, dried-up Archie Bunkers” by pundits and party powerful alike, many of us for the first time stepped back from the party we stood with for many years, ostracized and rejected. For the first time we felt what it must be like to be a conservative in this country, insulted regularly by the bulk of mainstream media and by many elitists in the DNC. As someone who made hundreds of GOTV calls around the country, I found that the “backwoods hillbilly” meme the media tried to sell was a lie. The mainstream media continues to hemorrhage credibility. There are many like me, waking up from a kool-aid stupor, no longer willing to accept demagogic ranting of the left or right at face value when its sole purpose is to fill Party coffers.

Continued gridlock in Washington, the refusal of either side to let productive legislation be crafted if it is contrary to the interests of politicians’ powerful backers, or partisan jockeying to prevent the other side from getting credit for a win has rendered us, for all intents and purposes, without advocates in Washington – regardless of where we fit in the progressive/conservative spectrum.

So far, the group has secured a spot on the ballot in six states, has collected the required number of signatures in four states and has about half the necessary signatures in four other states. Americans Elect spokeswoman Ileana Wachtel said the group would begin the petition process in seven more states within the week.

[snip]

The eventual nominee can be a member of either party or an independent but must chose a vice presidential running mate who is from a different party. Ackerman said he expected many of the losing GOP presidential candidates to move into the Americans Elect primary process after Republicans chose their nominee.

[snip]

“In the primaries you have to go far to the right or far to the left and tickets are having a hard time tacking back to the center,” he said. “Americans Elect allows a ticket to run authentically without having to go to extremes in the primary.”

A coalition ticket is an inviting notion although I cannot imagine who would be willing to abandon their own party in order to couple with the ‘enemy.’ A Sarah Palin perhaps…

While I am skeptical an idea like this can take hold to upend those currently in control of our two parties, its very existence, along with the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street should really give those in power something to worry about. Democrats have mistakenly tried to co-opt the current disorganized (and sometimes confused) OWS protests as their own version of the more conservative Tea Party movement, yet increasingly OWS is making clear they feel President Obama has sold out to Wall Street. Republicans also worked to co-opt the Tea Party movement, with mixed results.

Congressional approval is at an all time low. President Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank. Polling also reports that Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, even the currently downward trending Gov. Rick Perry could all beat Obama next year. Even still, Republicans are not all that enthusiastic about their choices. Neither party is anxious to undo the Gordian knot of special (read big money) interests that actually do the governing in this country. The phrase “politically homeless” rings as true as it is painful. To feel like it is not possible to trust the majority of our elected officials to do the right thing leaves many feeling bound and gagged. Americans are inching closer to that pitchfork moment.

Is the Americans Elect concept a good one? If so, who would you want on such a coalition ticket? And do you think there is any hope we can get ever move past the current plutocracy? We don’t want to split the vote and keep an ineffectual incumbent in office, but in the long run would enough dissatisfaction expressed through these myriad movements around the country actually lead to reform of our system?

Only when the failing crop currently in office know they are about to lose their jobs do we have a prayer that they will finally start to do their jobs. And yet, if they are fired, as long as they can count on a ritzy “K” street paycheck or some cushy commentating gig on CNN – what muscles can we flex to keep them honest? The teat is still flowing…

Freshman Senator Marco Rubio is often discussed as a contender and future star of the Republican Party in part because of his narrative, and in part because he is telegenic. Not to take away from his other qualifications or accomplishments, but his message, thus far anyway, is fairly generic. Unlike some we could name, at least Rubio acknowledges he has a way to travel before being ready for high office.

And while Christie is the chief executive of his state and one might argue he is more qualified to govern than the man currently occupying the Oval Office, Christie himself has pointed to his short tenure as an obstacle. And what is his foreign policy experience? Even if one believes Christie is off to a good start, it is a tad early to tell how his policies and behavior will benefit his state over time. Shouldn’t we wait a little longer to find this out before pushing the guy into a job he may not be ready for? Haven’t our political geniuses done that already?

We are in a mess that will take time to correct and someone with not only the willingness but the ability to do it. Wouldn’t the mess be a little less messy if we elected a policy wonk and experienced hand? Perhaps someone less magnetic but with some know-how, a clue as to policy, a record of working with Congress effectively, a strong understanding of economics and the workings of the business community? Or are we content with “Yes we can” speeches and viral You Tube videos?

Without detracting from Governor Christie, it appears Mr. Phillips et al are most concerned with having a Republican contender who is not afraid to tell the President off. That may also have accounted for Donald Trump’s momentary appeal. They are looking for magnetism to fill the enthusiasm gap. But while I agree any opponent needs to take the fight to President Obama, both sides need more than rhetoric this time out. 2008 was about the cult of personality. Celebrity had more value than solid smarts. Just ask Hillary Clinton about that one.

How many Americans have been reduced to digesting our politicians in slogan form; readily accepting pabulum fed to them by mainstream media? If voters who seem to have a problem doing research into someone’s voting record keep following their current patterns, we will merely ricochet from one personality and one extreme to another.

Practicing reactive politics keeps us distracted, looking for new “enemies” and wedge issues rather than solving problems. We are manipulated daily. Eight years of the neo-con agenda pushed many into the arms of Obama. In 2006, Democrats took back Congress, In 2010, we ping-ponged back the other way. But is either side really doing anything to help? Or are voters hearing “words, just words” from their respective group while we get more demagoguery and few adult solutions.
As the late George Carlin once said:

“You think you have choice in this country? Here are your choices: leaded or unleaded, window or aisle, regular or decaf.”

I came up with a policy of my own at the voting booth. I vote for whoever the media does not want. I am beginning to see that I also have to vote for whoever each respective party does not want.

In tandem with Mr. Phillips, Jay Cost published a piece the other day entitled “Just How Big a Deal Is Enthusiasm.” He avers it would be better for a candidate to be a little less exciting and better able to execute — and hold their support — once they got into office, rather than to seduce and later disappoint.

Incumbency, pretty sound bites and huge campaign war chests notwithstanding, I would respectfully suggest that from here on out both parties look for candidates who have the best interests of Main Street at heart and the record to prove it before we anxiously and recklessly shove them onto a national ballot.

That’s the question raised by David Fletcher of the LGBT Mentoring Project of the Learn Act Build Program at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center. Mr. Fletcher’s findings have been documented in this article in the LA Times, Behind the numbers of Prop. 8: It’s crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8′s victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage..

Huh – and here I thought we already knew the answer to that question, as I wrote back in November 0f 2008: Obama and his supporters. That’s the short answer, anyway. Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, after all. That is also the answer to how Proposition (or Amendment) 2 passed in Florida that election, too, a law far more restrictive regarding the LGBT community, but one that is rarely, rarely mentioned, even though it garnered 62% of the vote.

But here is the point Mr. Fletcher wishes to make:

[snip] After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans’ views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents. [snip]

There is more to this report, including wrong-way voting which affected both sides, though that seems to be the case more for those who OPPOSED same sex marriage actually voting for it (500,000). You can read the rest of the article HERE, and the full report at prop8report.org.

Yes, it seems 687,000 people shifted their votes in the final weeks. And those people were mainly Democrats. Is Mr. Fletcher really surprised by this? I have been saying for some time now that the DNC is not as “gay-friendly” as they would like us to believe. Again, Obama himself opposes same-sex marriage. So, the outcome should not be a huge surprise, at least not to me. Curious that it seems to be a surprise for Mr. Fletcher.

I find it interesting that Mr. Fletcher made a point of claiming it is not the fault of African Americans – entirely, that is. He seems to want to take the heat off of the African American community while having to acknowledge that, while their numbers may not have changed that much from polls before the vote to the vote itself, they still voted FOR Prop 8. Um, is that revised look at the data supposed to be a comfort to those affected by this votes?

Regardless, I have been saying for almost two years now that it was the Democrats, in both California AND Florida, who voted to suppress our right to marry. It’s a fact, Jack, no matter how one looks at the data. Sad, but true.

While we are talking about Democrats and votes, guess what the Democratic Party has decided to keep? Oh, you could see this coming a mile away: Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates: A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback..

“A reform effort…suffers a setback”? Uh, yeah – one could say that, but that is if one was ever foolish enough to believe the Democratic “bigwigs,” which includes Obama, by the way, were ever, ever going to give up that power in the first place.

Oh, sure, Obama made noises about abolishing the Superdelegates after he bullied them into giving him the nomination (along with votes for Hillary which the RBC did), as this article reports:

[snip] After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

Let’s just look at the plethora of Obama sycophants listed right there. Are you seriously trying to make me believe that if Obama wanted this Superdelegate thing changed, it wouldn’t be? Spare me already. Oh, he wants to keep it the same – he wouldn’t be where he is today without the Superdelegates (not to mention Convention delegate, voter, and caucus fraud, but hey – no need to be picky, right?).

And the outcome of the proposed change? You know it – you knew it from the get-go. They said NO:

[snip] But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All of us who were paying attention May 31, 2008, who watched as the Democratic Party revealed its true colors right before our eyes, knew damn well the Rules and Bylaws Committee would never, ever willingly give up such a great tool for overturning the will of the voters. These days, that’s just how the Democrats roll.

I am so glad Mr. Fletcher made it clear that it is Democrats who voted FOR Prop 8, though we knew that already. But hey – never hurts to get a reminder, eh?

And we got another reminder from the RBC this week, too. How we vote, for what we vote, for whom we vote, one thing is clear – the Democratic Party does not stand for what it says it does: it is not the party of the people. And it damn sure is not the party that cares about one person, one vote. Glad the RBC made that crystal clear one more time for those who missed it a couple of years ago.

Like I said, these days, this is just how the Democratic Party rolls. I expect we will see more of the same in 2012, but then again, with this bunch, I never expected anything different. How about you?

UPDATE: As you may have heard by now, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughan R. Walker ruled that Prop. 8:

[snip]…violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court. [snip]

I am sure there will be more about this in the coming days. But, WOW!! Good news!

UPDATE #2: Just in case you were wondering if, maybe, just maybe, this reversal by Judge Walker has had an effect on Obama’s stand against same sex marriage, the answer would be No. Obama continues to oppose same-sex marriage. Oh, but he supports us. Yeah. Right.

The Republicans don’t do that! That kind of repudiation didn’t happen to Bob Dole, GHW Bush, or Gerald Ford. Of course, the Republicans have the advantage of not losing nearly as many presidential elections. I guess that kind of skews things. Dubya still has plenty of supporters among Republicans, and thanks to Obama’s miserable presidency, even some Democrats nowadays think wistfully back to the good old days of The Dub!

President Bill Clinton hasn’t been completely cannibalized, but many Democrats have tried to cut him off at the knees. I find that hard to understand. Bill Clinton was the only Democratic President since FDR to win and serve two full terms of office (the only other Democrats to do so were Woodrow Wilson, and the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson). He presided over a period of unprecedented prosperity, turned the national deficit into a surplus, and managed to conduct military operations (as part of NATO) in Bosnia and Kosovo without loss of American lives. Despite his accomplishments, many Democrats, those of his own political party, hate the man! And they extend that hatred to his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or CDS, is how some of us refer to this bizarre hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Obama is President because the Democrats would have won in 2008 no matter who they nominated, and the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, in the delirious throes of CDS, decided amongst themselves that they didn’t want Hillary to win because they didn’t want the Clintons back in the White House. That’s why so many people blame Bill Clinton’s controversial impeachment for Hillary’s loss.

She was the best candidate in the field of aspirants, but the Clinton’s themselves often promoted the idea that they were “two (Presidents) for the price of one,.” starting with the campaign of 1992. Many people of both parties really disliked that notion for some reason. Perhaps it’s too much like royalty for their tastes, having a family in charge of the country instead of one leader. Maybe it’s just too much of a good thing.

It seems these Democrats, most of whom defended the Clintons in the 1990s, have bought into the Republican propaganda with the militant zeal of the newly converted. We expect it of Republicans, but it just seems weird coming from the those who are still Democrats. The vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons won, I guess.

Republicans started trying to take the Clintons down during Bill’s first election to the White House by calling him a draft dodger and Communist sympathizer. They pounced on accusations from women who claimed Bill had affairs with them, or worse. They tried to bring the Clintons down with endless investigations. They couldn’t find any legal wrongdoing by the Clintons, even after years of a Special (Republican) Prosecutor trying to pin the tail on the donkey.

They finally managed to corner Bill into denying, under oath, that he had “sexual relations” with Miss Blue Dress, sparking the national debate over whether oral sex performed by one individual on another constituted “sexual relations” when no intercourse occurred. Many agreed with Bill’s definition, others didn’t. But no other president has ever been forced to testify under oath about his sexual dalliances. If they had, the list of perjurers could be quite long, but Bill was the only one faced with it in the age of DNA testing. So far.

This fudging of the truth, when confronted on camera with evidence of marital infidelity, resulted in his being impeached (accused) on the charge of perjury by the House, but subsequently acquitted (found “not guilty”) by the Senate. How conveniently people overlook that acquittal.

Bill stood his ground, continued as President, and finished his second term. He even remained very popular, with high approval ratings to the end of his term of office.But because he had been impeached, he became anethema to many in the Democratic Party. His impeachment will be forever remembered by both dumbasses and selective-memory types, as “he was thrown out of office for getting a blowjob at his desk.”

Listening to some of these idiots, you’d think Bill so befouled the Oval Office that Dubya Bush had to have it sand-blasted before he’d set foot in it.

Meanwhile, during his travails and after, Hillary won much sympathy from many people, while others got very angry with her for staying with Bill. My own view is that it’s nobody’s business but the Clintons. But talk about class and character! How many of us, of either gender, could keep our chins up as well as she did when Bill’s sexcapades made headlines? I think there were a few news reports that she was furious, maybe even one report (true or not) that she threw something at him. Rumors abounded that the reason Bill strayed was because she was a lesbian, and other rumors that their sexual relationship was definitely over when the Monica story broke. I doubt any of those rumors and reports held much truth. She may have made him sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom for awhile, but I believe their marriage is based on love and devotion, and that they weathered the storm as well as any couple could, or better.

But these opinions carried over into Hillary’s political career, with some saying she had no chance of success because of Bill, or because she stayed with Bill, or just because they’ve always hated her for being too outspoken. So Bill was the albatross around Hillary’s neck as much as he was, as others have put it, her escalator to the Senate.

What I was hearing during the early part of the primaries, in 2007 and early 2008, was that Hillary didn’t stand a chance because of Bill. They just couldn’t imagine Bill keeping his nose clean, let alone keeping it out of her decision-making. Ironically, these are some of the same folks who used to joke about President Hillary being the one who was really in charge in the 1990s.

What my liberal friends kept saying was that they REALLY didn’t want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House. They offered a variety of reasons. Some have always hated Hillary for their own twisted reasons, or they are desperately ashamed of Bill because of his impeachment and all that it entails. Or perhaps they’re just jealous of him because they’ve never had a BJ themselves.

I see the Clintons as a Power Couple, a pair of equals who communicate well and share their opinions with each other openly. I suspect Hillary voiced her opinions to him when he was the POTUS, and I would imagine he is her closest counsel as well. Personally, I like the idea of getting a two-fer.

There’s no doubt Hillary has always been a power in her own right, a force to be reckoned with. Having been a successful high-profile attorney, after a brilliant university performance, she married an aspiring politician who became governor of Arkansas a few years after they married. She was First Lady of Arkansas for ten years, which put her into politics.

To detractors who say she wouldn’t be the powerhouse she is on the national political stage without riding Bill’s coattails, I would say that’s also true of all the (mostly male) politicians who got where they are by hitching their wagons to other (mostly male) politicians already in power. Or perhaps they were born into it. And they say America hates dynasties.

Bill may have made Hillary a star, but she helped make him what he was/is, and she shared with him the experience of being Arkansas’ First Couple for a decade. Did she rise to fame in politics because of him? Certainly. But the same is true of him. It’s definitely true that successful couples nurture each other, bring out the best in each other, and grow together. True, he held the offices, but it’s not like she was confined to the kitchen in an apron and pearls. She’s no Donna Reed. And definitely no Tammy Wynette!

So the questions remain, the speculation continues, and the opinions are all over the road. Did Bill’s notoriety keep Hillary from winning the nomination? Or will he eventually help propel her into the Oval Office? I hope for the latter. But she may have to have it sandblasted first.

But now we are finding out that this threat may have been overstated, though I seriously doubt it is as a result of Obama’s claims. Actually, it is worse than that. As it turns out, Climate Scientists Withdraw Journal Claims of Rising Sea Levels.

Say what?

Again, I believe in being a good steward of this planet on which we make our home regardless of how much the claims of global warming may, or may not, be exaggerated. I have long been an environmentalist, and do not feel compelled to change that underlying belief because a bunch of scientists may, or may not, have fudged the data.

But here’s the thing. This is my front yard:

So, not only does this matter to me in a big picture way, it matters to me in a very personal, direct way. As it is, insurance companies like State Farm have stopped insuring people who live on the coast in these here parts like I do (our insurance is with Lloyds of London – I kid you not).

And we get articles like this in our daily newspaper, “Coalition Hoping For Sea Change As Ocean Levels Rise,” that contain information in them that scares the absolute bejesus out of Lowcountry residents, like me:

An international group of climate scientists predicted last fall that sea levels will rise by 23 inches this century as the oceans warm, which would be roughly double the rise documented during the last century.

That prediction from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did not account for the record-setting pace of melting polar ice, however.

“The potential is so astounding, if it continues,” Duke University Professor Orrin Pilkey said at a panel discussion in Charleston addressing the issue. “I think that 3 to 5 feet is a conservative estimate for coastal management here.”

Holy crappydoo – that would make a HUGE change in terms of where I live right now, especially when we are already getting high tides that leave the water lapping the bottom of our docks. But add to that the fact that this is Hurricane Alley. If waters are truly rising, the impact of a hurricane hitting at the “right” time will surely increase the levels of devastation, will they not?

Well, yes, if THIS article is to be believed, “Study: Warming To Bring Stronger Hurricanes“:

Knutson said the new study, which looks at worldwide projections, doesn’t make clear whether global warming will lead to more or less hurricane damage on balance. But he pointed to a study he co-authored last month that looked at just the Atlantic hurricane basin and predicted that global warming would trigger a 28 percent increase in damage near the U.S. despite fewer storms.

That study suggests category 4 and 5 Atlantic hurricanes — those with winds more than 130 mph — would nearly double by the end of the century. On average, a category 4 or stronger hurricane hits the United States about once every seven years, mostly in Florida or Texas. Recent category 4 or 5 storms include 2004′s Charley and 1992′s Andrew, but not Katrina which made landfall as a strong category 3.

Outside experts praised the work.

The study does a good job of summarizing the current understanding of storms and warming, said Chunzai Wang, a researcher with NOAA who had no role in the study.

I am more confused than ever. These are not abstract issues to me. They are very, very real, impacting people I know, cities I love, and my very home. So, do we believe this research, or do we not?

Which raises the bigger question: When did “Scientific Method” become so incredibly subjective? Who, or what, is gaining from these questionable studies? If there truly is global warming, which I have long believed to be true because I trusted that these scientists were doing their work based not on politics, but DATA, and that is not being called into question, what are we to believe?

Again – these are not abstract questions to me, or to the community in which I live. We have to plan for these kinds of changes, if they are indeed true. We have to plan what to do in the event of such catastrophic changes, for our homes, and even our docks, not to mention our investments. Are they scaring the crap out of us because they know for a fact this is happening, or because there is some other incentive for doing so? The recent article claiming there has been no “global warming” in 15 years seems to contradict the NEW study claiming hurricanes are getting worse BECAUSE of global warming.

Good grief – can someone help me out here?

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.

Yes, and no. They realize they need to change how the primaries are conducted, yet don’t see any real problems with how the last one went. I have written about the rampant Caucus fraud ad nauseum, but apparently, the DNC missed it. Even though the Clinton Campaign told them about it. Oh, whatever – you can’t make the blind see, especially when they don’t want to see.

Of course, my favorite (cough, choke) representative, Jim Clyburn, who is MY representative (cough, choke), is the voice for this article, “Democrats Consider New Presidential Nominating Process.” Honestly, the whole thing would be laughable if it weren’t so delusional:

National Democrats are considering changing the presidential nominating process, by establishing a new primary calendar and deemphasizing the influence lawmakers and political insiders have on choosing the party nominee.

The battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination was marred by controversy as the Democratic National Committee argued with some state parties over when they could hold their primaries and caucuses and candidates were forced to take sides in this important internal party dispute.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-South Carolina, said that the 2008 nomination contest “yielded a great candidate,” but readily acknowledged the problems that arose.

“We need to improve a little bit in spite of the fact that we got a great candidate out of the process,” Clyburn said Saturday at a meeting of a DNC working group tasked with drafting a new plan. “It was not very comfortable at various points along the way.”

Oh, yes, Obama the unqualified was just the most outstanding candidate in the entire field, with all of his vast leadership experience. Yeah, right.

And that pesky little “controversy”? That’s more often referred to as CHEATING, and people getting pissed off about it. But don’t let me rain on the Democrats’ Delusion Train.

How many of us complained about the way in which the Primaries were conducted, particularly the caucuses, and how states were penalized? How convenient for them to consider changes now that the damage has been done:

Democrats see an opening to change the system now, because this is “a rare cycle of no apparent Democratic presidential nomination challenge” in 2012 as President Obama is expected to seek a second term, according to the “Draft Report of the Democratic Change Commission,” discussed at the meeting.

Commission members, who range from lawmakers and grassroots activists to President Obama’s campaign manager, are charged with putting forth recommendations to help expand the Democratic base and increase more ethnic and regional diversity in choosing the party’s presidential nominee in 2016 and beyond, assuming Obama seeks a second term.

A commission suggestion would be to allow the first four states that held nominating contests in the January 2008 maintain their early, privileged calendar positions. But these states – Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina – would be directed to delay holding their caucuses and primaries before February 1. All other states would be forbidden from holding their nominating contests until at least the first Tuesday in March.

Another recommendation in the report suggested grouping states by “region or sub-region.”

“This would not be a mandatory obligation upon the state parties,” the commission stated. “The commission recommends that these clusters be staggered throughout the window to allow for a deliberative process that benefits all voters and caucus-goers through the country.”

States parties that abided by the DNC’s calendar would be rewarded by getting special perks at the national nominating convention.

“Special Perks”? Oh, wowie zowie – like their own Rainbow Pony?

Here is where it gets good:

The commission also discussed how to reduce the influence of unpledged delegates – lawmakers and party insiders also know as superdelegates – who played a big role in the 2008 nomination contest.

“Unpledged delegates constituted 19% of the total convention and the presidential candidates were compelled to spend a substantial amount of candidate time and other resources to seek the support of these automatic delegates,” the commission stated. “We learned that in a closely contested presidential race, the nomination could be decided by this category of delegates.”

No formal solution dealing with superdelegates was arrived at Saturday and the commission will draft a plan to reduce their numbers in the coming weeks.

“The DNC must address the perception that there are too many unpledged delegates and those delegates could potentially overturn the will of the people, as determined by the state contests,” the commission stated.

“COULD potentially overturn the will of the people“? How about it DID overturn the will of the people! Between the Superdelegates and the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, which decided not to follow its rules and by-laws, it most definitely DID overturn the will of the people. The PEOPLE picked Hillary Rodham Clinton. The DNC and its minions made damn sure of that (make sure you read the Comments at the end of the article – other people get the influence the caucses and ACORN played). What a crock. See why I said these people are delusional?

Finally:

The commission is expected to vote on its final recommendations before December 18. The recommendations will then be sent to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee for further debate and discussion.

Mark Brewer, chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, said he had no problem with reducing the number of superdelegates as long as state party chairs and vice chairs maintained their status and party leaders continued to play a role at the conventions.

But Brewer took exception to the idea of allowing four states to be granted a special exemption to hold their primaries before other states.

“From the perspective of Michigan and other states, it is unfair that any state have a permanent place at the top of the process,” said Brewer, who attended the meeting but is not a commission member. “It is unfair to give any states or state a monopoly.”

The Republican National Committee is also looking at how its party chooses its presidential nominee, and the DNC expressed interest Saturday in working with its political rival on a nomination calendar.

As a resident of SC, you may recall we were allowed to get away with having our primary TOO early, with absolutely no penalties whatsoever, because they knew the state would go to Obama. Especially since they, including Jim Clyburn, were working HARD on painting the Clintons – both of them – as racists.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic. These people will simply refuse to admit there was ever any wrong-doing whatsoever by Obama’s minions with caucuses or the DNC in stealing the nomination from Hillary Clinton, thus from US.

Personally, I don’t support liars, cheaters, and thieves. I guess I can add “Delusional” to the beginning of that list, too. Problems in how candidates are chosen cannot truly be addressed until past wrongdoings are acknowledged and rectified. The DNC seems far, far away from ever being able to do that.

And this is exactly why, after being a lifelong Democrat, my response to them is to fuck off. Changes now aren’t going to make up for the machinations of this past campaign season, and the arrogant, petty, neophyte with whom they stuck us. When they admit they should have a do-over, perhaps I won’t be so harsh on them. I’m not holding my breath for that ever happening, thus the sentiment is justified.

Bottom line, too little, too late, and with no remorse on the part of those who manipulated the outcome. In other words, no, the DNC hasn’t gotten enough of a clue. Will they ever?

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.