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?

What would the assassinated President make of this week’s special election in Massachusetts, where a little-known Republican won the seat held by John and Bobby Kennedy’s younger brother Teddy for 47 years? What would they make of the GOP sending one of their own to sit in the US Senate for the first time since 1978?

A Republican winning the “Kennedy seat” would have been a joke a few weeks ago, a fantasy so preposterous that not even FOX’s Glenn Beck would have spoken of it on his program. That one of the most liberal states in the country, a state Barack Obama carried by 30 points in the 2008 election, would vote a conservative into office is devastating for the Democratic party, certainly, but particularly for Barack Obama, the candidate enthusiastically endorsed by the Kennedys – the closest a Democratic contender can get to being touched by the Almighty himself.

Given the huge embarrassment of this debacle and the potentially devastating effect this election could have on crucial pieces of legislation like national health care, the Democrats have done what they excel at in times of crisis: Form a circular firing squad. Exhibit A: The Kennedy family’s frantic CYA behavior. Not a pretty sight for sure.

So why did the Democratic contender for the seat blew a 30-point lead? Many silly theories abound. She wasn’t “exciting” enough (I’m scanning my brain trying to come up with a Massachusetts politician who can be characterized as “exciting.” None come to mind. John Kerry? Uh, no). She misspoke when she said Boston Red Sox legend Curt Schilling is a New York Yankee fan – a heresy comparable to a Pakistani politician telling a journalist that Imran Khan roots for India. But the actual reason Coakley’s loss was her her baffling indifference to campaigning. When asked why she was taking such a passive approach following a hard-hitting debate, she testily responded “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ Coakley has learned the hard way the answer to her arrogant “let them eat cake” quote is a definitive yes. Too late now.

There are other more bizarre theories being bandied about to explain the upset. Winner Scott Brown is good-looking. He posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine (although if a journalist dug out a photo of a Democrat posing in the buff that campaign would be over).

Absurd.

The reality is that the Massachusetts result is a canary in the coalmine for Democrats. The GOP is in the minority. The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, is frequently ridiculed for his unpredictable and embarrassing behavior and flagrant expenditures that have left the party with less than $10 million in the bank. The party still suffers from a terrible image problem thanks to 8 years of Bush-Cheney.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are sitting on a hefty war chest. They control the executive and legislative branches of government.

And now they’ve lost a Senate seat in a traditionally liberal state.

The results of this election are a harsh rebuke to Democratic leadership, including Barack Obama. Particularly Barack Obama. He is the public face of the party. The man who promised hope and change, the president who was elected with the slogan “yes we can,” is now learning maybe we can’t. Not unless we do what we promised to do.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and standing by while that money is distributed in bonuses rewarding spectacular failure and lapses of judgment is not change. Guantanamo remains open for business. American homeowners continue to foreclose on their homes at a rapid clip. Banks aren’t loaning money to potential homebuyers. Refinancing is nearly impossible to obtain. Unemployment is hovering at around 10%. So what are the Democrats doing about this?

Clearly the voters of Massachusetts would answer “not enough.” And if the Democratic party doesn’t start taking care of business, the midterm elections of 2010 could make the upset in Massachusetts look like child’s play.

–
First Published at: The Pakistan Update

So, with all the hot water many Democrats are in now, aided by the new book, Game Change, no doubt the fundraising calls will get more and more insistent. They have to overcome not just what was in the book, but stories like this from the Washington Post, “Sen. Reid and son, Cory, Each Considered A Burden For The Other’s Campaign In Nevada.” Or how about this one, “Obama’s Approval Rating Dips To A New Low“? Then there’s this one, “Scott Brown Swearing-in Would Be Stalled To Pass Healthcare Reform“. And that is merely the beginning of the problems for the Democratic National Party.

By the way, one thing about this book, and that is the attacks (what else is new) on the Clintons, both of them. Tuesday morning, I just happened to turn on the news and there was Laura Ingraham, of all people, on. She was asked about what this book said regarding the Clintons, and – I cannot believe I am about to reference her – she said something along the lines of (this is not a precise quote, and I haven’t been able to get a link yet, but will supply it if it comes available), “Bill Clinton said he didn’t think Obama had the experience to be president, and Hillary did, especially after Arkansas, the White House, etc. Why is that a surprise?” Uh, yeah. No kidding. She added that she bet Hillary’s approval numbers were higher than Obama’s, which we do know is accurate. And of course, the Big Dawg was right on target, too, wasn’t he?? She continued to say that nothing in the book about the Clintons was that big of a surprise, which makes me wonder why there are articles like this one around, “The End OF The Clinton Machine.” Are these writers just HOPING so, and if that is the case, why? As Hillary always said, “what didn’t they like, the peace, or the prosperity?” Uh yeah.

Therein lies the end of the digression.

So, those headlines above, especially the last one (wanting to change the rules again)? That pretty much says it all about Obama taking his Chicago Politics to a national level. Oh, yippee.

Consequently, the combination of this being an election year, the rapid decline of approval for Obama AND the Congress, suggests to me we will be getting lots of fundraising calls, especially those of us who have given money in the past.

Just yesterday, I received a phone call from Emily’s List that went something like this:

Okay, maybe not QUITE that extreme, but I have had some very insistent thugs on the other end of DNC and DNC-affiliated organizations arguing with me about why I should give them any more money. This woman argued with me, too. Um, MY money, and I can give it to whomever I wish. If you start DEMANDING it, guess how much you’re gonna get from me? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing, big donut hole, zero dollars.

After two years of essentially the same response from me, “I don’t give money to liars, cheats, thieves, misogynists, and homophobe,” I feel I need new material. So I am turning to you for some pithy responses to the demands for money from the DNC.

Let’s hear it! What pithy retorts can I give these people?

But what is not being focused on in this book, at least so far, is how clearly it asserts the fix was in AGAINST Hillary Clinton. In each piece thus far, there has been something about the DNC not wanting Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, or the senators with clout secretly backing Obama. In the NY Magazine article, “Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster,” there are passages like this:

Edwards never expected to be the third wheel in 2008. The race was going to be Hillary versus him. That was how he saw it from the start. She would be the front-runner, of course. But as sure as night follows day, there would be an alternative, an anti-Hillary, and he would be it.

The Democratic Establishment agreed that there would be—and certainly should be—a viable challenger to Clinton. The party’s pooh-bahs on Capitol Hill were privately terrified about the prospect of Hillary rolling to the nomination. They feared that she was too polarizing to win, that she would drag down House and Senate candidates in red and purple states; and they worried, too, about Bill’s putative affairs (emphasis mine). But while the Clintons themselves regarded Edwards as Hillary’s most formidable rival, there existed a deep wariness about the North Carolinian among his fellow Democrats. In the Senate, in particular, Edwards was regarded almost universally by his former colleagues as a callow, shallow phony. Quietly, the Establishment began a quest to find a different alternative, eventually settling on the unlikely horse that was Obama—with Harry Reid personally, and secretly, urging the Illinois senator to run against Clinton.

So much for the people choosing our nominee, right? I just love that the “pooh-bahs” decided that Hilary was too polarizing. THEY created this hype, along with the Republicans during Bill’s tenure, and with the MSM. But the people who listened to her, who read her policies, who saw how she worked, knew she was exactly who we wanted to run for president

This isn’t the only example out of this book. There is also the claim by the book’s authors that Chuck Schumer secretly supported Obama, though he publicly claimed to support Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, Schumer’s people claim this isn’t true, but again, even taking what the authors wrote with a grain of sand, this doesn’t sound good. The book goes on to claim Schumer encouraged a “get tough” policy against Clinton, and enlisted another senator to support Obama, presumably in his stead:

The book reports that in the summer of 2007, Schumer and others wanted Team Obama to get tougher on Clinton.

At one point, the authors contend, Schumer felt “Obama needed to take a two-by-four to Hillary,” the book says.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was tapped as the messenger from the worried senators to the Obama campaign.

She denies feeling any such pressure.

“It wasn’t like he [Schumer] came to me and said, ‘Be for Barack Obama – I gotta be for Hillary,’” McCaskill told the Daily News Saturday. “He never, ever said a word to me that would give the kind of impression [this book seems] to be giving. He was never giving advice to the campaign on how to undermine her.”

What a bunch of back-stabbing conniving Brutus’ these senators are. And the DNC, too, if you ask me.

The glaring fallacy with the logic of the DNC and its minions are the number are Republicans who crossed over for Hillary Clinton. Former dyed-in-the-wool Republicans becoming caucus captains for Hillary in Texas, for example (an example relayed to me by the person who crossed over). All of the post voting showed Hillary Clinton got the majority of Democratic votes AND a large number of Republican votes. Yet the DNC in its infinite “wisdom” decided Hillary Clinton could NOT be the nominee, and worked their asses off to break every rule necessary to make that so.

No doubt, there will be more to this book after it is released this week, but there are some glaring omissions mentioned thus far. Ben Smith noted that Obama was pretty much the same throughout the campaign, thus most of these revelations are about the Clintons, the Edwards, et al. But as one commenter noted:

Where are the stories of how the campaign handled Jerimah (sic) Wright?

Where are the stories about how they had to put a muzzle on Michelle Obama?

Where are the stories about ’sweetie’ and calling his grandmother a ‘typical white person’?

And who did Obama think he picked when he picked Joe Biden? He must be stupid if he is surprised by how he has acted!

The secret to Obama winning was the media and frankly Mark Halprin doesn’t want to blow that gig.

No kidding. Don’t forget the “Obama and Biden Can’t Stand Each Other” part of this book referenced above, which is sure not getting much play by the MSM:

The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed.

Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,” write journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in “Game Change,” a long-awaited account of the 2008 campaign.

Uh, yeah. So, the bottom line as far as I can tell from this book so far is this: the Democratic Party committed massive fraud in 2008, costing voters millions of dollars in campaign donations to candidates they had already determined were not going to get the nomination. That is fraud, pure and simple. Not only did I give donations (in the beginning to John Edwards), but I gave a LOT to Hillary Clinton.

If the DNC knew they were never going to let her get the nomination no matter how she performed, no matter how many people voted for her, no matter WHAT, that, to me, is fraud. And they damn well better be held accountable for that, don’t you think?

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?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be endorsing Rep. Michael Capuano in the Massachusetts Senate special election, choosing her House colleague over Attorney General Martha Coakley, who is seeking to become the first female senator in the state.

Pelosi will be heading to Boston tomorrow morning to make the formal endorsement.

In her statement, Pelosi noted Capuano’s support for the historic health care legislation that she shepherded through the House. Coakley said she opposed the legislation that passed through the House because it contained a provision restricting federal funds from going to abortion providers.

“Saturday the House of Representatives passed a historic health care bill that was a great victory for the American people,” Pelosi said. “Mike Capuano not only cast a courageous vote for this historic legislation, but was a constructive force in improving this bill and moving it to the Senate.”

This would be the “historic” bill featured the Stupak amendment which has pro-choice legislators, feminists and organizations like NOW and NARAL furious. And here’s why. According to Planned Parenthood:

“…This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes…

“While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that covers abortion, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money…

“Rep. Stupak’s amendment would dramatically shift current federal policy related to abortion coverage and would undermine the principle of abortion neutrality in health care reform. A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have.”

Once again, women are the first to be asked to make “compromises” so the man can get his “historic” legislation passed. Where have I heard that before?

And let me get this straight – Capuano’s payback for voting for this thing is the endorsement of the Speaker of the House?

Attorney General Martha Coakley is a fierce advocate for women, children and working families. She’s squeaky clean, tough, and principled but that’s not good enough for Ms. Pelosi? Is she so threatened by having another tough woman in a position of power in government? Could this be more payback for the fact that Martha Coakley endorsed Hillary and refused to give up her vote at the Convention? Or that Coakley has her own ideas about health care and refused to endorse Pelosi’s 2,000 page monstrosity because of the Stupak amendment?

Here is AG Coakley’s statement regarding her opposition:

The House’s vote is in many ways a significant step toward the goal of health care reform. However, I am deeply disturbed that the House adopted the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would deny millions of women access to reproductive services. The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.

Boston Globe weighed in on the issue pointing out that Capuano is mired in the typical Washington wheeling and dealing, supporting the Stupak Amendment but now that Pelosi is taking a great deal of heat for her action, Capuano now looks to be waffling:

…Capuano’s message to voters quickly became mired in inconsistency.

“You deserve leaders that don’t try to thread the needle,’’ he said at his Monday night rally. Yet, in this case, he threaded it, and then blasted Coakley for saying she wouldn’t do the same. Then, instead of sticking with the principle he said he believed in, Capuano shifted. He said he would vote against health care legislation if a final version included the restrictive amendment.

So he was ‘for’ it before he was ‘agin’ it? I prefer Coakley, who did not feel the need to equivocate and stated, “I do not believe we have to take a step back on women’s rights to get health care reform.”

In the Boston Globe, Ellen Goodman stated:

“We now have pro-life Republicans and Democrats — most notably Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan — demanding that any health plan offering abortion be banned from the newly created health-care exchange. And guess what that will mean? More than 80 percent of private insurance plans cover abortions. But any insurance plan that wants to be eligible for the huge wave of new clients would have to drop the abortion coverage it offers.”

Guess Capuano doesn’t care to thread the needle on that one.

Pelosi led the charge last year saying Republicans would overturn Roe v. Wade if elected, thereby threatening Hillary’s Democratic holdouts if they failed to fall in line and support Barack Obama. The DNC made a big show of how they were the only party to protect women. Yet in order to pass this health care behemoth that most in Congress did not have the time to read, Pelosi’s first act was to throw pro-choice women under the bus. Here’s hoping Pelosi’s endorsement will not help Capuano’s sagging primary bid.

Capuano is lagging behind in the four-way Democratic primary against Coakley, according to public polling. A Suffolk University poll released today showed Coakley leading with 44 percent of the vote, Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca in second with 17 percent, and Capuano in third with 16 percent.

The special election primary will be held December 8 and the winner will be the favorite to fill the Senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy. Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) is holding the seat on an interim basis.

Ultra liberal Massachusetts has never had a woman Senator. Now that we have a chance at someone who would really stand up for the working voter and for women, Pelosi says no deal?

What say you?

Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle. Sure never saw THAT one coming. I’ll give you a moment to recover from the shock.

Okay. So, yeah – check out what brought this about for the Mormon Church:

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

The Mormon church — which continues to suffer a backlash over its support last year of Proposition 8, the measure banning gay marriage in California — emphasized that its latest position in no way contradicts its teachings on homosexuality.

But the action is one of the strongest signs yet that even conservative religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage might be willing to support legal protections for gays that fall short of that.

Well, that is good news. Personally, I felt like the Mormon Church was being used as a bit of a scapegoat in CA. Sure, they supported Prop 8, but apparently, so did the majority of Californians. It’s a hard truth to swallow, but the evidence is indisputable. The majority voted for Proposition 8. Are you telling me that that many Californians could be swayed to violate their internal beliefs by the Mormons? Really? Exactly.

More about the Church:

At the same time, the church’s position has angered some of its conservative allies on social issues, prompted questions about whether public relations is its real motivation, and put the church on the spot over how far it will go on similar legislation on the state and federal level.

“This is a very good public relations response that has the additional benefit of actually representing the way the current church leadership thinks,” said Armand Mauss, a retired professor at Washington State University and scholar of Mormonism.

Some of the church’s conservative allies in the gay marriage battles, however, call it a setback. The two new ordinances make it illegal to fire or evict someone for being gay, bisexual or transgender.

Such legislation robs employers and landlords of their rights and gives legal ammunition to judges sympathetic to gay marriage, said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council.

“It’s disappointing and I’m fearful that it reflects in part a reaction to the attacks they came under after Proposition 8 — an effort to bend over backwards to exhibit tolerance toward homosexuals in some way,” Sprigg said.

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn’t carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting “basic civil values,” Otterson said, does not compromise the church’s religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

“There are going to be gay advocates who don’t think we’ve gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we’ve gone too far,” Otterson said. “The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that’s going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness.”

The position is not a reversal, Otterson said. In August 2008 the church issued a statement saying it supports gay rights related to hospitalization, medical care, employment, housing or probate as long as they “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.”

I have to admit – given the attacks on the Mormon Church, I am a tad surprised to see this is their position. Honestly, that’s more progressive than many people would believe. More than I would have believed had I not read it for myself. The way in which the Mormons have been demonized by LGBT rights activists and supporters, one would have thought the Mormons were the Devil Incarnate. Evidently not:

Church officials say the city ordinances were not discussed in the recent meetings between church staff and gay rights leaders, and that it was the mayor who put the proposals on the table.

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church’s stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

“The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it,” Knox said. “It’s not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts.”

The church’s action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays.

Activists are trying to garner support from evangelicals for a federal employment anti-discrimination law that would cover gays. However, religious reaction was largely negative to a federal hate crimes act protecting homosexuals that President Barack Obama recently signed into law. Several conservative Christian groups argued that preaching against homosexuality could be deemed a hate crime under the legislation.

The Mormon church has not taken a stance on either piece of federal legislation.

Otterson, the church spokesman, said that in the case of the Salt Lake City ordinances, Mormon leaders weighed in because they were responding to a request for feedback on specific legislation.

Asked whether the church would take a stand on similar state or federal legislation, Otterson said: “The church leadership is not inclined to offer free advice where it’s not being requested.”

Well, that’s an interesting response. But the rest of it is a bit eye-opening for a church that has been completely demonized by liberals. Perhaps, at some point, they might actually have to start looking at just who it was who voted for Prop 8. I guarantee you, they weren’t all Mormons…

And speaking of religious types, it seems Donnie McClurkin, Obama’s big campaign buddy, has been out and about spewing hate against the GLBT community. Oh, yes. No doubt, Jesus told him to call us “vampires,” and “perversions.” Yep:

The last time we heard from Donnie McClurkin, he was campaigning with Barack Obama. At the Obama campaign event, you may recall, McClurkin harangued gays for over thirty minutes and proclaimed:

“God delivered me from homosexuality.”

Well, McClurkin is back. This weekend, he re-emerged spewing homophobic hate in Memphis. Rod 2.0 reports:

Donnie McClurkin ramps up the ridiculous to speak in tongues and call gays “vampires”. The infamously “ex-gay” — or should we say merely “re-closeted” — Grammy Award winning gospel singer and evangelist rants against gays, gay youth and recently out gospel singer Tonex at the Church of God in Christ’s Holy Convocation Youth Service. This happened last Saturday at the COGIC convention in Memphis.

Oh, it doesn’t stop there: I

n the first of three disgusting YouTube videos, McClurkin begins his rant against Tonex, the gospel star and minister who recently confirmed his long-rumored sexuality. McClurkin says Tonex is a “perversion” and must pray away the gay: “God did not call young people to such peversion. Society has failed him, his church has failed him … I would be homosexual to this day if Jesus hadn’t delivered.”

McClurkin also rails against against openly gay youth as “broken and feminine”: “I see feminine men, feminine boys, everywhere I go … No, don’t applaud ‘cuz it ain’t funny. It’s because we failed. I see them everywhere.”

Rod has posted the three videos of McClurkin’s rant. Check them out. It’s ugly.

Again, it begs the question: why did people in the GLBT community ever think Obama stood with them considering the people with whom he surrounded himself?

I might add, if you really want to see where the community is these days, check out some of comments at posts that have anything to do with the DNC at Gay Americablog – I know Aravosis was an Obama water carrier. He sems to have realized the error of his ways. TOo late, I know, but nothing like being scorned, right? The anger in the comments is palpable by people in the GLBT community at Obama and the DNC. Hence the latest, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign being generated against the DNC. Oh, yeah. They are shutting down their wallets. About damn time, too, if you ask me.

That is to say, Upside Down World continues – the Mormon Church is supporting a number of GLBT rights, Obama’s good buddy is ranting against GLBT people, and the is dragging its feet. Maybe it’s because of its new leadership – Gov. Tim Kaine, homophobe. Okey dokey.

I think I need to sit down now.

Florida Democratic Congressman Alan Grayson, the man who stood on the floor of the House and said ‘Republicans want you to die’ just got himself into a little tepid water for making saying that:

Linda Robertson, an adviser to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, [is] “a K Street whore.”

Bret Baier of FOX News reports that Democrats Rip One of Their Own for His Language. But frankly, the ripping is rather mild in my view.

New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell tells the Politico: “There’s no call for that language… that’s absurd.”

New York Democrat Anthony Weiner says: “Is this news to you that this guy’s one fry short of a Happy Meal?”

And Nevada Democrat Dina Titus dubbed Grayson’s remarks, “a bit extreme and rather sexist.”

That’s the best they can do?

Rather sexist? He called the woman a whore. If this man is a Democrat, he is someone the party can certainly do without. But after the grotesque sexist slurs of the 2008 election cycle directed at both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, nothing would surprise. While I am glad a few in the party bothered to actually say something, where is Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the house? Why is she not censuring him for this behavior?

Grayson heeded the criticism, and apologized late in the day, saying in a statement: “I offer my sincere apology to Linda Robertson… I did not intend to use a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women.”

A term that is often seen as disrespectful to women? Often? You mean there are times when calling a woman a whore is OK? Who are these people? To make matters worse. Baier reports the following:

Despite the outcry from Democrats, the White House is not rushing to distance itself from Grayson. At a Monday night fundraiser, President Obama called Grayson an “outstanding member of Congress.”

I would hope the President would chastise this man for these filthy words. Democrats can no longer claim to be the party of women’s rights if they don’t stand up, as one, and declare that this behavior by one of their own is outrageous and not to be tolerated.

And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman – no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding – hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 – 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes – makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH – kinda!)

But here’s the problem for me. I had really liked President Carter. I had a lot of respect for him, in fact. I was young and naive when he was in office, but certainly the work he had done AFTER leaving the White House was commendable. For instance, the work he and his entire family did for Habitat for Humanity has helped numerous people, including in my home town. I have experienced firsthand seeing the joy and pride the new homeowner as she looked at her house, and talked about what it meant to her. And the group of university students with whom I was working, all female, becoming more empowered, more sure of themselves, because they were helping to build someone a HOUSE, and the sense of pride and accomplishment that gave them.

The work Carter has done in Africa, helping to eradicate a horrible disease of worms that infiltrate too many areas there, doing horrible damage to the people they infest. Or his work in monitoring elections. Heck, even his recent decision to leave his church of many years because they will not ordain women.

My partner and I have visited the Carter Presidential Library in Atlanta, GA, a beautiful place in a calming and serene environment. I walked through that buildung filled with a sense of awe, seeing what he gave up, and subsequently his wife, when he left his commission as a Naval officer behind to go back to Georgia and help out the family. As I saw photographs marking historic moments, actual papers from events I had read about, or seen on tv. I was in awe as I saw his actual Nobel Peace Prize. And with pride, we have supported the Carter Peace Center for years now with monthly contributions…

(Photo by rachydachy)

But, things have been changed now. It began with some of his statements about Israel. Then President Carter inserted himself into the Primary Campaign, making some unkind remarks about my hero, “>Hillary Clinton. And now this. Being called a racist because I oppose the way by which Obama became President, but even more, because I oppose his policies. When someone calls me a racist, I gotta say (as we do down here in the South, “Them’s fightin’ words.” And so, I have written this letter to send to the Carter Center when my next payment is due:

Dear Carter Center,

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy

What a sad day, for me personally, but also for this nation, when a former president makes such a grievous, and unfounded, charge against over half of the population. Because we have the audacity to judge the president by his CHARACTER, rather than the color of his skin, as Martin Luther King, Jr., charged us to do, we are called a heinous name. How sad, and how infuriating.

President Carter, as respectfully as I can muster after being called a racist, I would suggest it is time for you to go into retirement, and leave off sharing your political opinions. You are not doing yourself or your legacy any good, to be sure. Even more, you are not doing this nation any good. Rather, you are fanning flames that divide us, not unite us, all to provide cover for a man who, had he been properly vetted in the first place, and had the DNC followed its own rules, would never have gotten this far. Speaking for me only, I am judging Obama on the merits, not the color of his skin. I suggest you do likewise.

Holy shit, right?? YOUR TAXPAYING DOLLARS!!!!! Can you believe this? It is simply mind bogging.

In related news, eleven warrants have been issued for ACORN workers in Florida. The charges? Oh, you can guess this one: voter fraud. Yes, arrests are already being made by state authorities and the FBI. As of this writing, six have been arrested, and they are searching for the other five.

Again, your tax paying dollars hard at work, courtesy of Barney Frank, Barack Obama, and the DNC.

UPDATE: This first video has the filmmaker, James O’Keefe, on it, talking about how “helpful” the ACORN people were:

And this one with Megyn Kelly and Andrew Breitbart. ACORN denounces this “gotcha” journalism, claiming that there was some convenient editing going on. Breitbart provides the FULL audio and FULL transcript at BigGovernment.com, and discusses it more fully below:

Did you catch that? How much money ACORN stands to get under the new Stimulus Plan?? Now you know how they are spending that money…

Yesterday I was appalled to watch the Speaker of the House comment on Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ assertion that the anger at these town halls over health care reform is “manufactured”. The reporter asked, “Do you think there is legitimate grassroots opposition going on out there?”

Nancy Pelosi made the following statement:

“I think they’re Astroturf…you be the judge. They are carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

How dare she? I have heard of bullying tactics but this is beyond the pale. She is cherrypicking a couple of extreme protesters, if indeed they exist, in order to deride the whole as an angry mob. My husband and I were Democrats for thirty years and we have questions and concerns about this overhaul as well. Here’s a hot flash, Ms. Pelosi, my Dad was used as slave labor by people who wore swastikas so I don’t appreciate being grouped in with them.

Average citizens who daily watch our leadership trade places in the clown car have a reason to be worried. Until Ms. Pelosi and every other elitist in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, is willing to be subject to the exact same health care plan, and use it on their own mother, their children and themselves, they have no business sticking it to the rest of us. “Okay for thee but not for me” is not going to cut it.

There is no doubt that both sides “astroturf.” President Obama’s svengali, David Axelrod, is known for this behavior. There will always be groups left or right who will try to bank on to a legitimate protest for their own ends. Yet I have no doubt that the majority of these protesters are legitimate. We are talking about a 1,000 page monstrosity that no one can explain.

Pelosi is talking about overhauling one sixth of our nation’s economy when they have just laid an egg with the stimulus package and $60 billion dollar car bailouts.

Last year I watched the DNC insult anyone who did not buy the “cool” candidate they chose to put on their spaghetti jar. Their bullying tactics drove me away. As brilliant WaPo columnist Marie Cocco put it, their “deafening silence” on what looked to be the media lynching of Hillary Clinton didn’t help either.

People get mad when you question them for one of two reasons. Either they don’t have the answer and don’t want be made to look bad, or they know they are trying to pull a fast one and don’t want you to get a peek behind the curtain. Which is it? If the policy cannot be explained coherently and simply, that means they don’t have it working yet. Pardon my dust, but I thought the ultimate goal was to craft a policy that is better than what we have now.

I do not appreciate being bullied or blown off. People are angry and they are scared. Unemployment is in double digits in my state. My Congressman has been ensconced in his position for 25 years. He runs unopposed so I assure you, he isn’t bothering to have a town hall meeting on health care otherwise I’d be there shouting, too.

We pay their salaries. I do not wish to be told to shut up and sit down by the likes of Ms. Pelosi, who sees fit to negatively classify the opposition because she does not feel like being countermanded.

I can appreciate the President wishes to put forth an ambitious agenda, but this White House is tone deaf. We have moved beyond ego here. I am not concerned with someone racking up “accomplishments” just so they can say they did. We have severe problems in our economy and trying to do all this at once without first making sure you’ve got the right formula is like trying to paint a house in a hurricane.

Nancy Pelosi needs to apologize to the American people for the disrespect she has shown them. We are dealing with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and we have every right to have all our questions answered.

We can do without the name calling and disrespect from our elected representatives. That is not the way to earn anyone’s trust.

The spontaneous march in response, the solidarity evident, brought tears to my eyes.

While we are on the subject of the GLBT community, as of this writing, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 332 service members have been dismissed under DADT under Obama and this Congress.

As for Obama and Same Sex Marriage, anyone holding their breath that Obama will do anything FOR it should breathe now. I’ve been saying this for a while, and James Kirchick writing for the Washington Post had this to say in his editorial, “Obama Said ‘I Don’t. He May Just Mean It” (h/t to American Girl in Italy):

~snip ~ When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can’t count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton’s comments, he told reporters that his boss “does not support” same-sex marriage. “He supports civil unions,” Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama’s statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating “don’t ask, don’t tell” violations.

Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn’t done — and is unlikely to do — much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama’s secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. “Pbbbht! Of course he’s in favor of gay marriage!” Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director. “I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we’ve achieved full equality in the gay community,” he told journalist Rex Wockner. I’ve lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama “really” supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it’s easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent — if not outright opposed — to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals’ notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. “Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn’t have — that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar — is it a complicated issue?” Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

Ah yes, why actually believe Obama’s own WORDS on this issue, is the question I would have for Kushner. Obama, and Biden, have been VERY clear that their position on same sex marriage is EXACTLY THE SAME as Sarah Palin’s. Exactly the same. Identical. No difference. But please, keep lying to yourselves so you can continue to glorify The One. And go have some more Kool Aide while you’re at it. Kirchick continues:

Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a “citizen of the world” would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don’t, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

Obama’s history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama’s apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama’s apparent flip isn’t genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he “really” thinks, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They’ve done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn’t apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: “I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

Talking about “feelings” is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama’s promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, “I feel your pain.” Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action. (jkirchick@tnr.com James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.)

Good for Mr. Kirchick to actually point this out. I seriously doubt that the people who refuse to believe it will see the light, but at least he tried, right? And I appreciate the effort on his part.

Speaking of the Washington Post, we had this this, from July 31st. It is a shift from homophobia to sexism. You will most likely recognize the two “players” in this video:

I said all along that Obama, the DNC, and the MSM declared open season on women. There was little or no comeuppance for ANYONE who made disparaging, sexist, or misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. I knew it was going to continue, and possibly get worse. Here we are. With these two sexist pigs suggesting Clinton, who can run RINGS around these two intellectually, politically, and HUMANELY, drinks “Mad Bitch beer.” What a couple of _______ – you fill in the blank.

Oh, and one last thing. Vanity Fair has an article about Sarah Palin entitled, “It Came From Wasilla.” Yes, the author is a man. They are calling the former Governor, a woman, “It”?? Like when Glenn Beck said of Hillary Clinton, “It cries”??? Sheesh, the author isn’t even original. And naturally, the article is another hatchet job of this woman who dared to work her way up, buck her own party, and do right by her state. Naturally. Not for nothing, but I would have more rights in Alaska because of Sarah Palin than in most states in the Union. Just sayin’.

Back to Millbank and Cilliza: WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS???? I guess the same reason people like David Shuster does – he can call Hillary Clinton a pimp, and her daughter a whore, and keep his job with just a little slap on the wrist. So I guess what Millbank and Cillizza did was mild by comparison? Their comeuppance cannot come too soon, and it SHOULD come for this blatantly sexist attack on Secretary of State Clinton. Now. They should be fired.

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.

Despite his obviously close relationship with his wife, whispers have persisted since he played Peter Allen that Jackman himself might be gay. “I’d be happy to go and deny it, because I’m not,” he says. “But by denying it, I’m saying there is something shameful about it, and there isn’t anything shameful. The questions about sexuality I find more here in America than anywhere else, because it’s a big hang-up and defines what people think about themselves and others. It’s not a big issue in Australia.” (Emphasis mine.)

Yeah. No freakin’ kidding. Ahem. But then I continued to read the paper, and came across a piece about the Presbyterian Church (USA), Fidelity-Chastity Ordination Standard remains in place in PC(USA). That is to say, they won’t ordain gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people. That’s the bottom line. And I hope you catch WHY that is: Fidelity-Chastity Ordination Standard is the reason why. Because you know, we homosexual types can’t possibly be faithful in relationships, and generally speaking, we cannot get married in the United States (only a few states permit it). And then there’s that whole chastity thing if single, meaning, not legally married. So, just a bit of a burden on the entire GLBT community. Still, the article goes on to say the issue of ordination for GLBT people is not over, especially since the vote was closer than ever. But it is not to be yet.

That is the sad fact reinforced for Lisa Larges, a graduate of San Francisco Theological Seminary, who has been trying to get ordained for 23 years now. That is not a typo – twenty-three years. Just a month ago came the verdict detailed in this article, Synod court rescinds San Francisco Presbytery vote on open lesbian’s readiness for examination for ordination,Examination, not certification of readiness, is proper time for ‘scrupling’:

The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Synod of the Pacific has rescinded a January 2008 decision by San Francisco Presbytery that long-time candidate and open lesbian Lisa Larges is “ready for examination [for ordination] with a departure.”

The court ruled on March 25 that the presbytery erred by prematurely considering Larges’ declaration of a “scruple” (conscientious objection) to G-6.0106b ― which requires of church officers “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.”

“The examination for ordination is the proper time for (the) Presbytery to determine whether or not a candidate’s departure constitutes a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity,” the court said.

If only the Presbyterian Church was as faithful to Ms. Larges as she has been to them. Can you imagine trying for so long for something you felt called to do by a higher power, something for which you were qualified in every way, except one – who you loved? Oh, and despite your qualifications, you are denied the opportunity to serve because of whom you love by an institution that is built on the very foundation of love, at least according to its founder. Wow. (There is more to the article above. Just click on the link if you want to read it.)

But you know, at least I haven’t heard of any Presbyterian ministers being brought to trial for being ordained and homosexual at the same time like the Methodists have. Coincidentally (yeah, right), the two who have been were both women. Oh, don’t think this was back in the dark ages or anything. Heck no, it was in 2004. And it wasn’t in some rural backwater somewhere. It was in Philadelphia, the city of Fraternal Love (that is the more accurate translation) How ironic is THAT? Anyway, the Rev. Irene Elizabeth Stroud was defrocked for being in a monogamous lesbian relationship. Her congregation did not want this, I might add, and still employs her as a lay person.

And let’s not forget the Lutherans. They want to defrock the Rev. Bradley Schmeling, a man they knew was gay because he has now found a life partner. The assumption being that he is having sex while still single (that whole pesky marriage thing again, you know). That’s right. He has been brought up on charges because he found someone with whom to share his life:

The Rev. Bradley Schmeling was chosen in 2000 to lead St. John’s, though some worried his sexuality could threaten its standing with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. But last year, the 350-member congregation threw a party for him and his partner, when Schmeling announced he had found a lifelong companion.

Bishop Ronald Warren of the ELCA’s Southeastern Synod, however, asked the 44-year-old pastor to resign. When Schmeling refused, Warren started disciplinary proceedings against him for violating church rules barring sex outside of marriage.

Holy Smokes.

I could go on, but you get the point. Hugh Jackman was putting it mildly when he said we have a “hang up” about homosexuality in this country, and our churches are right in the midst of it all. Not just the right-wing, evangelical, fundamentalist churches either, but mainstream denominations.

While I appreciate the optimism of some in PC(USA), I wish I could share it, but I can’t. When you have two major states passing anti-gay measures (Prop 8 in CA, an act strongly supported by Obama’s choice to lead his Faith Tour, Doug Kmiec, and Amendment 2 in Florida), and a President who campaigns with Donnie “Jesus Cured Me Of My Homosexuality” McClurkin; who counts as one of his closest friends and confidantes a man who is not just homophobic, but ACTIVELY anti-gay in the person of IL State Senator, James Meeks; and who chooses – HAND PICKS – a man who is actively anti-gay to chair the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, I just cannot muster the same level of hope for change in these mainstream denominations. Heck, I don’t have a lot of hope for our entire nation, not just for the churches (or synagogues, or mosques, etc.). Not in this time, and not with this president. I would love to be proven wrong, though, but I gotta say, I’m not holding my breath.