Oh, wait. No, not really. None of those things have really happened. I was shocked to see The Hill, a site I read regularly for its impartiality, and whose Associate Editor, A.B. Stoddard, I have admired for her intellect. The premise of the article by Peter Schroeder is this:

President Obama, with his electoral fate tied to the economy, must be pleased with the momentum he’s getting.

Just months ago, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded and Democrats worried Obama was following in the footsteps of one-term President Jimmy Carter. Maybe he will, but reports in the last week suggest manufacturing and construction are humming, and Thanksgiving saw record-setting shopping by consumers.

The icing on the cake? A jobs report Friday shaved nearly half a point off the unemployment rate. The 8.6 percent rate was down from 9 percent in October and is the lowest unemployment has stood in two and a half years. (Emphasis mine.)

“Democrats have a very good chance in 2012 and if the economy gets better that’ll help us,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.). “Things are looking a lot better. A lot better.”

“The icing on the cake?” Really? He is promoting this false meme that the artificially reduced Unemployment numbers put forth by the Obama Administration (and which Larry Johnson thoroughly debunks in this post, “Delusional America“)? Is it really good news for Obama that over 300,000 people have given up hope of ever finding a job again? That’s a GOOD thing? In what universe? ObamaMedia World? Evidently. I was just appalled to see a site like The Hill pushing this crock of BS for Obama and the Democrats. This wasn’t an opinion piece, after all, it was allegedly “reporting.” Reporting Democratic talking points, maybe, but not the facts, or reality. At the very BEST, the number is now at 8.9%, and even that is pushing it (according to Eric Bolling on “The Five”).

These kinds of machinations by the Democrats are really mind boggling. It wasn’t so long ago that I would have bought this crap they are selling, being a dyed in the wool Dem and all. But no longer. I simply cannot understand how the Party that claims to be SO compassionate is CELEBRATING people giving up out of despair. How is that good in ANYONE’S world?

This does seem to be the Democrats’ MO, though. This kind of hoodwinking, that is. This instance has to do with the economy, riding a wave of glee on the backs of those who have given up. My good friend, CindyIndie, sent me an article about an issue in Texas that highlights more of this double-speaking machination that seems to be SOP. This one deals with their “concern” for minority presence and leadership in politics. The title gives a hint, “Opportunity Lost To End The White-Guy Streak.” Yes, and that opportunity was lost due to an appeal by the Democrats:

For a while there, before a three-judge federal panel did some three-judge federal paneling, the good and progressive people of Travis County (long self-congratulatory about their goodness and progressivity) seemed en route to ballot-box ethnic history.

[...]

This, of course, was all about Republican self-interest and had nothing to do with wanting to break the white-man streak in Travis County. But facts are facts, and regardless of why it happened (largely to stick it to longtime U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, a longtime white man), the map offered a solid possibility of electing an African American and two Hispanics to a five-person (up from the current three) Travis County U.S. House delegation.

To jack with Doggett, the GOP drew a Hispanic-heavy San Antonio-Austin district in which state Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, had a solid shot at beating Doggett in the Democratic primary. The map also brought into Travis County a multicounty, northward meandering district now represented by Republican Bill Flores of Waco.

The Travis County map also included a greatly rejiggered multicounty district in which former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, a black Republican, had a solid chance of winning. The other districts in the county (also multicounty districts) most likely would have continued to have been represented by Republicans Michael McCaul of Austin and Lamar Smith of San Antonio, who self-identify as white men.

So Travis County could have wound up with two white guys, two Hispanic guys and a black guy. Sure, only one of them (McCaul) now lives in the county, but hey, ethnic history is ethnic history — even if the black guy (Williams) and one of the Hispanics (Flores) are Republicans (a concept that irks some of the local good and progressive.) (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, of course it is obvious why the Democrats claimed this would affect minority representation – because we all know that Black Republicans aren’t really black, and I assume that extends to Hispanic Republicans, too. Much better to have a paternalist White Guy represent your interests – they do so well with that. Just look at Women’s Issues and how well our Congress has handled that (e.g., equal pay is still a dream).

Honestly, I don’t know how in the world the Democrats could have even made this argument to the Panel with straight faces. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe there were lots of winks, guffaws, and “dontcha knows” thrown in there. Beats me. But apparently, it is a mindset that allows them to say these things, much like this pronouncement from The Hill’s “Signs” article:

[snip] Democrats have felt the swing in momentum.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said the president’s chances for reelection have “improved” with the economy, while Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) says voters will see the president has things moving in the right direction.

“The economy is not where we want it to be, but it’s at least stable and slowly but surely going in the right direction,” Cummings told The Hill. (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah, just keep telling yourselves that. I suppose these folks also still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which they are presumably counting on to help ease our massive debt, which is now 100% of our GDP. Yeah, sure, the economy is doing GREAT! Just peachy! Just tell all of those folks who are first time filers for Unemployment, those who dropped out, and those who have lost their homes. I am so certain they will all agree with Levin and Cummings, aren’t you? Cough, cough. Uh huh. Maybe it is time for them to take off their rose colored glasses, and try looking at reality for a change. Just a thought. What do you think?

President Barack Obama will send 1,200 National Guard troops to help secure the U.S.-Mexico border, an administration official and an Arizona congresswoman said Tuesday, pre-empting Republican plans to try to force votes on such a deployment.

Obama will also request $500 million for border protection and law enforcement activities, they said.

The National Guard troops will work on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support, analysis and training, and support efforts blocking drug trafficking. The troops will temporarily supplement border patrol agents until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border, the administration official said.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a public announcement, disclosed the plans shortly after Obama met at the Capitol with Republican senators who pressed him on immigration issues including the question of sending Guard troops to the border.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s popularity has gone through the roof since signing the new Arizona immigration law, despite the bullying of the President himself, not to mention the derogatory comments of both Attorney General Holder and Janet Napolitano, his head of Homeland Security. Brewer stood up for the safety and rights of her constituents, asking the President to step up and do his job and…he blinked.

That’s what happens when you call out a bully.

Both the Bush and the Obama administrations have abdicated their responsibility to secure the border – since it is such a difficult hot button issue and I can only assume both were afraid of risking the ire of Latino voters. This is not about discouraging immigration, but as many others pointed out, we cannot even move forward on immigration reform until we secure the border and protect our citizens – of all ethnicities.

MSNBC further reports…

Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl have been urging such a move and Republicans planned to try to attach it as an amendment to a pending war spending bill.

I guess the President needed to cut McCain and Kyl off at the pass.
In a speech Tuesday on the Senate floor, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the situation on the border has “greatly deteriorated.” He called for 6,000 National Guard troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I appreciate the additional 1,200 being sent … as well as an additional $500 million, but it’s simply not enough,” McCain said.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., said in a statement that the administration would announce the deployments later in the day Tuesday.

It may not be enough but it’s a start. Can’t wait to see what happens from here. Clearly, the President did not want to look like was standing on the sidelines once again.

I sincerely hope more of our representatives stand up for their principles and their constituents. Whether or not we agree with them on a specific issue is less important than the fact that someone is willing to make an honest case for their actions. Only then – when governance and choice is out in the open – can we have an effective debate on legislation, making decisions that will have a positive effect.

Better that than offering a small bandaid or merely paying lip service to a hot button issue.

What say you?

“We have repeatedly sought your departments’ cooperation,” they wrote. “Our efforts have been met with delay, the production of little that was not already public and shifting reasons for why the departments are withholding [information] that we have requested.”

Before he went on his terrorist rampage, Hasan was in regular e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, the US-born imam who ministered to at least three 9/11 hijackers as well as the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber.

Indeed, FBI and Army investigators reportedly intercepted those e-mails, and also knew that he’d been heard making statements justifying suicide bombing.

“Given the warning signals about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s extremist radicalism,” ask Lieberman and Collins, “why was he not stopped before he took 13 American lives?”

Why not, indeed?

That is the question – why WON’T Holder and Gates provide the information the Senate needs to fulfill its duty? I am sure this will be dragging out for a while.

Then I reported that Gov. Rendell claimed the Tea Party is not a legitimate movement, basically asserting that its “popularity” is simply the result of positive media coverage. After I picked my jaw up off the floor at such an incredibly ridiculous statement based on FACTS, I found numerous instances of the media covering the Tea Party, but it was far from positive.

I was not the only one to refute this ridiculous claim, though, A Tea Party member, who is also a DJ, had this to say about Gov. Rendell’s statement:

Uh, yeah. I might add, I was reminded by Karen For Hillary that Rendell had also tried to found an Anti-PUMA group during the election, one he termed, H.O.U.N.D. (thanks, Ani, for acronym). Get it? Ahem. Yeah, he needs some rehab from that Obama Kool Aide.

And while I am on the topic of the media, and the way it covers events, how about the coverage of the AZ protesters of the new Immigration law v. Tea Party coverage:

So Anti-Immigration protesters are heaving full water bottles at police officers, some are being arrested, and this is a PEACEFUL protest? Wow.

Finally, there is this call to violence by Slate’s David Plotz:

Plotz acknowledged that he was indeed calling for violence (isn’t that a crime? “Inciting a riot” is what it sounds like to me, though I’m no lawyer). Moreover, when asked if he wanted to burn people in effigy, he made it clear that “in effigy” was NOT his plan.

Can you imagine, can you JUST imagine, if ANYONE in the middle or the right issued such a call?? Ohmygosh, they would have the FBI at their door tout de suite.

I might add, Plotz is clearly uninformed – there IS a populist uprising in progress in this country right now. It’s the TEA PARTY. Whether you agree with it or not, that is exactly what it is – a populist uprising against wasteful spending, taxation, and government expansion. You’d think someone who was in the news business would be aware of that. Ahem.

Stay tuned – I am sure there will be more to add in the coming days!

Latin America policy uber diva Julia Sweig chaired a news-making gathering at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington yesterday morning. It was excellent, and the CFR has audio of the entire event here.

In response to a question I posed to Sweig’s panel, Obama administration Summit of the Americas point man Jeffrey Davidow fell back on droopy anachronisms while Foreign Policy magazine blogger and best-selling writer and geostrategic interpreter David Rothkopf hit the ball out of the park with his statement:

“US-Cuba policy is the Edsel of American foreign policy.”

The full line-up on Sweig’s panel included Jeffrey Davidow, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas and former US Ambassador to Mexico; Luis Alberto Moreno, President of the Inter-American Development Bank; and David J. Rothkopf, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf and visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Summit of the Americas, which President Obama is attending, will convene in Trinidad & Tobago from April 17-19.

After Davidow successfully avoided mentioning the word “Cuba” in his primary remarks on the Obama administration’s game plan for the Summit of the Americas, the former US Ambassador to Mexico finally offered in his penultimate exhale an acknowledgement that “Cuba might come up” in the meeting.

And then he finished stating that other “flamboyant personalities may ‘flambay’” — a clear nod to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

When I had a chance to pose a question, I pressed Davidow pretty hard on what he tried to avoid.

The exchange between Ambassador Davidow, David Rothkopf, and myself follows below.

What is interesting and disconcerting is that Barack Obama’s point guy on this upcoming Summit gave the unreconstructed, neoconservative-friendly, ideologically vapid, ‘unchastened by five decades of embargo failure’ answer to my question on Cuba.

Has Obama read the brief that his people are preparing for him on Cuba?

Davidow embraced one of the worst single editorials I have read in years in the Washington Post titled “Coddling Cuba.”

And Rothkopf did his part to say that on US-Cuba policy, the American position has no clothes — and has become completely illegitimate in the eyes of the world and undermines America’s own, parochial national interests.

Here is the exchange in full between Sweig, Davidow, Rothkopf, and myself:

Council on Foreign Relations – Washington, DC
April 9, 2009

Perspectives on the Fifth Summit of the Americas: Cooperation on Development, Energy, and the Environment

Speakers:
Jeffrey Davidow, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas
Luis Alberto Moreno, President, Inter-American Development Bank
David J. Rothkopf, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf

Presider:
Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Partial Transcript of Q&A Exchange

STEVE CLEMONS, Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation and Publisher, The Washington Note

I would like to just start with what David Rothkopf said about the Cuban embargo, “the beginning of the end” and ask Ambassador Davidow if you would agree with David’s perspective on that, or perhaps his assertion.

It’s very odd right now when one looks at Senator Richard Lugar and his statements on Cuba that seem to be running politically left of the President. Brent Scowcroft has said recently that Cuba makes no sense at all as a foreign policy problem. Russia’s lack of patronage of Cuba has shown that we can’t starve Cuba.

So, part of the question is if Barack Obama is the change agent he said, is Cuba more than Cuba? Is it a place where the steps you take there are so symbolic that they can have echo effects geostrategically on other parts of the world?

Or are we leaving this in the same arena where Senator Martinez and others would like to have it which is we are going to create opportunities for a class of ethnic Americans but not look at the broader geostrategic equation?

JULIA SWEIG, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

Ambassador Davidow? It’s the “four letter word” – not Peru – that you are asked to address now.

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY DAVIDOW, White House Adviser for the Summit of the Americas

I will try to answer that question. . .

JULIA SWEIG, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies, Council on Foreign Relations

And other panelists can chime in . . .

AMBASSADOR JEFFREY DAVIDOW

Yes, why don’t they!

Look it’s obviously a highly contentious issue. From my perspective, a few points to make.

From my perspective, I think it would be unfortunate to lose the opportunity for this hemisphere, at the beginning of the Obama administration, to set down some guidelines and make some progress jointly by getting distracted by the Cuban issue.

Cuba is not an issue for discussion at the Summit if one reads the Summit declaration and the documents on all the past year of negotiation. However, having said that, and given what we are reading in the press, it is probable that it will come up in some way.

The one point that I would respond to in Steve’s question specifically is, “Is Cuba something larger than itself?” and the answer is ‘yes, it is’.

And I think that whatever the reasons have been in the 1960s for initiation of elements of our Cuban policy, the fact is in today’s Hemisphere, Cuba is the odd man out.

Keep in mind that this meeting in Trinidad is a meeting of 34 democratic states.

If we had been talking about a meeting of the hemisphere as little as twenty years ago, it would have been cast in a different light.

There has been a remarkable historical transformation in this hemisphere, and a laudable one, toward democratically elected governments.

We may have difficulty with some of the governments that have been democratically elected, of course, but this Summit is a reunion of countries and presidents, every one of which has been elected by their populations.

There is not one government represented at this Summit whose population would willingly accept the kind of restrictions on their civil, political and human rights that are commonplace in Cuba – and that remain commonplace.

So, I think as we talk about Cuba and talk about how we as a government deal with it and so forth, let’s keep in mind that it is something larger than itself, it is in a way a memory of that which existed in the past and a caution of what may exist in the future unless we are totally committed to the question of democracy, human rights and representation of people.

And lest you think, and I’m sure some of you do, that I am some sort of ideologue on this, take a look at the lead editorial in today’s Washington Post. Maybe you think they are a bunch of ideologues as well, but I think they say it much better than I do.

So, we have been struggling with Cuba as a nation for close to half a century and there is a real focus on what we should be doing, but to answer the question, it is an important place beyond a small island 90 miles off our shore

DAVID J. ROTHKOPF, President and CEO, Garten Rothkopf

If I may make a couple of brief comments on this- and I am unconstrained by affiliation with the United States government right now – so perhaps they will be in a slightly different direction.

The editorial in today’s Washington Post was absurd.

The position of the Florida contingent on this is Paleolithic.

The policy is indefensible on any grounds,

The reality is that Cuba may be special, but you have to ask yourself why it’s therefore easier to travel to or do business with the Stalinist, nuclear weapon-toting North Koreans, or whether it’s more comfortable for us to be totally economically integrated with the Saudi royal family and their depredations, or if we are concerned about human rights, why are we so integrated with and why are we the sole supporter of a government in Afghanistan that has just made rape in marriage legal and denies women the right to go outside without the approval of their husbands?

So this notion that some how democracy alone is the only criteria that we should use in defining the nature of relationship doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever, and the reality is that only one country that has successfully been isolated by this fifty year embargo, and that is the United States of America.

Our [US-Cuba] policy dates back to the Edsel.

It is the Edsel of American foreign policy.

[END]

David Rothkopf is absolutely right.

Barack Obama has given few indications thus far that he is willing to move a five decade failed relationship forward in a meaningful sense — with the single exception that he may ironically codify “relaxation” for a class of ethnic Americans in a way that crudely discriminates against all other Americans.

We did not open Vietnam by relaxing travel and remittances for Vietnamese-Americans.

And Obama’s team — for all of the ballyhoo about democracy promotion — is promoting a policy of the United States government that restricts the American right of free travel anywhere.

I thought that we lived in a real democracy — and that it was supposed to be Communist governments — not democracies — that restricted the travel rights of their citizens.

President Obama is a busy man, but he better take a look at the brief that his team is preparing for him — otherwise he’ll learn too late that he’s driving “an Edsel” to the Summit of the Americas.

– Steve Clemons

Editor’s Note: Steve Clemons hosts a venerable blog, The Washington Note, is Senior Fellow & Director, American Strategy Program, New America Foundation and Director of the Japan Policy Research Institute.

From my blog, Uppity Woman.

1)The NYPost talks about Joe the Plumber today. It calls Obama’s “economic plan” a wealth redistribution scheme.

Obama’s plan isn’t about sinking hooks into Wall Street CEOs and other fat cats, as he usually says. Fact is, there’s not enough of them to raise the cash necessary to finance his other grand plans.

No, to do that, he’ll have to go after ambitious working-class guys like Wurzelbacher – who’s been a plumber for 15 years and is looking to better himself and his family while just maybe creating a few jobs.
————–
Heretofore, Obama has sought to paint himself as a tax-cutter – claiming he’ll slash taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

As we noted yesterday, that’s a flat-out lie – not least because nearly half of all tax filers pay no income tax at all. So how can he “cut” their taxes if they don’t pay any to begin with?

Answer: tax “credits.”
To wit, in part:
* A $1,000 “make work pay” credit.
* A $4,000 college-tuition credit.
* A $6,000 child-care credit.
* A $1,100 bump in the earned-income tax credit.

These aren’t to be income-tax deductions – which would be worthless to those who pay no income taxes.

These are to be checks from Washington – with the subsidies expected to grow to more than $1 trillion in 10 years.

That’s a massive transfer of wealth.

How does Obama justify it?

“Fairness,” he says.

But that’s an absurdly radical view of what’s “fair.”

Read the rest ->

“Fair” has nothing to do with it. But, luckily or not, depending on how you look at it (gallows humor there), our economic situation may make this “plan” go the way of Obama’s principled stands on NAFTA, FISA, etc. etc.

2)Today’s IBD has an article about Iran and a potential natural gas cartel – featuring Iran and Russia – to function somewhat like OPEC. Except a forward thinking elected official is taking steps to nullify any effect of such a gas carte. Sarah Palin.

Energy: Iran resurrected its idea of a “gas cartel” to control gas markets like oil. But even if it succeeds, the U.S. won’t be vulnerable. If you wonder why, look to the governor of Alaska.

That’s right, Gov. Sarah Palin took a powerful preemptive step in August to shield the U.S. from a coming gas cartel. Palin’s effort to create the Trans-Canada Alaska gas line — which would provide a vast new trove of natural gas each day to the U.S. — effectively nullifies the emerging gas cartel’s potential impact on America.

If OPEC strikes you as a bad group, the new cartel for natural gas, led by Russia and Iran, will be even worse.

Russia has made standoffish statements about the plan, but won’t repudiate it. “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea,” then-President Vladimir Putin declared last year. Based on Russia’s moves since, the Heritage Foundation’s Ariel Cohen believes it’s a stealth move from the Kremlin to keep buyers unperturbed as the cartel slowly forms.

He’s right. This week in Tehran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quietly drew up the organization’s charter and will take it to Moscow next week.
—————–
. . . The market is changing fast. Global trade in liquified natural gas, or LNG, which requires no pipelines, will grow sharply. The U.S. will see a 58% increase in LNG imports in just two years, according to the Energy Department.

As the U.S. uses more natural gas, Iran’s Gas Exporting Countries Forum is taking off. Instead of the tough task of controlling prices right away, the group will first gain control of reserves through state firms in 14 countries, including hostile states such as Venezuela and Bolivia.

The next step will be “cooperative” ventures to strengthen the network. The final goal is to control production.

It’s nothing but a scheme to carve up monopoly spheres of influence that can tell customers whom they can buy from. That will kill competition and create incentives for meddling. Russia, which readily cuts off gas to neighbors over political disputes, has signaled that it will keep using gas as a political weapon.
—————–
As for U.S., already fairly self-sufficient in natural gas, we will be in a more solid position to defy the coercion. Palin’s pre-emptive step to foil Ahmadinejad’s scheme is in the Alaska gas line. In an Amazonian move, Palin effectively beat back the ambitious petrotyrants 10 years early with her $40 billion, 1,715-mile gas pipeline across Canada that will bring 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas a day — nearly one-fifth projected needs — to the lower 48 within a decade.

Almost entirely off the news radar, Palin mowed down 30 years of legislative squabbling in the Alaska statehouse and then triumphantly signed off on the pipeline in August, stating her aim was energy independence.

“Alaska should be the leader of an energy policy that gets us there,” she told IBD over the summer.

————–

Her gas line shows . . . foresight, this time aimed at neutralizing enemies that will otherwise grow in strength. Palin’s pipeline will be a critical strike for energy security against petrotyrants intent on extending their influence. It will come online at precisely the moment the gas cartel could develop into a power.

This isn’t to say petrotyrants will go away, that the U.S. won’t be in the crossfire. U.S. self-sufficiency in natural gas will be roughly equivalent to Brazil’s in oil. The South American country which sees few problems from petrotyrants in the wake of its oil independence based on its willingness to drill. The U.S. likely will have the same strength in natural gas.

Energy security is a peculiar concept. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has too few resources to bother drilling. But a nation need not have massive oil reserves for independence; all it needs are competitive alternatives — such as natural gas. Heading off the gas cartel is an important move, and Palin deserves recognition.

Palin’s foresight is a major contribution to U.S. energy security that will reverberate well beyond the election, no matter how it turns out.

In a couple of years when it is clear how the economic mess will fall out and whether or not the US works to change its energy use patterns, this pipeline will probably be one of very few examples of foresight. And hopefully I’ll be around to remind MSM idiots this is the official they said couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. That’s our press – always fighting the last war.

3)The San Diego Union-Tribune has an op-ed saying Obama’s truthfulness should be questioned.

Any day now, I expect Barack Obama to call a news conference, wag his finger to the cameras, and announce with all the sincerity he can muster: “I did not have a substantive relationship with that Weatherman, Mr. Ayers.”

Of course, the way things are going, Obama may not have to lift a finger, let alone wag one. He might be able to run out the clock and avoid comment on continuing questions involving his involvement with a Hyde Park neighbor and unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers.
————–

. . . here is what the voters should care about: Obama’s truthfulness, which is now in question. Over the last few months, we’ve learned that Obama and Ayers had more than just a “flimsy” relationship that included Ayers hosting a political gathering at his home for Obama when he was running for the Illinois Senate and the two serving together on various panels and boards. Ayers was also a founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school-reform group. Obama served as chairman of its board from 1995 to ’99, using the position to launch his political career.

Recently, Obama pulled back the curtain an inch. He told reporters that, during his association with Ayers, he had heard about the English professor’s radical past but assumed Ayers had been rehabilitated. Ayers’ ghoulish comments about not setting enough bombs suggest otherwise.

I put no stock in the politics of guilt by association. And even associating with ghouls should not hurt someone’s bid for the presidency. But lying about it is another story. It could be a warning of things to come.

Yeah. Kinda late, dude. Wish you had been there earlier. Then your op-ed might have been meaningful.

4)At the Boston Globe, another op-ed saying something quite similar. It begins by talking about other public figures who have been “guilty by association” such as Ronald Reagan (using the phrase “states’ rights” in MS). Then he goes here:

In none of these cases was there anything like the long relationship that Barack Obama had for so many years with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the incendiary, America-damning pastor he described for years as his mentor, his sounding board, and his friend. In none of them was there anything comparable to Obama’s significant involvement with William Ayers, the domestic-terrorist-turned-extremist-professor with whom Obama worked closely at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, channeling more than $100 million into radical education projects.

Nor was anything in the Reagan, Bush, or Alito episodes akin to Obama’s highly profitable relationship with Tony Rezko, the crooked Chicago businessman and political fixer who was convicted in June on multiple counts of fraud, corrupt solicitation, and money laundering. In the course of their 17-year relationship, Rezko directed hundreds of thousands of dollars to Obama’s political war chests; he also facilitated the Obamas’ purchase of a $1.6 million mansion by agreeing to buy the adjoining lot from the same seller.
————

But it isn’t ridiculous to question the values of a candidate whose political career got its start in the Chicago living room of violent traitors like Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who have never expressed remorse for the brutal crimes they committed in the Weather Underground. There is nothing unfair about wondering how Obama could have worshipped for 20 years in Wright’s church, yet never objected to the fanatic pastor’s virulent messages: that AIDS was created by the US government as an instrument of genocide, that America is the “US of KKKA,” that the 9/11 slaughter was “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Guilt by association? Not when the associations have such deep roots or raise such troubling questions about Obama’s character and judgment. It was only in the heat of a presidential campaign that Obama finally repudiated his alliances with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko. It isn’t irresponsible to ask what those associations tell us about a man poised to be the next president of the United States. It would be irresponsible not to.

What two of these editorials now? Think some MSM are issuing these “just in case” or what? Yeah, thanks for this insight dude. Should have been around, what, oh – months ago.

5)Fox had a roundtable on the John Lewis spew and how race-baiting has worked this election cycle. Charles Krauthammer explained how it works – just as we’ve been talking about here at NQ all along.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: When John McCain runs an ad with a white woman, Paris Hilton in it, he is accused of racism. He runs an ad with Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae in it, who is African-American, and that’s racist. And then he runs an ad with William Ayers, who is a white male in it, and that’s racist.

If it weren’t so comical, these promiscuous accusations of racism, it would be tragic.

The Obama campaign has been playing the race card over and over again. Look, this is a campaign that in the primaries succeeded in painting Bill Clinton as a racist.

Now, Clinton, with all of his flaws, this is a man who throughout his career from Governor of Arkansas to president of the United States and beyond, has been a great and sincere friend of African-Americans who shared and tried to advance their aspirations. So if you can pull off a trick like that on Bill Clinton, you can pull it off on Republicans.

And look what Obama has said. He’s the one who raised the Barack Hussein Obama a year or two ago in which he said the Hussein is actually an asset and would be an asset in dealing with Muslims abroad.

He’s the one who openly said that the Republicans will say I’m black, they will say he’s scary. They will say he’s different. They will say he doesn’t look like the guy on the dollar bill.

That is Obama preemptively accusing McCain of racism, which is a scurrilous charge. Racism is a serious charge in our country, and a false accusation is doubly serious. As we saw in the Duke lacrosse case, it can destroy lives. Given our history, it ought to be used with great care.

And to accuse preemptively McCain of racism even before there is any evidence of it, and there has not been any evidence of it before or since, is scurrilous.
They say patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Accusations of racism is the last refuge of the liberal scoundrel, and it has been used again and again on the part of the Obama campaign.

You’ve got to admit, it’s been a neat trick to race-bait an entire race from start to finish AND get away with it too. Of course, Jesse Jackson already warned that electing an “AA” president (Obama’s not REALLY AA – he’s white, African and Arab) won’t come close to shutting down the “race question.” So sorry if you think this will show that America has “come a long way.” I think the Obama campaign just naturally assumed race would be his “problem” because, you know, ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST and so they devised a way to make it “work for him.” Cynical and not at all hopey changey. Think this will continue into an Obama admin? Stay tuned. I kind of think not.

6)Commentary has an opinion piece that reminds us of what we used to say about “questionable associations” before it became a racist thing if used to question Obama. “If you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas.”

Still, in our wiser moments, we have always understood that character, broadly defined, is important to possess for those in high public office, in part because it tells us whether our leaders warrant our trust, whether their word is dependable, and whether they are responsible. And one of the best indicators of character is the people with whom you associate. This is basic, elementary-school level common sense. The odds are your parents wanted you to hang around with the “right” crowd instead of the wrong crowd because if you hung around with the latter it meant its members would be a bad influence on you, it would reflect poorly on you, and you’d probably end up getting into trouble.

What applies to 10-year-olds also applies to presidential candidates.
Over the years, Barack Obama hung around with some pretty disturbing characters, and what we’re talking about aren’t isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people on a range of issues. He has connected himself with domestic terrorists (William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn), with an anti-American and racist minister (Jeremiah Wright), and with corrupt people (Antoin “Tony” Rezko) and organizations (ACORN). What we see, then, is a pattern.
—————-

For those who say that these associations don’t matter, that they’re “distractions” from the more urgent problems of our time and an example of “Swift-boating,” consider this: if John McCain had sat in the pew of a pastor who was a white supremacist and launched his political career at the home of, and developed a working relationship with, a man who bombed abortion clinics or black churches and, for good measure, was unrepentant about it, McCain’s political career would be (rightly) over, and he would be (rightly) ostracized.

A political reference point may be helpful here. Senator Trent Lott was hounded out of his post as Majority Leader because of a few inappropriate comments — made in bad taste but in jest — at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party. Much of the media and the political class were outraged. Yet we have a case in which Obama has had close, intimate relations with some really unsavory folks, and we’re told it doesn’t matter one bit.

This is the crux of the “associations” argument. Obama has, throughout his life, chosen to work with, pal around with and otherwise promote and be promoted by people whose background is unsavory at best. And this pattern of behavior is not apparently relevant to people. That says a lot about him as a person, but it says more about his supporters. The bar has been lowered for him.

7)And lastly today, don’t expect to see THIS story anywhere but here today.

The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded.

The Scranton Times-Tribune first reported the alleged incident on its Web site Tuesday and then again in its print edition Wednesday. The first story, written by reporter David Singleton, appeared with allegations that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett was addressing the crowd and mentioned Oabama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him.”

News organizations including ABC, The Associated Press, The Washington Monthly and MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann reported the claim, with most attributing the allegations to the Times-Tribune story.

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.
————
He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton

So, a reporter claims he heard someone in the crowd say this. The Secret Service, no slouches when it comes to protecting US Presidents and wanna-bes, conducts an investigation and finds nada, zip, zero and nothing at all.

But the reporter “stands by his story.” Yep. That’s our media these days. And don’t look for any retractions or revisions from the national lapdogs either. Think that “reporter” was Jayson Blair?

Click here to view the embedded video.

I was struck by the high quality of the ad. It tweaks Obama’s celebrity status, and then unleashes a full-throttle class attack on Obama. “Life in the spotlight must be grand,” intones a woman’s voice, dropping her voice off for emphasis, “but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.”

Contrast this ad with the lingering image of Obama in Europe, a trip which I think cost him dearly. Obama is trying to stretch his image into that of a statesman; he tried to fill the shoes of real presidents by going on the Euro-Disney tour of historic moments of American presidential history. But these staged events actually make Obama seem smaller, like the scared guy hiding behind a faux presidential seal:

I’ve been thinking about Obama’s missteps since he “secured” the nomination. I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America. Instead of puffing himself up to look presidential, Obama should bring himself to the door steps of poor whites in Appalachia, Latinos in Texas, the elderly in Florida. Bill Clinton published a book during the 1992 campaign called “Putting People First,” and his economic message struck a chord. Obama has promised Hope, but he has failed to articulate a compelling economic message. But I suspect that he and his advisers are already intoxicated on their perceived greatness.

Obama’s message is a post-modern, self-referential echo of how great Obama is, because Obama brings you hope and that’s what you’ve been waiting for, in addition to yourself (who you didn’t know you were waiting for). He won’t let you be complacent and he will remind you that you and he are merging into “The Ones we’ve all been waiting for”. And then a light will shine. Our tires will spontaneously inflate. And the earth will begin to heal.

Putting sarcasm aside, take a look at a Bill Clinton ad from 1992. People often complain that politics is all image and no substance. But here we have a candidate who is nearly all substance. He is working at his desk while the names of economists supporting his economic plan scroll across the screen. Obama fills the screen with himself and his adoring crowds, Bill Clinton (like Hillary Clinton) outlined solutions. Working Americans, I suggest, can see the difference.

Click here to view the embedded video.

My neighbor told me today that he’s voting for McCain. The only other time he’s voted Republican was for Nixon in 1972, an ominous warning for Democrats.

If Obama is losing Democrats like my neighbor — white ethnic, life-long Democrat, over 65 years old — he is in deep trouble. Back in April, Anglachel wrote that Obama’s inability to speak the language of the working class would cost the Democrats the election:

Should Obama be the nominee, he can kiss the general election goodbye … the Democratic Party leadership itself is going to be paying for its whole-hearted embrace of reductionist class politics. Some voters will defect to the Republicans, though I think that is going to be limited … I think you see a significant section of the working class simply turn away from participation, depressing turn out and costing the party electoral success. They will stay away until the party offers them candidates who talk to their material interests instead of to the leadership’s fantasy of being modern day Solons.

Obama’s inability to speak to the “forgotten middle class,” as Bill Clinton famously called them, is a primary source of his troubles. His campaign is still running to win the votes of college towns, but now great swaths of working America are starting to pay attention and the candidate speaking to the concerns of the working class, ironically enough, is the Republican nominee.

English Script For “Barack Obama Forgot Latin America” (WEB 1:00)

CHYRON: The World According To Barack Obama

BARACK OBAMA: Tonight I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen; a proud citizen of the United States and a fellow citizen of the world.

CHYRON: But Entire Nations Were Forgotten!

BARACK OBAMA: France, Berlin, Hamburg, Britain, Kandahar, London, Rwanda, Iran, Bangladesh…

CHYRON: Where Was Latin America Left?

BARACK OBAMA: Karachi, Beijing, the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, Paris, Bali, Russia, Chad, Zimbabwe…

CHYRON: And Latinos?

BARACK OBAMA: Afghanistan, Somalia, Darfur, Belfast, South Africa, Madrid, Europe, Burma, Amman…

CHYRON: Maybe He Forget About Us?

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approve this message.

Spanish Script For “Barack Obama Olvid Amrica Latina” (WEB 1:00)

CHYRON: El Mundo De Acuerdo A Barack Obama

BARACK OBAMA: Esta noche no les hablo como un candidato para Presidente, sino como un ciudadano; un orgulloso ciudadano de los Estados Unidos y un ciudadano ms del mundo.

CHYRON: Pero Naciones Enteras Fueron Olvidadas!

BARACK OBAMA: Francia, Berln, Hamburgo, Gran Bretaa, Kandajar, Londres, Rwanda, Irn, Bangladesh…

CHYRON: Y Donde Qued Amrica Latina?

BARACK OBAMA: Karachi, Beijing, La Antigua Unin Sovitica, Pakistn, Pars, Bali, Rusia, Chad, Zimbabwe…

CHYRON: Y Los Latinos?

BARACK OBAMA: Afganistn, Somalia, Darfur, Belfast, frica de Sur, Madrid, Europa, Burma, Amman…

CHYRON: Ser Que Se Olvid De Nosotros?

JOHN MCCAIN: Soy John McCain y apruebo este mensaje.

###

Read the rest ->

2) This caught my eye. In an interview with Fareed Zakaria of CNN, Obama is asked about several issues:

ZAKARIA: Tell me, what is your first memory of a foreign policy event that shaped you, shaped your life?

OBAMA: A first memory. Well, you know, it wasn’t so much an event.
I mean, my first memory was my mother coming to me and saying, “I’ve remarried this man from Indonesia, and we’re moving to Jakarta on the other side of the world.”

I have no quibble this as far as it goes. After all, a boy doesn’t control the actions of the adults around him. However, the question was about a “foreign policy event” and Obama answered with his mother’s marriage to an Indonesian man. Not the assassination of Anwar Sadat? Not the fall of the Berlin Wall? Not AIDS or something like that? OK.

But I also note that his mother came and told Obama she had already remarried this man. Remarried? Huh? OK. But what kind of a home life did Obama have if his mom tells him she has remarried after the fact??????

Zakaria asks Obama why he majored in international affairs. Here’s Obama’s answer:

Well, obviously, having lived overseas and having lived in Hawaii, having a mother who was a specialist in international development, who worked — was one of the early practitioners of microfinancing, and would go to villages in South Asia and Africa and Southeast Asia, helping women buy a loom or a sewing machine or a milk cow, to be able to enter into the economy — it was natural for me, I think, to be interested in international affairs.

So, Stanley Ann Dunham was an “early practitioner of microfinancing”? Maybe she knew Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank winners of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for microfinancing.

Zakaria and Obama also had an exchange about Iraq and Iran. Here’s a bit:

ZAKARIA: You’ve also said that the chief beneficiary of the Iraq war has been Iran, which now poses a significant strategic threat to, or challenge to, the United States in the region.

If we were to leave Iraq entirely, would that not cede the field to them and allow Iran to consolidate its gains in the region and in the country?

OBAMA: I don’t think so. Look, first of all, I have never talked about leaving the field entirely. What I’ve said is that we would get our combat troops out of Iraq, that we would not have permanent bases in Iraq.

I’ve talked about maintaining a residual force there to ensure that al Qaeda does not re-form in Iraq, that we’re making sure that we are providing logistical support and potential training to Iraqi forces — so long as we’re not training sectarian armies that are then fighting each other — to protect our diplomats, to protect humanitarian efforts in the region.

So, nobody’s talking about abandoning the field.

ZAKARIA: That might be a large force.

OBAMA: Well, it — you know, I’m going to make sure that we determine, based on conditions on the ground, how we effectively carry out those limited, temporary missions.

Obama implies that Americans are likely to be in Iraq for some time, but not “combat troops” with “permanent bases.” Who will this be then? Where will they be? Under whose protection? What will they do?

Another interesting exchange is on Obama’s upcoming trip to Europe. Zakaria implies Obama is going for the adulation:

ZAKARIA: You are going to Europe and the Middle East. You know that in places like France you have 85 percent approval ratings.

Isn’t that going to make some Americans very suspicious? If all of Europe likes you, if France likes you, there must be something wrong.

OBAMA: Well, I tell you what. You know, it’s interesting. As I travel around the country, here in the United States, I think people understand that there has been a price to the diminished regard with which the world holds the United States over the last several years.

It’s something that bothers people. It’s something that’s brought up.
You know, when I’m doing a town hall meeting in some rural community, invariably, somebody will raise their hand and they’ll say, “When are we going to restore the respect that the world had for America?”

And, you know, the American people’s instincts are good. It’s not just a matter of wanting to be liked. It’s the fact that, as a consequence of that diminished standing, we have less leverage on a whole host of critical issues that have to be dealt with.
So, I think the American people are ready for a president who is not alienating the world. And if that president is liked a little bit, well, that’s just a bonus.

Now, I don’t know how long that will last. We’ll see if my approval ratings hold up after I’m president.

So, the framing here is that Obama’s trip to Europe is for Joe and Jane sixpack who are worried about American status in the world. He’s going to make us feel better about ourselves. Nevermind the fawning crowds likely to appear at the Brandenburg Gate where he can say something like “ich bin ein berliner.”

Lastly, there was this exchange about high expectations for Obama:

ZAKARIA: You’re bound to disappoint people. I mean, with approval ratings that high, it’s bound to be a letdown. Don’t you think?

OBAMA: You know, my job is to make sure that, here in the United States, the American people feel confident that I’m going to be advocating for their interests, that I’m going to keep them safe.

The way to do that though, I believe, is to make sure that we’re paying attention to the rest of the world, their hopes, their aspirations, as well, and that we’re leading with our values and ideals, and not just with our military.

I’m not sure what to make of his response to an obvious question. People have such high expectations that disappointment is almost inevitable. Surely Obama knows this. But he does not respond but to say that he’ll advocate for US interests (advocate?) by paying more attention to the rest of the world. What is that supposed to mean? Probably the same thing all his convoluted talking does: YOU figure it out.

3) Today’s WaPo has an article about Obama’s inner circle or potential “kitchen cabinet.” If you don’t know the players, this might help. Maybe we’ll see some under the bus later.

4) Newsweek has a piece about Obama’s faith. He is walking a thin line with this. On the one hand is this description of his early association with Trinity:

The cross under which Obama went to Jesus was at the controversial Trinity United Church of Christ. It was a good fit. “That community of faith suited me,” Obama says. For one thing, Trinity insisted on social activism as a part of Christian life. It was also a family place. Members refer to the sections in the massive sanctuary as neighborhoods; churchgoers go to the same neighborhood each Sunday and they get to know the people who sit near them. They know when someone’s sick or got a promotion at work. Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama met in the context of organizing, became a friend; after he married, Obama says, the two men would sometimes get together “after church to have chicken with the family—and we would have talked stories about our families.” In his preaching, Wright often emphasized the importance of family, of staying married and taking good care of children. (Obama’s recent Father’s Day speech, in which he said that “responsibility does not end at conception,” was not cribbed from Wright—but the premise could have been.) At the point of his decision to accept Christ, Obama says, “what was intellectual and what was emotional joined, and the belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, that he died for our sins, that through him we could achieve eternal life—but also that, through good works we could find order and meaning here on Earth and transcend our limits and our flaws and our foibles—I found that powerful.”

But after his first daughter was born, Obama says getting to church frequently was a problem. Anyone with children can imagine that, but he also continues to distance himself from Trinity:

After he began his run for the U.S. Senate, he says, the family sometimes didn’t go to Trinity for months at a time. The girls have not attended Sunday school. The family says grace at mealtime, and he talks to the children about God whenever they have questions. “I’m a big believer in a faith that is not imposed but taps into what’s already there, their curiosity or their spirit,” he says.

Although this article is something of a puff piece, it is shows how Obama will frame the whole faith / Trinity question for some time to come. Will this work to neutralize the earlier examples of his faith as seen through Wright and Pfleger?

5) From the transcript of a speech to La Raza:

They’re [working mothers] counting on us to help them make a living while raising their kids – to fight for equal pay for equal work, and for childcare, family leave and sick leave, because here in America, there should be no second class citizens in our workplaces.

——————————
I have a very different answer to our health care crisis. I’ll take on the drug and insurance companies, cut costs, guarantee health insurance for anyone who needs it and make it affordable for anyone who wants it.

And today, I’m announcing my plan to provide real relief for small business owners crushed by rising costs, an idea championed by my friend Hillary Clinton, who’s been leading the way in our battle to insure every American. It’s a plan that would help more employers provide health benefits for their workers – instead of making it harder for them, as Senator McCain would do.

Obama mentions making college affordable, equal pay for equal work, childcare, family leave and universal health care. At least he credited Hillary for this – but then she is still more popular with hispanics than he is.

6) From a transcript of Monday’s speech before the NAACP:

It’s about the responsibilities that Washington has – responsibilities that start with restoring fairness to our economy by making sure that the playing field isn’t tilted to benefit the special interests at the expense of ordinary Americans; and that we’re rewarding not just wealth, but the work and workers who create it. That’s why I’ll offer a middle class tax cut so we can lift up hardworking families, and give relief to struggling homeowners so we can end our housing crisis, and provide training to young people to work the green jobs of the future, and invest in our infrastructure so we can create millions of new jobs.

And that’s why I’ll end the outrage of one in five African Americans going without the health care they deserve. We’ll guarantee health care for anyone who needs it, make it affordable for anyone who wants it, and ensure that the quality of your health care does not depend on the color of your skin. And we’re not going to do it 20 years from now or 10 years from now, we’re going to do it by the end of my first term as President of the United States of America.

——————
That’s why I’ve introduced a comprehensive strategy to recruit an army of new quality teachers to our communities – and to pay them more and give them more support. And we’ll invest in early childhood education programs so that our kids don’t begin the race of life behind the starting line and offer a $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for anyone who wants to go. Because as the NAACP knows better than anyone, the fight for social justice and economic justice begins in the classroom.

This speech mentions a middle class tax cut, universal health care and a tax credit for college for everyone. OK, so how will this be paid for?

7) Today, the NYT had an op-ed from Obama spelling out his Iraq policy. He closes the op-ed with this:

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

Powerline has some beefs with this op-ed though and they do a pretty good job of comparing Obama’s NYT piece with his former statements on Iraq. Powerline has Obama quotes from Larry King, Face the Nation, the Today show, and a speech to the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists Convention about his objections to the surge, saying these statements contradict the NYT piece.

But Powerline finishes with this on Afghanistan:

Finally, Afghanistan: Obama would have us believe that he urged defeat in Iraq because he was so firmly committed to victory in Afghanistan. Once again, he misrepresents the record.

In fact, Obama has never supported our troops in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he said on August 14, 2007–less than a year ago–that our forces there are mostly committing war crimes:

We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.

Obama has been so uninterested in Afghanistan that when he went to Iraq and other countries in the Middle East with a Congressional delegation in January 2006, he skipped the opportunity to continue on to Afghanistan, which was taken by others who made the trip with him, including Kit Bond and Harold Ford. And, in an embarrassing gaffe, Obama claimed on May 13, 2008, that we don’t have enough “Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers” in Afghanistan because they are all being used in Iraq. Obama thereby demonstrated the intellectual laziness and incuriosity that characterizes his campaign: they don’t speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and, anyway, interpreters are drawn from local populations, not shipped around the world.

Worst of all, far from being committed to victory in Afghanistan, Obama voted to cut off all funding for all of our military efforts in Afghanistan on May 24, 2007 (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181), thereby seeking to bring about defeat there as well as in Iraq. His current effort to portray himself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing on Afghanistan is a complete fraud.

Hey, you don’t have to agree with Powerline’s position on Iraq, but the piece does help to outline Obama’s movements on this issue.

Center on Education Policy

_____________________

From my blog, Global Labor and the Global Economy.

Read my other posts here at No Quarter.

About me: I am a law professor and political scientist on the faculty of Santa Clara University School of Law in Santa Clara, California, which is in the heart of Silicon Valley. I teach courses on the global capital markets, the international economy, corporate governance and international labor and human rights. Prior to joining the faculty I was in private legal practice in New York and in Palo Alto. I also have an extensive background in the labor movement and advise a wide range of unions, workers and institutional investors on financial and legal issues. This website is an independent project and hence is my responsibility and it is not affiliated in any other way with the law school or Santa Clara University.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm received a deafening chorus of boos Monday night at her mention of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the candidate Granholm once backed for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The jeering from thousands of Obama supporters at Joe Louis Arena came after Granholm acknowledged her support of Clinton, and they seemed to take her aback. “Come on now,” the governor pleaded before finally continuing, “I’m proud to say I’m standing with her and all of you” in supporting Obama.

This behavior is anything but unifying. In fact, it is belligerent, aggressive and in my opinion the intended product of the campaign of coordinated vicious personal attacks Axelrod and Obama waged against Senator Clinton.

But there is more. Yes, believe it or not, there is more. According to today’s edition of the Congressional Quarterly, Obama has insulted Latina lawmakers by assuming he does not need to meet with them individually in order to gain their support. I quote:

The presumed Democratic presidential nominee got the cold shoulder from Latina lawmakers Tuesday as he began a three-day campaign to shore up Capitol Hill support after an arduous primary season.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois huddled with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) at the offices of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). But only one of the six Hispanic congresswomen who are Democrats, longtime Obama backer Rep. Linda T. Sánchez of California, attended the meeting, in which members gathered in a semicircle around Obama.

The men in the CHC said scheduling conflicts were to blame for the absence of Latinas who had backed Obama’s primary rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. But that was not true in all cases.

“They called to set up a call,” said Rep. Loretta Sanchez , D-Calif., who had spoken on the House floor earlier in the day. “I said, ‘He can come over and see me.’ ”

Obama began calling Hispanic congresswomen last week after they first made their displeasure with his inattention to them known.

Since then, Obama’s campaign has had contact with the offices of Loretta Sanchez as well as Hilda L. Solis and Grace F. Napolitano , also from California.

The Latinas’ reluctance to get behind Obama reflects the challenges he faces in uniting Democrats. They were important surrogates for Clinton both in and beyond their congressional districts, and they could provide vital help to Obama, too.

Presuming one enjoys the support of a group of Congresswomen who represent a constituency who rejected one’s candidacy by a margin of approximately 35 points is the height of arrogance. Perhaps Obama neglects to remember how these elected officials are more interested in serving the voters instead of stroking the ego of a career politician who exploited the voters of the state of Illinois for personal, political and financial gain. If Obama sincerely desires the votes of Latinos, Latinas and Catholics, he needs to earn our votes, not arrogantly assume he has them already secured. To quote Loretta Sanchez: “He needs to come over and see [us].” This also includes his vile and undisciplined supporters.

Hissing at Clinton supporters while taking their votes for granted is anything but unifying. But this is the modus operandi of the Obama campaign. While it may be the juggernaut of change in which many low information devotees blindly and mindlessly believe, it is also the change Clinton supporters will roundly reject when we cast informed votes for other candidates in November.

I turned 18 in November. My first thought? Oh God, I have to vote.I hadn’t listened to the pundits, I didn’t even know who was running. Some Hispanic guy, some black guy, and the former First Lady of the United States; oh, and some other white guys. The only one I recognized was Edwards and my heart did an awful large thump for what could’ve been in 2004. (I hadn’t forgiven John Kerry for conceding Ohio, I still haven’t and he’s invoked my ire ever since.) Yet, it wasn’t John Edwards and his invincible haircut that caught my attention; it was the woman I had never noticed and the history I’d never cared about.

For the first time ever, I noticed Hillary Rodham Clinton outside of Bill Clinton’s shadow. I noticed a woman who dared to stand side-by-side on a stage with a large group of men and consider them her equal. I saw a woman who had a mind like a mantrap, who could recall facts like the kids I know can Google. I saw her make fools out of her competitors when they just didn’t know answers that came naturally to her. I was more than impressed.

Then, the season truly began and I saw Hillary Clinton lose Iowa. Then, I saw her win New Hampshire. Then I saw her lose some and win some on Super Tuesday. Best of all I got to watch somebody play the race card and somebody else be framed for doing it. Reminds me of a shirt a lot my friends have. There’s a cute white bunny on it and beneath the bunny it reads: “I did it, but I’m blaming you.”

Yep, that sounds about right. Do you know why Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire? According to one “political analyst,” or those who get paid to regurgitate what the Washington Post says verbatim, it was the Bradley effect. The Bradley effect takes place when polled likely voters claim they will vote for a minority candidate but fail to do as much when they are in the voting booth. The insinuation: closeted racism. That was just the first indication that this primary wasn’t going to be fair, but it was far from the last.

South Carolina came and the biggest double-edged sword to be forged came out full force and he went by the name of William Jefferson Clinton. He was a gift on the stump. He was all charm and down home sweetness, but he was a wonk and there was no denying that East Coast education. He was an asset to Hillary Clinton that could not be denied. So he had to be neutralized—and best believe that he was.

By February 15th, Bill Clinton barely dared to stick his head in view of a camera lest he be misquoted and vilified for the nineteenth time. Suddenly, the “first black president,” as coined by Toni Morrison, was the first KKKlan President. He and his wife, both with a lifetime of civil rights advocacy and battles behind them were outcasts in a community that once revered them. For what reason? What could he and his wife possibly gain by espousing racism after all this time?

Not.

A.

Thing.

What had made Hillary Clinton so formidable was the sheer size of her coalition. She had African-Americans, one of the most dependable voting blocks in the Democratic Party, she had working Americans who remembered what life under a Clinton was like. She had her determination and she was in it to win it. Nobody else was of any real consequence. That is, until the first-term Senator from Illinois stood up to bat.

…And the pieces came tumbling down.

He showed up. He spoke out loud. The masses—though not the majority—fell to their knees in awe. I didn’t. I was neither impressed nor fooled. The media was. The party leaders loved what he brought to the game. He had style, had new voters, he had money. Oh, they had tingles up and down their legs. This was February, around the time that I realized that the fix was in. Naively, I still hoped that things could change. I think that even Hillary did.

A string of bare defeats and incredible victories later, here we are. It’s June 8th, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton has suspended her campaign for the presidency in order to endorse Barack Obama. I and many thousands—perhaps millions—of others are left without a leader. It isn’t as easy as saying “let Democrats be Democrats” and vote Democrat. What we’ve seen these last two months was far from Democratic. I’ve seen so many minority cards played that I can’t stand the card game anymore.

I’ve seen a distinguished Senator and beloved First Lady verbally molested in a fashion I would never allow if I were a producer on network or cable television. I’ve seen death threats leveled against her. I’ve seen more than a single man or woman say that all it would take was a good “doing over” for Hillary to see the light, whatever that proverbial light was. I’ve seen men laugh at her laugh. I’ve seen the nutcracker and boys who call themselves men talking about the way they gird their loins when she comes anywhere near them. I’ve seen those same boys where the masks of saints when she deigns to entertain their company only to sneer at her back on exit.

I’ve seen a party that has claimed as its mantle the interests of the people turn their noses up at their expressed desires in direct violation of their very own written rules. They’ve said, “We must respect the rules.” Why thank you, Alice Germond. Sadly, those rules state that they also should’ve respected the voters. (Rule 13 A of the Democratic Party Rules & Bylaws, entitled Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference, if any can be bothered recall.) But those weren’t the rules they were interested in and so weren’t the rules they followed. Democracy didn’t die the day we allowed the best President we would’ve ever known to leave history with no impression; it died the day that 30 people decided that their desires were more pressing than the expressed wishes of 600,000 people in Michigan and 1.7 million in Florida.

Until the very last primary I prayed that someone in the party would see sense. I even prayed they’d defend my candidate against the harsh, uneven criticism leveled against her by the media and her opponents. The problem wasn’t that she couldn’t defend herself; the problem was that she had to defend both herself and her opponent with her hands tied behind her back. Any historical fact—from the most trivial and benign to those even minutely inflammatory—became a gaffe and sandstorm. The news cycle for her was lost time and again to media-made monsoons of Tuzla (never-ending, I recall), to LBJ & JFK (true, however, it was), to RFK and his assassination on the 6th of June. She couldn’t win the day for losing because if it was folly, it made her a fool and if it was true, it was anyone and everyone’s dog whistle.

Her opponent didn’t and hasn’t faced that. I imagine he won’t. Now that the media has picked him—and the party leaders have gone along with it—they’re gonna have to save him from himself. By not vetting him or questioning his many “misspeaks” or gaffes, they’ve left the country to choose between the lesser of who-cares and why-should-I. They’re gonna have to cover their bottom lines.

They had a brilliant mind and an iron will. They turned her away.

They had an unbeatable candidate and a popular, voter-driven mandate. They said, “No, thanks.”

They had the White House in November, like they promised. They decided they wanted the hot, red car instead, with the dollar signs on the hood, something they can drive home and show their kids.

They wanted to be rich and cool. They didn’t need those poor working-class people to cramp their style. They didn’t want those Latinos, or Asians, or LGBT people, or the disabled, or the elderly, or the Jewish, or the Catholic people reminding them of how things used to be. They didn’t want to be reminded of those horrid “old politics.” You know, the kind espoused by the foolhardy Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the lackluster Harry Truman, by that truly despicable John F. Kennedy, and even further still by that disgustingly traitorous American Lyndon B. Johnson who fought for the Civil Rights Acts, bent arms and bent ears to bring it to life. He lost the South forever for the Democrats but brought morality back to the American consciousness, that loathsome toad. And how ever will we forget Robert F. Kennedy, who lived and died on his ideals, the ideals embraced by a generation and that saw their completion decades after his own senseless end. Damn those old politics, nothing good ever came of them. Guess it’s time to try something new.

Hope and change. Those very words have lit the torches and the candles of a dozen movements that have carried this country forward to where it is and I imagine that those words will carry many others in the future. Nevertheless, what no ones wishes to address or be caught addressing is the fact that “just words” will never change the world. If there is no mind to a movement, it becomes chaos or worse. What we have now is a war of “just words” that without distinction will be interpreted in any way our opponents see fit. What we have now is an opponent that is not impressed with just words that are pretty, and words that are light. We have an opponent who laughs at our sonnets and our metaphors, whose spirit does not lift with a good hymn, and a chant makes him punchy. We have an adversary who is all about “straight-talk.”

Hope and change will not deter him. Hope never put a dollar into an empty bank account. Change is the thing a struggling mother is looking for when the food stamps don’t cover Pampers and milk. Hope is what that same mother has when she can’t get out of bed, but she can’t miss work today—she just can’t! Change is what happens when she has to take her kids and sneak away from her apartment in the middle of the night because the change she used to buy the Pampers isn’t there to pay the rent.

Everyday Americans will just have to keep holding on for another term more. Democrats aren’t gonna save them like they promised. How do I know? I know because the “Democrat” they picked has exactly one hope in the hell of being elected. I’ve met the Republicans, most of America has—John Kerry has certainly met them. Thanks to them and their fair friends, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Senator Kerry hasn’t seen the inside of the White House save for on the Christmas tour, and he won’t ever again. That’s a common sentiment among Democrats—and no doubt will become familiar to the party’s “nominee.”

To quote the eminent Maxine Waters of California, “We don’t need hope, what we need is help.” Sadly, neither Representative Waters nor the rest of her Super Delegate compatriots are in any position to give us that help. They have done the politically expedient thing, they have spoken aloud and made themselves heard; they have covered their backs—and left us in the rain.

By 2012, most of them will still have their homes, unlike more than a million working-class Americans thanks to the foreclosure crisis.

Expect gas prices to get so expensive that working isn’t worth the cost anymore. Between gas, taxes, utilities, and—I don’t know—being alive, there’s just no sense in it. A living wage isn’t one if you can’t live on it, and everyday Americans can’t keep living like this.

Doctor? You don’t need no stinking doctor. You won’t have anything to live on during retirement anyway, so I wouldn’t plan to live that long. Haven’t you heard? Universal Healthcare Coverage is for other countries. Dying unnecessarily is an honor and a privilege in the United States. Get used to it.

As for global warming, I suggest you buy, in bulk, shorts and flip-flops. Don’t expect Al Gore to stick his neck out for you now. God knows there isn’t a Democrat left who will.

But what can I say? It’s evidently a great year to be a “Democratic” Party Leader. It’s just a really, really awful year to be a run-of-the-mill Democrat.

The Congress-watcher news magazine The Hill writes this week that:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.

If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.

While I think that’s true, the problem for Obama with Hispanics goes deeper than that and again it comes to down those pesky values which I keep on referencing. That Obama is likely to carry the Hispanic vote I do not doubt. It is the narrower margin by which he will do so that should give the Democratic leadership pause.

Here’s the crux of Obama’s problema muy grande:

While Obama won the Latino vote in his home state of Illinois and in Colorado, and stayed competitive in New Mexico and Arizona, he was walloped among Latinos ? 64 percent to 24 ? throughout the 24 contests making up Super Tuesday. In California, Clinton won over Latinos 67 percent to 29.

Latino voters comprised 30 percent of California Democratic primary voters, an increase of 17 percent from 2004. In Texas, the number of Latinos voting in the Democratic primary rose 8 percent, to 32 percent of the electorate, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

In the Florida Republican primary, where Latinos made up 12 percent of the total vote and where McCain edged out Romney by only 4 percentage points, the Arizona senator won 54 percent of the Latino vote compared to Romney?s 14 percent. And many Republicans remember that it was in 2004 when 40 percent of Latino voters abandoned the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), to vote for President Bush, Munoz said.

Here is an overview of the states with the largest Hispanic population in the United States. Some of these are firmly in the McCain camp, others firmly in the Obama camp but a few are swing states. The swing states with large Hispanic populations are Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Arizona
Arizona’s Hispanic population is the sixth-largest in the nation. Nearly 1.8 million Hispanics reside in Arizona, 4% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 673,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Arizona, 4% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. McCain wins his home state.

California
California’s Hispanic population is the largest of any state in the nation. More than 13 million Hispanics reside in California, 30% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are over 5 million eligible Hispanic voters in California, 28% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. Polls right now are trending Obama’s way in California. Still most Hispanics here in the state have yet to focus on Obama. In the California primary, all they needed to know was that Hillary Clinton was Bill’s wife and that she was on the ballot. That may provide an opportunity for McCain to tag Obama as being out of touch with Hispanic values and Hispanics in California in a recent Field Poll had a 65% favourable view of McCain. Again his stance on immigration helps. Still I doubt McCain will win a plurality of Hispanic voters in California but he doesn’t have to, he only has to eat into the margin to make California competitive.

Colorado
Colorado’s Hispanic population is eighth-largest in the nation. More than 927,000 Hispanics reside in Colorado, 2% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are over 404,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Colorado, 2% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. Obama is aiming to make a push in Colorado. He’s likely to find support in the Denver to Boulder corridor and in liberal Aspen. Elsewhere, it looks like McCain country. Thus, the Hispanic vote should be a significant factor in Colorado come November. It is one of the swing demographics in Colorado.

District of Columbia
The District of Columbia’s Hispanic population is the 42nd largest in the nation. More than 47,000 Hispanics reside in the district, less than 0.1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 16,000 eligible Hispanic voters in the district, less than 0.1% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. Still, it is the African-American vote that matters in DC, not Hispanics.

Florida
Hispanic voters registered as Democrats have overtaken Hispanic Republicans in Florida, signaling a trend that, if it continues, could have far-reaching implications for the 2008 election and U.S. foreign policy. Until now, the politically influential, mostly Republican Cuban-American community in Miami-Dade made Florida the only state in the country where, among Hispanics, Republicans outnumbered Democrats. The growth among Hispanic Democrats is striking. Since January 2006, when the state began identifying voters as Hispanic, Democratic registration has increased 18 percent. Hispanic Republicans grew by only 2 percent, while those choosing neither party are up 14 percent. Florida has a larger South American population than other US states. Cubans, Haitian and Colombians make up the largest communities but there are growing numbers of Venezuelans and Brazilians. Cubans, Colombians and Venezuelans may be put off by Obama’s embrace, erstwhile at times, of Hugo Chávez. Free trade is also a big issue and Obama is against it and that issue won’t sit well with Latin Americans who want to see closer economic ties between the United States and their respective homelands. Many Latin Americans in the United States actually are engaged in jobs that depend on a vibrant trade with Latin America.

Hawaii
Hawaii’s Hispanic population is the 38th largest in the nation. Approximately 100,000 Hispanics reside in Hawaii, less than 1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 60,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Hawaii, less than 1% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. Hawaii is Obama country, he should win with ease.

Illinois
Illinois’s Hispanic population is the fifth-largest in the nation. Nearly 1.9 million Hispanics reside in Illinois, 4% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are over 708,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Illinois, 4% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters.

Maryland
Maryland’s Hispanic population is the 20th largest in the nation. More than 341,000 Hispanics reside in Maryland, 1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 112,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Maryland, less than 1% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters.

Massachusetts
Massachusetts’s Hispanic population is the fifteenth-largest in the nation. More than 509,000 Hispanics reside in Massachusetts, 1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 246,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Massachusetts, 1% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters.

Nevada
In Nevada, Latinos make up about 20% of the population. Hispanics make up 12% of Nevada’s eligible voters, compared with 9 percent of eligible voters nationally. The concerns on the minds of Nevada’s Hispanic voters are the same issues that the rest of the nation faces, said Luis Valera, with the Latin Chamber of Commerce of Las Vegas.

“Those folks are worried about their jobs. They’re worried about the economy. They’re worried about the health of the tourism industry. They’re worried about making sure that their kids get a good education,” he said. Where Hispanics might differ, however, is on the issue of immigration, Valera said.

“The Hispanic community is going to be a little more sensitive to the immigration issue, more so than other communities,” he said.

I also think that Hispanics, who are rather complex in their political views, will view Obama with suspicion. They do tend to favour social welfare programmes but they also espouse traditional conservative Catholic values. And there is a growing number of evangelical Hispanics who are largely citizens because their pastors are very pro-active in assisting their flock in becoming US citizens. And they vote on issues where Obama stands not a chance.

New Jersey
New Jersey’s Hispanic population is the seventh-largest in the nation. More than 1.4 million Hispanics reside in New Jersey, 3% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 588,000 eligible Hispanic voters in New Jersey, 3% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. This may be the state where the Hispanic vote has the biggest impact. If McCain can capture 45% of the Hispanic vote in New Jersey, he will in all likelihood take this blue state red. New Jersey has a large Cuban and Colombian populations. While the Cuban population votes more GOP, the Colombian population hasn’t. But Colombians have their feet in both the United States and in Colombia. Colombian-Americans were less than thrilled with Obama’s comments in neighboring Pennsylvania on the Colombian FTA and on Alvaro Uribe. So outraged were the Colombians that the Colombian government sent the first diplomatic protest note in four years to State Department complaining about Senator Obama’s remarks and demanding respect for the Colombian President. Obama’s comments implied that the Colombian government was complicit in the assassination of trade unionist and of course, he got his facts wrong. Obama alleged that over 200 trade unionists were being murdered per year and that the Uribe government was responsible. Problem was the last year where more than 200 trade unionists were killed in Colombia was 2001 and at that time Andres Pastrana was President of Colombia, not Alvaro Uribe. In 2007, the number of trade unionist murdered was 24 or 37 depending on which count you believe, the Colombian government’s or Amnesty International. In any case, Obama was far off the mark. These comments matter because in foreign affairs, precision in words really matter. Recall Obama’s comments in early June on Jerusalem when he misstated twenty years of stated US policy on Jerusalem’s status. His problem is that Obama panders to please his audience.

New Mexico
New Mexico’s Hispanic population is the ninth-largest in the nation. More than 874,000 Hispanics reside in New Mexico, 2% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 501,000 eligible Hispanic voters in New Mexico, 3% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. The same issues as mentioned in Nevada. Richardson on the ticket may put New Mexico in Obama’s column.

New York
New York’s Hispanic population is the fourth-largest in the nation. More than 3 million Hispanics reside in New York, 7% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 1.5 million eligible Hispanic voters in New York, 8% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. The Latin population in New York diverse though Puerto Ricans make up the largest percentage and they traditionally vote pocket book issues. Immigration is largely a non-issue for them since they are US citizens. Dominicans are another large group.

North Carolina
North Carolina’s Hispanic population is the 12th largest in the nation. About 595,000 Hispanics reside in North Carolina, representing 1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 120,000 eligible Hispanic voters in North Carolina, less than 1% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. North Carolina has one of the fastest-growing Hispanic populations in the country. The question is how many are now citizens.

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania’s Hispanic population is the 14th largest in the nation. About 522,000 Hispanics reside in Pennsylvania, 1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 261,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Pennsylvania, about 1.5% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. While small in the grand scheme of things, Hispanics in Pennsylvania have in recent years become more politically mobilized as a result of ant-immigrant legislation passed on the local level.

Rhode Island
Rhode Island’s Hispanic population is the 35th largest in the nation. About 120,000 Hispanics reside in Rhode Island, less than 1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 43,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Rhode Island, less than 1% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. Rhode Island is the bluest state of all. Obama should carry the state without much of a problem.

Texas
Texas’s Hispanic population is the second largest in the nation. Nearly 8.4 million Hispanics reside in Texas, 19% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 3.6 million eligible Hispanic voters in Texas, 20% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters.

Virginia
Virginia’s Hispanic population is the 16th largest in the nation. More than 466,000 Hispanics reside in Virginia, 1% of all Hispanics in the United States. There are 149,000 eligible Hispanic voters in Virginia, less than 1% of all U.S. Hispanic eligible voters. Probably not a factor in Virginia.

In the end, this is a margin game. While Clinton would no doubt carry Hispanics 2:1 overall and 3:1 in some states, Obama is going to have to compete for them with McCain, a name Hispanics recognize and a man they trust because he has stood with them on immigration. McCain should capture the 40% that voted for George W. Bush in 2004, the question is can he push that total closer to 50% and if so, Obama tiene un problema muy grande.

Note: The data used in this post is from the US Census Bureau, the Miami Herald, CNN, Pew Research and the New York Times.

My blog: By The Fault