This is rich. We know about Obama’s many, many czars. Mark Steyn believes Obama has another one, someone of whom you have heard, but who isn’t on the usual list,

Obama Makes Bush His Blame Czar. You know, he has a point - we’ve been hearing for months now “He did it!” from Obama on all sorts of issues.

Steyn begins his piece writing about “Barack’s Rock,” Valerie Jarrett:

Valerie Jarrett announced the other day that “we’re going to speak truth to power.”

Who’s Valerie Jarrett? She’s “Senior Adviser” to the president of the United States – i.e., the leader of the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. You would think the most powerful man in the most powerful nation would find a hard job finding anyone on the planet to “speak truth to power” to. But I suppose if you’re as eager to do so as his Senior Adviser, there’s always somebody out there: The Supreme Leader of Iran. The Prime Minister of Belgium. The Deputy Tourism Minister of the Solomon Islands. But no. The Senior Adviser has selected targets closer to home: “I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power. When we saw all of the distortions in the course of the summer, when people were coming down to town hall meetings and putting up signs that were scaring seniors to death.”

Ah, right. People “putting up signs.” Can’t have that, can we? The most powerful woman in the inner circle of the most powerful man on Earth has decided to speak truth to powerful people standing in the street with handwritten placards saying “THIS GRAN’MA ISN’T SHOVEL READY.” Was it only a week ago that I wrote about this administration’s peculiar need for domestic enemies?

The Senior Adviser seems to have forgotten that she is the power. Admittedly, this is a recurring lapse on the part of the administration. There was Barack Obama only the other day, blaming everything on the president – no, no, silly, not him, the other fellow, the Designated Fall Guy who stepped down as head of state in January to accept the new constitutional position of Blame Czar. Musing on problems in Afghanistan, Obama blamed the “long years of drift” under his predecessor. The new president – OK, newish president – has been Drifter-in-Chief for almost a year but he’s too busy speaking truth to the former power to get on top of the situation. It could be a while yet. In his more self-regarding moments, such as his speech to the United Nations, he gives the strong impression that the “long years of drift” began in 1776.

Indeed, Ms. Jarrett thinks throwing around phrases pulled from those who are actually in the trenches will give her some street cred. You don’t think anyone fell for that hooey, do you? Just in case you know anyone who did, you can tell them that she is a lawyer, married to a doctor, and was on the Chicago Stock Exchange. So, yeah, not exactly a career in the Peace Corps., or hell, even AmeriCorps. Just more posturing on the part of the Obama Administration.

Just like Obama’s blame shifting. Just more posturing to protect his carefully crafted image:

Rocco Landesman, head honcho at the National Endowment for the Arts, seems closer to the reality of the situation. In his keynote address to the 2009 “Grantmakers in the Arts” conference, Landesman hailed Obama as “the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar”. He didn’t mean a “powerful writer” as in a compelling voice, gripping narrative, vivid characterization, command of language, etc. He meant a “powerful writer” as in Caesar was king of the world, and now Obama is. He came, he saw, he stimulated: “If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists.”

I suppose so. He could invade somewhere and force the natives to accept degrading roles in NEA-funded performance art. He could take out the Iranian nuclear program by carpet-bombing it with unreadable literary novels. That is, if you “accept the premise” that the United States is the most powerful country in the world. Rocco Landesman may, but it’s not clear, from his actions (or inactions) in Eastern Europe, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that the president does. But, even so, it seems an odd pitch to “American artists.” Rocco Landesman, Speaking Goof to Power, isn’t the first Obama groupie to enjoy the kinky frisson of groveling obsequiousness, but he’s set an impressive new standard in public revelation thereof. Rocco’s aunt, Fran Landesman, is the great lyricist of “Spring Can Really Hang You Up The Most” as well as “The Ballad Of The Sad Young Men.” But surely there are few sadder middle-age men than her nephew, prostrating himself before his master as the most literate global colossus in two millennia.

Oh, I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but I take his point. Still, there are a whole bunch of sad “middle-age men” who would fit that bill. Chris Matthews springs immediately to mind.

Speaking of the NEA:

Meanwhile, Larry David is now doing televised NEA exhibits on his HBO show “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Christians are said to be “angry” at him because of an episode in which, after he accidentally sprays his urine on a picture of Jesus, his assistant mistakes the droplets for tears and calls in her mother to witness the miracle of Christ weeping. Ha-ha! Oh, those brave transgressive artists! Of course, Christians aren’t “angry” in the sense that two U.S. residents arrested last week are. The pair – one an American citizen, the other Canadian – were so “angry” about the Muhammad cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that they hatched a plot to kill the artist and his editor. As many commentators pointed out, Mr. David’s splashy stunt is a dreary provocation: It’s easy to be provocative with people who can’t be provoked. If he were to start urinating in a more Mecca-ly direction, he’d find an entirely more motivated crowd waiting for him at the stage door.

But I liked the point made by the Anchoress, a writer at the magazine First Things: Putting Muhammad, et al aside, if Larry David had a yen to urinate hither and yon, wouldn’t it have been “braver” to have done it to the religious icon du jour? That’s to say, Barack Obama. And then maybe Ashton Kutcher could have marveled at how even Obama’s image was empathizing tearily with all 687 million Americans without health insurance. Or, alternatively, dribbling warm champagne from his Norwegian Nobel banquet toast. C’mon, Larry. Sure, you might not have a career afterward, but, unlike any Islamo-provocations, you’re not gonna get killed. Just fired, and probably damned as a racist. But at least you wouldn’t be a simpering suck-up to power like Rocco Landesman and the other creeps.

“Religious icon du jour” - priceless. I mean, c’mon, obviously he is - just check out that Chia commercial. And I wouldn’t hold my breath on the end of sucking-up, but that’s just me:

At some point the Caesar cult has to manifest itself in an achievement – I mean a real achievement, not merely some dud prize handed out by Norwegian Lefties. Afghanistan is his now: Notwithstanding “years of drift,” whether it winds up as victory or defeat is his call. It’s Obama’s war. It’s Obama’s economy. The stimulus bill is his stimulus, and for $787 billion it created 30,000 new jobs (according to the government) or (according to the Associated Press) 25,000. Either way, you do the math. It’s Obama’s unemployment rate, Obama’s dollar, Obama’s debt. Pace Valerie Jarrett, the truth is you are the power. And those on the receiving end of it are going to be speaking a lot louder in the months ahead.

Yep, it surely is all Obama’s now. And not for nothing, but it isn’t like the Democrats didn’t control both houses for two years before Obama got into the White House. There is a lot for which Bush is responsible, but at some point, Obama needs to stop making him the Blame Czar, and start doing his job.

Oh, and these positions aren’t just “fun” ones, like being the Ambassador to the Bahamas, for instance. You may have heard of this position: US Attorney General. Yes, indeedy, Eric Holder was an Obama contributor, though comparatively speaking, he and Susan Rice got their jobs for not a whole lotta green (between $50 - 100,000). Ain’t politics GRAND?

Naturally, rhese are paid positions - and the pay is mighty nice, as you will see below. What you might not realize is that there are actually professional diplomats. You know, people who know how to play the game of diplomacy. They would not be in this group of folks Obama is putting into these plum roles, either. Oh, you know they’re happy about that - not.

Fredreka Schouten had this article in USA Today, Top Obama Fundraisers Get Posts. She should have written, “Plum Posts” in her title:

More than 40% of President Obama’s top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama’s campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.

Overall, about 600 individuals and couples raised money from their friends, family members and business associates to help fund Obama’s presidential campaign. USA TODAY’s analysis found that 54 have been named to government positions, ranging from Cabinet and White House posts to advisory roles, such as serving on the economic recovery board charged with helping guide the country out of recession.

Nearly a year after he was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington, Obama also has taken a cue from his predecessors and appointed fundraisers to coveted ambassadorships, drawing protests from groups representing career diplomats. A separate analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats’ union, found that more than half of the ambassadors named by Obama so far are political appointees, said Susan Johnson, president of the association. An appointment is considered political if it does not go to a career diplomat in the State Department.

That’s a rate higher than any president in more than four decades, the group’s data show, although that could change as the White House fills more openings. Traditionally about 30% of top diplomatic jobs go to political appointees, and roughly 70% to veteran State Department employees. Ambassadors earn $153,200 to $162,900 annually.

Dang - that’s a mighty nice salary! Can you imagine being the Ambassador to, well, anywhere, but I’ll pull one out - BELIZE - and getting that kind of salary? And BONUS - you don’t even really have to know how to do the job!! Sheesh! No wonder real diplomats are a bit peeved:

“It is time to end the spoils system and the de facto sale of ambassadorships,” Johnson said. “The United States is best served by having experienced, knowledgeable and trained career officers fill all positions in our diplomatic service.”

The administration is “well aware of the historical target of career vs. non-career ambassadors, and we will be right on that target,” said White House spokesman Thomas Vietor. He said the first round of diplomatic jobs traditionally go to political appointees because those are the first available when a president takes office.

Vietor said Obama also made it clear early on that he would “nominate extremely qualified individuals who didn’t necessarily come up through the ranks of the State Department but want to serve their country.”

Among the top Obama fundraisers with jobs: former technology executive Julius Genachowski as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and Nicole Avant, a music industry executive who is the top envoy in the Bahamas. Neither granted interview requests.

Always a man of his word, that Obama. Ahahahahaha - I could barely type that out. I mean, he does say words, and so what if he rearranges the order of those words from time to time so that their meaning is the exact opposite of what he said previously? Picky, picky.

I know you are worried about those people who gave Obama a bucket of money who DIDN’T get to come work in the White House, or in Paris. Don’t you fret - Obama is taking care of them, too:

Those not in the administration benefited in other ways, including attending invitation-only White House bashes, such as a St. Patrick’s Day gala.

Fundraiser David Gail, a Dallas lawyer that the campaign identified as raising between $100,000 and $200,000, joined dignitaries in July for an East Room country music concert featuring Alison Krauss and Charley Pride. He said he greeted Obama after the event but doesn’t have special access to the president, who was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington.

“I’ve seen people who have been included on conference calls or events who were very involved at the grass-roots level,” Gail said.

“Contributing doesn’t guarantee a visit to the White House,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday, “nor does it preclude it.”

Oh. My. GODDESS. Have you ever seen such mealey mouthed contradictory hooey? Oh, wait, you probably have - the LAST time I quoted Gibbs. You know, someone who can hedge like that ought to have a career in landscape design, for cryin’ out loud.

Okay, so some of these people aren’t ambassadors, or the US Attorney General, or Chair of the FCC, but they are still getting by:

Others not on the campaign’s list of official bundlers also have reaped rewards.

Sacramento developer Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, a fundraiser in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign, was nominated this month by Obama to serve as ambassador to Hungary. Clinton is now secretary of state.

Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis did not respond to interview requests, and her office referred calls to the White House.

It’s too early to tell how big a role Obama’s fundraisers will play. On the ambassador front alone, nearly 100 top positions remain unfilled, according to the American Foreign Service Association’s tally.

Ronald Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, wants Obama to limit political appointees to about 10% of diplomatic jobs. “The direction is not good,” he said of Obama’s appointments to date, “but you cannot definitively say what the picture will be for the whole administration.”

“The direction is not good.” Uh, yeah. These are the people either running our country, or having an impact on foreign affairs, or charged with ensuring the very laws that govern our land. And you wonder why Washington is such a mess. The people who are running it are the ones who washed someone’s back, and are simply getting their payback. It is some kind of payback they are getting, too - plum positions, and positions of power. All because they have deep pockets. I bet that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside (for me, it is my blood pressure rising).

Below is the list of people thus far, also from the USA Today article. Have fun perusing it and seeing just what a few hundred grand will get you. Wait, is THAT the kind of “change” Obama meant??

FROM FUNDRAISER TO STAFFER

President Obama has named 54 fundraisers to government positions. Here’s a look at who they are and how much they raised. The campaign reported fundraising in broad ranges only.

RAISED MORE THAN $500,0000

Nicole Avant Ambassador to the Bahamas
Matthew Barzun Ambassador to Sweden
Don Beyer Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Jeff Bleich Ambassador to Australia**
Richard Danzig Member, Defense Policy Board
William Eacho Ambassador to Austria
Julius Genachowski Chairman of Federal Communications Commission
Donald Gips Ambassador to South Africa
Howard Gutman Ambassador to Belgium
Scott Harris General Counsel, Department of Energy
William Kennard Ambassador to the European Union**
Bruce Oreck Ambassador to Finland
Spencer Overton Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Thomas Perrelli Associate Attorney General
Abigail Pollack Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Charles Rivkin Ambassador to France and Monaco
John Roos Ambassador of Japan
Francisco Sanchez Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade
Alan Solomont Ambassador to Spain and Andorra**
Cynthia Stroum Ambassador to Luxembourg**

RAISED BETWEEN $200,000 and $500,000

A. Marisa Chun Deputy associate attorney general
Gregory Craig White House counsel
Norman Eisen Special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform
Michael Froman Deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs
Mark Gallogly Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Max Holtzman Senior adviser to the Agriculture secretary
James Hudson Director, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Jeh Johnson General counsel, Department of Defense
Samuel Kaplan Ambassador to Morocco
Nicole Lamb-Hale Deputy general counsel, Commerce Department
Andres Lopez Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Cindy Moelis Director, Commission on White House Fellows
William Orrick Counselor to the assistant attorney general
John Phillips Chairman, Commission on White House Fellows
Penny Pritzker*** Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Bob Rivkin General counsel, Transportation Department
Desiree Rogers White House social secretary
Louis Susman Ambassador to the United Kingdom
Robert Sussman Senior policy counsel, Environmental Protection Agency
Christina Tchen Director, White House Office of Public Engagement
Barry White Ambassador to Norway
RAISED BETWEEN $100,000 and $200,000
Preeta Bansal General counsel, Office of Management and Budget
Laurie Fulton Ambassador to Denmark
Fred Hochberg President, Export-Import Bank of the United States
Valerie Jarrett Senior adviser to the president
Kevin Jennings Assistant deputy secretary of Education
Steven Rattner Treasury Department adviser
Miriam Sapiro Deputy U.S. trade representative**
Vinai Thummalapally Ambassador to Belize

RAISED BETWEEN $50,000 and $100,000

Eric Holder Attorney general
David Jacobson Ambassador to Canada
Ronald Kirk U.S. trade representative
Rocco Landesman Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts
Susan Rice Ambassador to the United Nations

** Nominated, not yet confirmed by Senate; *** National finance chairwoman
Sources: Obama campaign, Public Citizen; White House; USA TODAY research
Contributing: Andrew Seaman

Turns out I am not the only one who wonders why Obama continues to get a free pass for actions that, had Bush done them, would be front page news (and again, I have NO love lost for Bush - absolutely zero, but fair is fair). Josh Gerstein of Politico had these same questions, about which he wrote in this article, What If Bush Had Done That?. Indeed:

A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser.

Snubbing the Dalai Lama.

Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.

Freezing out a TV network.

Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.

It’s a sign that the media’s echo chamber can be a funny thing, prone to the vagaries of news judgment, and an illustration that, in politics, context is everything.

Conservatives look on with a mix of indignation and amazement and ask: Imagine the fuss if George W. Bush had done these things?

The media’s “echo chamber”? That is a kind reference for what they are really doing, or rather aren’t doing: their jobs. Conservatives aren’t the only ones questioning why this is happening. Anyone who truly cares about the our democracy and the state of journalism in this country are asking, too. But they do ask a good question:

And quickly add, with a hint of jealousy: How does Obama get away with it?

“We have a joke about it. We’re going to start a website: IfBushHadDoneThat.com,” former Bush counselor Ed Gillespie said. “The watchdogs are curled up around his feet, sleeping soundly. … There are countless examples: some silly, some serious.”

Indeed, Bush got grief for secret meetings with the oil industry, politicizing the White House and spending too much time on his beloved bike. But it’s not just Republicans who notice. Media observers note that the president often gets kid-glove treatment from the press, fellow Democrats and, particularly, interest groups on the left — Bush’s loudest critics, Obama’s biggest backers.

But others say there’s a larger phenomenon at work — in the story line the media wrote about Obama’s presidency. For Bush, the theme was that of a Big Business Republican who rode the family name to the White House, so stories about secret energy meetings and a certain laziness, intellectual and otherwise, fit neatly into the theme, to be replayed over and over again.

Obama’s story line was more positive from the start: historic newcomer coming to shake up Washington. So the negatives that sprung up around Obama — like a sense that he was more flash than substance — track what negative coverage he’s received, captured in a recent “Saturday Night Live” skit that made fun of his lack of accomplishments in office.

“There may well be almost an unconscious effort on the part of the media to give Obama a bit more slack because he is more likable, because he is the first African-American president. That plays into it,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst at the University of Southern California.

Democrats find the complaints of Obama “getting a pass” hard to stomach in light of the way the press treated Bush — particularly on the single biggest mistake of his presidency, relying on the faulty intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq. Now, Obama’s aides say, the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding.

“As our administration makes progress on the agenda that Washington has ignored for too long, we expect we’ll get some news coverage of that progress that we like and some tough coverage that we don’t,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. “It’s not unlike the New Orleans Saints, who are getting lots of good coverage of their perfect record so far — certainly better coverage than the [2-5] Redskins — but it doesn’t mean the Saints have liked every story that’s been written about them since training camp. It goes with the territory.”

There are signs the friendly tone toward Obama is ebbing. Case in point: a front-page story in The New York Times noting that Obama’s all-male basketball games drew fire from the head of the National Organization for Women, who called the games “troubling.”

I agree that Bush seemed to be treated with kit gloves, way, way too much for my liking. The media does seem to enjoy determining who our next president will be. But even Bush’s treatment pales in comparison to the lovefest the MSM has had for Obama.

So yes, they are now asking why Obama excludes women (though he has now tried to rectify that by asking ONE woman, Melody Barnes, to play golf with him) in his games? We have known for ages that often, it is on the golf course or basketball court that favors are curried or power is amassed, hence the desire for women to achieve membership in numerous country clubs across the country. Oh, and Obama’s response to the NY Time’s articles highlighting that women were excluded? “Bunk, ” he said. Uh, yeah, no. It isn’t, President Obama.

There are too many examples of just how Obama has been allowed to skate free:

But here are other stories in which Obama seems to have gotten a pass:

New Orleans

As a candidate, Obama railed against the Bush administration for abandoning and then neglecting the people of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. He made five campaign trips to the city.

But as president, Obama waited almost nine months before visiting the Big Easy, spent less than four hours on the ground there and then jetted to San Francisco for a $3 million Democratic fundraiser.

“Don’t judge anybody on the amount of time that they’ve spent there. Judge only what this administration promised that they would do, what they’ve done every day and what they’re continuing to work on,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said, pointing to positive reviews of the federal government’s efforts under Obama.

For their part, Democrats can’t see how Bush officials can muster much umbrage over anything related to New Orleans, given how the Republican administration handled the initial response to Katrina.

Forget “Bush Officials.” How about us plain ol’ Americans? We’re pretty pissed off about it, too. Just saying. A biggie is this:

Managing The Press

When the Obama administration moved in recent weeks to isolate and disparage Fox News as a wing of the Republican Party, there were few immediate howls of outrage — even from Fox’s fellow journalists in the media.

Press defenders and First Amendment advocates who jumped on the Bush administration for using military analysts to shape war coverage reacted with a yawn to the White House’s announcement that it had deemed Fox to be not a “legitimate news organization.”

“Had I said about MSNBC what the Obama White House said about Fox, the media uproar would still be going on,” said Ari Fleischer, who served as Bush’s press secretary until 2003. “I instinctively would have known … the media would have leapt to their feet to defend them. I’m shocked it’s not happening now.”

One press veteran agreed. “If George Bush had taken on MSNBC, what would have happened?” said Phil Bronstein, editor-at-large of the San Francisco Chronicle. “That’s one place you can point to a real difference in how I’d imagine Bush would be treated.”

No freakin’ kidding. People would be screaming their fool heads off about free speech. But the Obamam crowd? They just jump on the Fox bashing bandwagon. Nice.

And this is a big one, too:

Politicizing the White House

Throughout the Bush administration, liberal critics warned that the hand of Bush political adviser Karl Rove was spreading politics into all corners of government. Reporters were on alert for any sign that politics was infecting the work of federal agencies. One top appointee got in hot water for allegedly asking agency officials to work to “help our candidates” across the country.

So some Bush aides went nearly apoplectic earlier this month when they spotted Gibbs and Obama’s political guru, David Axelrod, in photos of a Situation Room meeting on Afghanistan policy.

“Oh, the howling and screaming that would have happened if Karl Rove was sitting in on even a deputies-level meeting where strategy was being hammered out. People would have just gone ballistic,” said Peter Feaver, a former White House aide for both Bush and Bill Clinton.

Also, in about nine months, Obama has already attended more than two dozen fundraising events, while Bush did only six in his first year in office, according to a tally by CBS’s Mark Knoller.

Gibbs said Obama had to do more to raise a similar amount of money, since the kinds of soft-money fundraisers Bush did early on were banned. “This president … doesn’t accept money from PACs or lobbyists and doesn’t allow lobbyists to give at fundraisers that he’s at, as well,” Gibbs added.

Uh, yeah, sure, okay, Mr. Mealy Mouth Man. We all buy that one, right? Uh, yeah, no.

Then there is this one:

Dealing With Business, In Secret

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney endured years of criticism and lawsuits that stretched all the way to the Supreme Court over secret meetings Cheney’s Energy Task Force held with oil and gas companies. When the policy emerged, critics said Cheney was carrying water for the industry.

Obama pledged to hash out health care reform live on C-SPAN and excoriated Bush for kowtowing to the drug industry. But aides signed off on the drug industry’s agreement to find $80 billion in savings to support reform. However, Obama aides didn’t disclose that the agreement involved the White House promising that current health legislation wouldn’t include further cuts or give the government the right to negotiate over drug prices.

I admit, this did actually get a rise from a few folks, like Greg Palast. But that moment seems to have passed now. Now, people rarely mention it. Big surprise…

And another issue near and dear to many of us:

Toning Down Human Rights

During the campaign, Obama talked tough on China. While candidate Obama pushed Bush to take a hard line, President Obama hasn’t. Hoping to win China’s help on Iran and North Korea, Obama skipped a meeting with the Dalai Lama and said little when China undertook a violent crackdown in its largely Muslim Xinjiang region. The White House has pledged to meet with the Dalai Lama later.

And while candidate Obama warned Bush against a “reckless and cynical initiative [that] would reward a regime in Khartoum that has a record of failing to live up to its commitments,” President Obama’s envoy to Sudan, Scott Gration, seemed to lay out a similar incentive-driven approach.

“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies,” said Gration. “Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.” The White House backed away from Gration’s characterization of the strategy but did recently lay out a strategy of engaging with the Sudanese regime.

Obama snubbed the DALAI LAMA. C’mon already - THAT’S not going to get an outcry? He’s the DALAI LAMA, for pete’s sake! No? *Crickets*

Just for, um, fun:

Traveling And Recreating

In his campaign and as president, Bush was mocked for a lack of interest in all things foreign — seven minutes touring the Kremlin, 25 minutes at the Great Wall of China, before declaring, “Let’s go home.”

During a trip to Europe in June, Obama chastised German and French reporters for suggesting that he was snubbing those countries by making only brief stops in each. “There are only 24 hours in the day. And so there’s nothing to any of that speculation beyond us just trying to fit in what we could do on such a short trip,” he told reporters in Germany.

But after taking his wife out for an attention-grabbing date night, Obama promptly jetted back to Washington. Within about 90 minutes of arriving at the White House, the tightly scheduled president was on the move again — headed to Andrews Air Force Base to play nine holes of golf.

How quickly people change. If Bush had done ANY of these things, the HuffPo and Daily Kos crowds would have been going ballistic about it. But now that it’s THEIR guy, it’s peachy keen. Where is the sense of fair play? Where is the concept of right is right? No, all of that gets completely thrown out of the window if it is someone they actually LIKE.

That is just sad. While ethics can be situational, the similarities between Bush and Obama are glaring, as many of us said they were all along. To completely disregard any sense of decency because it’s their guy weakens their arguments about choosing him in the first place. It makes it crystal clear that this is about winning at all costs, and choosing someone with little more than a teleprompter to do so.

It weakens their arguments against Bush, too, though they will most likely never admit that. But it’s true. In this case, what’s god for the gander, is, well, good for the gander.

Maybe if the media actually starts to do its job (for instance, where are all of the photos of Obama playing golf all of the time? Or basketball? They never failed to show Bush playing or riding his bike.), maybe they will start to open their eyes. One can hope, anyway. In the meantime, it continues to be our job to hold Obama’s feet to the fire for decisions he makes, and doesn’t make. It is our job to hold up the glaring similarities between Bush and Obama. And do so we will…

“Barack Obama Sees Worst Poll Rating Drop In 50 Years”

Gallup recorded an average daily approval rating of 53 per cent for Mr Obama for the third quarter of the year, a sharp drop from the 62 per cent he recorded from April.

His current approval rating – hovering just above the level that would make re-election an uphill struggle – is close to the bottom for newly-elected president. Mr Obama entered the White House with a soaring 78 per cent approval rating.

The bad polling news came as Mr Obama returned to the campaign trail to prevent his Democratic party losing two governorships next month in states in which he defeated Senator John McCain in last November’s election.

Jeffrey Jones of Gallup explained: “The dominant political focus for Obama in the third quarter was the push for health care reform, including his nationally televised address to Congress in early September.

“Obama hoped that Congress would vote on health care legislation before its August recess, but that goal was missed, and some members of Congress faced angry constituents at town hall meetings to discuss health care reform. Meanwhile, unemployment continued to climb near 10 per cent.”

Unfortunately for Obama, the People had something to say about the legislation that would so impact each and every one of us. I bet those legislators just HATE when their constituents throw a wrench into their grand plans, don’t you?

Things aren’t just bad for Obama, though:

Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey is in severe danger of defeat while Democrats are fast losing hope that Creigh Deeds can beat his Republican opponent in Virginia. Twin Democratic losses would be a major blow to Mr Obama’s prestige.

Campaigning for Mr Corzine in Hackensack on Wednesday night, Mr Obama delivered a plea that almost seemed as much for himself as the local candidate: “I’m here today to urge you to cast aside the cynics and the sceptics, and prove to all Americans that leaders who do what’s right and who do what’s hard will be rewarded and not rejected.”

Mr Corzine, a former Goldman Sachs executive and multi-millionaire, is currently running even in New Jersey, which is normally comfortably Democratic, while Mr Deeds is trailing badly in Virginia, a swing state that was key to Mr Obama’s 2008 victory.

Let’s just pause for a second and soak that in - Gov. Corzine is a former Goldman Sachs exec who made a gazillion buckaroos, and Obama is stumping for him. Perhaps this is one of those moments when Obama’s minions might just get sobered up just a tad from the Kool Aide and realize that they bought a bill of goods.

It gets worse:

Mr Obama is also facing widespread criticism for his drawn-out decision-making process over what to do next in Afghanistan.

Republicans sense Mr Obama is in a vulnerable position and this week saw the return to the public stage of his perhaps most vehement opponent – Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Holy crapoli - Cheney? The man to whom we affectionately (cough) referred to as Darth Vader?? Whooey - this should be interesting:

In a blistering speech on Wednesday night, he accused Mr Obama of failing to give Americans troops on the ground a clear mission or defined goals and of being seemingly “afraid to make a decision” about Afghanistan “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger,” Cheney said at the Center for Security Policy in Washington.

“Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries.”

He hit out at Obama aides who suggested that the Bush administration had failed to weigh up conditions in Afghanistan properly before committing troops.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

Yikes. Nothing like being called on the carpet by the president, I mean, VICE president, from the past 8 years. Ahem. I reckon Obama and his Chicago pals thought all of their blaming of the Bush Administration would silence that Administration. Apparently, they were not paying attention to how Cheney rolls over the last 8 years, either. I’m sure Obama/Emmanuel/Axelrove will come up with SOME dismissive statement about Cheney’s remarks, and still not do anything about Afghanistan, because that’s how THEY roll.

Just in case you are keeping score (or want to), the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll at Rasmussen Reports has Obama’s approval ratings at 49% as of Friday, Oct. 23rd.

But hey, these are just numbers. What are the people who formerly approved of Obama but are now sobering up saying? My good friend, Nunly, of Bad Habit fame, braved the Obamablogs, and found some mighty interesting comments by the Obama faithful. She was kind enough to leave this at my blog, and the comments in italics are her’s (she’s funny):

I went to look at AmericaBlog last night (I love to see what the Obots are up to) and thought you would LOVE to see what they think of Obama now. I’ve never seen so much whining, crying, gnashing of teeth since I told my kids they had to pay for their own car insurance.

…Aravosis has been covering the health care bill negotiations and I swear, the comments about Obama had me rolling on the floor laughing.

Here are a few of my favorite from that post. You could read the rest if you want, but they are all about the same.

Here goes..get your tissues out because you’re gonna laugh until you cry:

Mike_in_the_Tundra said:
I really don’t remember voting for Olympia Snow during the presidential campaign.

Montiel said:
Obama campaigned on a strong public option.

When push came to shove he ran the other way.

What does it matter now what he says - we already know who he is.

(Mary Ellen’s note: Then the following guy is trying to put the kool-aid stains on somebody else’s upper lip and throws in a little Christian bashing to finish it off.)

JohnnyG [Moderator] 10 hours ago 2 people liked this.
Even if this is proven true, the kool-aid drinkers will still ignore it. All they care about is his “historical presidency.” They’ll be more than happy to let his dirty dealings be swept under the rug. Much like how Christians view God, anything good is credited to Jesus (Barack) and anything bad is credited to the devil (Rahm, anyone else handy.)

PresPlatitudes said:
why isn’t obama pushing for the PO, instead of parading around on letterman like a vain opportunist?

(Below is my favorite comment!)

Judas Peckerwood
If Obama’s ultra-secret overarching goal for his presidency is to make the PUMAs look sane in retrospect, then all I can say is “Well played sir, well played indeed.”

(ROTFLMAO! They hate it that the PUMA’s were right!)

Fireblazes(CheetohsandCatfood) said:
Obviously, he was lying about wanting the public option. No money in that, after all it takes a billion to become president.

godwillsortyouout said:
For what it’s worth, in the 2008 Presidential campaign, McCain raised $8 million from people who worked for healthcare companies, including lots of executives.

Obama raised ** $19 million **. You do the math.

(They just figured that out? And HOW many times did we try to tell them that before and how did they reply? “Racist!” )

vkobaya said:
if President Obama isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise

No, no, of course, he isn’t trying to scuttle his own campaign promise. No, like any card carrying Republican, he is trying to scuttle America, drag it down the tubes, destroy our nation, which he hates and despises.

I’m sick of the man. Revolted, bitter, and angry that I and so many others were played for suckers into voting for him. Would we have been worse off under McCain and Sarah Palin? Beginning to wonder. Probably would have been no different.

(More laughing…I thought “we” were the “bitter and angry” ones? Look who’s bitter now!)…

Oh, how low they have gone, just like Obama’s poll numbers. I would be more sympathetic if they hadn’t treated all of us like Pure-T crap, or demeaned and belittled Hillary Clinton at every turn, demonizing her, downplaying her vast accomplishments, the warmth, the compassion, the intellect, the experience…So, yeah, I hate it for them, but they have no one to blame but themselves for how they’re feeling now. See? Vetting the candidate really DOES matter! Wowie zowie, just like we said!! Sigh.

Well, all I can say is stay tuned - it’s bound to be interesting at any rate, right? Can’t wait to see what the coming week brings…

General McChrystal’s proposal for Afghanistan has been on Obama’s desk for almost two months now. And what is Obama doing about it? Well, he appears to be deciding on how to decide what his decision will be, but he’s not there yet. Nope, instead, he is throwing up some smokescreen about the need for a do-over in Afghanistan’s election (wait - how come WE can’t get one of those??) before he will commit. And smokescreen it is. Even Secretary of Defense Gates has told him he can’t wait that long.

Obama needs to stop tip-toeing around Afghanistan, and own it, as a part of his presidency. For that matter, he needs to own his presidency, as Peggy Noonan points out in this commentary, It’s His Rubble Now: And the American people want him to fix it.. Uh, yeah. Pretty much. She writes:

At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.

Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.

President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.

It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”

Pretty much. Though he seems to be using his bullhorn for all the wrong things, IMHO. Noonan continues:

The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.’” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.

This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, ya’ll thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.

But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous explanation of unhappy voters are people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speaks of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.

No kidding - insulting people you want to win over is thoroughly unhelpful, though it’s a strategy we have seen way too much of of late (and for a great post on that little soundbite of Obama’s, I recommend fellow No Quarter writer, Ani’s, post, “President Obama Is Insulting Americans Again”). I, for one, do not respond well to it, but that’s just me.

Back to Noonan:

But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.

How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.

The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.

The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.

She forgot the lying, cheating, stealing, and downright theft, that helped propel Obama into the presidency, but whatever. What I don’t get is why people continue to forget that the Democrats were in charge of both houses of Congress for TWO YEARS before Obama became president. All of the stuff that happened in the two preceding years, like the stimulus bill, the economy, all of that, is on their hands. This, “Oh, poor me - look at how much I have to clean up! Being president is HARD WORK, just like Bush said!” has long passed its usefulness, if it ever had any.

It’s more than that:

The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)

The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.

In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.

Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.

At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.

Not for nothing, but he kept telling US he could handle this job. Many of us knew he couldn’t, wouldn’t, but at some point, it’s sink or swim, and we are already beyond that point. No more whining and crying about the crap sandwich you got handed when you fought so dirty to get there in the first place. I guarantee you, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be complaining left and right. She’d push up her shirt sleeves and get to work. That is what we expect of Obama, too.

Oh, one last thing. About those fundraisers Obama is flitting around doing while we have all of these major issues detailed above? In the first nine months of his presidency, Obama has gone to TWENTY-THREE fundraisers. In the first twenty, he has raised $20 million for the DNC coffers. That’s just jake.

Want to guess how many Bush did in the same amount of time? Six. I said, SIX. And Bush raised $48 million from his six, and he did none after the attacks on September 11th.

I can’t leave Bill Clinton out. He did five fundraisers in nine months. That’s it.

Sure shows you what is important to Obama, and it is not running this country. Time for him to own the presidency he fought so dirty to get, and roll up HIS shirt sleeves like Secretary Clinton has done. Way, way past time, in fact. Get to it already.

Okay, I admit it - I have tried to be in total denial about the following interview of Secretary of State Clinton and Ann Curry. My aunt sent me the pertinent quote earlier this week, and I just didn’t want to believe it. I still don’t want to believe it, to be honest. It makes me both sad and angry for reasons I am sure many of you share, too.

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!)

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours - he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great - so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?

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!)

On the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama is gathering his national security team for another strategy session.

Obama, who inherited the war when he took office last January, is examining how to proceed with a worsening combat situation that has claimed nearly 800 U.S. lives and sapped American patience. Launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to defeat the Taliban and rid Al Qaeda of a home base, the war has lasted longer than ever envisioned.

House and Senate leaders of both parties emerged Tuesday from a nearly 90-minute conversation with Obama with praise for his candor and interest in listening. But politically speaking, all sides appeared to exit where they entered, with Republicans pushing Obama to follow his military commanders and Democrats saying he should not be rushed.

Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.

The president did not show his hand on troop increases. His top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has bluntly warned that more troops are needed to right the war, perhaps up to 40,000 more. Obama has already added 21,000 troops this year, raising the total to 68,000.

I understand the importance of trying to proceed with the best plan possible, but at some point, especially when one is talking about a war in which action can move quickly, it seems one would want to make a decision sooner rather than later:

Obama also gave no timetable for a decision, which prompted at least one pointed exchange.

Inside the State Dining Room, where the meeting was held, Obama’s Republican opponent in last year’s presidential race, Sen. John McCain, told Obama that he should not move at a “leisurely pace,” according to people in the room.

That comment later drew a sharp response from Obama, they said. Obama said no one felt more urgency than he did about the war, and there would not be nothing leisurely about it.

Well, then, make a decision already!! Ahem. So, what is Obama considering:

Obama may be considering a more modest building of troops — closer to 10,000 than 40,000 — according to Republican and Democratic congressional aides. But White House aides said no such decision has been made.

The president insisted that he will make a decision on troops after settling on the strategy ahead. He told lawmakers he will be deliberate yet show urgency.

“We do recognize that he has a tough decision, and he wants ample time to make a good decision,” said House Republican leader John Boehner. “Frankly, I support that, but we need to remember that every day that goes by, the troops that we do have there are in greater danger.”

What’s clear is that the mission in Afghanistan is not changing. Obama said his focus is to keep Al Qaeda terrorists from having a base from which to launch attacks on the U.S or its allies. He heard from 18 lawmakers and said he would keep seeking such input even knowing his final decision would not please them all.

That’s politics. That being said, there are LITERALLY lives at stake here. So far this month, there have been 17 US Casualties. Time is of the essence, I would think. But I’m not the Decider:

Obama’s emphasis on building a strong strategy did not mean he shed much light on what it would be. He did, though, seek to “dispense with the more extreme options on either side of the debate,” as one administration official put it. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss details of the closed-door meeting.

The president made clear he would not “double down” in Afghanistan and build up U.S forces into the hundreds of thousands, just as he ruled out withdrawing forces and focusing on a narrow counterterrorism strategy.

“Half-measures is what I worry about,” McCain, R-Ariz., told reporters. He said Obama should follow recommendations from those in uniform and dispatch thousands of more troops to the country — similar to what President George W. Bush did during the 2008 troop “surge” in Iraq.

Public support for the war in Afghanistan is dropping. It stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. A total of 69 percent of self-described Republicans in the poll favor sending more troops, while 57 percent of self-described Democrats oppose it.

The White House said Obama won’t base his decisions on the mood on Capitol Hill or eroding public support for the war.

“The president is going to make a decision — popular or unpopular — based on what he thinks is in the best interests of the country,” press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Okay…So, WHEN???

Here is what Senator John McCain had to say after the meeting mentioned above:

Hopefully, the meeting President Obama has planned for this anniversary day with his War Council will help prompt him to make a decision, a good decision, the BEST decision sooner rather than later.

And on this anniversary, here is but a glimpse of one area in which our military is working in Afghanistan:

And to all of the families and friends who have lost loved ones in this war, my heart goes out to you. You are in my thoughts and prayers. Your sacrifice is our sacrifice, and it is a debt we can never fully repay, but one which mandates that as keep our nation strong by upholding the Constitution of the United States so that your loss, our loss, is not made in vain…

Or this:

And finally (!), this:

I sure as hell know I am. Oh, and all photos came from this Huffington Post site - where else, unless it was MSNBC? Ahem. There are plenty more, if you wish to go see them. I know you’re surprised by that.

I tell you who I would rather see. While the Obamas and their pal, Oprah, you know, the one who anointed Obama as The One, were wasting our tax dollars on a trip no other president has made EVER, there was someone who was hard at work for the country. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, of course, as the photos* below make clear. She was meeting with Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, who is the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to discuss issues related to Muslim relations around the world. Here she is greeting him:

Here is Secretary Clinton in rapt attention as he speaks:

And here, Secretary Clinton indicates it is time to move on:

Look at how he looks at her. We have seen this look of respect from leaders all around the world. They know what so many of us know - this woman is no political lightweight. She is brilliant, she is knowledgeable, and she is capable. She will get the job done, no hemming and hawing around, no sirree.

Sophie B. Hawkins says it all in the video below:

Damn - I wish she was president, too…

* All photos by Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America

Here is a good recap of what has happened during the past week from the American Red Cross:

It is hard to put into words the depth of destruction that has occurred in these areas. Below are a few videos to give you an idea of what has happened in these countries. These are not easy to watch, and tragically, many lives have been lost. But it is important for us to know what has happened, and how we can help.

A brief report from the AP on American Samoa and Samoa follows here:

A major earthquake hit Sumatra:

And this is a glimpse into what has happened in the Philippines:

There are many, many more videos available online at Youtube.com, if you wish to see more.

If you want to help, donations can be made to the American Red Cross Donations are also being accepted by Oxfam America, and other worthy organizations.

My thoughts and prayers go out to all those in these areas, for their safety, for those who have been lost, and those who are missing. My prayers also go to all of those brave souls who rush in to help in these situations. Truly, they are heroes…

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

I should add, I don’t have the same level of disdain for the French that some in this country have. In fact, I love France, and I love the people I have met there. I have not had the experience of French people looking down their noses at me because I’m American, even in Paris. In small villages in which I’ve traveled, even with my crappy French (I took Spanish in school), and the limited English the shop keepers had, we each worked hard to understand each other. One woman didn’t speak a word of English, but would engage in pantomime (I’m sure there’s a joke there about the French and mimes) to get her point across, AND she was funny, to boot. So, while I appreciate that some people have not had this experience, I won’t jump on the French bashing bandwagon. Honestly, I can’t wait until I get to go back there.

Back to the article,and Krauthammer’s point:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Hmmm - WWHD? You know, What Would Hillary Do? Would she reveal this nugget of explosive information? My bet is ABSO-FREAKIN’-LUTELY. How about Obama? What would he do:

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ’spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacré bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

Uh, yeah. It seems like the perfect setting for exposing this information. Evidently, Sarkozy thought so, too. Others didn’t realize what had just happened:

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

Mon Dieu! Those are some pretty strong words there. Appropriate, though. Can you imagine if any other president, who had the opportunity to chair this very important committee for the FIRST time, sat on that kind of information? No doubt, it wouldn’t just be the French President who was upset about this. Thankfully, those who are less invested in the “aura” of Obama actually paid attention to this “oversight” on Obama’s part at this critical juncture.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how woefully prepared he is for the REAL World Stage.

(And C, if you’re reading this far, I hope you appreciate the French phrases!)

Remember that “3:00AM” ad? Who would we want answering the phone? This woman, that’s who.

Instead we have President Obama, who has gotten his early morning call, particularly regarding Afghanistan. He’s letting it go to voice-mail. Hey, he has more important things to do, like go to Copenhagen to push for Chicago to get the Olympic Games in 2016. Yep - it’s true. He’s making a “personal” appeal - presumably on OUR dime. Oh, he can’t be bothered with what’s going on with ACORN, mind you, but he can press for Chicago to get the Olympics. So, General McChrystal, and our troops, can just wait, dammit, until Obama can get to them. (By the way, General McChrystal is holding firm on wanting those troops, despite the pressure he is under to shut up.)

Oh, and a little side note on that, the whole Chicago Olympics bid. Turns out that Fox TV in Chicago has been warned - as only they can do in Chicago - to NOT air a program they did on people in Chicago OPPOSED to having the Olympics there again. Oh, I just love this Free Speech, don’t you?

Every time I hear Secretary Clinton speak, and then President Obama, every time, I am reminded of who would have been the better choice to have at the other end of the phone line in difficult times. And it sure isn’t Obama, no matter how much he loves to hear himself talk (though largely about himself, as THIS article highlights. Almost 1,200 times in just 41 speeches, NOT including all of the speechifying he did last week. Holy SMOKES - narcissistic much?). He’s not the one I would trust to deal with the big issues. Seems like some other folks are figuring that out now, too. Too late, though, for dealing with some major issues, like Afghanistan.

If only it wasn’t our soldiers who were going to bear the brunt of that call going to voice-mail…

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know - the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed - she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong - as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

Now to the article in Washington Post, “Clinton Puts Spotlight On Women’s Issues.” May I just say, before I share the article with you, that she is doing EXACTLY what she said she would do. I’m just sayin’ - she is remaining true to her principles and what she considers to be important. Unlike SOME people I could name. About time some in the MSM got the memo, but WaPo did:

She talked chickens with female farmers in Kenya. She listened to the excruciating stories of rape victims in war-torn eastern Congo. And in South Africa, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited a housing project built by poor women, where she danced with a choir singing “Heel-a-ree! Heel-a-ree!”

Clinton’s just-concluded 11-day trip to Africa has sent the clearest signal yet that she intends to make women’s rights one of her signature issues and a higher priority than ever before in American diplomacy.

She plans to press governments on abuses of women’s rights and make women more central in U.S. aid programs.

But her efforts go beyond the marble halls of government and show how she is redefining the role of secretary of state. Her trips are packed with town hall meetings and visits to micro-credit projects and women’s dinners. Ever the politician, she is using her star power to boost women who could be her allies.

“It’s just a constant effort to elevate people who, in their societies, may not even be known by their own leaders,” Clinton said in an interview. “My coming gives them a platform, which then gives us the chance to try and change the priorities of the governments.”

Wow. That is quite a statement. I am glad she is doing this work abroad, for the marginalized and oppressed. Oh, how I wish she was doing it as the President (and we know she would have kept her word then, too).

But, things don’t always run smoothly, as we know:

Clinton’s agenda faces numerous obstacles. The U.S. aid system is a dysfunctional jumble of programs. Some critics may question why she is focusing on women’s rights instead of terrorism or nuclear proliferation. And improving the lot of women in such places as Congo is complicated by deeply rooted social problems.

“It’s great she’s mentioning the issue,” said Brett Schaefer, an Africa scholar at the Heritage Foundation. “As to whether her bringing it up will substantially improve the situation or treatment of women in Africa, frankly I doubt it.”

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that Clinton has to tread carefully in socially conservative regions, particularly those where the U.S. military is at war. “You might be right, in the narrow sense of women in that country or region need to be empowered, but you’re saying something inimical to other U.S. interests,” he said.

Despite Clinton’s efforts to spotlight women’s issues, it was her own angry response to what she perceived as a sexist question at a town hall meeting in Congo that dominated American television coverage of her Africa trip. A student had asked for former president Bill Clinton’s opinion on a local political issue — “through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton.” Snapped Hillary Clinton: “My husband is not the secretary of state. I am.”

Clinton is not the first female secretary of state, but neither of her predecessors had her impact abroad as a pop feminist icon. On nearly every foreign trip, she has met with women — South Korean students, Israeli entrepreneurs, Iraqi war widows, Chinese civic activists. Clinton mentioned “women” or “woman” at least 450 times in public comments in her first five months in the position, twice as often as her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

And that is why it still shocks me that women who consider themselves feminists, and womens organizations, did not wholeheartedly throw their support behind Hillary Clinton, rather going for the young, inexperienced man. Clinton is not new to this issue, and doesn’t just pay lip service to it, either:

Clinton’s interest in global women’s issues is deeply personal, a mission she adopted as first lady after the stinging defeat of her health-care reform effort in 1994. For months, she kept a low profile. Then, in September 1995, she addressed the U.N. women’s conference in Beijing, strongly denouncing abuses of women’s rights. Delegates jumped to their feet in applause.

“It was a transformational moment for her,” said Melanne Verveer, who has worked closely with Clinton since her White House days.

Clinton began traveling the world, highlighting women’s issues. She gradually built a network of female activists, politicians and entrepreneurs, especially through a group she helped found, Vital Voices, that has trained more than 7,000 emerging leaders worldwide. She developed a following among middle-class women in male-dominated countries who devoured her autobiography and eagerly watched her presidential run.

“She might not be having the same restrictions as we have, but she has had restrictions — and she’s moving on. That’s a symbol to us,” said Tara Fela-Durotoye, a businesswoman in Abuja, Nigeria.

Clinton’s legacy is evident in such places as the Victoria Mxenge housing development outside Cape Town, South Africa, a dusty sprawl of small, pastel-colored homes she championed as first lady. When her bus rolled into the female-run project during her trip, a joyful commotion broke out. Women in purple and yellow gowns lined the streets, waving wildly.

Huh. How does this match with the rhetoric spewed by Obama about Hillary Clinton and her work abroad? Does the expression, “Liar, liar, pants on fire” mean anything to you? And yet, people bought his words, hook, line, and sinker. I wonder how they’re feeling now, especially when they read what the effects of her work are, discernible, and quantifiable:

A youth choir swayed outside a community center decorated with photos of Clinton on her previous visits to the project, which has grown to 50,000 houses. Clinton vowed in a major policy address last month to make women the focus of U.S. assistance programs. The idea is applauded by development experts, who have found that investing in girls’ education, maternal health and women’s micro-finance provides a powerful boost to Third World families.

Ritu Sharma, president of the anti-poverty group Women Thrive Worldwide, said she already sees the results of Clinton’s efforts in the bureaucracy. When Sharma’s staff recently attended a meeting about a new agricultural aid program, she said, one State Department official joked, “We have to integrate women — or we’re going to be fired.”

Still, Sharma questioned whether the program would succeed in reaching poor women, especially given the weaknesses in U.S. foreign assistance.

“There’s a lot of healthy skepticism about ‘Will it really happen?’ ” she said.

In a sign of the priority she gives to the issue, Clinton has appointed her close friend Verveer as the State Department’s first global ambassador for women’s affairs.

“She will permeate the State Department, as I want her to, with what we should be doing about empowering and focusing on women across the board,” Clinton said.

This reminds me - do you remember that Obama has a school named after him in Kenya? You know, the one to which he has given not one thin dime? Uh, yeah. Who walks the walk here? Clearly, it’s Hillary:

One issue Verveer has been concerned about is violence against women, particularly the stunningly high number of rapes in eastern Congo. Last week, Clinton, Verveer and the delegation boarded U.N. planes to visit the remote, impoverished region and meet with rape victims. Clinton pressed the Congolese president to prosecute offenders and offered $17 million in new assistance for victims.

“Raising issues like the ones I’ve been raising on this trip to get governments to focus on them, to see they’re not sidelined or subsidiary issues, but that the U.S. government at the highest levels cares about them, is important,” she said. “It changes the dynamic within governments.”

Clinton’s efforts are being reinforced by a White House women’s council and a Congress with a growing number of powerful female members. One sign of that: Aid dedicated to programs for Afghan women and girls increased about threefold this year, to $250 million, because of lawmakers such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who was recently named head of the first Senate subcommittee on global women’s issues, and Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.

It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention. In South Africa, a clearly delighted Clinton spent 90 minutes at the housing project, twice as long as she met with South Africa’s president. “It feeds my heart,” she explained. “Which is really critical to me personally since a lot of what I do as secretary of state is very formalistic. It’s meetings with other officials.”

“It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention.” Because she doesn’t do it for the publicity, she does it because it is the RIGHT thing to do!! That is another big, huge, difference between Hillary Clinton and other politicians. She does a LOT of things about which people don’t know (as in, not publicized in the media) because she actually, genuinely cares about people.
And that is why she will always be my hero - because she cares, because she SHOWS she cares, and because she brings action to her words. I think we could use a whole lot more of that from our elected officials, don’t you?

If you wish to see where Secretary Clinton went, and what she did, click on this link: Secretary of State Clinton’s Africa Travels - Interactive Map

You’re not going to believe this:

Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.

Instead they are told that they must comply with the “modest” code of dress required by Islamic custom, with women covered from the neck to the ankles and men, who swim separately, covered from the navel to the knees.

Huh? What kind of coverings? Like this?

(Photo Credit)

That’s from 1864. Yes, that’s right - 145 years ago. That’s what all the women were wearing then.

This is about what they are wearing in 2009:

(Photo credit)

Uh yeah. Pretty much. Even if they are NOT Muslims, women are supposed to wear this so as not to offend. I’m sorry, how is that again? They are going to allow one religion, not even the NATIONAL religion, mind you, to dominate what women and men (though the latter is FAR less restrictive) can and cannot wear while swimming?? In a PUBLIC pool? Well, that’s simply stunning, isn’t it?

Not everyone is onboard with the whole “burkini” thing, though, as you might have guessed:

The phenomenon runs counter to developments in France, where last week a woman was evicted from a public pool for wearing a burkini – the headscarf, tunic and trouser outfit which allows Muslim women to preserve their modesty in the water.

The 35-year-old, named only as Carole, is threatening legal action after she was told by pool officials in Emerainville, east of Paris, that she could not wear the outfit on hygiene grounds.

Not that I think she should have been tossed out of the pool or anything, but she was not trying to force everyone ELSE to wear one, either:

But across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.

Croydon council in south London runs separate one-and-a half-hour swimming sessions for Muslim men and women every Saturday and Sunday at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.

Swimmers were told last week on the centre’s website that “during special Muslim sessions male costumes must cover the body from the navel to the knee and females must be covered from the neck to the ankles and wrists”.

There are similar rules at Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, in North Lincolnshire, where “users must follow the required dress code for this session (T-shirts and shorts/leggings that cover below the knee)”.

In Glasgow, a men-only swimming session is organised by a local mosque group at North Woodside Leisure Centre, at which swimmers must be covered from navel to knee.

At a women-only class organised by a Muslim teacher at Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Oxford, to encourage Muslim women to learn to swim, most participants wear “modest” outfits although normal costumes are permitted.

Hmmm. Well, that’s something at least - that regular dress is allowed at this one place. Though still, to impose their standard of “modest dress” on others is still, well, an imposition, is it not?

Here’s the problem:

The dress codes have provoked an angry reaction among critics who say they encourage division and resentment between Muslims and non-Muslims, putting strain on social cohesion.

Ian Cawsey, the Labour MP for the North Lincolnshire constituency of Brigg and Goole, said: “Of course swimming pools have basic codes of dress but it should not go beyond that.

“I don’t think that in a local authority pool I should have to wear a particular type of clothes for the benefit of someone else. That’s not integration or cohesion.”

Good point, isn’t it? But how about a leader who does have a large Muslim populaiton:

Labour MP Anne Cryer, whose Keighley, West Yorkshire constituency has a large number of Muslims, said: “Unfortunately this kind of thing has a negative impact on community relations.

“It’s seen as yet another demand for special treatment. I can’t see why special clothing is needed for what is a single-sex session.”

Muslim swimming sessions are also held at a number of state schools around the country. At Loxford School in Ilford, east London, a local Muslim group organises weekly sessions for Muslim men, with the warning that “it is compulsory for the body to be covered between the navel and the knees.

“Anyone not adhering to the dress code or rules within the pool will not be allowed to swim”.

The practice of holding special Muslim swimming sessions has led to non-Muslims being turned away.

Well, that’s a bit of a problem, isn’t it, whent it is a public pool? I can see where people might get testy over not being allowed in if the don’t adhere to the strict dress code of a religion not their own:

David Toube, 39 and his five year old son Harry were last year refused entry to Clissold Leisure Centre, in Hackney, east London, after being told the Sunday morning swimming session was for Muslim men only.

Council officials later said staff had made a mistake and both Mr Toube, a corporate lawyer, and his son should have been admitted.

After discovering the rules at Thornton Heath one Croydon resident, 34-year-old Alex Craig, said: “I think it is preposterous that a council should be encouraging this type of segregation over municipal facilities.

“Surely if Muslims want to swim then they should just turn up with their modest swimwear at the same time as everyone else.”

That does not sound too outrageous to me, but I freely admit, I am not in the camp that women should have to hide their entire bodies to be able to go swimming. That’s just me, though.

But it is just that kind of directive that brings this up:

Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, last night condemned the practice. He said: “This kind of thing is extremely divisive.

“Non-Muslims see these extremist demands as an example of Muslims wanting things to fit into their lifestyle, when there aren’t similar things organised for Hindus, Buddhists or Jews.

“It also puts moderate Muslims in an awkward position as it suggests, wrongly, that they are not devout enough, simply because they choose not to cover themselves in a shroud in a pool.”

A press officer at Croydon council, which introduced Muslim-only swimming in 2006, claimed that the wording on the website was a mistake and the dress code should be regarded as a suggestion rather than a requirement.

The website was late changed to remove the reference to the dress code.

However, an official at the leisure centre said the dress code remained compulsory.

Earlier, defending the segregation policy, a Croydon council spokesman said: “We appreciate that certain religious groups, such as Muslims, have strict rules on segregation for activities including sports, so in response to requests from the local community, we have been running these sessions at Thornton Heath Leisure Centre.”

All in all, it sounds like quite a kerfluffle.

So, what do you think about this requirement? Should non-Muslim women be forced to wear “burkinis” while swimming in public pools? Let’s, um, flesh this out, shall we?

As she circles the globe in coming years, making the case for women’s empowerment, starting with their basic right to be taken seriously, Clinton really has her work cut out for her. And it isn’t just because the situation of women around the world is so dire, and the ocean of problems confronting them — maternal mortality, sex trafficking, domestic abuse, malnourishment, lack of education, lack of adequate medical care, just for starters — is so wide and so deep. And it isn’t just that her historic mandate — to equally empower the other half of the world’s population, to chip away at the forces “devaluing women,” in the words of Melanne Verveer, the State Department’s new ambassador at large for global women’s issues — is so huge and vague and seemingly overwhelming. It’s also because the tide of trivialization that washes over all things “Hillary” is just so powerful. That tide threatens to drown out anything of substance Clinton might attempt for a population whose problems have long been obscured in the androcentric world of diplomacy. And that’s a huge pity.

Ms. Warner is correct. And shame on the media for their wish to trivialize Secretary Clinton’s work.

This is not about ego or elevating Hillary. This is about decency. The media needs to relearn professionalism, highlighting issues that are of vital interest to our nation and the world. I never cease to be both incensed and amazed that the pundit class and venal newscasters aren’t ashamed to focus on fluff and junk politics. We need to draw attention to important concerns, as Ms. Warner painfully notes below:

This was supposed to be the trip that would show exactly how Hillary Rodham Clinton would make good on her pledge, at her confirmation hearing for secretary of state, to make women’s issues “central” to U.S. foreign policy, not “adjunct or auxiliary or in any way lesser.”

There could have been no more dramatic setting: Overruling the security fears of her aides, she traveled to eastern Congo, where hundreds of thousands of women have been raped over the past decade. She visited a refugee camp and met with one woman who was gang-raped while eight months pregnant; she heard of another who’d been sexually assaulted with a rifle. She was told of babies cut from their mothers’ bodies with razors. She spoke of “evil in its basest form.” She promised $17 million to fight sexual violence.

And back home, all anyone could talk about was Bill.

Had he upstaged her with his trip to North Korea? Had he dogged her, in absentia, all the way to Kinshasa, where a university student, wondering about “Mr. Clinton’s” views, set her off, and set the world cluck-clucking, once again, about her marriage, her temperament, even her hair?

When this last paragraph is all the media can talk about, they send a huge message:

Sexism and misogyny are alive and well.

They also telegraph the fact that they could give a damn about focusing on the atrocities against women in the Congo that left Secretary Clinton so shaken. She has been fighting for the rights of women’s empowerment, education and equality here and around the world long before it was fashionable. When women have greater access to education, health care and jobs, the economy thrives, too. This is not just about a “female agenda.” This is something that affects all of us. As Ms. Warner notes:

This could be a moment for America to redeem itself as far as the world’s women are concerned. Our recent track record, after all, is pretty dim. The Bush administration sent anti-feminists to Iraq to train that country’s women in participatory democracy. We pulled our financing from the United Nations Population Fund and imposed a global gag rule barring women’s health organizations that merely talked about abortion from receiving U.S. funds. We never ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, a pretty base-level human rights treaty, because of worries by black helicopter types that American sovereignty would be compromised. Our lack of paid maternity leave made us something of a world joke. (snip)

…a peculiarly gendered form of trivializing scorn still tags our secretary of state. Just two weeks ago, The Washington Post had to remove from its Web site an ostensibly humorous video sketch by two of its prominent political journalists that juxtaposed a picture of Clinton’s face with a bottle of derogatorily named beer. This sort of thing bodes badly for the country’s ability to treat her — and the issues she most passionately champions — with appropriate respect.

In 2008, we clearly saw the media is incapable of treating this woman with appropriate respect. It is beyond shameful because by constantly shooting the messenger, we diminish the possibility of citizens getting more involved in these vital causes. Her message is blunted by a media blackout about all things substantial in favor of smear and tabloid journalism.

“We have our own work to do at home,” Verveer told me. “We trivialize the importance too often of these issues: the ‘women’s issue’ — you put it in quotes, that little category over there, the box you check. What we have to do is realize these are the issues; if we want societies to prosper and if we want our own security, we have to raise the status of women.”

Women’s empowerment won’t be delivered at the end of a gun or through economic sanctions or even overt criticism, if it cuts into accepted cultural practices. This is messy stuff; some of our most sensitive allies have horrific records on women’s rights. Programs that show success tend to be slow-moving and incremental. Can all this complexity attract — much less sustain — the attention of the public?

Maybe — if we stop viewing everything Clinton does as entertainment.

The UK Independent’s article today, Hillary Wins Hearts As She Concludes Africa Tour offers more by way of real news and real progress made as a result of Hillary’s trip. Certainly something the American media was loathe to cover. Please be sure to read the article.

As the media has clearly demonstrated its bias time and time again, it seems the fourth estate has long abdicated its responsibility for fair or substantive reporting. And we are losing out in the bargain.

As she has done for so many years, Hillary Clinton speaks out for, and stands with, women and children, calling out those who have treated them with such brutality, with such inhumanity. She calls out for justice for these women and children, and for their torturers to receive their comeuppance.

Sadly, inhumanity is not limited to how people treat other people, but the inhumane ways we treat animals, as well. In this particular case, I am referring to horses. And you know I am nuts about horses, have been my entire life. I simply cannot begin to fathom how anyone could do this, and I am thankful that I cannot fathom it.

And that is your warning. The next video is very, very difficult to watch. If you have a weak stomach, you may think twice about watching it:

These two may not seem related, but I think they are. They both speak to how capable people are of despicable acts. In terms of the horses, it is about greed, plain and simple. In terms of the brutal rapes of women and children in DRC by people in the military, no less, it is to control and terrorize civilians, as well as for greed and power.

And in both cases, women and children, as well as the horses, are pawns in someone’s game, used and abused to suit someone’s needs other than their own, with no one to help them. Both the women and children, as well as the horses, are innocent victims of someone’s brutality, of their inhumanity.

Thank HEAVENS we have Secretary Clinton to speak up for women here and abroad, to work to end rape as a tool by those in power. How lucky we are to have someone like HER on our side, who is dedicated to eradicating violence against women. This is her lifelong quest thus far, and goddess knows, I pray she is successful.

As to the horses, I am not a violent person. I have never owned a gun in my life. Frankly, I am scared to death of them though I did have my brother teach me how to handle one properly simply because I think it is important to know how to handle one safely. You just never know when you might come across one these days.
ike I said, I am scared of them.

That being said, I certainly can relate to thinking of horses as beloved family members. Heck, I’d rather hang out with my horse any day than some members of my blood family (three of whom are certified Obots). And I can certainly understand wanting to take action to protect these creatures who cannot protect themselves. Think of it - these horses see people as their caregivers, so naturally, if a person is coming to them, they aren’t going to know the person bears ill intent toward them. How could they know? And that innocence, that trust, literally leads them to slaughter.

I’m sorry - hang on - talk amongst yourselves - okay. Whew.

I know this is nothing new, the manner by which people can treat other people, and animals (Michael Vick is certainly a case in point for the latter after his rampant dog abuse - and he is already out of prison, of course). But it doesn’t mean that I have to accept that this is just how it is. No, not at all.

I hope you won’t either. Thank Secretary Clinton for her work (heck, you can even text or Twitter her). Join an organization like People Helping Horses, which takes in abused and rescued horses, restoring them to health, then allowing them to be adopted by responsible horse owners. Speak up, speak out. We CAN make a difference. We have to make a difference…

The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, is a Navy man, is also a Christian of the conservative strand. He has given a bunch of money to conservative causes, including James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” group. Just to set the stage.

And Obama said, as a candidate, that he would not “rule out” keeping Blackwater, now “Xe,” in Iraq. Hillary not so much, not even close:

(she) released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq,” saying, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.”

Uh huh. And what has Obama done since becoming president? He’s given Blackwater, aka, Xe, a $70 million dollar contract. Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

Here’s the thing: the founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, has been implicated by two former employees for murder. Yep. And you are not going to believe this story. It is going to make you SO happy (that’s snark) that Obama has chosen to give this man, and his company, more money to stay in the Middle East. I’ll give you some of the highlights, but I urge you to read the whole piece (and the author, Jeremy Scahill, has written a LOT about Blackwater. He was a bit snide about Hillary Clinton and her resolve to NOT have Blackwater on the payroll any longer, even though that was in the same article in which he pointed out that Obama the Candidate he wouldn’t “rule it out.” Still, the articles are worth reading.). To the article:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.”

Now is when I remind you that Obama chose to retain this company. A “Christian crusader” hellbent on wiping Muslims off the map. WOW. There’s more:

Doe #2 states in the declaration that he has also provided the information contained in his statement “in grand jury proceedings convened by the United States Department of Justice.” Federal prosecutors convened a grand jury in the aftermath of the September 16, 2007, Nisour Square shootings in Baghdad, which left seventeen Iraqis dead. Five Blackwater employees are awaiting trial on several manslaughter charges and a sixth, Jeremy Ridgeway, has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempting to commit manslaughter and is cooperating with prosecutors. It is not clear whether Doe #2 testified in front of the Nisour Square grand jury or in front of a separate grand jury.

The two declarations are each five pages long and contain a series of devastating allegations concerning Erik Prince and his network of companies, which now operate under the banner of Xe Services LLC. Among those leveled by Doe #2 is that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe”:

To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

Among the additional allegations made by Doe #1 is that “Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq.” He states that he personally witnessed weapons being “pulled out” from dog food bags. Doe #2 alleges that “Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince’s private planes, which operated under the name Presidential Airlines,” adding that Prince “generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade.”

Doe #2 states: “Using his various companies, [Prince] procured and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers, through unlawful channels of distribution.” Blackwater “was not abiding by the terms of the contract with the State Department and was deceiving the State Department,” according to Doe #1.

This is disturbing on so many levels, isn’t it? Naturally, Prince denies any wrongdoing:

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting “illegal” or “unlawful” weapons into the country on Prince’s private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities of the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

These allegations, and a series of other charges, are contained in sworn affidavits, given under penalty of perjury, filed late at night on August 3 in the Eastern District of Virginia as part of a seventy-page motion by lawyers for Iraqi civilians suing Blackwater for alleged war crimes and other misconduct. Susan Burke, a private attorney working in conjunction with the Center for Constitutional Rights, is suing Blackwater in five separate civil cases filed in the Washington, DC, area. They were recently consolidated before Judge T.S. Ellis III of the Eastern District of Virginia for pretrial motions. Burke filed the August 3 motion in response to Blackwater’s motion to dismiss the case. Blackwater asserts that Prince and the company are innocent of any wrongdoing and that they were professionally performing their duties on behalf of their employer, the US State Department.

Yes, Prince is claiming everything he did was on behalf of the State Department. Oh, sure. I have no doubt that, given how Hilary Clinton spoke of his organization during the campaign, that she was all behind what he was doing in Iraq. Again, that is snark.

So - will Obama be held accountable for keeping Blackwater/Xe on the payroll and at the State Department, or will he pass the buck (again) and blame Clinton, even though she wanted nothing to do with them?

Will Erik Prince get his comeuppance for his private “crusade” against Muslims? Will he be held to account for smuggling weapons into Iraq? If what has been alleged against him is true, he deserves everything that is coming to him. Personally, I am exceedingly offended that this man and his company have been on OUR payroll, operating this way on OUR behalf. What he has been accused of doing is obscene. Just reprehensible.

Tell me again why Obama renewed his contract, because I don’t get it (even before these allegations)…