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…

Anywho – I ask about their heads exploding because of the following articles (h/t/ to lavender liberal for the Huffington and Aravosis pieces).

First up is none other than Arianna Huffington, who wrote this back on January 16, 2006: Dems Pick Kaine for State of Union Response; What the Hell Are They Thinking? The title alone says it all, doesn’t it? Let me give you some tidbits from Ms. Huffington:

So the Democrats have chosen Virginia Governor Tim Kaine to deliver the party’s response to President Bush’s State of the Union speech. Chalk up another one for the What the Hell Are They Thinking? file.

Can’t disagree with her there – and that was BEFORE he and Obama became BFFs!!! Here’s the other good part:

Don’t ask me why, but I actually watched Kaine’s inaugural address on C-SPAN, and I was stunned to hear him dare compare the cause of Virginians like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson to our cause in Iraq: “They stood here at a time, just as today, when Virginians serving freedom’s cause sacrificed their lives so that democracy could prevail over tyranny.”

Iraq as a war to ensure that democracy can prevail over tyranny is George Bush’s talking point. God help us if it’s also the talking point of the man the Democrats have chosen to respond to him after the State of the Union.

And during Kaine’s run for Governor, he adopted another Bush talking point — that it would send “a horrible message” to “cut and run” in Iraq. Could that be any further from Murtha’s message that Iraq has become a civil war — a civil war being inflamed by our continuing presence?

Maybe you are thinking — at least those of you who have a life and missed his inaugural speech on C-SPAN — that Kaine is a charismatic speaker who will really wow the American people. Well, he ain’t. In fact, he scored so low on the scintillating speaker meter, that today’s Note suggests Democrats make it a priority to get the Guv a speech tutor before the State of the Union.

That’s right, all of you Obots who acted like Hillary alone was responsible for the Iraq war, and based your entire vote on that, despite Obama’s non-record, and surrounding himself with people who voted for the war. Yep, KAINE is a big ol’ Iraq war guy who sounds like Bush, and now he is the CHAIR OF THE DNC!!!!! Wheeee! (Oh, and at this writing, the ONLY thing HuffPo had on this was an AP article by Obama’s sychophant, Nedra Pickler.)

The next one, from January 30, 2006, was John Aravosis on “Homophobe To Give Democratic Response To The State of the Union.” Oh, this is good. Yessirree. Here’s Aravosis on Kaine and gay marriage:

On the unlikely chance that you thought there was any value left in the Democratic party after today, we have a homophobe giving the Democratic response to the State of the Union tomorrow…

It’s one thing for the governor to be worried about being “for” gay marriage in Virginia, the state that brought us miscegenation laws. It’s quite another for the governor to not understand the difference between gay marriage and an amendment that rips away all legal protections from gay couples, gay employees, and their children.

The new breed of Democrat can’t handle the concept of nuance. They can’t handle the concept of some things being difficult to oppose, and other things being easy. Yes, gay marriage is a tough issue. But ripping away the rights of every gay person and their children in the commonwealth should be a no-brainer. You can explain why that’s a bad thing, even to the people of Virginia, if you have half a spine.

Oh, don’t you just love when the chickens come home to roost? I know I do…

Hmmm – I wonder what they are saying over at Daily Kos, that bastion of “All Things Obama”?? Oh, this is good. Poster gladkov has a piece entitled, “Tim Kaine: A Big Step Backwards as DNC Chair?” Just hold the phone – is this person questioning the wisdom of The ONE??? S/he better be careful – you know what happens to people who write posts with which the Orange does not agree – you get No Quarter! Oh, and booted outta there. Perhaps the first paragraph was intended to mollify Daily Kos readers:

I was very disappointed to hear Howard Dean was stepping down but he served his term, went on to new things. I respect him for that. I am a bit non-plussed about the choice of Tim Kaine, however, as DNC Chair.

Dean. Blech. Major sexist pig.

But is is the following where I think gladkov is pushing the boundaries:

Crooks and Liars gives a good run-down of some of the issues:

http://crooksandliars.com/…

Ugh. After Howard Dean, could we pick a more disappointing choice for DNC head? After all, what the spinally deficient Dems need is a more milquetoasty, against stem cell research, pro-life, anti-gay chairman whose actions speak directly to his callousness towards those less fortunate directing the candidates and elections to help retain the Democratic majority, doncha know?

Here’s a little newsflash for you, crooksandliars – “WE” didn’t pick Kaine. Obama did. But why quibble?? Gladkov continues:

Let’s start with the gay marriage/civil unions thing. Now for weeks, many have told us GLBT to shut up about Warren. It’s just a prayer, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s about Obama’s real policy. Ok, so who does Obama put in charge of the DNC: http://sicsempertyrannis.blogspot.com…

Only Kaine, a civil rights lawyer, has spoken in favor of granting certain rights to gay couples in long-term relationships. He said he supports the right of gay people in long-term relationships to enjoy the “civil benefits” available to married couples.

“I have never said I supported gay civil unions, gay marriages,” Kaine told the AP last Friday. “I do believe that people shouldn’t be kicked out of their jobs or discriminated against because of who they are.”

How kind of Mr. Kaine. He thinks I should not be kicked out of my house!
But, um, what about gay marriage or, failing that, civil unions:

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

“Virginia defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and I strongly support that law. Regardless of the court ruling today in another state, I am confident that there is nothing in the Virginia or federal constitutions that would require Virginia to alter its longstanding policy about marriage.”

The Democrat also insisted that he opposes gay marriage and gay civil unions but supports contractual rights for gay and lesbian Virginians.

So, um, for all who said we should wait and see what Obama actually DOES instead of relying on that silly symbolism of Rick Warren, what about a DNC Chair who opposes even civil unions, who will be reinforcing this in his policy arguments? Think we have a right to be outraged now?

No, many of us were already outraged at Obama’s treatment of the GLBT community. A long damn time ago. Glad you could catch up, though. Sorry you’re all upset now. Maybe you should have looked a little closer to the other homophobes in Obama’s life. I could say, “Better late than never,” but now we are stuck with Obama and his anti-gay minions, so thanks tons for that.

I guess watching their heads explode as they realize that Obama really isn’t so great is one small consolation. Not enough, but it’s something, right? I’m sure there are more examples of the sheer hypocrisy that has become the hallmark of the Obamanation. Feel free to share! I imagine over the next four years, there will be more than we ever could have thought possible…

Just one more recap: Obama has chosen the DNC chair a man who is anti-choice, anti-gay, and pro-Iraq war. Gee – he’s just everything the rest of us thought he was…

Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal

President-elect Barack Obama’s newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot “red flags,” according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com. According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002. Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read (SEC complaint)) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having “failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention.”

Read all: Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal

Thanks, NewHampster!

And what other outrages are goin’ on out there?!?!?!?!?

Medusa’s original post: According to a rumor on Daily Kos, Obama’s internals show him with a mere 2 point lead in Pennsylvania. If true, this is very bad news for the Anointed One. John Kerry carried Pennsylvania by only 2.5 points, and Kerry didn’t insult the voters there.

Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of the Denver Group and Democrats for Principles Before Party (DFPBP) have two ads currently running in different metro regions in Pennsylvania. Watch the most recent one, here:

Pennsylvania is key in the election, and as you may have heard, Democratic Representative Jack Murtha first called his own Pennsylvania constituents “racists” but has now softened the insult by calling them “rednecks.” In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Murtha said:

There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area

But actually it turns out that these people are the gun-toting, bitter, religious types that the Dems find so clingy and bitter. Murtha clarified his remarks to mean that:

some of his constituents in western Pennsylvania are “rednecks” and the entire region just five to 10 years ago was “really redneck.

Marc Rubin’s fabulous post on No Quarter How Democrats Can Defeat Obama, See McCain Win, Still Get Everything They Want and Respect Themselves In The Morning spelled out the reasons why many Democrats refuse to vote for Obama:

Many Democrats seem to be going through a period of conflict over this election. They see Obama for what he is: a dishonest snake oil salesman, unfit and unqualified to be President, throwing out one sweet talking lie after another as the political Mr. Goodbar, trying to pick up as many votes as he can get.

Rubin rightly states that Obama must be defeated in order to “fumigate” the Democratic Party of its corrupting influences. And he urges people to vote for McCain to send a clear message to the party that gave us the Rules and By-Laws that awarded Hillary’s votes to Obama:

Obama is the nominee because of a dishonest primary in which these same people, along with the press, did everything possible to sell Obama as the nominee and do it as dishonestly as they knew how, including rigging the roll call vote, violating every Democratic Party rule and procedure in the process.

Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and every member of the DNC who engineered and went along with fixing the process needs to go. Those who won’t resign (though I think many will after an Obama defeat) need to have their power and their base removed, so the that the Democratic Party can air itself out. And the only way that can happen is with an Obama loss. And the bigger the better.

Rubin is a former advertising executive and he understands how advertising works. In a recent interview on No We Won’t radio, with Riverdaughter, Heidi Li and Harriet Christensen, Rubin explains how skewed the polls are and why, and he says that with enough money to create ads, he feels that the DFPBP could influence this election away from Obama. Listen to the interview here.

Donating to The Denver Group’s DFPBP is a powerful way to make a difference now. If we can get 500 No Quarter regulars to donate $20 we, as a community, could raise $10,000 to run powerful, persuasive ads in Pensylviania and other battleground states!!! Now is the time to act. You have the power. Click here to donate.

Remember what Hillary said:

For everyone here in Ohio and across America who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up — this one is for you.

More No Quarter posts on The Denver Group:

The quality of intent: What is really at stake in the 2008 Presidential Election by Heidi Li Feldman

Holding the DNC’s Feet to the Fire: An Interview with Marc Rubin of The Denver Group by Ani

The Denver Group’s New Video by SusanUnPc

The Denver Group’s Letter To Prevaricator Howard Dean by Uppity Woman

MAKING THE SQUEAKY WHEEL SQUEAK LOUDER Marc Rubin

NQ Radio Interview — The Denver Group Bud White

From our research, it appears that Obama has been groomed as a manchurian candidate for many years. It is likely that Obama’s early contacts and influences compelled him to look for mentors and patrons who shared his political views and ambitions. For example, in the August 24th UK Telegraph, while Americans were encouraged to witness the coronation of Obama, Toby Harnden wrote about Communist Frank Marshall Davis as an early influence:

Maya Soetoro-Ng, Obama’s half-sister, told the Associated Press recently that her grandfather had seen Mr Davis was “a point of connection, a bridge if you will, to the larger African-American experience for my brother”.

Despite what Oprah or Spike Lee or Donna Brazille want people to think, Obama needed a bridge to Black America because his life has had nothing in common with African Americans. Harnden:

In his memoir, Mr Obama recounts how he visited Mr Davis on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. At one point in 1979 Mr Davis described university as “an advanced degree in compromise” that was designed to keep blacks in their place.

Mr Obama quoted him as saying: “Leaving your race at the door. Leaving your people behind. Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained.”

Obama needed help getting that training. And we know that Khalid al-Mansour, aka Donald Warner, mentor to Black Panther Huey Newton, asked his former business associate, Percy Sutton, to help Obama get into Harvard, which he did. However, did you know that Percy Sutton was Malcolm X’s lawyer? Adam Howard writes for Black Star News:

Sutton’s story did not begin in Harlem, but that’s where he attained his prominence and legendary stature. In the 1960’s Sutton became known in the community as an attorney who represented social activists. When Malcolm X, then considered a controversial figure by much of the corporate media, needed a lawyer, Sutton was the only man, Black or white, willing to represent him. The two became very close and he served as Malcolm X’s family lawyer before and after his death.

In addition to the Chicago Machine, Obama’s ascent has been created and forced on us by the so-called “progressives.” Not the little blogger boys of DKos and MyDD, or the embarrassingly effete groupies of Huffpo, but the gen-u-ine “progressives,” also known as Domestic Terrorists. Yes, I’m referring to the celebrity radicals, the role-models of Obama’s thugs: Bill Ayers, Tom Hayden, and another name in search for 15 minutes of fame, Mark Rudd. We find them gathered together on one site, Progressives for Obama. Their current headline reads:

Financial Crisis: Thinking About the Real Socialist Way Out:

Bailout! A Case for economic Democracy and Clearing the Path to Socialism

Tom Hayden describes the “call” of this group:

March 24, 2008 – All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grassroots participation, drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama’s very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process…

During past progressive peaks in our political history–the late thirties, the early sixties–social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas…We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama’s unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined.

You can check out PFO’s signatories, but here’s the 411 on Mark Rudd, according to Aaron Klein:

Among the signatories and endorsers to Progressives for Obama is Mark Rudd, one of the main founders of the Weathermen terrorist organization. Rudd worked closely for years with Weathermen terrorist William Ayers, whose association with Obama has generated controversy for the presidential candidate.

Rudd originally was a top member of the Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, leading the famed 1968 Columbia University strikes in which hundreds of students seized several university buildings. He also served as spokesman for the strikes, attracting international media attention.

In 1968, Rudd traveled with the SDS to Cuba, defying U.S. travel bans, where he says he was heavily influenced by the legacy of Che Guevara and by Cuban-style revolution. When he returned to the U.S., Rudd advocated for Columbia’s chapter of the SDS to carry out militant, aggressive action, but he was turned down.

The Weathermen took responsibility for bombing U.S. governmental buildings in the 1970s.

Rudd went underground in 1970, when a bomb exploded in a townhouse in Greenwich Village in New York City, killing three of his comrades. He lived for seven and a half years in hiding as a fugitive, finally surrendering in 1977, facing only low-level state charges after federal charges against Weathermen leaders had been dropped. He resurfaced as a teacher in New Mexico.

Klein’s article contains a link to Rudd’s own website. In spite of the fact that it’s important to expose Obama’s relationships to and endorsements by these unrepentent Domestic Terrorists, I personally hate giving these guys any attention. Bill Ayers’ memoir Fugitive Days will be re-released on January 12, 2009, I’m sure as a result of all the attention he’s receiving as Obama’s “neighbor.” Amazon includes this in its by-line:

“In February 2008, in the heat of the Democratic primary elections, speculations began circulating in the media about a connection between presidential hopeful Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, a former member of the radical 1960s group the Weather Underground.”

Jack Cashill thinks that Ayers was actually the author of Obama’s book, Dreams From My Father. Read Cashill’s three-part examination. I think he might be on to something,

One last thing: what interests me most about the PFO website are the instructions they include for their army of progressives. Hayden’s article Key Task: Isolate and Divide the Right, reads like something from Saul Alinsky’sRules for Radicals . (Shiver has written about Obama’s Alinsky Jujitsu.) Hayden makes clear that Sarah Palin is now their target :

September 13, 2008 – A principle reason for Progressives For Obama is so that we can say things that the Obama campaign cannot or will not say.

This is one of those times.

1. Sarah Palin is a mortal threat to the possibility of Obama winning. The reason is simple: if she can add a couple of points to McCain from defecting white women and the newly-energized right wing religious base without losing more independent votes, McCain pulls ahead in some key states.

I’m horrified that I ever considered myself a progressive Democrat. In my defense, it was not then the cruel Bolshevikization of the Democratic Party, as Charles Lemos so clearly described back in June.

started running the “stages of grief” trope on Hillary supporters way back in February—you know, from anger, through denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance. It’s an easy riff to run, even for bad writers, so it’s been all over the Obama blogs

Of course this “stages of grief” narrative oozed with sexism and condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary’s female supporters, emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy throughout the summer.

McCain’s selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to halt Obama’s bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks. It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain has taken the lead in the electoral college.

The panic from the Obamabots in palpable.

Let me suggest that there are 3 levels of panic.

1. Wunderwaffen.

During World War Two, Hitler forced his beleaguered arms manufacturers to produce “miracle weapons,” strange armaments which he believed would turn the war in Germany’s favor.

Like armchair generals in a losing battle, losing political campaigns have supporters who desire the Wunderwaffen, a magical weapon which can sink the other side or a proven winner who can take the reins of the campaign and guide it to victory. In 2004, while Kerry was being hammered by Bush, many pleaded for James Carville to take over Kerry’s war room and provide the message discipline from 1992. From the Democratic Underground, August 27, 2004:

I have been saying this for over a month now…I wrote Mr Carville the following email:

Mr. Carville, please save the Kerry campaign!
He is throwing out sound bites that are perfect ammo for Rove and his evil crew. You can train this man.You can save this campaign and this country. We need you Mr. Carville.

In 2008, as victory becomes increasingly uncertain, Obama supporters are banking on voter registration and the belief that cell phone users are not accounted for in national polls. The same theories were trotted out in 2004 but the polls then fairly predicted the actual vote. However, there are even stranger ideas floating around Obama-land. At TalkLeft, there’s an armchair general named mmc9431 who believes that Obama should announce part of his cabinet now and turn them into roving ambassadors for the campaign:

Obama needs to come out with something very bold on his own if he’s going to have any chance of regaining the advantage.
Maybe he should announce ahead of time, 3 of his cabinet choices that would motivate his base. Sec of State, Attorney General and Sec of Treasury. These 3 could then go out and campaign of their platform. We’d have three people out there constantly pounding on issues rather than personalities.

Likewise, over at Daily Kos, Ursa Majority’s Wunderwaffen is one good television ad that will convince all the “low information” rubes to vote for Obama:

Yes, you heard it right. We need a killer ad (radio and TV) to get back onto message while shrinking McCain. And, with middle and low information swing voters, you’ve got to try to tie it all together in one digestible message. So, let’s get back to our effective messages of the post “Obama as Britney” era (i.e., McCain isn’t taking the issues seriously) and use McCain’s words and actions against him.

2. Denial

Obama supporters are now somewhere between searching for the magic bullet and denying that anything is wrong. The Kerry campaign is also rich with similar examples at a similar time in the campaign.

On September 17, 2004, almost exactly four years ago, Cartooner, at Democratic Underground, predicted that John Kerry would win in a landslide:

Call it an epiphany; call it crazy, and it’s just a hunch; but hey, A HUNCH made Quasi Modo famous…

~snip~

The economy, health care, jobs, LIES,

the messages are FINALLY STARTING TO RESONATE …

Ok… Maybe I’m an optimist; but I think Kerry will win on a
LANDSLIDE …

This campaign is also filled with delusion. A poster on Craig’s List gives Obama odds I’d like to take to Las Vegas:

Date: 2008-09-12, 12:32AM EDT
Location: new haven

He’s definitely going to win. No question.

What chances would you give him? I’d give him 100%.

3. Acceptance

The last stage is filled with sadness and recriminations.

Lentinel writes:

my heart sinks.
I lay some of the blame at Obama’s door.
As soon as he was assured of the nomination he turned South, figuratively speaking.
He voted for FISA.
He disowned public financing.
He went on preaching to evangelicals.
He waffled on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.
He waffled on his commitment to the right of women to an abortion.
And, of course, he went on to treat Hillary Clinton and her supporters like dirt.

And Daily Kos’ DaveinSiliconValley has a diary titled: “Why (Sadly) Obama Will Probably Lose”

A few days ago I had a conversation with a mid-fifties nonreligious, pro-choice, Caucasian, suburban mother who thinks the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, that Bush was a terrible president, and is concerned that McCain may get us into another war, but she is “seriously thinking” about voting for McCain. I will give you a clue. She is absolutely going to vote for McCain.

I asked, given the way she feels on the issues, why isn’t she voting for Obama? She said “I don’t know.” I pressed her. She said, “I don’t trust him.” I asked why and she said “I don’t know.”

Obama can hit this lady with a thousand commercials explaining his stand on the issues and why his plans for the country are better than McCain’s plans and it will have no effect whatsoever on her vote. Zero. She is issue-proof.

What’s going on? Is it just subliminal racism? It’s not that simple.

After the 2004 election, Democrats became obsessed with psychoanalyzing the electorate. I engaged in some of this myself. Searching for answers, we read What’s the Matter with Kansas? but failed to find the answer. Believing, like DaveinSiliconvalley, that Republicans controlled the electorate with subliminal powers, we read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant, but we found that framing issues is only one small part of winning elections. Framing can come across as patronizing, e.g., you’re pushing your agenda on the electorate instead of listening to their needs.

In 2006, as I began thinking about the next presidential cycle, I finally got around to reading Hillary’s Living History and President Clinton’s My Life. The Clintons, both policy wonks, believe that winning campaigns put forward good policies which appeal to the electorate’s aspirations. The voters do not need to be cajoled or hypnotized into voting for a candidate. The voters decide the issues and the politicians offer solutions.

The Clintons taught Democrats how to win elections. Remember, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat elected to a second term since 1936. Also, let’s not forget the magnitude of Hillary’s victories; she won Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky; she won West Virginia by 40%. A few caucus states and Obama’s delegate stealing in Michigan made the difference. Let’s not pretend that Obama was the people’s choice. The primary campaign was not a decisive win by either candidate, and millions of Hillary supporters will never forgive the way she was treated by those within the Party, to say nothing of the media.

The Clintons win by offering proposals to make people’s lives better. On the campaign trail, they talk incessantly about helping working people, and they both have an unwavering commitment to the nation’s defense. The Clintons reject flowery rhetoric and use a clear communication strategy. Their strategy is effective; they know how to build winning coalitions. I have no doubt that Hillary would now be locking down battleground states on her march to the White House.

Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the Party’s infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org, and he was supported by the netroots and the media.

Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized during the primary as “low information” and hopelessly bitter. No one television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic.

Some want her out front and center railing against sexism to defend Sarah Palin:

‘Hillary’s legacy is in jeopardy! She is not living her principles! After what she went through she must speak out against the horrible treatment of this woman.’

Others are determined to see her out on the stump trashing Sarah Palin. The ‘Kossacks’ and their ilk suddenly love Hillary. I guess the ungrateful dopes figured out they need her after all. They called her all manner of filthy slander too disgusting to repeat here, but she is good enough now to clean up after Barack, isn’t she? ‘My diaper’s wet. Change me, Mommy, change me!’

I have tried in vain to figure out why people can’t resist beating on Hillary; even some of her supporters. After the most grueling primary contest in history, with the outcome determined by DNC thuggery, any sensible person could agree that Hillary and her family have been through enough and deserve time to recuperate.

Hillary is a tough cookie; a worker bee who didn’t ask for down time, but the irrational need of the press and many voters to have her be all things to all people indicates that, perhaps unconsciously, we are relating to her as the archetypal Mother. This association can unleash deep and powerful feelings which defy logic. She is, after all, a politician.

The bountiful mother figure … she swells with abundance – she promises fulfillment of need. The Great Mother, however, can frighten as well as sustain …Mother Earth may sustain the crops, but Mother Earth can generate terrible forces – earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions. Our primitive psyches enshrine the ecstasy of hunger banished by mother’s breast, but we also harbor dark shadows of her absence, of her inability to make everything better.

Interesting that now Hillary is caught between the opposing cacophonies of:

They’re picking on Sarah – make them stop! Yell at them! You’re big and bad and tougher than any of them, Mommy. Make them stop.

They’re picking on Barack! Stop them! Republicans are calling him an empty suit, an unqualified charlatan and a lying fraud. Help him, Mommy, help him!

What do we all want from Hillary? Blood? How about if our ‘Joan’ is literally burned at the stake for her principles?

Pardon my dust in sharing a little personal history. I watched my own mother be treated badly day in and year out. An eminently capable woman with a vigorous work ethic, if not for her, we would all have been out in the street. She was belittled daily by a sick man for years so he could maintain his base of power in the home. It worked. And we were all encouraged, unsuccessfully, to beat on her too in our way – if she was not perfect. Sound familiar?

We orbited around the abuser and made the best of it. In the name of family, my Mom made a choice to stay in an incredibly difficult situation. I did not second guess her. Witnessing this, however, taught me not to make the same choice in my own life.

Echoing a similar diseased family dynamic, the DNC, the media and the country is now orbiting around the ‘abuser’, Barack, while expecting Hillary to do the washing up after. How many of us have versions of the same story to tell – either at home or in the workplace.

A friend of mine recently said “Hillary has raised the bar for what I will accept from a Presidential candidate.” He’s right. Watching and championing the unflappable, wonderfully prepared, gritty and determined Hillary Clinton was a joy. But being A+ cost her… Watching her be ripped to shreds by little frat boys and colluding girls of the media, while the jealous, corrupt DNC elders rubbed their hands together, grateful allies to this slaughter, was too painful for words.

Hillary is human; an imperfect person in an imperfect world who just happened to be a very knowledgeable, caring policy wonk who liked to roll her sleeves up and get to work. No Grecian temple necessary. No matter how good a politician Hillary became, I never thought she was going to solve all my problems. I am sure my own experiences with misogyny and witnessing the abuse my mother received made me take this election a little more personally, but I never made Hillary my mother. I do not expect her to fix everything.

I worked on her behalf because she was the best option available. Period.

How odd that some women actually refused to vote for Hillary because she did not leave Bill. Isn’t there a saying about living in a glass house and throwing stones? Just my opinion, but often, we may not be comfortable with shining a light on our own shortcomings. We expect admired public figures to step up to the plate in a way we ourselves cannot or do not. We hold them to ridiculous and superhuman standards.

Hillary’s reasons are her own. There is a bigger picture than we can imagine and it may be just as much about love and family as habit or any less generous adjectives you would care to name.

In this current debate, some expect Hillary to stand before the world and decry what angers us, while, with a few exceptions, we issue these complaints from the safety of a blogger’s alias.

Hillary has made a statement that sexism has no place in this contest. That is all that she should do. Sarah Palin herself stated that Hillary ever mentioning sexism was a mistake and as a woman you know they are going to throw the kitchen sink at you and you have to be twice as good and just get on with it. That indicates to me, she is not asking for any help. Palin has her entire Party behind her – much more than Hillary ever had.

Yes the DNC is corrupt and needs to be cleansed. Can we do that right this second? No. Obviously, the phony roll call at the Convention and the events orchestrated by Brazile et al indicate clearly, we do not have the environment to do that now. And if other Democratic bigwigs did not have the balls to stand up to this travesty and left Hillary, all by herself, flapping in the breeze – us asking her to do so yet again in the name of Sarah Palin is an unnecessary political suicide.

Do we want the Dem Party to slit her throat altogether? Dean, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Richardson, Edwards, Dodd, Rockefeller and Co. would like nothing better. That is what we will accomplish by asking her to come to the defense of a Republican VP nominee.

And as to the DNC’s corruption, expecting Clinton to take on the entire Party, the media and the Obama campaign single-handed is as naive as it is unreasonable. Likewise the thought that she could have run as an Independent and abandoned the Party. Sorry. Not doable — much as I would have liked this myself.

Politics is a blood sport, a vile undertaking to say the least. But I, for one, want to see Hillary live to fight another day – whether she runs for President in 2012, becomes Senate Majority Leader or remains a powerful work-horse NY Senator, able to push her agenda through.

Obama and Axelrod have framed their campaign around playing the race card. It is a catch-all designed to stop any criticism dead. The media is terrified of being called racist. Ironic that by the media excusing Senator Obama’s every gaffe and deliberately deciding not to vet him, they are being completely racist.

Unwittingly or not, they are saying that Barack Obama is not capable of winning this election on the issues or on his own. They are acknowledging his lack of accomplishment. He cannot do it fair and square. He could not do it against Hillary and he will not do it against McCain. So the media needs to help by saying “ssshhhh – these are questions we will not ask.” Well here’s a hot flash. Holding Hillary to a higher standard than Barack is sexism, too.

In 2000, the media sold us Bush and trashed Gore. They also sold Bush’s war. Herein lies the best reason not to vote for Barack Obama – the media wants him.

The media made sure Hillary had to be perfect out on the trail. I was terrified she would say the wrong thing – because she had no margin for error. Whereas Barack could just sort of meander on to the stage backwards and ‘be mesmerizing.’ Hillary has done more in one year than Senator Obama has done in his whole fabricated life. Doesn’t matter. Damn it, Hillary, don’t you make a mistake. Not a single one!

Now Hillary is caught between defending Barack and defending Sarah Palin. I personally think Sarah Palin can eat Barack’s lunch. But she’s been on the national stage for a week. She’s had to endure this misogyny for a week. Let her step up to the plate and handle it. For that matter, let Obama go win his own election.

But here’s a word: empathy.

Have people wondered what it would feel like as a public figure to have the right wing gunning for you for 16 years; to create a picture of you as divisive and polarizing in an effort to poison the electorate; and to have to publicly pay for your husband’s personal transgressions on top of that.

Then picture you are running a campaign for 18 months, by far the best, most prepared candidate with the best policies, only to be stabbed in the back daily by the do-nothing loser cowards in your own Party, as well as the media – while the Republicans pretty much stay silent about the unfair treatment you are receiving.

Why wouldn’t they? Republicans knew Hillary would win in a landslide. Who would want to run against her? They were scared.

Now imagine you and your President husband are also unjustly painted as racists, after you have done more for the AA community in a heartbeat than Barack has done his whole life. Can you imagine what would happen if you started speaking out for a Republican woman over Barack in this deadly and irrational atmosphere?

I do not want my Joan of Arc in a pantsuit to be set aflame. I want her back. Enough is enough. Let everybody else fight their own battles. She has exhibited more raw courage than any politician I have ever seen. She led by example and never gave anyone the satisfaction of seeing her defeated.

At the Convention, radiant in her prisoner’s orange, she gave a victory speech and talked about everything she fought for. She will continue the fight. I assure you. She is a smart political animal. I trust that in order to keep a seat at the table to fight for her country in the future, seeing the writing on the wall, she did what she had to do.

In the world of politics, perhaps the concept of ‘mother’ is too tough to erase from the collective psyche, accounting for the ridiculous double standard foisted upon both Senator Clinton and Governor Palin. But if we want to change the landscape of sexism, it is up to us to continue to fight back as well. Speak out, write, call, boycott, protest, show up and most of all – VOTE.

Instead of demanding that Mommy make it all better.

You go, girl.

1. Muckraking is necessary — always.

2. It’s never the “crime,” it’s always the cover-up.

3. Hypocrisy sucks.

**********

it is time to play by the rules of Rush, Dobson, Coulter and Rove — they use them and blame the other side

we have been toads — too bad Sarah Palin — you made this bed, now sleep in it

i just feel bad for bristol — she is an unwilling participant — and was totally used by her mother

how sad
**********

What XXXX said!!! Time to take the gloves off damn it.

**********

There were many more, but I think you get my point. Below are a few who do not approve of playing dirty….

XXX sent me a link to this, and so I read it. My take is exactly the opposite, for a variety of reasons. I do not think this is anyone’s business but the Palins. Period.

I do not think it has relevance to any public position Gov. Palin may take. Period.

I think that, especially since Bristol Palin is still technically a minor, she should be off-limits. Period.

And, in reference to XXXXXX – you want to emulate those scumbags? Sorry, but I don’t play that way. They are vile. I realize that if you wrestle pigs, you’re bound to get some shit on you. That’s why you don’t wrestle pigs. It’s that simple.

I offer these views with all dues respect, because, XXXX, I happen to read your blog fairly regularly, and while I do not comment (normally), I felt compelled to on this issue. I like you blog and respect your views. They just differ from mine. That’s all.

Ok, so you get my drift. Apparently I’m not the only one who feels that this particular type of muckraking is the smart way to win an election. Not only did Obama himself disapprove of this line discussion going on with his supporters, as is pointed out by BAC of YIKES, but the well known Chicago news columnist, John Kass, wrote about it today in the Chicago Tribune. A few excerpts below from his column shows his disdain for this behavior.

POLITICS DON’T GET DIRTIER THAN SMEARING A PREGNANT GIRL

John Kass
September 2, 2008

BLOOMINGTON, Minn. — Have American presidential politics become so hateful that a pregnant 17-year-old girl has to have the intimate details of her life exposed to the nation by character assassins?

Ask the left-wing Internet haters, the anonymous=2 0propagandists who call themselves bloggers on the Daily Kos.

And ask Bristol Palin, who didn’t deserve it, and was a victim of the rumor-mongers consumed with attacking her mother, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican running mate of Sen. John McCain, because the mother is a conservative and opposes abortion.

The Internet rumors claimed that Sarah’s baby, Trig, born four months ago with Down syndrome, wasn’t really hers but her daughter’s. They plucked some photos from the Internet, photos out of sequence, to make it appear as though Gov. Palin hadn’t been pregnant, proving once again that on the Internet, the casualties are credibility and civility. Reading it, you could almost hear the saliva dripping from their teeth as they typed anonymously.

[snip]

When I was just starting out as a reporter, a wise old newspaper man told me his rule: Don’t ever write about their kids. Leave the kids alone, unless the child runs for office, or pulls down some fat government contract, or if the parent hauls them out as a shield before an indictment. Leave them alone, he said, because the kids don’t deserve it, because they’re civilians.

Feel free to read the rest of the story by John, who is looking at this like I am which is whether it is a smart political ploy to continue with this dirty20line of campaigning.

Even though the rumors about Sarah Palin not being the mother of her own son, there are some who are not willing to let it go and some that are expanding their filthy smears against the father of Bristol’s baby. For those who continue to claim that Sarah is not the mother of Trig, get a freakin’ calculator out if you can’t do the math. For those who are now going after Bristol and her teen aged husband to be, get a freakin’ soul for gosh sakes!

Sure, Democrats can wallow in the mud just like the Republicans have been known to do. They can emulate Anne Coulter, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, but where will it get them? Will they win this race for Obama? It may or may not, but is it worth lowering yourselves to the lowest common denominator in order to achieve this goal? Is it worth losing your dignity or your compassion? Is that not the part of you that you are proud to display or is this what you want all to see?

John Kass said it best in the last sentence of his column, “So the crooked blade swings from the right and the left. The use of children as a weapon leaves a terrible stain, on the kids, on the losing candidates, on the winners, and on all of us.”

Their behavior during the campaign was so far from being progressive that I’ve concluded that they’re not actually progressives — at least not of the New Deal, progressive government heritage. Indeed, Markos proclaims himself a libertarian Democrat, meaning he’s well-off and politically correct.

Regarding the Silence of the Bloggers while the media performed a misogynistic bloodletting on Hillary, Big Tent Democrat writes:

[Digby] KNOWS why [media bias] was not covered by most of the Left bogs until the ABC debate – for the same reason the Media’s bias, sexism and misogyny was not covered by the blogs – because they loved it when it was against Hillary Clinton. The Left blogs failed in the primaries and it is time they owned up to it and why – when it was smears, sexism and silliness against Clinton, all was well. Look at Keith Olbermann for crissakes. Their complaints about McCain favoritism in the Media, to the extent it exists, now rings hollow. Their credibility had been shot long ago.

Now Digby is endorsing attacks on McCain. Does she want to go after his tax policies? How about Iraq? Is it his abortion stance? No, it’s not about policy. Here’s the plan she endorses:

Why not concentrate on character critiques that have some real grounding in reality? Just to give a few examples:

*
McCain is old and gets confused occasionally.
*

McCain is running an ugly, smear-based campaign.
*

McCain has a legendarily short fuse.
*

McCain is annoyingly self-righteous.
*

McCain’s straight talk has evaporated in the face of his need to win evangelical votes.

How to go after McCain and promote a progressive agenda? Ageism. He’s running a “smear-based campaign” (read: he’s racist). Nice coming from a group that allowed (and participated in) Obama’s race-baiting of the Clintons. And please don’t call McCain “annoyingly self-righteous,” while Obama lectures Americans to learn Spanish — a language he does not speak.

The “progressive” bloggers’ desire for power — not a progressive agenda — has turned them into modern day Bolsheviks. There is nothing progressive about race-baiting, sexism, and ageism. The sooner Obama is defeated and these cranks fade away, the better.

PUMAs need to start formulating a vision for a post-Obama Democratic Party, one which I hope is focused on providing opportunities for all Americans regardless of race, sex, or age.

Obama did it again, he blew another debate. Now, this should have been a simple debate, the question, in my opinion were pretty straightforward and didn’t deal with difficult subjects like the economy or taxes. And most of all, he was debating John McCain, the guy that every Democrat said would never be able to stand up to the oh-so intelligent Barack Obama.

For those who cannot see or hear the video, let me give you a few of the questions and answers from the candidates. The first one I will show is Obama’s answer to the following question:

Q. WHO ARE THE THREE WISEST PEOPLE THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU WOULD RELY ON HEAVILY IN YOUR ADMINISTRATION?

A. YOU MENTION ONE PERSON THAT I WOULD BE LISTENING TO IS MICHELLE, WHO IS NOT ONLY WISE, BUT SHE’S HONEST. ANOTHER PERSON WOULD BE MY GRANDMOTHER.

Wait…Michelle and his grandmother are going to be in his administration? WTF??? Are you kidding me? I have to wonder if this guy has ADD because obviously he didn’t understand the question… either that or we are going to have an awful lot of nepotism going on in the White House. I wonder if he plans on asking his young daughters for advice, too? That had to be the dumbest answer that Obama has ever given in a debate, and he’s had plenty of dumb answers to choose from. This was the perfect opportunity for him to show that he will have an administration that would compliment his weaknesses, but he blew it.

On the other hand, McCain didn’t hesitate (not one uh), he gave the names, General David Petraeus and Meg Whitman who is the CEO of E-Bay. McCain pointed to people who would help him with foreign policy and military issues, and the economy. Meg Whitman who is an American economic success story AND a woman will certainly help him with his weakness in economics and with the woman vote. In fact, I’ve seen the rumor floated around that she may be his V.P. pick…certainly a wise decision, IMO.

Q. WHAT WOULD BE, LOOKING OVER YOUR LIFE (EVERYBODY’S GOT WEAKNESSES, NO BODY’S PERFECT) WOULD BE THE GREATEST MORAL FAILURE IN YOUR LIFE–WHAT WOULD BE THE GREATEST MORAL FAILURE OF AMERICA?

The answers to this question are pretty long, so I’ll just leave some of it, you can listen to the video to get the rest. Obama jumped right in and started talking about how his dad left him at an early age. Yeah..we’ve heard t hat story a million times, poor Obama raised by a single mother. You never hear him mention on the campaign trail that it wasn’t long before she married a wealthy oil executive and he didn’t exactly go without the necessities. Here’s the Wikipedia quote:

After her divorce, Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, and the family moved to Soetoro’s home country of Indonesia in 1967, where Obama attended local schools in Jakarta until he was ten years old. He then returned to Honolulu to live with his maternal grandparents while attending Punahou School from the fifth grade in 1971 until his graduation from high school in 1979

Yeah…tough life he had there! If anyone would take the time to check, Punahou School is a very exclusive, well-to-do school. Not exactly what you would think of when you hear “I was raised by a single mom”, is it? But that’s what he’s counting on, voter naiveté.

He then goes on to give the impression that because of his difficult upbringing, he turned to drugs and drinking while he tried to “find himself”. I could tell you of a lot of kids who were raised by single moms who had it a lot tougher than Obama, some who didn’t go to the best schools, have nice clothes to wear, and didn’t have a decent place to live, and yet they didn’t turn to drugs or alcohol. Obama’s whining goes to show you that he cannot take responsibil ity for his own behavior.

OBAMA: I WAS SO OBSESSED WITH ME AND YOU KNOW, THE REASON I MIGHT BE DISSATISFIED THAT I…UH UH…COULDN’T FOCUS ON OTHER PEOPLE.

Guess what? Obama is STILL obsessed with himself and will never focus on other people. He certainly hasn’t proved that yet. Everything that he has done in his career has been for himself. And don’t let that phony “community service” bullshit make you think he was doing it for others. If he gave a rats ass about anyone but himself, he wouldn’t have let those in his district– black community, live in housing without heat for six months while the slumlord who ran the buildings was giving him large contributions for his campaign and holding fund raisers for him.

Q. WHAT’S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT — LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY: WHAT’S THE MOST GUT WRENCHING DECISION YOU’VE EVER HAD TO MAKE AND HOW DID YOU PROCESS THAT, COME TO THAT DECISION?

A. WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE OPPOSITION TO THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS AS TOUGH A DECISION THAT I’VE HAD TO MAKE NOT ONLY BECAUSE THERE WERE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES BUT ALSO BECAUSE SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A BAD PERSON AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT THAT HE MET AMERICA ILL.

BUT I WAS FIRMLY CONVINCED AT THE TIME THAT WE DID NOT HAVE STRONG EVIDENCE OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT AS I SPOKE TO EXPERTS KEPT ON COMING UP, DO WE KNOW HOW THE SHIITES AND THE SUNNIS AND THE KURDS ARE GOING TO GET ALONG IN A POST SADDAM SITUATION, WHAT’S OUR ASSESSMENT AS TO HOW THIS WILL AFFECT THE BATTLE AGAINST TERRORIST LIKE AL-QAEDA, HAVE WE FINISHED THE JOB IN AFGHANISTAN?

Wait….his most gut wrenching decision was his opposition to the war? The guy gives one speech in the 13th District in Chicago, the stomping grounds of Louis Farrakhan, and THAT was his most gut wrenching decision? Are you kidding me?

Also, who were these so-called “experts” he talked to? This guy’s story builds and builds the more he talks. I would really love to know what intelligence he had at the time he made that little vanity speech of his. Was every Senator in every State privy to such intelligence?

On the other hand, McCain’s answered that his most gut wrenching decision was to stay in the prison camp in Viet Nam after he was told he could leave early. His depiction of what he was facing with that decision was heart breaking. For those who think that this won’t hit home to every military family, you’re sadly mistaken.

As usual, the Obama campaign is trying to make excuses for Obama’s bad performance at this20debate, just as they made excuses for his horrible showing in previous debates with Hillary. Andrea Mitchell, carrying the water for Obama, said this:

“The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/17/08

Yeah…McCain “cheated”…..

McCain’s campaign had an answer to this ridiculous charge.

We are extremely disappointed to see that the level of objectivity at NBC News has fallen so low that reporters are now giving voice to unsubstantiated, partisan claims in order to undercut John McCain.
Make no mistake: This is a serious charge. Andrea Mitchell is repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night’s forum at Saddleback Church.
Indeed, instead of taking a critical journalistic approach to this spin, Andrea Mitchell did what has become a pattern for her of simply repeating Obama campaign talking points.

Oh, and for those who think that I’m using my “bias” to state that Obama screwed up big time, Daily Kos has the same opinion and Taylor Marsh was just beside herself with worry over what is going to happen to poor Obama if he doesn’t start preparing for these debates. Gee…do you mean she actually expects Obama to do the hard work for him? Isn’t that the job of Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, and Nancy Pelosi? As far as McCain is concerned, he had a great debate and was well prepared (no, he didn’t cheat and if anyone can prove that, be my guest). I can say this, however, at this point in time, with the economy in the dumpster and having the last eight years watching our country go to pot because of a Republican president,at this stage of the game this should be a cake walk for Obama, and yet he is dead even with McCain in the polls. So, what do you do when you can’t climb above 50% in the polls? Go on vacation to Hawaii, of course!

Being crowned king isn’t as easy as it looks, I guess.

Divine Democrat can be found at her usual digs, Bad Habit.

……………..

Cool picture from florian.b who also features this quote…

“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.” — Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

NOTE: I’ll be appearing as a guest tonight on Erin Kotecki Vest’s Sunday Inquisition show talking about the Edwards scandal and the media at 7pm Pacific time. Erin also wrote this piece about me getting banned.

About a week ago, I posted a piece on the Huffington Post called Say It Ain’t So, John. I didn’t think it would have much more impact than my usual posts…maybe a dozen comments or so, a couple of people linking to it. I cross posted on DailyKos, which is probably the best known and biggest progressive blog. I’ve been posting at Kos for a long time. As more news about Edwards has come out, I followed up with more posts which were also the subject of a large number of comments. All of them looked at the Edwards situation from my point of view; that is, a liberal who is concerned about the implications this story may have in November.

Now I’m banned. I can’t write about ANYTHING at Kos. Can’t comment, can’t post a non-Edwards piece. Nothing.

And I stand by my title – it’s largely John Edward’s fault that I’m banned. I’m now personally a small piece of fallout from the scandal. That’s because Edward’s defense is shoot the messenger, not answer the questions. The rabid response of the people on Kos is directly related to Edwards and his own response. That’s exactly why I’m saying this has the potential to hurt the Democratic brand.

So answer the effin’ questions already, John. For everyone’s sake.

I’m not sure if the DailyKos is going to take down my writing and make me a complete un-person there. Of course, real progressives are against censorship so Maryscott O’Connor’s blog MyLeftWing is my new community home. (Maryscott was the lead actress in my film Breathing Room about 13 years ago, by the way.)

Here are the pieces I wrote on Kos that caused the problems…if you look, I’m not writing about anything that isn’t being written about already.

Say It Ain’t So, DailyKos

Dissent, Disloyalty, And Disappointment

Irrefutable Proof Of The John Edwards Scandal

So now comes this disturbing piece of news:

The Austin American-Statesman caved to pressure from the Daily Kos-Netroots Nation and pulled an article from the newspaper’s website that poked fun at the liberal convention being held in Austin last weekend.

The article, entitled Gore’s Surprise Visit Highlights Netroots Conference was published on the front page of Sunday’s paper.

It was written by feature writer, Patrick Beach–meaning the article was not a straight news piece (think Dana Milbank.)

Greg Mitchell, a writer for Editor & Publisher who blogs at the Daily Kos, attended the conference as a panel speaker.

He brought attention to the article by posting about it at Daily Kos. Mitchell says that Austin Kossacks, who claimed to know people at the American-Statesman, promised to “work their magic” on the paper.

By Monday the article was pulled from the American-Statesman’s website, with the message: “The page you’ve requested is not available.”

An editor’s note by Editor Fred Zipp was posted to the American-Statesman’s website Tuesday:

“Readers expect front-page stories to speak directly and clearly about events and issues. Eliminating the possibility of misunderstanding from our work is a critical part of our daily newsroom routine. When we communicate in a way that could be misinterpreted, we fail to meet our standards.

“Our front-page story Sunday about the Netroots Nation convention included doses of irony and exaggeration. It made assertions (that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi might find herself at home politically in Beijing, for example) and characterizations (”marauding liberals” was one) meant to amuse. For many readers, we failed.

“In trying for a humorous take on the Netroots phenomenon without labeling it something other than a straightforward news story, we compromised our standards.”

Rather than re-label the story on the web version, the cowards at the American-Statesman gave in to the Kossacks and pulled the article entirely. So much for liberals’ respect for the First Amendment.

Here’s the article from the cache at the Austin American-Statesman that the DailyKos tried to quash.

Gore’s surprise visit highlights Netroots conference
Former vice president speaks at Austin convention for liberal bloggers.
By Patrick Beach

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Name-dropping Al Gore and his call for a switch to clean, renewable energy within 10 years was enough to pull whoops of approval from the 2,000 or 3,000 marauding liberals gathered for Netroots Nation at the Austin Convention Center on Saturday morning.

So when the former vice president and Nobel Prize co-winner made a surprise — and cleverly scripted — appearance during U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s talk, it looked like the conference might turn into a faint-in.

Talk that Pelosi (who is arguably so left-leaning that her parenthetical should be D-Beijing) would have a Very Special Guest had been buzzing about the conference of liberal bloggers, pols and media types since it began Thursday (it concludes today). But it wasn’t clear to attendees that something was afoot until a schedule change handed out Saturday morning indicated the speaker’s talk would last 45 minutes longer than previously indicated.

Not that Gore’s appearance was necessary to whip up the troops.

From the beginning, it was clear these people were convinced the electoral map would be repainted with a brush sopping with blue paint come November.

The believers will tell you it’s morning, that they smell the napalm. And it smells like, oh, yes, victory.

It didn’t seem to matter that the conservative and much smaller Defending the American Dream Summit — featuring syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr — was going on in Austin at the same time. That was miles from downtown, so there was little chance for a rumble.

With the current administration’s low approval rating, a charismatic presumptive Democratic nominee and a Republican opponent some in the GOP have been reluctant to even air-kiss, the energy was palpable and, like the political blogosphere, terribly self-confirming.

They went to panels about how the presidential election would be won house by house, block by block. They staged mock media interviews and critiqued themselves, and showed films (”Crawford”) and Internet videos (”Harry Potter and Dark Lord Waldemart”). They attended panels on the war, health care, online social networks, volunteer organizing and expanding the networking power of something called an “Internet.”

There was even one panel Friday featuring Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (wearing, as if to galvanize stereotype, what appeared to be Birkenstocks) that was essentially about how the media weren’t liberal enough.

As they say, only in Austin.

Filmmaker Paul Stekler, who teaches film production and politics at the University of Texas, said:”As you have greater democratization (through the use of technology to distribute one’s message), you also have a greater degree of what’s called confirmation bias. We live in a very different and weird world in terms of dissemination of information right now.”

Indeed, you couldn’t find anybody who disagreed that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were “two ignoramuses,” a label hurled by Parag Mehta, the Democratic National Committee’s director of training.

Big names? Got ‘em. There was Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder of the Daily Kos political blog, who hatched the idea a few years ago to get his like-minded pals together and who, in a Friday lunchtime keynote with Harold Ford Jr., chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, seemed amazed at what the notion had unleashed.

“We’re going to keep growing; we’re going to keep pushing for an unapologetic Democratic Party,” Moulitsas said.

Then there was John Dean, the former Nixon White House counsel who has made a second career of railing against what he considers right-wing excesses the way recovering alcoholics preach against strong drink.

“I have deep fear of my former tribe, and what they might do particularly in the law,” Dean said, before going on to refer to former Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani as “Richard Nixon on crystal meth.”

It’s plinking bass in a barrel to paint liberals as overly intellectual types incapable of having fun unless reading Noam Chomsky counts, and it sure does for them. And there were a handful of colorful characters, including some men from Cedar Creek who looked like bikers and represented the Warrior Wolf Society, which they described as “a group of pagan warriors with wolf totem spirit,” and a guy in a Bush mask and clothing with prison stripes.

But for the most part, these were serious-minded people, and decorum prevailed.

When a few people had the temerity to shout at Pelosi and Gore, they got shushed as mercilessly as they would have at a Nanci Griffith concert.

The no fun thing? Maybe it’s because, as Democrats, they’re not used to having it.

The incredible imploding presidential campaigns of Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Kerry were used as textbook examples of what not to do. As political ad man John Rowley put it, he’s been in the business for 15 years and only the last two have been good in terms of the political tide. Still, he said, “We’ve got to get ready for the day when we’re not swimming downstream.”

In other words, what a pendulum does is swing. But technology is power, and the left has been quicker to adopt it. As Gore put it Saturday morning:

“You are at the cutting edge of a new era of history. You will look back many years from now and tell your grandchildren about coming here to Austin, Texas, and about the first two meetings of Netroots Nation, and you will tell them that this was the beginning of an effort that was the start to reclaim the integrity of American democracy.”

That is exactly what Joe Trippi had in mind. It was the one-time Howard Dean campaign aide who saw, perhaps a little too early and a little too enthusiastically, the transformative power of the Web. As he walked from one place to another Friday afternoon, he got stopped every 20 feet or so by people who knew him or at least knew of his ideas. And this is what they had wrought; this is what he had predicted.

“It’s amazing,” Trippi said. “I knew it was going to happen, but I’m still blown away that it happened.”

The article is clearly over the top. It was written by a feature writer, not a political beat reporter. If complaints should take the form of a letter to the editor. That’s normal civic discourse. This is tantamount to censorship. These people at the DailyKos are a danger and a threat to dissent. They are no better than the right that they claim to abhor. Who are these people? The short answer, they are the Obama mob, his orange shirts. They are an enemy of the democratic process.

From my blog, By The Fault.

The absolutely brilliant cover of this week’s New Yorker magazine has progressive Internet sites up in arms. (Check out Memeorandum.com’s tracking of the flood of blog posts.) For example, at dailykos.com over 1,400 comments have been made in less than two hours about the topic, “OMG and WTF, have you seen this?”

The cartoon shows Barack Obama giving a fist bump to Michelle Obama. He is dressed in Arab garb and she looks like Angela Davis with her ‘fro and an AK-47 strapped over her shoulder. Looking over the couple is a smiling portrait of Osama bin Laden. In the fireplace, an American flag is burning.

Shocking? Not really. In this cartoon the Obamas are standing in the oval office. This week’s issue of the New Yorker has a long, long article about Obama’s days in Chicago. The cartoon is an obvious caricature of the way Obama is seen by the ten percent of Americans who still think he is a Muslim.

But who are the low information voters now? Last night, at dailykos.com, it’s like the last day at Jonestown. The kool-aid has really gotten to these people.

But let’s destroy the New Yorker! You know, the people that employ Seymour Hersh and so forth.

[M]any Kossacks attacked the blog founder Markos (”Kos”) Moulitsas when he announced he was withholding his $2,300 donation to Obama’s presidential campaign because of his dismay with Obama’s backpedaling on FISA, public financing, and more. Kos titled his essay, “Rewarding good behavior.”

They continue to attack. And attack. And attack. Here’s one of the latest, from a diary by Kath25, “People Power Will Donate $2,300 Instead, Markos (Update VI)” — the 903rd comment:

Yeah, Kos is an ass, a liar, and a coward.

“Obama is going to raise a ton of dough and win this thing whether I send him money or not.” [Quoting Kos]

Bullshit. This is just an excuse and a lie. Some netroots leader and organizer! “Let somebody else do it. It’ll get done, somehow.”

Kos will cause Obama to lose, and will revel in it, just as Naderites reveled in Gore’s loss. There are only two possible outcomes to this election, and Kos and the lemmings in his footsteps either don’t care who wins or want to see Obama lose so as to exalt their own bloated egos.

by LongTom on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:17:39 PM PDT

Here’s the link to the diary sans comments — advised if you’re on a dial-up connection or have an older computer.

If you’d like to scan the 900+ comments, go here.

I find myself siding with Kos here. He took his time endorsing Obama, and now is using the leverage he has to try to hold Obama to his commitments.

The sad reality, of course, is that Obama has no fealty to commitments over issues. Issues are merely fodder to be used to grab what he seeks above all else: Victory.

Now, every politician has to be focused on winning. But most politicians have some issues about which they genuinely care and are knowledgeable about. Obama doesn’t seem to hold any issues dear.

What should worry Denver delegates most is that, with Obama’s base bickering and more of them disappointed every day in Obama’s backpedaling, his much-vaunted ability to raise cash is being affected.

For every one of the Kossacks angry with Kos, there is another who is just as disappointed in Obama as Kos, and who is likely to donate not at all, or far less than before.

That’s a huge problem for the Democratic party, especially since Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have counted on Obama’s “cash cow” — and that was, I maintain, the main reason that Pelosi and Dean pulled so many strings and bent so many rules to crown Obama the nominee.

They may soon regret that greed clouded their judgment.

I’ve been touched by the “bluesman from Chicago.” I’ve been inspired by the “new synthetic mythology for a new kind of knowledge culture” which, the author writes, “may be the most powerful remobilization of historical and contemporary perspectives since the Popular Front movement of the 1930’s.”

Deeds and accomplishments — like hard work — are so yesterday. It is time to believe. Because, these great minds tell us, that is all we NEED TO DO!

You see, before tonight, I did not know this:

In many ways, [Obama's] language recalls that of Walt Whitman whose Leaves of Grass sought to develop a synthetic construction of what America was like as a nation, linking together a range of individual experiences, memories, perspectives, sense impressions, to create a vision of the nation as one big organism. . .

A GIANT ORGANISM! That’s what I’ve really been yearning for! And that was written by an M.I.T. professor (and that’s his photo, and he looks very intellectual!), so it must be true.

Today, I discovered all of this:

… followers willing to wait for hours on end to hear him speak have been crowding out huge concert halls and sports arenas to get a glimpse of their new progressive avatar and drive long distances to obtain the Obama darshan or to simply be in his presence. One can just imagine what the peace and flower-power concerts in the 60’s might have been like. Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama. Clearly, people are hungry for a change and want an inspirational leader who can serve up some hearty ‘chicken soup for the soul’. …

Like the Mahatma [Gandhi], Obama is becoming a global symbol of the ‘hopes and dreams’ of millions around the world. Those who look up to the American ideals, consume American media, and dream American dreams are tuned into this historic election. While Gandhi marked the end of the colonial era, Obama with his multicultural background and upbringing represents the age of globalization. Obama is in an unprecedented historical position to not only be the first African American president, but the first ‘global president’ of America. Obama’s images on T-shirts, magazine covers, and TV screens around the world may be a harbinger of the next American century, if the American people are willing and able to lead it.

Obama’s Satyagraha: Or, Did Obama Swallow the Mahatma?. June 27, 2008. (Dinesh Sharma is a marketing science consultant with a PhD in Psychology from Harvard).

::::::::

There was much more that I discovered on the night of February 21st, preserved in the original, “The Choice (But I’ve Been Touched),” including more from MIT professor Jenkins’ “Obama and the ‘We’ Generation.”

Cynics might say the youthful hordes are actually part of the “‘Me’ Generation.”

Then I quoted writer and jazz expert Stanley Crouch:

“Out of One, Many Rise to Believe Again”

Opponents want to dismiss that optimism as “false hope” because they think – or pretend to think – that Barack Obama represents no more than a charismatic political slogan that has even less value than one of the worthless products brilliantly hawked around the clock throughout our media.

Barack Obama is actually a bluesman from Chicago whose big stage is not in a nightclub or a concert hall but the huge national podium on which politics are argued. Obama knows that the blues always present the unvarnished problem and provide a solution through the rhythms and tones of engagement. It is, as the writer Albert Murray has observed, a music of confrontation, and it is presented in what amounts to a purification ritual.

Stanley Crouch, NY Daily News February 18, 2008

Obama is a bluesman! He’s creating a “music of confrontation.” And that’s a “purification ritual.”

I get it now!

Don’t you???

Eric Hoffer’s book The True Believer, which was on the summer reading list sent out by my university before my freshman year, and which we discussed in seminars during our first week at the university, had a powerful influence on me and left me wary the rest of my life of any mass movement.

I believe that, if Hoffer were alive today, he would be alarmed by the “authoritarian leftists” described so brilliantly by Steve Diamond, the Santa Clara law professor who writes for No Quarter. Professor Diamond has identified several “authoritarian leftists” who have been longtime associates of Barack Obama and have influenced his politics.

Beyond Professor Diamond’s examples of Bill Ayers and Mike Klonsky as “authoritarian leftists” are many of Obama’s followers — whose cult-like, thuggish behavior was witnessed by thousands at caucuses and rallies — and on the Internet at blogs such as Daily Kos. Amusingly, both the Obama followers and the “Kossacks” fancy themselves as protectors of free speech and civil liberties, and decry the conservatives and Republicans as “authoritarian.” Yet it is they who march in lockstep just as rigidly as any rightwinger ever has.

And it is these “authoritarian leftists” who approved of the most undemocratic behavior: swarming caucuses and overwhelming Democratic party staffers who were unable to or simply didn’t bother to verify that the Obama followers were registered voters in the precinct caucuses in which they were voting.

Beneath the rapturous adulation and self-righteousness of Barack Obama’s typical follower is an insecure human being who seeks rigid adherence to a group. The Wikipedia entry on Eric Hoffer’s views offers this interesting summary:

A core principle in the book is Hoffer’s insight that mass movements are interchangeable; he notes fanatical Nazis later becoming fanatical Communists, fanatical Communists later becoming fanatical anti-Communists, and Saul, persecutor of Christians, becoming Paul, a fanatical Christian himself. For the true believer the substance of the mass movement isn’t so important as that he or she is part of that movement.

This description helps to explain why so many Kossacks attacked the blog founder Markos (”Kos”) Moulitsas when he announced he was withholding his $2,300 donation to Obama’s presidential campaign because of his dismay with Obama’s backpedaling on FISA, public financing, and more. Kos titled his essay, “Rewarding good behavior.”

it is an oddity that a somewhat independently-minded person has attracted an audience that is drawn to cult-like adoration of certain politicians such as Barack Obama.

But, as any supporter of Hillary Clinton who dared write at Daily Kos can tell you, one was met with the most vicious attacks for questioning support for “The One.”

It is criminal — to my mind — that professors at MIT and others educated at elite educational institutions are promoting this mindless adulation with rhapsodic prose that, frankly, leaves me in a fit of giggles because it’s so over the top and nonsensical.

Thankfully, most Americans are not so easily enraptured by any politician, at least for long.

Let us hope that, before the end of August, enough Democratic party delegates to the national convention come to their senses and realize that the Obama mania is on the wane, and that a truly qualified and experienced candidate is required in order to defeat John McCain in November.