It made me mad. It is just more of the media’s continued unfounded, politically motivated, assault on Sarah Palin. They have attacked her mercilessly for three years, and now claim, after the constant harassment, that she has “darker tendencies”? Are you kidding me with this circular logic crapola??

And so, I was compelled to write this letter to the editor of the Post and Courier. I have no illusions they will actually publish it:

I read Molly Ball’s article on Gov. Palin. The emails requested back in 2008 from sites such as Mother Jones are proving to be a bit of a disappointment to all those who wanted to get dirt on the former governor. Turns out that she was – gasp – hardworking, warm, engaging, and dedicated to her state. Shocking!

But here’s the thing – to qualify Palin now as exhibiting her “darker tendencies” is disingenuous at best. The only reason these emails are even available was the desire to take down this qualified woman 3 years ago by the media when they filed their FOIA requests. They have hounded her, and her family, on a daily basis, flat out making crap up (like that she, personally, shot wolves from the air, which your newspaper has already dispelled). They have accused her husband of incest, claimed her baby was not her own, used despicable language to attack her, and her family, sent numerous reporters to Wasilla to dig up dirt on her, and AP reporters to “factcheck” her book. And now, Ms. Ball is claiming that Palin is a divisive figure. If she is, it is only because the media has MADE her a divisive figure.

Even more, why has the media never spent anywhere NEAR this much time investigating Barack Obama? He claimed he had no records, not even a datebook, of his time as an IL Senator. How is that even possible?? The media failed miserably in ferreting out why the two front runners for the IL US Senate seat both, mysteriously, had their SEALED divorce records unsealed just a few short months before the election, forcing them both to drop out, allowing Obama, once again, to run basically unopposed as he did when he ran for office the first time (he got everyone else thrown off the ballot – look it up).

Where has the media been in looking at his connections to Khalid Rashidi, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright? They could not be bothered to research the presidential candidate, or his methods for becoming the candidate, much less his associates, any one of whom would have brought down any other candidate. (How many people know about the rampant caucus fraud perpetrated by the Obama camp? There were complaints made to the DNC by a number of people, including Hillary Clinton, but the DNC turned a blind eye. Even worse, they took lawfully cast and certified votes for Hillary Clinton and GAVE them to Obama. That was the day this Yellow Dog Dem became an Independent.)

But to the VP candidate from Alaska the media managed to devote all kinds of resources. Lo, and behold – there is nothing there. Of course, that doesn’t stop Ms. Ball from making gratuitous, unfounded, slights against Palin, thus demonstrating her very clear bias even as she was tasked with acknowledging there was nothing there.

This isn’t journalism, this is tabloid writing. And you put it on the front page.

While I am at it, I would like to highlight something else from these emails that was in my local paper – and listen up all of you who made this salacious claim – SARAH PALIN DID NOT SHOOT WOLVES FROM THE AIR, AND WAS OPPOSED TO IT. Got it? Seriously. Oh, and the emails highlighted how much of a conservationist she really is. I bet that will stick in some folk’s craw…

Good grief.

Clearly, despite there being nothing there to attack Palin over, these rags will continue to make the kinds of gratuitous smears Ms. Ball did. They just cannot stand that this woman is exactly who she said she is and has demonstrated herself to be. I guess in the face of Obama’s failures, this must really get to them, so they have redoubled their efforts to go after her, not him. Pathetic. Be big enough people to admit you were duped, you were snookered, you were fooled, and you were wrong. Give it a shot.

And now, for our musical moment to take a break from this continued media folly, I leave you with this:

In the aftermath of the shooting of 19 people in an attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., Countdown’s Keith Olbermann reminds Americans that “violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our democracy.”

This is the man who wanted “a super delegate to take Hillary into a room and only he comes out.”

As Rev. Amy, Larry Johnson and Bronwyn’s Harbor have all noted, the current media feeding frenzy has little to do with a realistic dissection of events. Mr. Olbermann also ignores the years of violent rhetoric and spin that have been aimed at women and the devastating effect that has on all of us as a society. His outrage on behalf of a woman, namely Congresswoman Giffords, is only present because he can demonize another woman in the process, namely Sarah Palin.

While I am sensitive to violent rhetoric, having seen first hand how verbal abuse of women can lead to physical violence, before Mr. Olbermann aims more vitriol at his current favorite bogeymen, Palin and the Tea Party movement, he must first absolve himself of his own sins. He cannot do so. Surely many others of his ilk cannot either. Taking a senseless tragedy such as Saturday’s horrific shootings in Tucson and using it to obliquely further the ends of one political party over another is abhorrent.

As Howard Kurtz of The Daily Beast noted, the rhetoric of violence is regularly part of our political and “journalistic” discourse: having someone in the “crosshairs,” “targeting” a vulnerable incumbent, “lock and load,” President Obama making comments such as “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun,” referring to his political opponents as “enemies”…This is nothing new. And as for Palin’s map of targeted districts in the 2010 midterms, it was a map she co-opted from democrats, who used the same technique years earlier. Politico just offered an article whereby a Democratic operative admitted to a concerted effort to blame the Tea Party for Saturday’s shootings. Even Mr. Kurtz admitted it was a ridiculous stretch to lay these horrible events at Palin’s doorstep.

Passion, protest or violence is not the province of any one group or party.

In 2008, Governor Palin was hung in effigy in my city and the mayor refused to have it taken down, defending the action by saying it was on private property even though the life-sized model hanging by a noose was clearly visible from the street. The Secret Service had to get involved in order to put an end to it. There were realistic images of Palin being tackled by a 280 lb. linebacker, other violent images featured Palin’s teeth getting knocked out. She was threatened by Sandra Bernhardt with gang rape if she dared step foot into Manhattan. The list goes on.

And what of Hillary Clinton? I remember seeing a blog post on a lefty website that called for “slitting her throat, throwing her into the trunk of a car, and dumping her body in the river.” Professor Kathleen Jamieson reported in her 2007 interview with Bill Moyers of PBS that Facebook sites with enormous followings depicted Hillary being violated by animals. She was accused of everything from the “murder of “Vince Foster” to wishing assassination upon Barack Obama. She, like Palin, was called every filthy name imaginable. Her supporters were as well. The tactic of insulting, physically threatening and calling innocent campaigners racist would seem to have “no place in our democracy” either.

Where was Mr. Olbermann’s outrage at the rhetoric of violence then? Since most of the vile behavior and commentary was coming from the Left – and even Olbermann himself – it is easy to understand why he remained silent.

I, too, believe that violent rhetoric is troubling and has no place in our discourse. But can it not be argued that the misogyny exhibited toward women day in and year out creates an atmosphere whereby a whacko like J. Loughner can go on a shooting spree – targeting a woman for assassination? Perhaps that seem like a stretch. But how is that any more of stretch than Democratic operatives looking to pin this tragedy on tea party members – although all evidence says that this disturbed loner was a Marxist. This young man had nothing to do with any group it seems, and for the media to jump to dangerous conclusions using half-baked information can only create the very atmosphere of violence they pretend they are wishing to assuage.

Both parties, along with the media, use irresponsible verbiage. It is sensationalistic, designed to sell copy and has been going on for years. According to an exclusive interview in Mother Jones today, the shooter had an obsession with Rep. Giffords and was possessed of his own violent fantasies and agenda. How was he following any one person’s political rhetoric in coming to the decision to do what he did? Further, while he may have targeted Rep. Giffords, he came loaded with several magazines for his semi-automatic weapon, clearly ready to execute as many people as he could, perhaps going out in a blaze of glory.

It would behoove the media to instead focus on an atmosphere that allowed a mentally unstable man to wander through life without proper medical attention while being given legal access to a semi-automatic weapon and ammunition.

The atmosphere of hate that Olbermann decries should upset him – he is one of the people who created it. It is disgraceful for any members of the fourth estate to sensationalize such a horrific event or worse, to use Ms. Gifford as a political football in order to ensnare and defeat others with whom they do not agree.

Why all of the name calling? Because if my “esteemed” (cough, choke) Congressman has his way, we will lose our right to free speech, so I figure I better get it all out now. Yessiree, he thinks we need to have some “parameters” set forth, as this Post and Courier article makes clear:

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what’s acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords held for her constituents in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 14 others were injured, including Giffords.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

‘Free speech is as free speech does,’ he said. ‘You cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and call it free speech and some of what I hear, and is being called free speech, is worse than that.’

Clyburn used as an example a comment made by Sharron Angle, an unsuccessful U.S. senatorial candidate in Nevada, who said the frustrated public may consider turning to ‘Second Amendment remedies’ for political disputes unless Congress changed course.

Clyburn said the man accused of shooting Giffords did just that.

‘He saw a Second Amendment remedy and that’s what occurred here and there is no way not to make that connection,’ Clyburn said. [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest, and some of the comments are pretty good, especially the one from “Superrog” who suggests to Clyburn, “Bite me.”.)

From where did this claim originate? Well, according to Politico, from a Democratic operative:

[snip]One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did.

“They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers,” said the Democrat. “Just like the Clinton White House deftly pinned the Oklahoma City bombing on the militia and anti-government people.”

Another Democratic strategist said the similarity is that Tucson and Oklahoma City both “take place in a climate of bitter and virulent rhetoric against the government and Democrats.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

With absolutely zero evidence, the Democrats endeavored, and have been fully assisted by the media, in propagating a complete fallacy about the actions of this madman in Tucson. They are, in essence, engaging in the very “virulent rhetoric” of which they are accusing Republicans and Tea Partiers. They don’t seem to see the irony – make that hypocrisy – of their actions. Or if they do, they just don’t care. And Clyburn with his race-baiting of the Clintons is particularly guilty of political rhetoric, oh hell – let’s call it what it was – a LIE, that had major consequences.

Indeed, these claims were made essentially from the outset, as Sheriff Paul Babeu makes clear in the following clip:

And why? Why would a sheriff make such an absurd claim about the motive? Why did the left seize on this tragic horrible situation in which six American citizens were gunned down, and fourteen others, including a US Congresswoman, were seriously injured? What in the world could be the logic here? Just to gain a political edge? Could they really be that callous, that repugnant, to use the deaths and grave injuries of others just to punish their political enemies?

It sure seems that way, especially considering the restraint many on the Left called for after Major Hasan opened fire on a number of his fellow soldiers, as Ed Morrissey wrote about this weekend. We were told not to assume it was because he was Muslim, that we didn’t know what was going on, all of the facts were not in, etc., etc. Well, turns out it WAS because he is Muslim, but yes, restraint until the facts are known is solid advice. It is a shame they were so quick to (incorrectly) judge this time around. But, wow, were they ever, including Paul Krugman of the New York Times:

Wow. Krugman has no idea who Loughner is, but that doesn’t stop him from making these wild accusations. The entire media has been a willing partner in putting forth this propaganda as to rationale for the shooting. How else can you classify it as anything other than propaganda? The print media, bloggers, and television networks have been all too willing to CREATE this rumor, and put it forth as fact, though everything that is coming out NOW clearly demonstrates how false their meme is.

That the Democrats, including my assholic representative, Jim Clyburn, and their willing accomplices, the media, are choosing to use this tragedy for political gain is simply obscene. It is callous, it is the absolute worst kind of grandstanding, and it is reprehensible. They should be ashamed of themselves, though I doubt that emotion can even filter through the sanctimony and political opportunism they are demonstrating repeatedly over this tragedy.

The focus should be on how this clearly deranged man passed his FBI background check, why his repeated death threats were not taken more seriously, and how the system failed, not trying to blame a group who had absolutely nothing to do with this heinous crime.

Moreover, we should concern ourselves with those fighting for their lives, and for the families of those fallen as a result of Loughner’s actions. That would be the appropriate response, not trying to curb our speech, or make up blame to heap on others, thus fueling the very vitriol that is being decried.

The Democrats, and the media, are way out of line on this one, and they need to rectify this situation immediately. They can begin with an apology to Sarah Palin, and maybe, just maybe instead of spouting off with nothing more than lies, rumor, and innuendo, they can just shut the hell up already. Talking to you, Rep. Clyburn.

National Union of Students president Aaron Porter condemned the violence as “despicable”.

“This was not part of our plan,” he said.

“This action was by others who have come out and used this opportunity to hijack a peaceful protest.”

“The people who organized the splinter protest are not known to us,” said Ben Whittaker, vice president of the National Union of Students. “We don’t think they’re students. It could be anarchist groups, who’ve obviously been planning this for some time.”

Dan Ashley, a spokesman for the University and College Union, which represents faculty members, echoed the sentiment. “It has nothing to do with us,” he said.

Somebody, obviously, bussed in professional protesters, who were not students, to elevate the event from a peaceful public statement to a violent protest. Public (the government that is owned by the people) austerity is an enemy of those wanting an ever-growing public trough.

Now. Take a spin around the globe.

Trick question: Who led the protests against Obama in India last Monday? Unexpected answer: ACORN.   Is ACORN organized in London? According to Wade Rathke, the shamed, ousted founder of ACORN, ACORN International is only fully organized yet in seven countries.

Affiliates of ACORN International listed so far in:

* Argentina
* Peru
* Canada
* Dominican Republic
* Kenya
* Mexico
* Honduras
* Kenya
* India

Inside the slum lies an impolitic connection from Obama’s past that – like Shakespeare’s Falstaff – could have helped balance the president’s view into the lives of citizens here.

The ACORN Foundation India works to organize the slum’s trash collectors and sorters known as “ragpickers.” The group was set up separately by the founder of the ACORN community organization that Obama once worked with in America.

In India, the model does not involve widespread voter registration of the poor – partly because groups like the ragpickers are disenfranchised in the world’s largest democracy. Many of them are migrants or homeless who lack the proof of residence papers needed to vote, says Vinod Shetty, the Mumbai head of the ACORN India Foundation. – CSM

ACORN leads protest against Obama in India.

Had President Barack Obama stopped to survey the crowd of Indian leftists protesting in the heart of New Delhi on Monday, he might have seen a familiar name on some placards: ACORN.

So what’s it doing in India,

As befits an organization torn apart in the end by internal chaos, ACORN International has grown out of a schism between ACORN founder Wade Rathke and a group of leaders who ousted him in 2008 amid criticism of his governance. Politico

Raising the tuition in England’s schools to almost half the U.S. average, and the students’ reaction to the change creates a worthy story that is not being discussed in this post. Not sorry here if you felt mislead by the subject.

What is evident is this disturbing fact. There is a lot of money in professional organizing. Astroturfing and professional subversive rabblerousing is a big business and people are entering this business with little regard to anyone else around them. Furthermore, corporations and factions within governments, to move policy for the gain of the few, while costing much to the many, are using these “community organization” companies in a way that helps the average citizen remain confused and tilted against policies they – the average citizen – did not know was an issue, until they saw the “masses” protest.

So this is community organizing? Do you think Obama told the government leaders in India that this, COBS (Community Organizing Bull Shit) is a new U.S. “export” brought to them by the young lawyer, with no bar exam results, who kept ACORN alive in Chicago?

ps. It is probably just a webmaster mistake. But, did you notice that ACORN International’s website menu of Affiliates lists Kenya TWICE?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bashed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tuesday night, even as the president’s top spokesman continued to backpedal from his assertion that Democrats could lose control of the House in the November election.

“How could [Gibbs] know what is going on in our districts?” Pelosi told her members in the caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol Tuesday night. “Some may weigh his words more than others. We have made our disagreement known to the White House.”

The hostility escalated when Democratic lawmakers accused the White House of losing the messaging wars. Are some Dem lawmakers implying that if President Obama, Gibbs et al had done a better job of “selling” their non-working policies to the American people, House Dems wouldn’t be facing the prospect of such huge losses in November?

This is a wake up call to Ms. Pelosi and those who stand in lock step with her – If you have a good product – it sells itself.

I think we would prefer better crafted legislation to a better sales pitch. Putting the check mark next to the “DONE” box just to parade around with a giant gavel and goofy smile pasted on your face does not substitute for putting Americans back to work, passing health care legislation that won’t bankrupt the country or passing a stimulus bill that actually stimulates something beyond pet pork projects.

Even Arianna Huffington, a big Obama ally, has complained bitterly that the Wall St. reform package doesn’t go far enough or protect us from “too big to fail.” Then again, she is another political opportunist who has lately taken to agreeing with Tea Party protests and even Sarah Palin. She must be seeing the writing on the wall, too.

It is appalling that Congress does not intend to pass a budget this year — something else they wish to sweep under the rug so as not to damage themselves further in advance of the midterm elections, perhaps. Outrageous spending and a lack of responsiveness to constituents’ concerns is a far more reasonable explanation for the poor prospects of Democrats this fall than President Obama losing the “message wars.” How about winning the competence war and going on a few less vacations?

On Meet the Press on Sunday, here is what Press Secretary Gibbs had to say:

“I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that. This will depend on strong campaigns by Democrats,” Gibbs said on Sunday.

By the next morning, Democratic strategists were fuming privately that he had handed Republicans a great fundraising and voter-motivation tool.

Gibbs and other White House officials have been backpedaling, in carefully measured steps, ever since.

Speaker Pelosi also complained that Obama favors the Senate and helps them in their fundraising efforts far more than he helps the House, which has shown great loyalty to him.

The Senate love fest may be coming to an end as well. Embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went on the record saying that President Obama is not “firm” or “foreceful enough” with his Republican opposition. This prompted the bellicose Ed Schultz of MSNBC to complain Reid just called the President a “wimp.” The “timing is horrible” says Shultz. No kidding:

Looks like Harry doesn’t feel the wind at his back, given that Sharron Angle is besting him in the polls in Nevada at the moment. Other historically “safe” Senate seats are in trouble as well. Fiorina is polling ahead of Boxer in CA for the first time. Even Russ Feingold’s seat is not quite safe.

Apparently, Ms. Pelosi and her cronies missed the memo on how this politics stuff works.

The President is going to do everything he can to save himself. If that means throwing Congress under the bus so he can have a Republican foil to do battle against, making more of his straw man arguments, then he will. If that helps in his re-election bid, that is Job One.

Did Nancy and Harry think when they threw Hillary under the bus, they were going to be rewarded for it?

These two are not the only Presidents-by-Proxy to find out they are dispensable.

But it begs the question, why. Why is Obama suing Arizona over its new law for real, not just the mealy mouthed circular logic BS Obama has been spewing? Well, Senator Kyl tells his constituents why, following a one-on-one conversation with Obama himself. Take a listen:

Did you catch that? Because Obama is arm-twisting the Republicans to support his Immigration policy (amnesty). That is why he is suing Arizona, and not helping with border protection, a CONSTITUTIONAL mandate. Nope, Obama wants something to do his duty, as Kyl said. That is seriously, seriously wrong.

And there is the Gulf Oil disaster, and the related clean-up. I think this headline says it all, Breaking: Obama Administration Only Accepted Help From 5 Countries Out of 28 That Offered Assistance. What?? WHY? That is the question:

Just last weekend Barack Obama announced that the BP oil spill was like 9-11. This weekend as President Obama went golfing and to the ballgame, the Obama State Department was STILL in the review process on deciding which countries the US would accept help from… 60 days after the disaster!

As the Gulf Coast shores continue to be coated with crude, the Obama Administration has only accepted assistance from 5 countries out of 28 who offered to assist the US with the cleanup.

This makes zero sense to me. Zero. What the hell is the matter with him? I am sure he will find a way to blame it on someone else. Hmm, like maybe Hillary? Possibly:

The State Department posted this on their website.
28 countries have offered to help assist the United States with the worst environmental disaster in American history. Only 5 offers have been accepted the rest are under review.
Page 1-

Page 2-

Page 3-

Page 4-

I do not understand this one bit. Oil continues to gush into the Gulf, and the Obama Administration has only cleared FIVE countries to come help?? Look at some of the ones he has not yet cleared. It isn’t like they are two-bit players. This makes zero sense. Either he is playing politics with this spill as he bows down to the unions, or he is continuing to show his complete lack of experience, qualifications, commitment, or all of the above. I am voting for all of the above. It is insane for him to not have all hands on deck to deal with this disaster NOW.

Then there is this, along with not having more countries help us in the Gulf, or setting up the borders to be porous as well as dangerous, without lifting a finger to help and suing states that try to do something about it to bend Republicans to his will. And that would be Eric Holder’s decision to hold off on making a decision (!!) about where to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad. Naturally, Holder says this isn’t at all political. He’s a big liar, too, though (remember when he called the US a bunch of racists after just electing Obama? Uh huh.). I don’t believe for one skinny second this isn’t a political decision, despite the headline, Mid-term Elections Have Nothing To Do With 9/11 Trial Delay, Holder Says. Right. So what is his justification, then? Beats me. Maybe you can figure it out from this:

Attorney General Eric Holder said the decision over where to hold the trial for alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was “weeks away” — three months ago.

Now advocates on both sides of the issue say they expect the Obama administration to punt the decision until after the November midterm elections— when the controversial plan could do less damage to the political fortunes of endangered Democrats and might face less resistance on Capitol Hill.

Holder last week explicitly denied the midterms had anything to do with the timing but would only say discussions are continuing. The White House had no comment.

Any further stalling could pose a serious political problem for President Barack Obama on the left – where advocates cheered his administration’s plan to break from the Bush administration and give top al-Qaida figures trials in American courtrooms, a sign to the country and the world that U.S.-style justice was enough to try to men accused of the worst crimes in the nation’s history. (Click HERE for the rest of the story.)

Seems pretty political to me, like Obama holding our borders hostage, as Kyl said. And, like not allowing other countries to come help clean up the oil, or lifting the Jones Act YET as he continues to kowtow to the unions.

This is criminal. Perhaps not in the strictly legal sense, though I think violating the mandates of the Constitution would rise to that level. So yeah – it most likely is in terms of the Borders and his lack of protection there, or the threat in the Gulf to livelihoods and life.

As president, though, he is seriously derelict in his duty and must be held to account.

+Before 5/31/08, I never thought I would be upset at the Democrats holding all three chambers, but these mid-terms cannot come quickly enough. Perhaps the Republicans will retake the House, and hold Obama accountable for his massive misdeeds, arm-twisting, coercions, and downright contempt for the protection of the people he swore to serve. He clearly is beholden to other interests, not the interests of the people or the country.

Nowhere is this clearer than Arizona and the Gulf Coast. Will they be Obama’s Waterloo?

Now, it seems, not only is the White House threatening Democrats who didn’t toe the Party Line, but a number of unions, including SEIU, are threatening, too:

Senior White House and organized labor officials are warning the handful of House Democrats who supported health care legislation last year only to oppose the final measure on Sunday that they shouldn’t expect assistance for their reelection campaigns this fall.

The five who switched from yes to no — Reps. Michael Arcuri of New York, Marion Berry of Arkansas, Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts and Zack Space of Ohio — have so annoyed top Democrats that there is also open talk of finding opponents to ensure they pay a steep political price for changing their vote.

“We’re looking at candidates we can trust to run against them, either through a primary or in the general election,” said Service Employees International Union Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger, noting that recruitment conversations were already under way.

Of the five who switched, Burger said flatly, “They should not expect help from us.”

Karen Ackerman, political director of the AFL-CIO, said local union members were deeply disappointed in the vote-switchers — and that the locals will determine whether to endorse the incumbents.

“There are no guarantees, and they have a lot of work to do to attempt to repair that relationship. It may be repaired or it may not be repaired,” Ackerman said.

Top aides to President Barack Obama also made clear that they’ll prioritize their political time and resources this year with an eye on those who did or did not stand with them on the toughest vote of the election cycle.

“There is not a whole lot of Barack Obama and Joe Biden to spare on a good day,” said one senior White House official. “We’re going to have to focus on our friends.”

Another top Obama aide, asked about the group of five, responded simply: “We appreciate the people who hung with us.”

Yikes. Yep, those sound like threats to me. And that’s not all:

In the West Wing, where aides spent hours pleading with the members to stick to their original votes, there is a feeling that the group unnecessarily imperiled passage of the bill for reasons that defy political logic.

White House officials and other party leaders say that, having already supported health care once, the members will still be attacked by Republicans for the original vote and will now face additional anger from their own political base for opposing the final version of the historic bill that is now law.

“They have the vote, but now they lack the accomplishment,” said a senior Obama aide, adding that the group’s members have endangered their own prospects at the polls because the so-called “surge voters” who came out to back the president in 2008 will be tougher to motivate.

“The prescription for winning tough races is to generate turnout from many of the folks that came out in 2008,” the aide said. “I would think this would make it harder to do that.”

Another White House official made the case that “the public is not going to make the distinction [between the two votes], and they’re going to get hammered.”

On Capitol Hill, there is a sense of puzzlement mixed with frustration among colleagues of the five.

One senior Democratic House member was withering: “They were without backbone.”

I’m sorry, WHO was “without backbone”?? The people who were bought by the White House? The ones who bucked the will of their constituents? Or the ones who did as their constituents wanted? Perhaps this is the problem with many in DC – they do not understand basic English. Maybe they just don’t know what the term means. That might explain it. There’s more:

And, this member said, the group made an already difficult election cycle for House Democrats that much more difficult.

“That group that said ‘yes’ and then ‘no’ are the most challenging members now for us [to defend in November],” the member said.

Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, didn’t defend the political calculus of those in the group but said that his focus was solely on keeping the seats in Democratic hands and that he’d stand by the incumbents.

“We will help all our guys,” said Van Hollen. “If others want to pick and choose, that’s up to them. Our job is to make sure that we remain in the majority.”

Of the five, Berry, who is retiring after this term, is the only one who will definitely not be on the ballot in November — and seemingly the one with the least to lose by staying in the “yea” column.

But the strong suspicion among top Democrats is that Berry switched his vote as a favor to his chief of staff, Chad Causey, who is running to succeed him and has indicated that he would have opposed the legislation.

Yeah, okay, that makes sense – not.

Now the unions start weighing in:

Alan Hughes, president of the Arkansas AFL-CIO, said his organization was “highly disappointed in [Berry’s] vote” and noted that Causey and the other Democrats running for the seat Berry is vacating would be sitting for interviews at the state federation’s convention this weekend in Hot Springs.

“We’re going to drill the hell out of them,” Hughes said, alluding to their positions on health care and other issues important to labor.

Arcuri and Space, both second-term members from districts previously held by Republicans, are widely viewed as having switched for the most purely political reasons.

“Fear in politics is a very powerful thing, and these guys were just fearful of losing their seats,” a top White House aide said.

In New York, liberals have already begun wooing one of Arcuri’s former primary opponents to run against him.

Les Roberts, a Columbia University professor, has said that he’s considering running in the Democratic primary as well as on the Working Families Party ballot line.

In the run-up to the vote, Arcuri said he was unhappy that Medicare was still not allowed to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry and had worries that taxes on medical devices may have an adverse impact on his district.

Well, those sound like good reasons to me. Taxes ARE going to go up, as are insurance premiums, and drug prices. All thanks to Obama pandering to Big Pharma. But hey – why let some facts interfere with threats, right? Right:

In Ohio, local chapters of SEIU and UFCW announced Monday that they would no longer support Space, who already faced a difficult reelection in his rural eastern-Ohio-based district after he supported the energy bill last year.

Space indicated he was concerned that the final version of the bill might tax the health care benefits of his middle-class constituents.

Lipinski and Lynch are the most puzzling switchers in the group — both hail from heavily Democratic, big-city districts.

Lipinski cited concerns about abortion, but his position was undercut when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion Democrats still voted for final passage of the bill after Obama issued an executive order reiterating the ban on federal money being used on the procedure.

What angers Democrats about Lipinski is that he suffers from diabetes, and it has long been thought in Chicago political circles that he is in Congress in part to have access to a gold-plated congressional health care plan.

The view among party officials is that Lipinski’s father, a conservative-leaning Democrat who previously held his son’s seat and engineered the succession, thought it would be good politics to oppose the bill.

“He could not articulate to us why he was doing this,” a senior White House official said of Lipinski.

While the Illinois primary has already taken place, an independent could still file to run against Lipinski this fall.

As for Lynch, Democrats believe he’s still bitter over the lack of support he received when he considered running in the special Senate race for the seat of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and thought that, by changing his vote, he could separate himself from other 2012 primary hopefuls vying for the seat now held by GOP Sen. Scott Brown.

But it’s difficult to see how such a position could be advantageous in a Democratic primary in a state such as Massachusetts.

“John Kerry tried to disabuse him of that notion but could not,” said a senior White House official, referring to the Bay State’s senior senator.

“Everyone I talk to is baffled by Lynch’s votes,” said the AFL-CIO’s Ackerman, noting that the congressman, a former ironworker, comes out of the labor movement.

Lynch, for his part, said he opposed the bill because it didn’t do enough to crack down on insurance companies.

But progressives in Massachusetts are already courting a potential primary opponent, Harmony Wu, to run against Lynch.

Well, considering by some estimations premiums are going to go UP $2,100 not DOWN $2,500, as Obama claimed they would, I can see why these representatives are concerned. Heck, taxes ARE going to go UP to, exposing another Obama lie. There is GREAT concern about the cost of this bill for New York City, for example. Why? Because NYC will have to pay $6.5 BILLION a year to DC in taxes as a result of this bill:

That figure is JUST for the city, not including the rest of the state. Holy moley. That’s a big chunk of change. $200,000, as Megyn Kelly pointed out, is NOT a lot in the city. No kidding. Oh, what a great bill this is.

So, yes, these folks are indeed being threatened. By their own party members, I might add. Just more of the Obama Hope-y, Change-y Unicorn Rainbow – Chicago style. I can’t wait to see what’s next…

The Washington Post’s ill-fated plan to sell sponsorships of off-the-record “salons” was an ethical lapse of monumental proportions.

Publisher Katharine Weymouth and Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have now taken full responsibility for what was envisioned as a series of 11 intimate dinners to discuss public policy issues. For a fee of up to $25,000, underwriters were guaranteed a seat at the table with lawmakers, administration officials, think tank experts, business leaders and the heads of associations. Promotional materials said Weymouth, Brauchli and at least one Post reporter would serve as “Hosts and Discussion Leaders” for an evening of spirited but civil dialogue.

While Brauchli and Weymouth say they should have realized long ago that the plan was flawed, internal e-mails and interviews show questions about ethics were raised with both of them months ago. They also show that blame runs deeper. Beneath Brauchli and Weymouth, three of the most senior newsroom managers received an e-mail with details of the plan.

They were all aboard a fast-moving vehicle that, over a period of months, roared through ethics stop signs and plowed into a brick wall.

The crash occurred July 2, when Politico.com disclosed details of a Post flier seeking underwriters for the first dinner to be held July 21 at Weymouth’s District residence. The damage was predictable and extensive, with charges of hypocrisy against a newspaper that owes much of its fame to exposing influence peddlers and Washington’s pay-to-play culture. The Post’s reputation now carries a lasting stain.

Read the rest of Mr. Alexander’s findings here. As he points out, amidst their own budget crisis, as with many other media outlets, WaPo is seeking “creative” ways of raising revenue. Ironic that part of the reason their readership is down is a sense that there is a bias and lack of integrity in their reporting — only to be exacerbated by actions like this one…no wonder the paper is in trouble.

Just as worrisome, as detailed in Politico’s article, No bar on ‘salons’ in W.H. ethics rules, by Kenneth P. Vogel, it seems that the current administration’s ethics rules, purported to be the strictest ever, are not strict enough to bar participation in debacles such as the one described above:

Reacting to the controversy over The Washington Post’s abortive attempt to hold “salons” with lobbyists and Obama administration officials at the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth, the White House did its best to distance itself. The Post’s plan for money-making, off-the-record sessions “was not consistent with the administration’s ethics policy,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said this week.

But the White House counsel’s office, which has the authority to approve or reject invitations to appear at private events, could have cleared administration officials to accept the Post’s invitation without running afoul of Obama’s ethics executive order, according to most of the ethics lawyers consulted by POLITICO.

Obama touted his executive order as the strictest government ethics policy ever when he signed it on his first full day in office, but less than three weeks later, the independent agency tasked with implementing the order, the Office of Government Ethics, in consultation with the counsel’s office, issued a little-noticed memo inserting a number of exemptions into the order’s provision banning gifts – including meals and tickets – from lobbyists.
(snip)
Just as the idea for the salon, which was scrapped amid accusations that the paper was selling access to reporters and the government officials they cover, sparked a re-examination of journalism ethics, it could also prompt another look at the government’s complicated ethics rules. That’s because officials can expect to continue receiving invitations to media-hosted insider confabs, as an increasing number of cash-strapped national media outlets have already leveraged their reputations as in-the-know information brokers to expand into the lucrative elite-meeting planning business. Even the Post, in spite of its admittedly clumsy inaugural foray, has not given up on the concept.
(snip)
At first blush, media dinners at which lobbyists pay big bucks to break bread with journalists and high-ranking public officials they’re seeking to influence seem precisely the types of scenarios government ethics rules were designed to avoid.

“The loopholes they’ve created are big enough to drive a truck through,” said former House general counsel Stan Brand, a lawyer who defends public officials in corruption cases. “In some sense, they almost swallow the rule, so [the Post’s salon] would just be one more example of that. I don’t know that it would be any more egregious than the ones that they already engage in with other interested parties.”

Companies and groups seeking to influence government for years have taken advantage of loopholes in gift rules to fete politicians at lavish convention parties and host them at trade conventions.

So much for a new way of doing business in Washington.

Mr. Alexander of the Post concludes:

As of late this week, only two Post readers cited the controversy as a reason for canceling their subscription. Only about 50 readers had written critical letters to the editor, about half the number The Post typically receives on a controversial topic.

But the criticism of The Post has been withering in the blogosphere, among commentators and the Washington establishment. The episode has left a scar that will be visible for years, and it has badly shaken the newsroom.

Let’s hope more of us voice our displeasure.

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

The exchange arose as top House and Senate Republicans expressed concern to the president about the amount of spending in the package. They also raised red flags about a refundable tax credit that returns money to those who don’t pay income taxes, the sources said. …

Writes Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

The golden age of bipartisanship beginneth.

[...]

Just how rancid is this crap sandwich, anyway? Even David Brooks thinks it’s too much of a liberal Christmas tree: [...]

[...] McConnell and Boehner put on a brave face after the meeting but there’s simply nothing they can do. Skip ahead to the end for an inkling of the super-secret plan to jumpstart the economy with hundreds of millions of dollars for contraception.

The Republicans stressed that they want to include more middle class tax cuts in the package, citing their proposal to cut the two lowest tax rates — 15 percent and 10 percent — to ten percent and five percent, rather than issue the refundable credit Obama wants.

At another point in the meeting, sources said Obama told the group: “This is a grave situation facing the country.” [WOW! Really?We did not know that.] White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama would hold another economic meeting in the White House Saturday for a “broader group.”

After Friday’s meeting, Democratic and Republican leaders publicly wrangled over the developing stimulus plan.

But perhaps taking a cue from Obama’s “I won” line when Democrats were asked if they were concerned about Republicans blocking the package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a swift one-word answer: “No.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill was on track for passage by February 16, while Republicans continued to voice their opposition.

“We expressed our concerns about some of the spending that’s being proposed in the House bill,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said after meeting with Obama.

“How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” Boehner asked. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

Boehner said congressional Republicans are also concerned about the size of the package. …

Read all: “Obama to GOP: ‘I won’.”

NOW for the pro-Obama POV, via the “Political Animal” bloggers at The Washington Monthly:

OBAMA TELLS GOP, ‘I WON’…. President Obama is, for good or ill, making a sincere effort to work with congressional Republicans, most notably on an economic stimulus package. That doesn’t mean, however, that’s he’s going to get pushed around.

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning — but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

In context, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) told the president that the Democratic plan to give a tax credit to those who don’t pay income taxes isn’t a tax cut, but rather, a check. Obama responded that this was a common point of debate during the presidential campaign — McCain/Palin called Obama’s plan “welfare” — and voters were not swayed by Republican arguments. “I won,” Obama told lawmakers.

So, Obama wasn’t throwing too sharp an elbow, but it was nevertheless a not-so-subtle reminder to the minority party. There are two sides to this debate, and one of them has the backing of the American electorate, and was endorsed after a national campaign based on a specific policy platform. Hint to Kyl: it’s not your side.

I can only hope the president keeps this in mind as the negotiations continue. It’s very gracious of him to try to bring in the failed and unpopular party to work on these issues, but before any major concessions are made, that single phrase — “I won” — should be front and center.

…

You can find more blog and MSM reactions to Obama’s statement at Memeorandum.com.

John McCain has an uphill battle to convince voters that he and his party — who have been governing for the last eight years — aren’t responsible for the current financial crisis. But he also has a case to make, in the form of his own calls to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and of Obama’s ties to the Wall Street Democratic establishment.

With that in mind the McCain/Palin campaign released yet another ad linking an Obama ally to the Fannie Mae debacle. It is a follow up to the ad featuring Franklin Raines. Here is the latest ad starring Jim Johnson:

Of course we all remember Jim Johnson. This from the following Los Angeles Times article, Barack Obama advisor Jim Johnson quits under fire:

Jim Johnson, the former chairman of Fannie Mae who was one of three advisors tapped by Democrat Barack Obama to vet vice presidential candidates, resigned today after questions were raised about favoritism he may have received from Countrywide Financial Corp.

Insisting he had done nothing wrong, Johnson issued a statement saying that he did not want the flap over his mortgage to distract attention from Obama’s run for the presidency.

And now we stand reminded that the he was a former chairman of the housing giant, Fannie Mae, recently taken over by the feds.

The ad does however remind us that McCain warned us two year ago that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in dire trouble.

Obama has been espousing positions anathema to the left on several issues.

On Iraq, Obama said Thursday that his upcoming trip there might lead him to refine his promise to quickly remove U.S. troops from the war.

He now supports broader authority for the government’s eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, after opposing a similar bill last year.

After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia’s gun ban, the handgun-control proponent said he favors both an individual’s right to own a gun as well as government’s right to regulate ownership.

Read the rest ->

Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.

He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush’s program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.

He objected to the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, even though he has been anti-capital punishment.

Obama also said “mental distress” should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying “it has to be a serious physical issue,” addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists.

I’m sure Backtrack has flip flopped more since July 5. In fact, his choice of Joe Biden makes obvious Obama’s blatant disregard for ethical and moral integrity. We know Obama engages with the most unsavory types, as Bud White’s piece on Obama’s good buddy, Bill Ayers, reminds us, and Melissa McEwan at Shakesville minces no words about his choice of Joe Biden:

The DNC is just f**king with the press, who’s dumb enough to fall for the suggestion that Joe Fookin’ Biden is “believed to be at the top of” Obama’s veep shortlist. Because there’s no way in blue hell that Obama could be foolish enough to be seriously considering for one blinking second putting on his ticket the bankruptcy bill voting, Bush-coddling,racist, sexist asshat Biden, a consummate gaffe machine who launched his own ’08 presidential bid with a screeching dog whistle that declared Obama “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

The fabulous writers at Tennessee Guerilla Women put it like this:

Obama Picks a Bro: It’s Biden

And there goes the last chance for party unity. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the candidate who earned 18 million votes, was not even vetted. We’re sure Biden’s 200 voters are simply thrilled. The rest of us, well, just call us marginalized and invisible.

Back in the 1990s, Biden was the leader of the pack of 14 white male senators who conducted the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings. The committee of 14 men threw every sexist stereotype in the book at Anita Hill. Like Hillary, Joe Biden voted to authorize the war in Iraq, but that’s so not a problem when a bro does it.

And why does this matter to Democrats who hope the circus act in Denver will unite the party? Well, for one thing, as Rasmussen reports today, women’s opinions remain marginalized and invisible to the Obama campaign:

Women are notably less enthusiastic [about Obama's selection of Biden] than men—33% of women say Biden was the right choice while 27% disagreed. Men, by a 46% to 24% margin, said that Obama made the right choice….Just 16% of women have a Very Favorable opinion of Biden while 19% have a Very Unfavorable view. …Not surprisingly, Democrats were more supportive of Obama’s decision than anybody else—52% of those in his party agreed with his pick while 19% disagreed. However, just 43% of Democratic women said the presumptive nominee made the best pick while 23% disagreed.

The so far left that they forgot what is right wing of the Democratic party has taken a new tact. They have decided that they don’t really have a problem with swiftboating after all. Just as long as the shoe is on the other foot. And Republicans are the ones wearing it. Starting this week they are coming out in droves to paint John McCain, a decorated war hero, as a traitor and a war criminal. And gosh wouldn’t you know it, some people even posted their drivel on Barack Obama’s website.

Here’s a screenshot of one of my favorites. Change you can believe in type stuff if you ask me. Strictly new politics. No doubt about it.

And just in case you couldn’t quite make out the poster here is an enlarged view for your viewing pleasure.

You gotta figure that Obama friend and confident Bill Ayers is having wet dreams over all of this. It’s everything he has “hoped” for since he quit bombing government buildings. He is probably pulling out new American flags to stomp on as you read this.

But placing this crap on Obama’s website was just a start. A trial run you might say. The way out there and completely inappropriately titled blog Americablog took deception to a whole new level.

Some on left target McCain’s war record

“A lot of people don’t know… that McCain made a propaganda video for the enemy while he was in captivity,” wrote Americablog’s John Aravosis. “Putting that bit of disloyalty aside, what exactly is McCain’s military experience that prepares him for being commander in chief?”

“Getting shot down, tortured, and then doing propaganda for the enemy is not command experience,” Aravosis wrote in the blog post, entitled “Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?”

I seriously wonder if Mr. Aravosis has ever been tortured. And I wonder if he knows the limits as to what a person will put up with until they crack. He apparently lives in some fantasy world where he believes that people like Jack Bauer actually exist. Maybe Superman is real in Mr. Avarosis’s distorted world but for the rest of us that live in a little place called reality we know with certainty that people have limits despite what the movies tell us.

John McCain’s campaign was understandably shaken by what was said about him. After all, he came to John Kerry’s defense when people from his own party attacked his patriotism.

“The American people know that John McCain’s record of service and sacrifice is not a matter of debate. He has written about and discussed his service as a POW extensively—often in excruciating and painful detail,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. “The American people will judge harshly anyone who demeans or attacks that service.”

In fact McCain has never claimed that he did not crack under torture. He admitted it freely.

“I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine,” he later wrote.

But he later defied his captors by refusing to meet with anti-war delegations from abroad, he wrote, and also refused the most valuable special treatment he was offered: Early release.

“I did not want to go out of order,” he later wrote. He was finally released on March 14, 1973.

But far be it from the fringe left to admit that they are wrong about anything. Their solution to mistakes is to compound them. And what better place to demonstrate how far out they really are but the Huff and Puff Huffington Post.

In a Huffington Post blog, a former editor of Mother Jones magazine, Jeffrey Klein, called—in tones reminiscent of right-wing attacks on Kerry in 2004—on McCain to release elements of his Navy record that the candidate has not made available to the public or the press.

“Some of the unreleased pages in McCain’s Navy file may not reflect well upon his qualifications for the presidency,” he wrote. As to why, Klein speculated that “From day one in the Navy, McCain screwed-up again and again, only to be forgiven because his father and grandfather were four-star admirals.”

Not to be outdone Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin chimed in too. Unsatisfied just protesting the current war in Iraq, Benjamin wants to refight a war that has been over for 3 decades.

“I wouldn’t characterize anybody who fought in Vietnam as a war hero,” said Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of the theatrical anti-war group Code Pink. “In 23 bombing sorties, there must have been civilians that were killed and there’s no heroism to that.”

“Anyone who can’t look back and admit how wrong it was to be in Vietnam and be killing civilians deserves to be challenged,” she said, though she stressed that her group is more focused on McCain’s present support for the war in Iraq than on his past.

At least some on the left have a little sense left. Even after all that bad acid. Tom Hayden is one such lone dissenter.

“I know and like McCain,” Tom Hayden, a former California State Senator and prominent anti-war activist, told Politico in an email. “From my own perspective and that of many anti-war activists of that era, the fact that he bombed North Vietnam some 25 times, probably killing civilians, gets blurred with the facts that he suffered through that long prison ordeal, then also went on to promote diplomatic relations between the two countries.”

“It’s like asking a guy that served his jail term here—you’d say he’s done his time so that’s behind him,” Hayden said.

But another supporter of Barack Obama isn’t quite so forgiving. No, you might say she goes a little overboard. But lots of Cultists do that. Please notice the date on her blog. This has been up for nearly a month now. All the while Obama is calling McCain “a genuine American hero” and claiming that he is running a clean campaign. And she uses the same type of line that Jay Rockefeller used toward John McCain. Disgusting words that he had to retract immediately.

“What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground?” he asked. “He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

So this is what we have to look forward to coming from the leftist radicals that support Barack Obama. Barky can claim all the new politics nonsense he wants. And he can pretend like he is running a clean campaign. But where is his leadership when his supporters have clearly crossed over a line that we all decided back in 2004 needed to be drawn? What’s that Barky? Perhaps I need a hearing aid.

Obama’s first test: Handling Hillary

Barack Obama would like to remind you of something: He won and she didn’t. It’s about him now and not her. He has made history, and she is history.

~snip~

For someone giving indications she would like to be Obama’s running mate, Clinton was surprisingly ungracious. In fact, if you had just awakened from a (blissful) 17-month sleep, you would have thought she had won.

Earth to Roger Simon: SHE DID WIN!

According to ABC News, Hillary easily beat Obama with the Popular Vote.

Election Results

Clinton 1916 17,802,300
Obama 2154 17,501,751

Get that Roger in the tank for Obama from the start Simon? Over 300,000 more Americans supported Hillary than that Cult leader Obama. That means SHE won. In fact, if the DNC had not stolen delegates from Hillary and arbitrarily awarded imaginary delegates to Obama he wouldn’t have been able to claim anything last night. But the fix was in a long time ago Simon. You knew that all along.

Didn’t you? Because gasbags like you were part of the fix.

Damned Obamedia fix enabler.

So Simon thinks that because Hillary spoke the truth last night and honored her supporters, Obama should punish her. In other words, according to Simon, it is time for Obama to assume the role of the alpha male. Just what we have all been waiting for. Get em Barky!

Ruff! Ruff!

How about I pull my pants down and you can howl at the moon?

Or kiss my ass?

But her fighting words only increased the need for Obama to show that he can be strong, tough and in charge. Clinton’s unwillingness to recognize Obama as the victor only increased the need for Obama to act like a president and not like a doormat. And denying her a vice presidential slot may be a way of doing that.

And according to Simon, Obama is not going to be wasting his time trying to bring Hillary supporters into the fold.

It has been a hard-fought and sometimes bitter campaign, but Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting.

“I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger,” Anita Dunn said. “But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans.”

Another Obama adviser, who asked not to be identified, said that he was not worried that Clinton supporters would stay angry.

Obama seems to have adopted the Alfred E. Newman “What, Me Worry?” campaign slogan. He does look a little like ole Alfred. In fact he looks a lot like him if you think about it. Especially those ears. And a MAD candidacy is all too evident.

Then the scary stuff begins.

“At the end of the day,” he went on, “Hillary supporters will look at John McCain and decide they are not going to vote for a man who will put judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.”

I know it may come as a shock to Obama supporters but the President does not put justices on the Supreme Court. That is done by the US Senate. The same Senate now controlled by the Democrats that gave us the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts. So enough with these false boogeyman stories. They are all lies. But then again lies have been the core theme of the Obama Cult and their DNC and MSM enablers.

It is stories like these that we will all see in the coming weeks. Because the MSM (Obamedia), the DNC and the Obama Cult are going to do everything they can to minimize our importance. To them, nearly 18 million Americans that supported Hillary are inconsequential. As Hillary said of Bush, the same applies to Obama. And his political team made it very apparent last night.

To Obama we are The Invisible. He doesn’t care about us. He isn’t going to spend his time wooing us. He would rather try to make up the difference with Republicans. Now thats a Democratic party to be really proud of. Something I am sure Howard and Donna fully approve of.

Original: Today, Ben Smith of Politico.com reports that he didn’t get a chance to ask Barack Obama about his history with William Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who Larry Johnson has written about extensively here. (Could part of Smith’s problem be that “Obama stiffs, stifles national press“?)

However, intrepid reporter Smith did ask David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, about the relationship:

“Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school,” he said. “They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”

Barack Obama’s two children were born in 1998 and 2001. William Ayers’ and Bernadine Dorhn’s two children? They were born before 1981. (Then there’s another child Ayers/Dohrn raised, Chesa Boudin, who is the biological son of former Weathermen David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, and who is a Rhodes Scholar.)

Mr. Axelrod, you’re fortunate that Mr. Smith didn’t ask you any follow-up questions, and published your statement as if it were fact.

Now, Mr. Axelrod, if you’re asked again — or if by some chance some reporter gets to talk to your elusive star client candidate — what spin will you give the gullible that time?

UDPATE: This goes entirely beyond the long friendship between Ayers and Obama. This is about the Obama campaign’s LIES and SPIN to defuse, deflect, and obfuscate Obama’s history of questionable associations. It’s about their inability to TELL THE TRUTH.

I’d never say that Ben Smith is gullible. Probably when he hears about the problem with the dates and the children — and that it’s not remotely possible their “kids” go to the same school — he’ll be embarrassed? He’ll scramble to correct the record? I’m sure he’ll act post-haste.

At least, however, Ben Smith is asking questions. And there’s something to be said for that.

::::::::

By the way:

– The conservative bloggers are all over this story.

– While I was researching the facts of this, I ran across an article via Powell Books’s book reviews that I had not seen before, which describes the terrible violence of the Weathermen, as well as their elite arrogance: “Family Circle: The Boudins and the Aristocracy of the Left.”

– I’m in good company. A blogger for The Guardian noticed the problems with Ben Smith’s “interview” of David Axelrod on William Ayers. It turns out this blogger went to summer camp with Ayers’ children, and knows how old they are.

See The Guardian blog Deadline USA‘s “Obama and Bill Ayers” post.

UPDATE x2: From a friend, “It just occurred to me that today is the day that the Rezko trial is supposed to start [must check that -- today IS the day, but I think it may have been delayed, also interesting]. It’s at least likely that their campaign put that out, and threw a huge tantrum to a) distract from Hillary [and her major foreign policy address today] and the issues of healthcare and trade, b) distract cables from covering Rezko. Because, you know, if it’s a slow news day, they may run a lot of Rezko. But now, the beast has been fed, and is happy.” – SusanUnPC x2

25/2008
Statement by Maggie Williams, Campaign Manager

“Enough.

“If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him [BELOW THE FOLD] wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

“This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

“We will not be distracted.”

Right on, Maggie. Do you remember this photo in the New York Times following Bhutto’s tragic assassination? And remember the reprehensible attack from Obama/Deval Patrick media/messager provider David Axelrod following Bhutto’s murder?

Obama Campaign In Disarray? Making Political Hay Out of Bhutto Assassination?
By SusanUnPC on December 27, 2007 at 4:28 PM in Clinton, Obama, Pakistan

It’s hard to believe that Barack Obama’s campaign could be in such disarray that its campaign manager, David Axelrod, would use the tragic, horrific assassination of Benazir Bhutto to take, as CNN’s anchor just said, a “swipe” at Sen. Clinton. Writes Taylor Marsh, “The Obama campaign is in a panic. Mr. Axelrod’s reprehensible statement is meant to deflect the spotlight and rescue his candidate, because as people think about the implications of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination one thing comes to mind and it isn’t the leadership experience of Barack Obama.”

Taylor quotes The Page, which reports, “David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s top strategist, told reporters after the speech that Clinton will not benefit from a renewed conversation about foreign policy in the wake of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in Pakistan.” Clinton will not benefit? Is Axelrod so desperate he’d make a swipe like that right after Bhutto’s assassination?

In stark and relievingly somber contrast, the New York Times blog posted this new story at 1pm ET, “Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Bhutto” … READ ALL.

Then there’s what Obama goons are doing to civil rights hero John Lewis for his support of Hillary Clinton and for, so far, refusing to switch despite undue pressure:

John Lewis no longer groovy? Hutchins to oppose him
Wednesday, February 20, 2008, 02:54 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The Rev. Markel Hutchins will announce today that he’s going to oppose Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta in the Democratic primary this July, saying the civil rights icon who has represented the city in Congress for two decades is un-hip.

Hutchins, who calls himself the “next generation civil rights activist,” will make his announcement at 5:30 p.m. …

Hutchins, 30, is pitching his campaign as a generational changing of the guard and himself as the youthful face of the Hip-Hop generation, with which, he said, Lewis is out of touch. The race, he said, is a choice between “the generation that started the movement to the one poised to continue it.” …

Repug-nant behavior.

Oh, and that photo that’s causing the dust-up? Drudge, who else, has it:

NOTE that Drudge constantly links to pro-Obama stories, and to anti-Clinton stories. He got the memo from Karl et al. that they want to face Obama in the fall, and he’s only too happy to oblige — including the false smear that this came from the Clinton campaign.

NOT A SINGLE pro-Hillary blogger I know would EVER post this. It is unfair to Obama, and meritless. As Maggie Williams pointed out, this is what politicians do when they visit other countries.

Even Politico.com has now admitted that they just “assumed” it came from Clinton’s campaign. If Politico had BOTHERED to check, they’d know that this was circulating all over the rightwing blogs all weekend. Memeorandum.com had a link to all the blog stories on it — all of them rightwing blogs / none of them Clinton blogs.

And please remember that it is Obama’s campaign that tried to make political hay out of attacking Hillary Clinton on the Bhutto assassination.

And it is Obama’s campaign that is strong-arming Black Caucus members, including the civil rights hero John Lewis.