Holy smokes. Needless to say, there has been a LOT of discussion about this photograph, and why Newsweek would choose to run this particular photo. Taylor Marsh – former Clinton supporter now Obama water carrier – wrote a piece at Huffington Post on this, “What Was Newsweek Thinking?“. Media Matters had a post by Julie Millican, “Newsweek Should Worry More About How To Solve Its Problem With Sexism” (h/t to Bronwyn’s Harbor), though many of the comments would lead one to believe it is find and dandy to be sexist to someone if they are a Republican, and Palin’s an idiot anyway, so what’s the big deal?? (That was SNARK on my part, but sums up the sentiment there.)

Sarah Palin weighed in on the photo, too:

Palin denounced it—and us—to her million-strong Facebook following last night. “The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this ‘news’ magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant,” she wrote on her fan page, adding, “The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now.” She also told ABC’s Barbara Walters that she found the cover “a wee bit degrading.” Others, like CBN’s David Brody, said our cover was a new low: “biased and sexist at the same time.”

Well, yes. Out of all the photographs available out there, why choose one from RUNNER’S WORLD?? This was the excuse, I mean, reason, given by the editor:

Today, NEWSWEEK’s Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. “We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. “We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard.”

Well, if what they were trying to say was that they are a bunch of sexist patronizing sanctimonious assholes, they succeeded!

They could have chosen, oh, say, this one:

(September 3, 2008 – Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images North America)

Or how about this one:

(October 31, 2008 – Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images North America)

It took me less than a minute to find them. I would think Newsweek could take that long to find another image – if they had wanted to, that is. But they chose that one for a reason, and that reason is SEXISM.

Speaking of the photograph, it seems the photographer who took it, Brian Adams, engaged in a bit of premature, um, opportunism. He had a contract, you see, that did not allow him to sell this image until August of 2010. Oops!! Don’t you just hate when that happens? Anyway, kinda makes you wonder just how Newsweek got it, and it wasn’t from Runner’s World.

And then there’s the HEADLINE: “How Do You Handle a Problem Like Sarah? She’s Bad News For The GOP – And Everyone Else, Too.” Um, well, golly gee – that kind of sets the tone from the get-go, doesn’t it? I don’t even think one needs to read the damned thing to get where they are going with this.

It makes me wonder where they are getting their information. You may know that Governor Palin was on Oprah earlier this week. I don’t know about you, but I was wondering, just out of curiosity, what the ratings were going to be for that show. Care to hazard a guess? If you went by the headline above, you’d guess not very high. And you would be very wrong. Oprah’s show had the highest rating it has had in over TWO YEARS. Dang, that Palin is just TERRIBLE for EVERYBODY!!!! Never mind all of those cheering crowds turning out for her book tour – Palin is just terrible for them! And the GOP! And the WORLD!!!! Ahem.

Again, I disagree with a lot of her policies, but I do appreciate her honest, down to earth bearing – those are characteristics sorely missing among politicians today. Does she possess brilliance on a par with Hillary Clinton? No, I don’t know anyone in politics who is on Clinton’s level. She is heads and shoulders above (which is, no doubt, why they drug her down and stomped all over her). Apparently, though, those of us who consider ourselves to be liberal cannot like Sarah Palin at all in any way for any reason whatsoever without being chastised, criticized, demeaned, and belittled. Because we couldn’t POSSIBLY have been marching for Equal Rights for someone like SARAH PALIN, who, by her own admission on Oprah says her relationship to her husband is one based on EQUALITY. Surely, SHE doesn’t count, which has been the recurring theme about her by so-called liberals and “feminists.” Apparently, only Democrats are worthy of having equal rights according to a lot of these folks – many of whom were not marching, or fighting, or accompanying women to Planned Parenthood for abortions like a number of us did (including myself), but they can, with incredible sexism and elitism, denounce Palin for being an “idiot” and unworthy of respect (”she hasn’t done anything to deserve respect” was one comment I saw at Media Matters), despite all she accomplished for Alaska. Yet, Obama with his paper thin resume, and his throwing women under the bus, backing up, running over them again, and again, and again, somehow does deserve their respect. Wow.

Speaking of Obama, shockingly, in a recent Quinnipiac Poll, though Obama has now dipped below 50% approval, women approve of him by 52 – 37% while men disapprove of Obama by 47 – 44%. Why do women still support him after all of the ways he has dismissed women and our issues?

As for Sarah Palin, I am amazed by the amount of animosity directed at her by men, but women, too. And it amazes me how quickly people are willing to believe whatever rumor or half-truth comes down the pike about her. It is sad, really, but it also undermines their arguments against her, so there’s that.

Taking the two together is a sad, sad commentary on where we are. The bottom line, as we saw so clearly this past election season, is that sexism is most definitely alive and well in the United States, spurred on by our media, and our politicians. There is too little comeuppance for those who engage in sexism on a national level, like the cover of Newsweek above. I am glad that some women are speaking up as noted, but too many people are willing to engage in massive amounts of sexist commentary against Palin simply because she is a Republican and a conservative. Their hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds.

Sexism is sexism. We must be willing to apply the same standard across the board and political spectrum. Until then, we will continue to see national publications like “News”week engage in blatant sexism toward a former governor and former Vice Presidential candidate with too little outcry. And we will continue to see so-called liberals engage in blatant woman-bashing under the guise of “politics.” That is an excuse used by cowards and misogynists, and must not be excused any more by anyone. Call it by name: Sexism.

“News”week, you owe Governor Palin, and all women, an apology. We’re waiting…

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…

Or this:

And finally (!), this:

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

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

Here is Secretary Clinton in rapt attention as he speaks:

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

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

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

Damn – I wish she was president, too…

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

The question is asked, and answered. The answer is a resounding YES. Yes, Obama has sold out. Long before he ever ran for US Senate, too, I might add. But why quibble, right? At least it is finally starting to let a little light of truth filter through the Obama’s followers Kool Aide induced haze. Though attacking Republicans and blaming them for ALL of our woes is still fair game for TYT, with only peripheral acknowledgment that the Democrats are right there with the Republicans. Never mind that the Democrats have been in power for over two years now. Pesky details – who needs them?

I was like that, too, about the Republicans not so long ago, so I reckon I shouldn’t be too judgmental. Perhaps TYT will realize at some point in the near future that the Democrats are acting pretty much like everything many of us said we hated about the Republicans as we listened to Air America. For instance, remember how ballistic we all went when the Republicans threatened the “Nuclear Option”? We were livid that they would dare do something like that. And now look who, in just 6 short months of having a Super Majority, is threatening the very same thing, even if it means running over some of their own members with reckless abandon? Yep. That would be the Democrats. Oh, but only for the most expensive part of the health care plan – nothing to worry about there! Lalalalalala…

You know, it’s a shame these blowhards out there didn’t bother to do their JOBS and vet this guy, maybe taking a little look-see into who his donors were, for instance. Maybe if TYT had BOTHERED to do that, he would have seen that Obama got close to $1.5 MILLION dollars from the HMOs and Health Services. Surely TYT didn’t expect they gave him all that money for nothing, did he?

Nothing, actually, worse than nothing, is what WE will be getting as a result of these faux journalists and commentators not bothering to actually look behind the curtain of Obama’s rhetoric to see if there was any reason on this Green Earth to BELIEVE HIM!!!!!! For cryin’ out loud, already! Sheesh!

Heck, even investigative journalist Greg Palast, whose article I reported on the other day regarding the whopping 2% the Big Pharma MIGHT give up, as TYT reported above, threw all of his training away for Obama. Glad he’s regained some of it, but it is way too late for us/US now. We’re stuck with Obama for 3 1/2 more years, thank you all so very much for that. (That is sarcasm, in case anyone missed it.)

By the way, did you notice that TYT guy above still cannot quite get out the words that HE has been had? That he didn’t bother to look under the surface? Nope. Not one bit – he bought that stupid “Hope!” and “CHANGE!” crap all the way to Obama being in the White House. Thanks shitloads. Sure would have been nice if you had maybe asked some pertinent questions like, “Why does Obama have NO records available from his time in the IL Senate? How can that be?” Or, “Why DOES Obama have close ties to Tony Rezko/Bill Ayers/Jeremiah Wright/Khalid Rashidi (pick one)?” Or how about this one, “Why does everyone say he has made so much of himself from his “humble” beginnings when he went to the most prestigious school in all of Hawaii and his grandmother was the VP of the biggest bank in Hawaii?” Or maybe, “Isn’t it pretty sexist of Obama to say that Hillary Clinton was only going to tea parties whenever she went abroad as First Lady? Especially since we know she helped to foster some amazing programs?” Obviously, I could go on and on and on. Feel free to add your own.

The problem is, people like TYT and Greg Palast and just about EVERYONE at Huffington Post (since TYT mentioned it) DIDN’T ask questions like that. No, their questions were more like, “Gosh, isn’t it hard to tear yourself away from the mirror when you are SO good looking??” Blech. Or, “Just how much time do you spend practicing your three-pointer?” Or any number of insipid questions like the ones Charlie Gibson asked Obama (while hammering Sarah Palin, even using made-up concepts to try and make her look bad). Pathetic for alleged professionals to act that way, if you ask me.

As I mentioned to Kathleen (Wynne, of HCPBNow.org, who was kind enough to send me this video), most of our elected officials, by the time they are bought by special interests have been there a while. Obama was hardly in there for any time at all, which makes me think he CAME this way. Huh – maybe THAT was the “Change!” to which he was referring?

In any event, if TYT is right, and this is already a done deal, it doesn’t just speak to how badly Obama screwed over his followers, and the rest of us, but how screwed DEMOCRACY is. And that is the biggest problem of all…So, yeah, I would be up for a revolution, TYT, since you mentioned it. Anyone else?

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

Palin points that “American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy”…

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

As with everything the Obama Administration is doing, cap and trade also employs the ram-rod technique of shoving legislation down the gullet before anyone has had a chance to give it a second thought. Palin then makes a point I’m sure Obama would rather she gloss over:

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

Governor Palin urges us to move in a new direction and states we can achieve energy independence if we:

…responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

Whether one agrees with her or not, one thing Governor Palin can speak to with authority is energy, given her service at the Oil & Gas Commission:

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

Loved the “Yes, we can” reference. What is your reaction to her position? I do not pretend to know that right answer here, but certainly she raises issues worth discussing.

Everyone else out there is having quite a big reaction. In a few hours, her op-ed in WaPo has attracted over 3,000 comments. All over the blogosphere and on news sites, people are reacting and as usual, Governor Palin is a lightning rod for both love and hate. HuffPo, typically, cannot kill the message, because she does have a point, so they shoot the messenger, claiming she is “too stupid” to have possibly written this piece. I thought the piece was pretty coherent myself, and yeah, I’m sure she wrote it. By the way, did I mention that I despise elitists. You can her article it in its entirety here.

Further, since the surprise announcement of her resignation on July 3rd, Palin has raised over $200,000 for her PAC, in addition to over $700,000 raised in the five months since its formation. CBS just put out a poll saying 65% of those asked think Palin would not make a good president and most pundits left and right are harping about the fact that her political career is effectively over. Wishful thinking, perhaps. I have no idea what Palin’s actions will be or what her political career will look like going forward, but one thing is assured — as long as these ridiculous attacks continue, her following will grow and she will get plenty of free press that she may use to her advantage.

As for the “chattering class,” as Palin calls them, I can only say, gee fellas, that’s an awful lot of copy to devote to someone with nothing to say, no platform to say it, no following and no hope of making a dent. Evah.

Somebody seems awfully scared of this lady.

Just sayin’.

Here is how the AAPOR defines the Bradley effect on page 53 of the report:

the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent.

And here is what their extensive and rigorous report found (pages 53-54):

Several compelling pieces of evidence suggest that the New Hampshire estimation errors were probably not caused by the “Bradley effect” – or the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent. A meta-analysis by Hopkins (2008) indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years. In the 2008 general election, the very accurate final poll estimates of Barack Obama’s fairly decisive victory over John McCain dispelled suspicion that the Bradley effect was at play during the final weeks of the fall contest. There is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for a Bradley effect in the primary contests outside of New Hampshire. Of the 81 polls conducted during the final 30 days of the Iowa, South Carolina, California, and Wisconsin contests, the vast majority (86%) over-estimated Clinton’s relative vote share, while just 14% over-estimated Obama’s relative vote share. This finding is based on the signed direction of A for each survey.26 Furthermore, as reported in Table 3, poll estimates of Obama’s vote share in New Hampshire were quite accurate – it was only Clinton’s share that was consistently underestimated.

Here is Table 3 (page 14):

In poll after poll Hillary Cinton’s support was undersampled while Obama’s support was correctly sampled. It was not that her supporters lied to pollsters; they were simply not contacted.

Pollster.com offers this summary of the report:

• Given the compressed caucus and primary calendar, polls conducted before the New Hampshire primary may have ended too early to capture late shifts in the electorate’s preferences there.
• Most commercial polling firms conducted interviews on the first or second call, but respondents who required more effort to contact were more likely to support Senator Clinton. Instead of continuing to call their initial samples to reach these hard‐to‐contact people, pollsters typically added new households to the sample, skewing the results toward the opinions of those who were easy to reach on the phone, and who more typically supported Senator Obama.
• Non‐response patterns, identified by comparing characteristics of the pre‐election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups who supported Senator Clinton–such as union members and those with less education–were under‐ represented in pre‐election polls, possibly because they were more difficult to reach.
• Variations in likely voter models could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. Application of the Gallup likely larger error than was present in the unadjusted data. The influx of first-time voters may have had adverse effects on likely voter models.

Hillary’s base of women, blue collar workers, union members, single mothers and the elderly were simply too difficult to contact, while young Obama supporters were always available by telephone. It was not racism or the Bradley Effect that enabled Hillary to win New Hampshire; it was that the pollsters never spoke to her base.

But the media and the Obama campaign had to accuse New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters of racism in order to minimize Hillary’s victory and racialize the race before the South Carolina primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African-American.

Here is Mickey Kaus of Slate on January 9, 2008:

1. Bradley Effect: It seemed like a nice wonky little point when Polipundit speculated on the Reverse Bradley Effect–the idea that Iowa’s public caucuses led Dem voters to demonstrate their lack of prejudice by caucusing for Obama. Now this is the CW of the hour. Polipundit wrote:

I suspect that Obama may have scored better than he would have in a secret-ballot election, and benefited from a Reverse Bradley Effect.

New Hampshire, of course, is a secret ballot election. Voters might have told pollsters one thing but done another in private.** New Hampshirites I ran into Tuesday night mentioned that the state was very late ratifying the MLK Holiday.

Here is Andrew Kohut in the New York Times on January 10, 2008:

To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.…

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews….

In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology.

Here is David Kuo of the Huffington Post as votes were counted during the New Hampshire Primary:

Tonight, despite all the talk of how little race matters in this campaign, it is clear that race is still a big deal in bi-racial campaigns. And it has showed up for the first time, in a measurable way, in the 2008 presidential race.

It means that every poll — from exit polls to tracking polls — are absolutely suspect from here on out.

Here are excerpts from MSNBC on the night of the New Hampshire Primary:

ROBINSON: Well, I‘ll tell you what some people will suspect. Here you have polls, you know, the day before the primary showing Obama way ahead. And he finishes, you know, 15 points lower than that. A lot of people will suspect a “Bradley effect.”

You know, Tom Bradley…

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, Tom Bradley. You‘re…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: Not the Bill Bradley effect. We were talking about Bill Bradley‘s endorsement being, you know, not necessarily the greatest thing. I‘m talking about Tom Bradley, the mayor—African-American mayor of Los Angeles years ago, ran for governor of California. Polls showed him on election eve that he was going to cruise to victory and he lost. And Doug Wilder of—the first…

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, but are you really saying right now that the people of New Hampshire may have—I won‘t say, be racist, but are you saying that they did not want to go in that booth and vote for a black man? …

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC ANCHOR: I was just going to say, I‘ve been listening to the panel. Number one, the “Bradley effect,” whether people are going to decide it was in effect in this case is very real and talked about among people in the political business. Let‘s not forget the Gantt race in North Carolina few years ago.…

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, look, you can only go back—you know, and I go back in recent history and you try to find races where you had these gigantic poll shifts, where the final pre-election polls differed so dramatically from the actual result.

And the one thing they all have in common is something that Eugene Robinson brought up earlier, and that is race.

It was Tom Bradley in California governor‘s race in 1982. The polls had him ahead—ahead by a fairly healthy margin over George Deukmejian. He ended up losing.

And Virginia governor, 1989, Doug Wilder had a double digit lead going into the final—in the final weekend. He won by a very narrow 1 point margin.

Harvey Gant, the 1990 Senate race with Jesse Helms—one of the most divisive races, frankly, that this country had on race. That was, again, pre-election polls had Gant ahead, Helms wins.

So you can‘t help but look at that—and particularly you‘ve got to wonder what this sends—the message that this could send to African-American Democrats, who may look at this and say, well, of course, that‘s what happened. You know, a lot of times when I‘ve noticed this and when you talk to African-American Democrats, they sat here and they‘ll see this race stuff a lot quicker than us in white America. And I think that this is—it‘s at least, you‘ve got to explore it. You‘ve got to look at it. History has taught us this—recent history—when it‘s come to dealing with African-American candidates.

Here is Carol Costello, Andrew Kohut and Professor Charles Ogletree on CNN’s Situation Room on January 11, 2008:

I’m Wolf Blitzer.

You’re in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Is the U.S. ready for an African-American president?

Senator Barack Obama’s strong showing so far in this campaign has many saying absolutely, yes. Others, though, say it’s too soon to tell.

Carol Costello has been looking into this story for us — you’ve been talking to a lot of people supposedly knowledgeable on this very sensitive subject.

What are they telling you?

COSTELLO: Well, it is a sensitive subject, isn’t it?

You know, most I talked with today say it is too soon to tell.

Obama seems to have transcended race, but can he in the long run?

Already, critics say Obama’s opponents are trying to create this subtle narrative of racial division. They deny it, but it illustrates how hard it is in this country to take race out of the equation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): The Iowa caucus created all kinds of excitement surrounding Barack Obama. His win in a predominantly white state and a strong showing in another seemingly proves it — Obama can transcend race. It’s something Obama has always believed could happen.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I am here to tell you yes, we can in ‘08.

COSTELLO: Maybe. But there are those who feel while Iowa and New Hampshire prove Obama can certainly get white votes, it doesn’t mean he can continue the trend — that Obama’s second place finish in New Hampshire, despite polls that had him coming in first, illustrates the undercurrent about race that exists in this country.

Andrew Kohut, in charge of Pew Research, has a theory. He says many of those inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were poor, uneducated whites who don’t participate in polls and who often don’t vote for blacks.

ANDREW KOHUT, PRES., PEW RESEARCH CTR.: At least race should be considered because we know that the kinds of people drawn to Mrs. Clinton are always the kinds of people who turn down surveys at pretty high rates. We don’t know much about whether the people who we don’t get are like the people that we do get.

COSTELLO: Polls about race are notoriously difficult to analyze. Take this ABC/Washington Post poll conducted before the Iowa caucus. A whopping 88 percent of Americans said race would not matter in choosing a president. But pollsters say you have to take this result with a grain of salt. Few people are willing to tell a pollster they’re racist. It reflects the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black man who ran for governor in California in 1982. Most polls showed him leading but he lost to a white male candidate.

PROF. CHARLES OGLETREE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Ask Tom Bradley when he ran for governor in California. Black man, thought he could win, he didn’t. Ask Harvey Gant in North Carolina. Ask Harold Ford, Jr.

COSTELLO: Look at the stats. There is one black governor in the United States. They are nine women governors. They are 16 senators who are women. And one black man, Barack Obama.

Still, Barack Obama got plenty of votes in New Hampshire and in Iowa, which are both 95 percent white.

You could say that trumps the poll, but there are many more people yet to vote and racial under currents that are so hard to predict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And here is the Obama campaign as discussed in an article by Ryan Lizza in the January 21, 2008, edition of the New Yorker:

Did Obama experience a similar fate in New Hampshire? The evidence is murky, but his campaign believes the question is important enough to warrant study. When I asked a senior Obama adviser whether the Bradley effect was a possible explanation for the gap between the final poll numbers, which showed Obama leading by an average of eight points, and the ultimate outcome, he replied, “Definitely.” He added, “If so, then the question is: what’s different between Iowa and New Hampshire? It could be that the socially acceptable thing in front of your neighbor at a caucus could be different than what you do in a secret ballot. Obviously, that’s something we’re going to be trying to figure out as we go forward, primarily through polling. I know people are working on ways of asking questions about getting at people’s attitudes about race. We’re working on this.”

In other words, the Obama campaign cited the Bradley Effect in order to explain a loss, and the sycophantic media repeated the notion again and again and again. Apparently they received the memo from David Axelrod as votes were counted in New Hampshire. Too bad real analysis reveals that the Bradley Effect had no impact on the New Hampshire Primary.

Will CNN apologize? Will MSNBC apologize? Will the New York Times apologize? Will Slate apologize? And is it not a coincidence that after the Obama campaign decided race was the reason he lost the NH primary that the Clintons were accused of racism by the Obama campaign during the South Carolina primary? All of it was debunked in the report released today by the AAPOR. Will Obama and Axelrod apologize to Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I doubt anyone will apologize, for no one in the Obama administration or in the Obamamedia cares about facts. But at least all of us know that those of us who voted for Hillary during the New Hampshire primary and during the other primaries are not racist. Will they apologize to us?

I cannot help but wonder how in the world this young man with such a limited resume came to Obama’s attention, and out of ALL of the ministers in this country with far more experience and qualifications, this guy is the one Obama picked? But there he is.

I wrote a little about DuBois and Obama’s Faith-Based Initiatives recently (”Gimme That Old Time Religion“), and Obama’s expansion of Bush’s range. And now, it is official. Obama kicked it off at the National Prayer Breakfast the other day. Wanna guess what particularly odious piece Obama did not remove from Bush’s plan? The hiring issue. You know the one. It’s whether or not a group getting federal money could demand the people they hired believed the same as the organization doing the hiring. And for now, the answer is YES. You may recall that on the campaign trail, Obama said this:

On the campaign trail last year, Obama vowed to reverse the Bush hiring policy. “As someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state,” Obama said last July in a speech that pledged to expand Bush’s office of faith-based initiatives. “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them—or against the people you hire—on the basis of their religion.”

Except when you can, apparently. Naturally, all of the secular groups are crying foul, like Kathryn Kolbert of People For the American Way:

“President Obama needs to make good on his campaign promise that tax dollars aren’t used to unconstitutionally discriminate on the basis of religion,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way.

She added: “It’s disappointing that today President Obama has missed an opportunity to put it into practice immediately.

Oh, sure – I just know Obama will get right on that, Ms. Kolbert. Hahaha – good one.

Funny, it wasn’t all that long ago that a spokeswoman for PFAW said:

“We’re glad to have a good seat at the table and that [the Obama transition team] is listening to all sides,” says Tanya Clay House, director of public policy for People for the American Way, which has expressed concerns about the propriety of federal faith-based initiatives. “The old administration listened to just one side of the argument.”

And look how well that “good seat” worked out for you, Tanya, not to mention the TAXPAYERS in this country. But I am just so sure Obama will come through for you, the other progressives at that wonderful table, and us. Right? Sure. Well, maybe, according to Mr. DuBois:

The newly named director of the Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Office, Joshua DuBois, said that it was impossible to give a timeline for resolving the hiring issue and that resolution might come on a case-by-case basis, rather than in a sweeping policy directive.

“This is an area of unclear policy and practice, but we can now begin seeking the advice of government and outside actors and see what groups are doing on the ground,” said DuBois, who had previously served as religious outreach director of Obama’s presidential campaign. “The previous administration made decisions without understanding the state of law and practice.”

And the Obama Administration is different on that count HOW, exactly?? *Crickets* That’s what I thought.

And then there was the following article by Martha Burk at Huffington Post. Oh, don’t worry, I have the whole thing here so you don’t have to click over. Why? Because I care. Anyway, Ms. Burk is kinda mad about all of this whole because she claims that, “Obama’s Faith-Based Office An Insult To Women.” Oh, “Sweetie” – are you “feeling blue” because Obama is shoving women to the side again? May I ask, just what in his entire campaign history made you think he was going to NOT throw women overboard? Did you not get just a little inkling when he played Jay Z’s “99 Problems But a Bitch Ain’t One?” (And frankly, this has been so well documented by now, it does not need a link.) Or did you think when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law, it meant he cared about anything more than a photo op? You know that he (and Biden) weren’t even one of the 54 co-sponsors of that bill, right? And you SURELY must have heard that he didn’t even pay women the same on his staff as the men for the same job, didn’t you? Yeah – he only gave them 78 cents compared to the dollar for the men. I mean, I know you write for Huffington Post and all, but c’mon – you NEVER caught how incredibly sexist he was to Clinton, Palin, and women in general?? Really??

Apparently not:

President Obama attended the annual National Prayer Breakfast yesterday and used the opportunity to tout the reconstitution and expansion of George W. Bush’s Office on Faith Based Initiatives. In his remarks the president said he didn’t want to favor one religion over another, or “even religious groups over secular groups.” But in fact, that’s just what he’s doing.

National women’s organizations have been lobbying Obama, who has said he is a feminist, to reopen the White House Office on Women’s Issues. So far the answer is a big fat no – women’s concerns will be under the already swamped Office of Public Liaison. That’s a tiny shop that’s chronically understaffed and overstretched. Even with the best intentions, there’s almost no chance they can interface with women’s advocates in a meaningful way, much less shape policy to overcome the many setbacks we inherited from the Bush years.

Hold the phone – you BELIEVED him when he said he was a FEMINIST? All evidence to the contrary, it would seem. Burk continues:

In a direct insult to women, George W. Bush closed the Clinton-era White House Office on Women’s Issues in his first week, then ensconced the first-ever church/state liaison office in the same space. For our new president to “keep the faith” with religious groups while short-changing women is equally insulting. There is no doubt that women are responsible for his election. Females went for Obama by 56 percent to McCain’s 43 percent, while men split their votes about evenly. The Jesus crowd, on the other hand, voted 60% against the president.

You know what was an insult, Ms. Burk? A man who said absolutely NOTHING in the face of sexist, misogynistic attacks like this:

Now THAT’S insulting, regardless of whether it was Clinton or Palin. It speaks to a mindset, and a pattern. Never mind Obama flipping Clinton the bird, or brushing her off his shoulder, again in Jay Z style (and again, if you haven’t seen examples of either one of these instances, you need to see an optometrist). Or promoting – PROMOTING – a young man who had a photograph of himself
groping a cutout of Secretary of State (to be, at that time) Clinton ON THE INTERNET, to be the top speechwriter position in the White House. So if you think Obama is a feminist, I would suggest you are unclear on the definition of “feminist.” Here’s one for you:

Feminism is the belief that women have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights as men do.

Nope – can’t see how you ever thought Obama was one. EVER.

Burk continues in her complaint about Obama shunning women for religion:

The newly constituted “office for faith-based programs and community partnerships” will be headed by Joshua DuBois, a 26-year-old Pentecostal preacher and Obama confidant, who will preside over a task force of 25 or so religious and community leaders. This group will give DuBois advice, which will presumably be passed on to the president.

To accord this advisory panel so much power, while relegating women to the margins, speaks volumes. Religious groups gained a lot from the Bush years – access to the White House, and millions of dollars in federal money, some of which was used to proselytize. And don’t forget, almost all faiths consider women second class citizens; many actively campaign against affirmative action, the Women’s Equality Amendment, the international human rights treaty for women known as CEDAW, and civil rights for gays and lesbians. Keeping this act going – even if it is broadened to include “community members” – is not the change women voted for.

You so were not paying attention to the entire primary and election campaigns, Ms. Burk. Obama has been pushing this religious agenda all along, including using people like Doug Kmiec, a Prop 8 proponent, to push that agenda. He has surrounded himself with sexist, homophobic pastors who he considers his close friends and confidants. And you thought that this wouldn’t have an impact on where women fell on the totem pole with him?? Okey dokey…

But Ms. Burk continues, like so many of the women who voted for Obama, to give him the benefit of the doubt, even though he has done NOTHING to deserve it:

It’s not too late for President Obama to change his mind and give the majority – women – a place at the table by re-opening the White House Office on Women’s Issues. If he really does support women as he claims, restoring the losses of the last eight years on reproductive rights, enforcement of Title IX, Medicaid funding, and employment protections should be given a higher priority than keeping the religious right happy for what promises to be a very short honeymoon.

Women’s groups are elated that the Texans are finally out of the White House. But if the new president wants their continuing loyalty, he ought to follow some good ol’ Texas advice: Dance with the one that brung ya.

Uh huh. MS. Burk, if I were you, I would not hold my breath for that. And you might want to consider removing those blinders or rose-colored glasses or blindfold that have kept you from seeing who Obama really is, especially when it comes to the treatment of women. It won’t change anything now – you already helped to get this sexist pig into the White House. But it will probably be better for your health to stop having unrealistic expectations of this man.

And it will be better for the country if the people who so blindly clung to his hope-y change-y message realized they were had by a marketing ploy, nothing more, and not re-elect this man. Now THAT is a change for which I dearly hope.

Oh, one last thing, Ms. Burk. Perhaps you might want to spend some time meditating on the following message, and consider that the next time you vote:

I’m just sayin’.

In case anyone missed it, this is what Larry Johnson wrote to him at No Quarter after Andrew started the rumors about Bristol Palin being the mother of Trig:

Fuck You Andrew Sullivan

You piece of human scum. Pick the time and date. I will kick your ass. You are despicable. There is one indisputable fact–Sarah Palin gave life to a baby boy who has Down’s Syndrome. And you dare to suggest that this was an illegitimate birth by her daughter. You have no sense of decency or honor. You deserve to be beaten in every manner conceivable. You and your cohorts spread this vicious lie. You are a spineless coward. There is only one truth. Sarah Palin’s Down’s Syndrome baby has more humanity and intelligence than you will ever achieve in your pathetic life. You are a synonym for asshole. I will fight you with one arm tied behind my back and destroy you. Please, accept the challenge.

In other words, Sullivan’s a tool.

Here’s the thing – by spreading rumors, and posting unsubstantiated “comments” of Palin’s time in Wasilla (I have seen other comments that were more favorable by the people who lived there, as well as in a BIG article about her in Time.com), it weakens the argument against her. The amount of time she was governor is a slippery slope for Democrats since Obama has spent very little time in the Senate – he has missed almost HALF of the Senate votes, and started campaigning almost as soon as he got in. So, Democrats need to be mighty careful on that one – especially since she is not at the top of the ticket and Obama is. It just sets them up, is my point. I have tried to find independent, reliable verification of this story, but have not been able to do so. Huffington Post is the main source for this story, and they are notoriously slanted. Oh, and Palin has the highest approval rating of any governor in the COUNTRY. Which is why I say those who want to slam her must have documentation to support their claims against her.

Along those lines – NO ONE in the Obama camp should follow up on Palin allegedly “biting the hand” that got her where she is given what he did to Alice Palmer, and the NUMEROUS people he has now thrown under the bus. (By the way, did you know that Bill Ayers lives about 1 1/2 blocks away from Obama? And the Farrakhan compound is right up the street from Ayers? H/T to Truthteller for this info! Coincidence?? Hahahahaha.) So, yeah – I’d let that one lie if I was him…

Even more than that,though, the Obama people should NEVER chastise anyone else for not being “vetted.” Obama has NEVER been fully vetted, certainly not by the MSM. Had he, he would not be the nominee now. He has too many shady associates (add Kilpatrick to that list), too few legislative accomplishments, too little experience, and no paper trail at ALL. NONE. (How can that be? Hell, I have a paper trail, and I’m not running for president! I have old date books – I even know where they are! I have files, for cryin’ out loud!! With papers in them! Really! And Obama doesn’t?? Uh, sure.)

Frankly, this is the kind of thing Bush supporters did to Al Gore and John Kerry. It is disturbing to me that the Left Wing has started acting so much like the Right Wing in its actions. Perhaps it learned too well from the Bushits. But this is not the Democratic Party I knew – maybe I was/am naive, but I expect my Party to act ethically and with integrity. It has lost out on both counts in a major way this year. I don’t recognize it any more – well, not as Democratic anyway. And bear in mind, I was clinging to the far left corner of the DNC before this. Not a centrist am I. The sexism and misogyny ALONE this year has been nothing but shocking and unprecedented. Women are the BACKBONE of the DNC, and it has treated us like pure shit. Now, it is starting on Palin. I never thought I’d see this day. I am truly dismayed by this. McCain came out FORCEFULLY against the media and DEMOCRATS attacking Palin for not staying home and taking care of her babies! What is this – 1958??? The DEMOCRATS are saying this, and the REPUBLICANS are the ones standing up for women! I feel like I am living in upside-down world. Bush and Obama claim to be Uniters, and both have divided this country more than anyone else I can remember. Friends end friendships, families are fighting – what the hell is going ON???? I guess “Uniter” is supposed to be defined as “divider” now…

Bottom line is this – go after Palin’s POLICY positions, and there are certainly ones that are 180 degrees from many Progressives. But the Swift-Boating will backfire, I think. It infuriated us when it happened to our candidate because it was based on lies and innuendo. I hardly think we should be using the same tactics now.

Sigh. I am passionate about this, as you see. I am sad, sad that the DNC has acted so immorally, so unethically, and engaged in flat out fraud. Maybe this kind of thing has been going on for years and I just didn’t see it or know it, but if so, it sure wasn’t this blatant. Not by half. I cannot stand to see the Democrats engaging in such sleazy politics. And I am furious at the way they are treating women. What does it say when the RNC and McCain come out guns BLAZING about the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin, when Obama ENGAGED in sexist treatment of Clinton, and the DNC supported it, said nothing, and its leaders engaged in it. Now they are turning it on Palin. That is simply unacceptable to me. Completely, and utterly unacceptable. I will not condone that kind of treatment of women. And let me say this – if this is how Obama is treating Clinton and Palin now, you cannot claim he will watch out for women if president. If he treats women like this, over half the population, what hope do members of the GLBT community have? And so it goes down the line. How incredibly, disturbingly, sad…

I’ve been thinking about Liz Phair’s response to the rockin’ but boorish Rolling Stones after reading Jacob Weisberg’s If Obama Loses: Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him in Slate. Unlike Phair, I won’t attempt a point-by-point rebuttal; Weisberg’s piece is so riddled with distortions and hyperbole that a laundry list argument cannot summarize my feelings.

Weisberg’s article is so bad on so many levels that it’s amazing it was published at all, but it does fit with the media’s love affair with Obama. It’s a deceptive piece of writing and it relies on faulty logic, which I show below. But of course that is not an accident. A strident media partisan like Weisberg cannot rely on facts. So let’s start from the beginning:

John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Weisberg overstates the effectiveness of Obama’s operation. The trip to Europe, the faux presidential seal, his many policy reversals, and his disastrous debate performance at Saddleback are not mentioned.

Now notice how Hillary’s name is not mentioned. Nor the fact that 18 million voters chose her, approximately 200,000 more than chose Obama. Obama did not win a decisive victory. He was pulled over the finish line by Reid and Pelosi.

In fact, Obama as a brand has actually been declining — if you look at primary results and polls — since March. McCain, on the other hand, has actually run a surprisingly nimble operation, releasing ads which deflate the self-important Obama.

He continues:

If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

This would be a shocking conclusion if it were true. Older white voters, Weisberg is telling us, are racists. What’s his evidence?

Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Five percent? Repeat. Five percent. Is Weisberg innumerate or does he think we’re stupid? That means 95 percent will not take race into consideration. Does this satisfy Weisberg? Of course not.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn’t vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American.

Here he assures us that the number he just cited is wrong. Why did he cite the five percent to then just swat it down? Because it doesn’t serve the necessary condition of his argument; in fact, it refutes his thesis. Weisberg’s logic is not just twisted, it’s fabricated. Furthermore, just because Pennsylvania voters said race was a factor does not mean they view it as a problem. Indeed, the language of the polling is so vague that the race factor may have been Pennsylvanians voting for Obama because of his race. Does Weisberg mention Obama’s victory in lily-white Iowa ?, a state which is less diverse than Pennsylvania. No. Nor does he mention any of the deep-red and very white caucus states where Obama won. Because, as he says with a bit of sarcasm, “Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected.” You see, Obama is really so wonderful that it must be racism.

Not once does Weisberg mention the sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary. Not once does he mention Hillary’s decidedly blue-collar appeal, her populist economic message, and the older, white female voters who fell hard for her. No, these ladies (and men) must be racists.

Except for health care, Weisberg does not consider issues important to older white voters:

You may or may not agree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change.

He is silent on national security and terrorism, international relations, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, job creation, and fuel prices. Weisberg’s litany, like Obama’s, is a distinctly Whole Foods Nation brand of liberalism, and it fails to address the economic insecurities of the poor and middle class. The blogger Anglachel writes:

Where has Obama lost ground among Democratic voters? In the populations most endangered by the faltering economy and the long term erosion of socio-economic standing. He did not address what mattered most to them, which was their increasing vulnerability to the ordinary dangers of life – insurance, health care, retirement, wages, job security, housing. To fail to do this was what makes Obama come across as elitist.

McCain is talking about drilling to reduce gas prices, and charging Obama with wanting to raise taxes. This message is gaining traction with many working Americans. As Anglachel puts it:

The [Obama] wing is all too enamored of its own moral superiority on race, too contemptuous of the Bubbas and the Bunkers, to make the slightest move to win back and thus defend this constituency.

Weisberg utterly fails to prove that the race is tied because of racism.

So let’s talk about what a vote for Obama actually signals: voting for Obama is condoning a culture that hates women (Keith Olbermann’s idea for Beating Hillary: Literally Beating Hillary). It’s a tacit acceptance for the media and the Democratic establishment giving preference to a far less qualified man over a much more qualified woman. It’s telegraphing to our daughters — to all women — that a man is rightfully at the front of the line, regardless if he lost nearly every important state and the popular vote. It’s telling our daughters — and all women — that violent imagery against a female candidate is acceptable if it benefits the male candidate. It is the familiar salt-in-the-wound for millions of women, the majority of the Democratic Party, that bullying and force — by the media, the liberal blogs, by the Democratic Party — is the way to crush a woman who tries to achieve too much.

Voting for Obama is to support a candidate who listens to and publicly references music which celebrates the degradation and abuse of women.

Voting for Obama is condoning race-baiting, like Weisberg’s. It’s accusing Hillary of suggesting that she was waiting for Obama to be assassinated because she mentioned RFK’s assassination in reference to the length of past campaigns when the media was trying to force her out; it’s having your surrogates imply that President Clinton’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq statements was racist (even producing a memo describing the plan), and it’s using coded language like “bamboozled” to mostly African Americans audiences in order to dislodge their support from the Clintons.

Voting for Obama is to embrace using race as a divisive strategy in a Democratic campaign.

Voting for Obama is being party to a rigged election. It condones voter intimidation, caucus fraud, and gaming your opponent’s states. It’s voting for outright bias by Party leaders like Dean, Pelosi, and Brazile. It’s an intentional violation of the one person, one vote ideal.

Voting for Obama is embracing intentional voter disenfranchisement.

Weisberg insists that Obama has a progressive agenda. But there’s nothing in the way Obama conducts his campaigns that would give us that idea. Many of us, Hillary supporters like myself, will vote for McCain because Obama’s treatment of Hillary goes against everything we believe in. And I want the Democratic Party to repudiate his tactics, and their own. Obama’s supporters must, some day, listen carefully to the very real reasons of why we’re angry, and they need to examine their consciences over their silence on the sexism towards Hillary and Obama’s race-baiting strategy.

Weisberg is wrong: Obama may lose because he conducted a despicable primary campaign, and he failed to offer a compelling economic message during the General Election.

The Internet has also given voice to “citizen journalists”. Some are fantastic writers and dogged investigators. Others, well, not so much. The downside is that any idiot with a modem and an account can post his or her “views”, irrespective of the validity or accuracy of their “reporting”. All of which can make for good sport, sure, but I find that as I get older my patience for this sort of nonsense wanes. Particularly when it comes to politics.

Consider, if you will, this Huffington Post “column” by Rebecca Curtis.

I’m too tired to analyze all the inaccuracies and poorly arrived-at conclusions in Curtis’s screed. One part at the very beginning, however, bears mentioning since reading it accomplished the same end as a plank with nails piercing a car’s tires. If you’re going to deal the race card, might as well make it an Ace:

The Rasmussen Report and Zogby/ATV poll found that Obama’s lost major ground with women, independents, Democrats, even young voters. Polls are just that; they could change. But we might ask: why the dip? If it reflects the fact that Obama acted “uppity” and met state heads in Europe, or that McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors), then perhaps race is in play after all.

Again:

McCain ran ads comparing Obama to amateur porn star Paris Hilton (implying black people are good at sex and celebrity, and not-so-good at intellectual endeavors)…

OK, so Rebecca Curtis supports Obama. Fine. That’s her choice. But let’s remember, for roughly the billionth time, that NOT ALL POLL NUMBERS INDICATING THAT OBAMA’S SUPPORT IS ERODING CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO RACE. Some people, unlike Rebecca Curtis, see Obama not as a symbol but as a flesh-and-blood man running for the highest political office in the United States. We’ve already seen what happens when an inexperienced non-entity is elected to the Presidency and aren’t much looking forward to another go-around. We don’t believe that a candidate should be granted this office because “it’s time for America to elect a (woman, African-American, fill in the blank) for President”.

But here’s another thing. This Curtis column demonstrates how irrational and desperate Obama supporters are when it comes to any and all criticism of their man. Black people are good at sex and celebrity? What sane person would interpret the McCain ad that way? I’m guessing a person obsessed with race. It looks like she’s the one who needs help, not Obama opponents.

Intrigued by the flabby reasoning, laughable conclusions and arch, self-riteous tone of this article, I looked up her bio:

Rebecca Curtis received a B.A. from Pomona College, an M.A. in English from New York University, and an M.F.A from Syracuse University. Her first book, Twenty Grand and Other Tales of Love & Money (Harpercollins 2007) was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year, an L.A. Times Best Book of the Year, and a San Francisco Chronicle Best Book of the Year. It won the New Hampshire Literary Award for Outstanding Work of Fiction, 2006-7, and was a finalist for the Pen-Hemingway Award and the L.A. Times Art Seidenbaum Award for First Fiction. Curtis’ fiction and essays have appeared in The New Yorker, Harper’s, Esquire, Jane, Harper’s Bazaar, McSweeney’s, N+1, and elsewhere. Her stories have been performed by New York’s Symphony Space and Chicago’s Stories on Stage and have been anthologized in The O’Henry Prize Stories 2007. She is the recipient of a Rona Jaffe Foundation award, and a Saltonstall Grant. She has taught in the graduate and undergraduate writing programs at St. Mary’s College of California and the University of Kansas. She now teaches in the Graduate Writing Program at Columbia University and lives in Brooklyn.

Impressive qualifications, no doubt – FOR A BOOK REVIEWER OR ENGLISH PROFESSOR. But when it comes to writing about politics, maybe Rebecca Curtis should stay out of the deep end of the pool until she learns how to do something other than dog paddle.

……………..

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

But, wait – I’ve called George W. Bush arrogant – does that mean I was actually being racist in some subconscious sort of way?? Huh – my (chosen) brother, Patrick, calls HIMSELF arrogant, but he’s FRENCH. Maybe he has internalized racism then. I should talk to him about that – maybe do an intervention…Heck, there are any number of people who have been called arrogant on tv, in print, in conversation, whatever, previous to Obama being on stage, and no one ever even acknowledged they were being racists! Good grief!!

Thank heavens we have FINALLY been alerted to our racist language – all of these centuries we have been using “arrogant” or other variations without realizing how offensive we were being!! Oh, Obama – if it were not for you, there is no telling the depths to which we would sink!! Oh, crap – now I’m making my own self sick.

Okay – this is just getting ridiculous, and completely out of hand. First, you have Obama telling the House that, finally, our prayers have been answered – he has RISEN. Halle-damn-lujah. Then, any word used to describe him is all of a sudden RACIST and demeaning. Unless one is singing his praises to the high heavens, any remotely negative statement about his behavior, his – dare I say it? – ARROGANCE, his lack of policy, his lack of EXPERIENCE, is all RACIST!!!! Now, he has taken to accusing the McCain campaign of racism when they haven’t said word ONE that was racist. He is setting the stage, just like he did with Hillary Clinton. He tells his followers how evil the other person is, what they are GOING to say, not what they HAVE said, then these people believe that is EXACTLY what they said. No amount of evidence to the contrary can sway them. The McCain Campaign is racist, and that’s all there is about it. It doesn’t help that Obama’s aides claim HE is not introducing race into the discussion, despite his very clear statements of doing just that. Obamessiah said it, so it MUST be true, and if you don’t see it, then you are a racist, too!!

One of Obama’s lines was that he doesn’t look the same as the other presidents on our money. Well, FIRST of all, Barry – YOU AREN’T THE FREAKIN’ PRESIDENT!!!!!!! Second of all, YOU KEEP INJECTING RACE INTO THE RACE!!! Ahem. Sorry – he’s pissing me off. Oh, but WAIT!! Breaking news: Obama Aide Concedes ‘Dollar Bill’ Remark Referred to His Race!! Well, there’s a newsflash from The Department of DUH!!! Those of us still capable of thinking knew that already, but nice of the aide to finally ADMIT it!!! (Feel free to go read the article, if you can stomach all of the excuses and accusations from the Obama camp.)

Obama is just wearing me out. And the constant race-baiting is making me pissy.

So, while he is pronouncing himself King of the Universe and trying to paint McCain as a racist, what has the good Senator of the Great State of New York, Hillary Clinton, been doing?

As one would expect, she’s been doing her JOB!!!! She has been fighting for people, like she always does! The following Press Release is her latest accomplishment:

July 31, 2008

Many New York Communities Face Health Risks Due to Exposure to the Dangerous Carcinogen

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today welcomed approval by a key Senate committee of her legislation to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set tougher regulations to protect the public from exposure to the carcinogenic chemical Trichloroethylene (TCE), which is one of the most widespread industrial water contaminants in the nation and is found at many sites across New York. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today approved Senator Clinton’s TCE Reduction Act, which will now go to the Senate Floor for consideration by the full Senate.

“New York cannot wait any longer for the administration to take action on the dangerous TCE contamination across our state. A growing number of communities are facing the serious health risks caused by exposure to TCE, including cancer, damage to the nervous and immune systems, and developmental problems in children. And yet, despite these dangers, the Bush EPA delays and delays. My legislation will force the administration to finally take steps to address this pressing issue. I welcome the committee’s bi-partisan approval of this important measure and urge the Senate to pass it promptly,” Senator Clinton said.”

Senator Clinton introduced the TCE Reduction Act in 2007 after earlier efforts to convince the EPA to address the growing TCE contamination crisis in New York. Of the 86 federal Superfund sites in New York alone, more than 30 have been found by the EPA to have TCE contamination. Endicott, Franklin Square, Garden City, Hopewell Junction, Ithaca, Norwich and Victor are a few of the communities throughout New York that are known to be contaminated with TCE. Senator Clinton’s bill follows lengthy delays by EPA in setting a new standard in the face of growing scientific evidence and contamination that is more widespread.

A draft EPA Risk Assessment in 2001 found TCE to be as much as 40 times more carcinogenic than previously thought, but rather than using EPA science to set a more protective standard for TCE in drinking water, the Bush administration called for more study. The National Research Council (NRC) was directed to conduct an in depth study the health studies involving TCE. Far from repudiating EPA’s 2001 findings, the final NRC report, issued in 2006, found that “the evidence on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 2001.” The report went on to say, “The committee recommends that federal agencies finalize their risk assessment with currently available data so that risk management decisions can be made expeditiously.”

Senator Clinton has previously pressed the EPA to set a standard based on the latest science, but the EPA has failed to act or set a timeline. According to the EPA’s website, EPA does not plan to release a revised standard until the end of 2010.

The “TCE Reduction Act” would require EPA to:
Issue a revised health advisory for TCE within 6 months of enactment.

Issue revised draft health standards for TCE in drinking water within 12 months of enactment, and final drinking water standards within 18 months.

Issue a health advisory standard for TCE vapor intrusion within 12 months of enactment.

Establish an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC) of TCE vapor within 18 months of enactment.

Ensure that all standards set under the bill fully protect susceptible populations (including pregnant women, infants, and children) from the adverse health effects of TCE.

Wow. Let me make sure I understand this: Obama is going around, in speech after speech, accusing John McCain of being a racist presumptively! And claiming that He Is The One For Whom We have Been Waiting! And prancing around Europe. MEANWHILE, the person who SHOULD be the Democratic nominee is working her heart out for us. Okey dokey.

WAKE UP, SuperDelegates and Delegates!!! WAKE UP!!!! Let’s go, people – vote for the one who WILL GET THE WORK DONE!!!!!

Once again, go to IOwnMyVote.com and take the survey for the Platform issues to be taken to the Democratic Party.

JustSayNoDeal.com is asking all of us to go to the article and write positive comments about Ricki.

Here are two more musts you’ll want to know about Ricki, besides her article, “Electability,” posted here yesteday:

• Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published a very positive article about Ricki’s efforts: “McCain Surrogate Fiorina Meets With Clinton Supporters”
• Sign up to receive Ricki’s daily “Electability Watch” by sending an e-mail to rrlieberma@gmail.com. Ricki is associated with the Together4US group.

Barack’s looking real tired on the campaign trail. He forgets how many states we have. He says the problem in Afghanistan is that we don’t have enough Arabic speakers. Well, I guess if anybody actually spoke Arabic in Afghanistan, that might be a problem. I guess with a ‘mic’ in his hand, sans teleprompter, he doesn’t do so well. All Hillary’s fault.

“Can’t I just eat my waffle?” “You’re wearing me out, brother.” “Come on, guys. I just answered, like, eight questions.” “My uncle helped liberate Auschwitz” – uhh, well, no, he didn’t. Sorry if FISA is a deal breaker for you guys , but, you know, where else you gonna go? “…Get over it!” he said, at a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rep. Diane Watson warned Barack not to use that particular phrase …

Hillary’s fault!

Let him eat his waffle! Where did that sixty-year-old woman get the energy to go meet plant workers at shift change at 5:30 a.m.? Obama, 14 years her junior, was constantly exhausted and exasperated.

Primary going on too long. Creating a fissure in the party. Hillary’s fault.

Heaven forefend the American people, all of them in all 50 states – yes, Barry, that’s 50, not 57 – should actually have a say in who we choose as the standard bearer of our party.

Remember when Obama called Hillary supporter, PA Gov. Ed Rendell in early April saying “You know I’m going to be the nominee, right? You’re not going to do anything to make that difficult, right?” Barack must have been real pissed that he actually had to look like he was working for it.

Remember Barack’s piss poor debate performance on ABC in April – Hillary’s fault. She went after him too hard. He didn’t have time to do his homework. Yes, they really said that. Whatsamatter, Barry, can’t handle it without Campbell Brown fluffing your pillows?

I guess not, because Howard Dean forbade any more debates after that. Why? Afraid the citizenry would actually see the truth? That the inexperienced Senator Obama was and is in over his head. He could not even explain what a Capital Gains tax is – or that it is a tax.

How encouraging for us, considering that IndyMac just collapsed and the stock market is tanking and people are losing their homes. He has not addressed any of this. Friday, on talk radio, the endlessly entertaining Arianna Huffington suggested Barry give a speech on the subject. Just what we need – another speech from Barack Obama. Who will write it for him, since, clearly, he does not understand the economy – or appear too worried about it. But when millionaire Michelle thinks you’re going to take your rebate check and buy a $600 pair of earrings with it, what does that say?

Damn that white witch in a pantsuit, not just crumpling up like so much tissue paper. Damn her always being ready and en pointe with policy. Damn those great debating skills. Damn her that she actually has a solid point of view and isn’t afraid to tell you what it is. Damn her toughness, her record, her resilience, her compassion, her experience, her smarts and most of all, damn the fact that she actually gives a fig about regular working folks. Damn her for making Obama look pale – yes, I said pale – by comparison.

Didn’t she know the DNC had already fixed this for him???

No kidding. Donna Brazile with her plotting little Slate article dated Nov. 5, 2004, “Why Americans Hate Democrats—A Dialogue – Tapping into the Obama factor.”

Setting the stage.

The all but unprecedented move by John Kerry to hand pick a State Senator from Illinois – no, not a U.S. Senator, but someone in the Illinois State Senate – you know, the guys who are in session 55 days out of the year — to give a huge speech at the Democratic Convention in ’04.

Setting the stage.

How long ago was the date for the 2008 Democratic Convention chosen? The last week in August is pretty late in the calendar, no? I know it has occurred to more than a few out here that it is the 45th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech. Gosh, I wonder whose candidacy that is supposed to coincide with? How long do you think Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Kerry & Co. have been rubbing their paws together plotting that one.

Setting the stage.

So if anyone wondered why Florida and Michigan delegates were given the death penalty way back when, in contravention of the Rules & By Laws Committee actual rules, which decree they can only be penalized by half, now you have your answer. If those two delegate rich states actually had even half their delegates when it counted for something, since Hillary was 20 points ahead in both, by the end of January, she would have won 4 out of 6 contests. Those wins, coupled with her momentum and important victories on Super Duper Tuesday would have sealed this thing up – for her.

Why do you think 3 other states were allowed to move their primaries up beyond the legal limit with no penalty? South Carolina, for one – a state with a very large African American population. Hmmm. Makes a girl think. Remember, Hillary was also supposed to lose New Hampshire by double digits – and won. Interesting that Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Donna Brazile were suddenly talking about tears for Katrina and the Bradley effect. Hmmm.

Even with his sweetheart ride in the press, backstabbing DNC party elites, all the money on the planet – probably sent from everywhere on the planet, dear Barack still couldn’t close the deal. Damn that Hillary.

Now that he has been ‘selected’ as the nominee, it seems he can’t raise funds the way he, and The Huffington Post, were bragging he could. I guess that’s Hillary’s fault, too.

Well, if Joan of Arc in a pantsuit is that all-powerful, then the weaker man should step aside, bow out for the good of the party, and let her do the job she is clearly ready, willing and more than able to do.

And she doesn’t even care if she gets to eat her waffle.

Hell, way back in 2005, even Senator McCain admitted she would make a good President – and got into hot water with his own party for doing so.

Tell you what, Senator Obama, you just high tail it back to Illinois and you can have all the waffles you want. Hillary will take the job. She actually knows how to help the ailing economy. If you doubt this, take a look at Hillary Clinton’s exclusive April 3rd interview with Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, and Alegre’s “Unemployment Rising.”

And Senator Clinton actually has correct positions on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and has had them all along.

Senator Obama, what will happen if your Sunday pander to NASCAR fans fails?

Since you have so upset the Democratic base and many of your own supporters by reneging on FISA, public financing, womens’ rights, gun control, Iraq, Iran, not to mention endlessly angering Hillary’s supporters with your extremely disrespectful behavior toward her and them, where will you go? And who will you blame? Who is left?

Please. Tell me, Senator Obama. If the stress of your chickens coming home to roost grows a boil on your behind, will that be Hillary’s fault, too?

Then Ostertag warns his readers away from the “PUMA movement” because it “may indeed be a Republican troll operation.” No, Mr. Ostertag. Granted, there are a few groups out of HUNDREDS in the Just Say No Deal coalition that are pro-McCain, but that occurs with any large coalition and we here at No Quarter, as do most, strongly disagree with the few’s emphasis solely on McCain. We are pro-Hillary.

However, some of us are “sticking it to” the Democratic party at the moment for its ill-advised recent behavior, just as YOU are doing to Obama by withholding donations. You’re employing a tactic. So are we.

Frankly, I think you know that too, Mr. Ostertag, and perhaps you are worried that Obama’s supporters may take a look at JustSayNoDeal.com.

We support Hillary Clinton, who voted to protect MoveOn’s right to speech against Sen. John Cornyn’s amendment while Obama, although he was on site, hid away and didn’t vote. The irony: MoveOn has never been a friend to Sen. Clinton and has embraced Obama, who didn’t have Sen. Clinton’s courage to stand up for his own benefactors.

We support Hillary Clinton who has the endorsement of over 30 flag officers who want to get out of Iraq just as badly as you, but who know Hillary has the REAL knowledge of military and foreign affairs to carry it off, and who can speak coherently without having to hold two press conferences within two hours to clarify a clarification.

We support Hillary Clinton because she is for truly universal health care, the protection of Social Security, and saving Medicare (currently under frightening assault), while Mr. Obama’s advisers are pro-partial privatization. And Mr. Obama?

Mr. Obama seems more interested in wooing the religious right with an expansion of Bush’s faith-based initiatives rather than strengthening our existing, essential federal safety nets. I found a passionate statement at Sen. Clinton’s senate site on the pending cuts to Medicare — which have alarmed every health care provider across our nation — but not one word at Mr. Obama’s senate or campaign sites. We support Hillary because she knows much more, but also because she shows her convictions. Update: I note that Sen. McCain is being pressured by physicians’ groups to break the Republican minority stranglehold on the Medicare cuts, which will dramatically affect health care for senior citizens, who are reliable voters. (The Hill has a detailed article.)

Below, a video clip from last night’s CNN AC360 on “Hillary’s Holdouts”:

Transcript:

So, beyond those poll numbers, there’s the cash factor. Clinton supporters, from rank-and-file Democrats to major donors, don’t seem to be ponying up the money that the Obama campaign had hoped to see.

Up close tonight, why they’re holding out. Here’s 360’s Joe Johns.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the picture of Democratic unity, they are scheduled for three fund-raisers together in New York this week. But when it comes to campaign cash, this political kumbaya might have its limits.

Some fund-raisers for Hillary Clinton are pressuring the Obama campaign to honor her policy positions and her campaign debt. They want her name placed in nomination at the Democratic Convention. And they are balking at writing checks for Obama.

LYNN FORESTER, MAJOR CLINTON DONOR: I certainly know there are lots of people who are withholding their money.

JOHNS: Businesswoman Lynn Forester launched a Web site bringing Clinton supporters together to pressure Obama. She is one of the so- called HillRaisers, who brought in at least $100,000 each to Clinton. She hasn’t given money to Obama, and hasn’t decided whether she will.

FORESTER: This is a hard decision for me personally, because, frankly, I don’t like him. I feel like he is an elitist. I feel like he has not given me reason to trust him.

JOHNS (on camera): It’s hard to say how many big donors might balk when it comes to Obama. Some political observers expect gushers of money by Election Day. But, if you were looking for early leading indicators that most of Clinton’s deep-pocketed supporters are throwing open their wallets for the presumptive nominee, we’re not seeing them.

(voice-over): The Center for Responsive Politics and “The Wall Street Journal” crunched the numbers from May, when Obama was wrapping up the primary. About 115 people who donated at least $1,000 to Senator Clinton were making their first big donations to Obama.

But here’s the twist. Roughly the same number of former Clinton donors were making large donations to John McCain.

(on camera): So, what’s the problem? Some say Obama is shifting positions. Some say Hillary Clinton should get a large role in both the convention and the fall campaign. And some of those die-hard Clinton supporters say they are angry because of the perceived sexism in the coverage of their candidate.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D), FLORIDA: So we need to address that issue, but we need to not take it out on Barack Obama, because it was not his fault.

JOHNS (voice-over): Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida spent the last two days in New York, talking to disaffected Clinton supporters. She says the answer is simple.

SCHULTZ: It’s not unexpected that they count just automatically shift over to Obama, because they’re not the typical Democratic supporters that just automatically shift over. They need to be wooed. They need to be, you know — they need to be, um, won over.

JOHNS (on camera): Barack Obama needs to show them some love?

SCHULTZ: He does.

JOHNS (voice-over): The Obama campaign says it fully expects the Hill-raisers to come around and won’t comment on the charges of sexism in the primary race. Needless to say, John McCain isn’t exactly cooling his heels here. He’s trying to lure Clinton supporters into his camp. He needs all the help he can get.

Joe Johns, CNN, Washington.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NOW, the statement from Sen. Clinton’s senate Web site on the Medicare cloture vote. There is no statement from Sen. Obama’s senate or campaign site.

June 27, 2008

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Vote on the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act

WASHINGTON, DC—Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today issued the following statement on the failure of the Senate to pass a Medicare bill that would have stopped a cut in payments to physicians and provided other improvements to Medicare:

“Once again, Senate Republicans have stood in the way of improving health care for some of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. The bill blocked last night would not only have prevented a 10.6 percent cut in payments to physicians who care for the 44 million seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare, but also would have made improvements in preventive care and for low-income beneficiaries. The bill also contained important provisions that I have long championed to advance electronic prescribing and our ability to measure the quality of care that patients receive. As the Senate begins its efforts to ensure that every American has access to high quality, affordable health care, it is critical that Republicans put politics aside to make the necessary improvements in the healthcare system. Passage of this Medicare legislation is an important first step and one that I hope my colleagues will support in the future.”

###