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

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

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

A major earthquake hit Sumatra:

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

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

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

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

And I have another number for you: 400. Yes, Saturday marks an inauspicious milestone. 400 is the number of Service Members who have been discharged under DADT during Obama’s Administration. 400 men and women whose lives were changed simply because of whom they love. 400 men and women who were willing to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way for us, for the U.S.A, and they have now been fired.

And here’s another number for you: $56,400. That is the average, approximate cost to train a service member for their first duty station by one estimate. $56,400 each for enlisted personnel, not officers, including when they first visit a Recruiter (these are 2006 figures, so it might be more now).

The average cost to train an officer? That number is: 120,772. If that officer happens to be a fighter pilot, you can go ahead and round that number up to: $1,450,000. Remember, these are just averages. The cost to train Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach was $25,000,000. Fehrenbach, a decorated war hero, was fired from the Air Force under DADT.

And one last number for you: 9/11. Many people in this country were moved to do some kind of service to and for their country as a result of the attacks on 9/11, GLBT people included. Obama has been pushing this huge call to Service, including on 9/11/09. Secretary Clinton gave a speech on the Commemoration of the First Annual National Day of Service And Remembrance on 9/11. Presumably, the ability to serve one’s country should be open to ALL of its citizens.

Yet today, that ability is not. As of today, 400 Americans have been told their willingness to serve their country, to put themselves in harm’s way on her behalf, is neither desired nor accepted. 400 Americans have been told that the National Day of Service does not apply to them. 400.

How about those numbers?

The readers of No Quarter understand that the Free Press is one of the institutions that helped take America from a fledgling group of colonies and in just a little over 230 years transform us into one of the great empires in history. We are also aware that that particular institution is in as deep a decline as is our nation. The two go hand in hand.

The main steam media (MSM) let all of us down in this election season and if Barack Obama is not up to the job, they will be largely responsible for helping continue the American decline that the Bush team has so skillfully worked on for the last eight years.

So today, when the Washington Post via their ombudsman admits they were a bit Pro-Obama, it does not make me feel better. The wounds are too deep for an I told you so to clot the bleeding. Nope, after reading the piece from Deborah Howell, I am just even more pissed off.

Read the story here

It’s not like this is news to us.

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board’s endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Post reporters, photographers and editors — like most of the national news media — found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain’s 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama’s battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

And the Post is not alone. Newsweek’s Meacham and Thomas admitted this week to Charley Rose they have been troubled a bit by the somewhat creepy nature of Obama’s singular being and his hold on his devoted followers. Tom Brokaw opined that he really does not know much at all about our President-elect.

Predictably, now that the man has been elected, the MSM will admit the error of their ways as a way to hedge their bets, just in case things go south. Then they can puff up their chests and say they were right all along. The problem is, no one is buying it anymore. Even many of those who have consumed copious amounts of “Barry Berry Kool Aid” admit the MSM has been in the tank from day one.

The mea culpas are too late, the damage is done. Whatever shred of credibility the MSM once had is as dead and buried as Tim Russert.

The MSM must now be looked upon for entertainment purposes only. Those interested in uncovering the truth must look elsewhere. You can look around the net, there is a lot out there, but who knows what to trust? You can stick with us at No Quarter, our resources are meager, we have but time and our hearts to give, but we will be keep digging. We won’t get everything right, but we will keep an open mind and look at both sides of everything.

Most importantly do not keep your beliefs to yourself. Citizen silence can kill great nations. Keep spreading the word. Door to door, e-mail to e-mail, blog to blog. It is the only way to combat a free press that is no longer free.

“The Associated Press is wrong,” Palin said. “The comments are about an association that has been known but hasn’t been talked about, and I think it’s fair to talk about where Barack Obama kicked off his political career, in the guy’s living room.”

========================================

Douglass K. Daniel of the Associated Press is not a journalist; he is a venal operative who serves as mindless stenographer of the Obama campaign. Let us read the article he filed today at 10:43 am EST in full, beginning with its slanderous title. A revised version is available at this URL.

I quote paid pamphleteer Douglass K. Daniel with embedded commentary:

Analysis: Palin’s words carry racial tinge

[This is not "analysis;" this is a tendentious misinterpretation of Palin's words. And besides, what is a "racial tinge?" Does everything have a racial tinge? Should we brace ourselves for another Bob Herbert moment? ]

WASHINGTON (AP) – By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign.
And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

[Sarah Palin's discussion of Obama's deep and controversial ties to Bill Ayers is not "unsubstantiated," and it is certainly not an "attack." Indeed, she offers a factual analysis of the available data, data Steve Diamond and others have made available to readers of No Quarter. And nothing about Sarah Palin's words contain a "racially tinged subtext," unless, of course, you are a compromised journalist who must project racism on everything you encounter in order to repress the racist impulses you compulsively disavow in your vain attempt to conceal your racism. I challenge Douglass K. Daniel to cite one sentence Sarah Palin utters that mentions or even alludes to race. Too bad he will fail, as she does not mention Obama's race at all.]

First, Palin’s attack shows that her energetic debate with rival Joe Biden may be just the beginning, not the end, of a sharpened role in the battle to win the presidency.

[Yes, this is just the beginning. Besides, she is a Vice Presidential candidate, and O'Biden, to be sure, has been waging a very negative campaign against John McCain.]

“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,” Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain’s ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

Her reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

[I refer Obamabot Douglass K. Daniel again to the work of Steve Diamond and others at No Quarter on Bill Ayers and Barack Obama. And yes, Douglass, friends tend to hold political fundraisers for friends, especially when those friends were engaged in philanthropic projects since 1988. And no, Douglass, a discussion of the facts is not a "smear." Go "fight the smears" at an Obama campaign office and not in the office of the Associated Press.]

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has denounced Ayers’ radical views and actions.

[Thank you for repeating the prevarication Obama uttered during the Philadelphia debate when questioned about his relationship with Ayers by ABC News, Douglass.

Did the Obama campaign send you this statement in a memo you read before typing the article? ]

With her criticism, Palin is taking on the running mate’s traditional role of attacker, said Rich Galen, a Republican strategist.

[Yes, she is, and that is perfectly acceptable.]

“There appears to be a newfound sense of confidence in Sarah Palin as a candidate, given her performance the other night,” Galen said. “I think that they are comfortable enough with her now that she’s got the standing with the electorate to take off after Obama.”

Second, Palin’s incendiary charge draws media and voter attention away from the worsening economy. It also comes after McCain supported a pork-laden Wall Street bailout plan in spite of conservative anger and his own misgivings.

[Nothing about her charge is "incendiary." Incendiary are the acts of Bill Ayers. Incendiary, properly speaking, is bill Ayers. Incendiary is a person who commits arson or a person who incites sedition. And an incendiary agent is usually a bomb. Bill Ayers is the one who incited sedition with his bombs. Read the reports, and learn the English language. And no, this is not a distraction, unless, of course, you are an Obamabot who only views discussions of the economy as tried and true manners whereby voters in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota can be terrorized into voting for candidates who refer to them as bitter and xenophobic. And by the way, Obama also voted for the bill you characterize as a "pork-laden Wall Street bailout." But thank you for reiterating all the claims made in the memo you received from the Obama campaign.]

“It’s a giant changing of the subject,” said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. “The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don’t send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don’t take Sarah Palin seriously.”

[Thank you for revealing that all Democratic operatives must resort to sexism and misogyny when referring to Sarah Palin, Jenny Backus. Perhaps you are jealous of Sarah. Or perhaps you are just another mindless Obamabot. And by the way, it was Ayers who threw "fire bombs," not Sarah Palin.]

The larger purpose behind Palin’s broadside is to reintroduce the question of Obama’s associations. Millions of voters, many of them open to being swayed to one side or the other, are starting to pay attention to an election a month away.

For the McCain campaign, that makes Obama’s ties to Ayers as well as convicted felon Antoin “Tony” Rezko and the controversial minister Jeremiah Wright ripe for renewed criticism. And Palin brings a fresh voice to the argument.

[Yes, she does. And why is it that you and your colleagues refuse to discuss any of this, Douglass? Why must we repeat this again and again? Are you simply derelict in your duties as journalist, or do we have to send you memos you can simply reproduce in Sunday news articles in order for us to finally convince the traditional media to discuss Obama's problematic affiliations? You have time to accuse Sarah Palin of racism, but somehow you do not have time to investigate Obama's ties to Rezko. I guess you have priorities.]

Effective character attacks have come earlier in campaigns. In June 1988, Republican George H.W. Bush criticized Democrat Michael Dukakis over the furlough granted to Willie Horton, a convicted murderer who then raped a woman and stabbed her companion. Related TV ads followed in September and October.

“The four weeks that are left are an eternity. There’s plenty of time in the campaign,” said Republican strategist Joe Gaylord. “I think it is a legitimate strategy to talk about Obama and to talk about his background and who he pals around with.”

[Because Obama's deep and controversial ties to Ayers are demonstrable, Palin's discussion of that relationship will be effective. To try to compare Palin's desire to analyze the record with the advertisements of the Swift Boat veterans reveals once again that you are simply regurgitating the bilge submitted to you by the Obama campaign. Those ads were false, while Palin's discussion of Obama is based on rigorous research. And no, these are not "attacks;" these are facts to be considered. Or is any attempt to vet Barack Obama a "smear" and an "attack?"]

Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?

[And what evidence do you have that "Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism?" Quote someone who attended Palin's event, please. Or cite a specific passage from Palin's speech in which overt racism is couched in metaphorical terms. Because you lack evidence for this slanderous claim, I recommend you strike it from the article. And no, a predominantly white audience does not serve as evidence for racism.]

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

[While Americans may or may not visualize terrorists as swarthy, this has no bearing on Sarah Palin' words. Besides, she is not responsible for Obama's Muslim problem. And regarding Obama's status as a "Hawaiian-born Christian," I refer you to this document. And by the way, Palin stated Obama does not share the audience's version of patriotism; nowhere did she state that he "is not like us" as a result of his appearance. I recommend you read and reread the transcript of her speech until its full import and significance is comprehended. And no, I will not hold my breath.]

Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain’s purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright’s sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America’s promise to treat all people equally.

[Obama and his wife Michelle Obama are largely responsible for inserting the politics of race into the Presidential campaign. Just read these articles, Douglass K. Daniel. And no, Americans did not react adversely to Wright and Father Pfleger as a result of "unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally;" they recoiled when they discovered that Obama aided and abetted the activities of a man who damned America, claimed America deserved to experience 911 and claimed white politicians could never empathize with African-Americans. Exacerbating racial tensions in order to benefit Barack Obama, Reverend Wright alienated white voters who would have otherwise embraced Barack Obama. And please do not tell me that Father Pfleger helped us resolve America's legacy of race with these statement he made in the God Damn AmeriKKKa church in inner city Chicago:

And please explain how Obama's use of the phrase "typical white person" helped heal racial divides.]

John McCain occasionally looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol.

[And what relevance does this have to Sarah Palin's discussion of Obama's ties to Bill Ayers? Or did the Obama campaign ask you to cite this in the article? We know Obamabot Jonathan Alter mentioned everything you cite in this paragraph on Charlie Rose's 11 SEPT 2008 television program. Will the Obama campaign issue a memo accusing McCain of racism that rivals the one they issued about the Clintons during the South Carolina primary? Will anyone mention how that exacerbated racial tensions, or will we excuse it as a result of Obama's putative racial status?]

When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more so if he wins.

[In other words, McCain will only win as a result of racism. Thank you once again for repeating what you and many other news organizations have been repeating in their vain attempt to coerce voters with allegations of racism. And yes, your latest article is just another installment of this endless series of racial blackmail you and other journalists are deploying on behalf of the flawed candidate you shamelessly support.]

==============================

Contact the AP, and ask them to retract the article and to issue an apology to Sarah Palin. Also ask them to fire Douglass K. Daniel immediately. One may write Douglass K. Daniel at ddaniel@ap.org, and one may contact his editors at info@ap.org

==============================

Reaction to Douglass K. Daniel’s yellow journalism can be tracked at Memeorandum.

This is what the AP had to say just 33 minutes after the 1st part of the ABC interview ended:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally. “We will not repeat a Cold War,” Palin said in her first television interview since becoming Republican John McCain’s vice presidential running mate two weeks ago. Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News that she’d favor including Georgia and Ukraine, both former Soviet republics, in NATO despite opposition by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: “Perhaps so.”

More misinformation on the part of the media. Palin did not leave open the option of going to war with Russia. What she showed was her knowledge of our contract with North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Our contract with NATO is part and parcel of the history of NATO.

I am about to give the AP a lesson on our contract with NATO. I am supporting Palin’s knowledge of NATO. She did her homework, I don’t believe for a minute that she was force fed this “history” lesson by the McCain camp. Palin has shown she is a quick study.

Here is the history of NATO from Wikipedia:

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union’s Defence Organization in September 1948.[6] However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on 4 April 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Support for the Treaty was not unanimous; Iceland suffered an anti-NATO riot in March 1949 which may have been Communist-inspired. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.

“The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response must include military action. It is however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the article limits the organization’s scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement.

As you can see Palin understands our requirements under NATO agreements made back in 1949.

After the September 11th attacks one article that had never been invoked before was invoked. The scope of the loss at The Twin Towers was international, we lost people from our country and people from other countries. Article 5 in short says the following:

The September 11 attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[20] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included : Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour. Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. It began on October 4, 2001.

NATO has changed quite a bit since 1949. It has been used outside Europe and North America, most notably in Afghanistan. The membership has changed as well over the years but we are still by treaty with NATO required to fulfill certain duties. That was the point Governor Sarah Palin was trying to drive home. Palin was spot on with her assessment. If Georgia was a member of NATO, we would be required to do defend Georgia against an attack by another country like Russia by treaty, a 60 year old treaty. And for no other reason. Palin never said implicitly or overtly that we would go to war with Russia.

It is my sincere wish that the media report on facts not on innuendo. AP is making a false charge here. If their reporting was factual in full, they would have stated that we would be required to stand up for Georgia if they were a member of NATO by treaty! Alas once again AP wants us to see one thing in print, directly influencing the presidential campaigns and polling data.

The AP should be ashamed!

Obama’s choice of Joe Biden, I suspect, will go down as one of worst political decisions in recent memory. John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin will be remembered as one of the best.

Biden reinforces Obama’s worst traits: egoism, verbosity, elitism, and D.C.-insider status.

Palin, of course, reminds us of the best of McCain: fresh, unconventional, funny, and willing to battle the D.C. insiders.

Like John F. Kennedy, Obama was suppose to represent a new generation of leadership. But Biden is a dead weight on Obama; he entered the senate before much of Obama’s base was born.

Some argue that Biden, like Lyndon Johnson, brings gravitas to the ticket. Douglas Schoen is of this opinion. He writes:

Witness the single biggest decision that Obama has made thus far: choosing Joe Biden as his running mate. The pick helped squelch concerns about Obama’s perceived lack of experience and foreign policy savvy. More importantly, it signaled to moderates that when it matters, Obama makes sensible, pragmatic choices.

What Schoen fails to note is that this is a change election. Americans aren’t looking for the presidential candidate to supplement his credentials with a Washington insider, they are looking for attainable solutions for our economic woes and a smart exit strategy from Iraq.

Biden only emphasizes Obama’s weakness on foreign affairs, and he fails to bring Obama any electoral votes. Although it’s often stated that the Daley machine won the election for Kennedy in Illinois, it was actually Lyndon Johnson who guaranteed Texas for Kennedy and thus the election. Even if Kennedy lost Illinois, he would still have become president. Biden, unlike Johnson, doesn’t heal the Party’s divisions nor does he bring votes.

John F. Kennedy, in contrast to Obama, was not new to national service. Beginning as a lieutenant in the Navy during World War II and then by election to the Congress and Senate, Kennedy served his country for 17 years prior to running for president. Although Kennedy at 42 was younger than Obama’s 47, he was considered an expert on foreign affairs, authoring a book on pre-War England, traveling widely, and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kennedy offered himself as a fully-formed presidential candidate. Kennedy did not require Johnson’s résumé in order to sell himself to the country. Johnson signaled geographical and ideological balance, and a concession that Johnson was a real threat to Kennedy during the real balloting at the convention in Los Angeles. Kennedy finished with 806 delegates to Johnson’s 409, a far bigger spread that the Obama/Clinton contest.

What Johnson did for Kennedy was to unite two factious sides of the Democratic Party, the liberals and the southern Democrats. Obama’s failure to select Hillary as V.P. only increased the division in the Party, and it gave McCain an opening.

This opening has allowed McCain to completely dominate the narrative for nearly two weeks. Not all the conversation is positive, of course, but it doesn’t need to be; Obama’s message is being drowned out.

Although I ignore Dick Morris when he speaks about the Clintons, his Machiavellian view of politics is often worth listening to closely. Here’s Morris on Palin and women:

Anecdotal evidence already suggests that women may have a gut reaction to the establishment’s sexist assault on a woman candidate – and flock to McCain. They’ve seen him stake everything on this one big move of turning toward a woman – in direct contrast to Obama’s deliberate decision not to name a woman.

They’ve seen the media and Democrats gang up on her and do their worst. And they’ve seen Palin stand up and stuff the challenge right back down the establishment’s throat. All this may have created an entirely new dynamic in the race.

Recent polling data is confirming Morris’ prediction:

An ABC News-Washington Post survey showed white women have moved from backing Obama by 8 points to supporting McCain by 12 points, with majorities viewing Palin favorably and saying she boosts their faith in McCain’s decisions.

For many women, I believe, Obama-Biden represents the worst of the boys club and McCain-Palin have become the agents of change. The vicious attacks on Palin only reinforces this narrative. Valentine Bonnaire captures the revulsion many women feel towards the Obama-Biden-DNC sexist club:

We don’t like your ticket, BOYZ. And we’ll unpack why, now. To watch you SQUIRM. Your ticket represents every man who ever groped us, whoever abandoned us, whoever BROKE our fragile FEMALE HEART, whoever BEAT US UP, whoever hurt ONE OF OUR GIRLFRIENDS, OUR BEST FRIENDS — Oh, I could go on

Instead of making a peace offering to women by picking Hillary, Obama is now in the position of attacking another woman candidate. It’s starting to look like a pattern. The headline today from the Associated Press, written by Nedra Pickler, is “Obama puts heat on Palin as she boosts GOP ticket.” She writes:

Obama said last week’s Republican National Convention did a good job of highlighting Palin’s biography — “Mother, governor, moose shooter. That’s cool,” he said. But he said Palin really is just another Republican politician, one who is stretching the truth about her record.

“When John McCain gets up there with Sarah Palin and says, `We’re for change,’ … what are they talking about?” Obama said Monday. (emphasis added)

Obama’s use of the pedestrian “cool” is meant to assure us that he is unfazed by Palin, but his need to sound unconcerned makes the desperation almost palpable. Obama is now running against Palin. He doesn’t have a choice. Obama is hemorrhaging women voters. He must stop the bleeding, but his attacks on her only serve to diminish him. Palin has become Obama’s opponent, and his attacks on her inexperience only remind voters of his own inexperience and, even worse, they remind women of what he and his supporters did to Hillary. The attacks on Palin, a woman friend told me today, are beginning to feel like personal attacks on all women.

Instead of having two political giants like Kennedy and Johnson, we have three candidates for vice president, of which Palin is the best, and McCain is reaping the benefit.

if we pull out a 4% spread on election day, I’ll be very pleasantly surprised. It’s much more likely that we are going to see the same result as in ‘04 and ‘06, a tie or 2% lead. That’s it.

A tied race is particularly bad place for Obama. The Obama campaign planned on putting McCain on the defensive in Western states and overwhelming him with money in the key battleground states. The selection of Palin will probably nullify any Obama inroads in the West and the Republicans are suddendly at financial parity with Obama. Bloomberg News reports:

With an increase in fundraising following McCain’s choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Republicans say they are no longer in danger of being swamped by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s campaign cash.

“The money game is essentially off the table now,” said Eddie Mahe, a former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

In addition to the financial boon brought on by Palin, the attempted swiftboating of Alaska’s governor has created a situation where the public overwhelming perceives the media as being biased for Obama. Armstrong suggests that the attacks on Palin will actually strengthened McCain:

The media has been busy digging a grave for us this past week, by following up on the vicious personal smears that have been pushed by prominent liberal blogs into the mainstream. Not only did they mostly backfire by not being true, but they confirmed the popular opinion that the media favors Obama. It’s become conventional wisdom. This presents two huge problems.

First, McCain can basically wield whatever attacks he’d like, and not have to worry about the critique of the media. They are not seen as objective judges in the matter.

Second, the only way that the media can change this public opinion is to go overboard the other way, by attacking Barack Obama with multiple feeding frenzies.

To date, the media has been unwilling to investigate or critique Obama, so a feeding frenzy is unlikely; there’s nothing to suggest that this will change. The public’s understanding of this bias gives McCain the opportunity to define Obama and link him to the media’s elitism and the D.C.-establishment culture. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden makes McCain’s task much easier. McCain/Palin now own the Change narrative. As Bob Somerby says:

That “maverick” narrative is deeply entrenched—and this planet is driven by narrative. (If we might borrow a bit from Lord Russell: It’s novels, all the way down.)

The Associated Press is reporting that Palin’s speech (and perhaps McCain’s as well) was viewed by more viewers than Obama’s, and her critiques of Obama appear to be taking a toll on the Democratic nominee. Obama seems rattled and is now defending his mysterious work as a “community organizer.” Carolyn Lockhead of the SF Chronicle (h/t Paul Villareal) writes:

Sen. Barack Obama ditched his normal languid cool today, punching back at Gov. Sarah Palin as he spoke with reporters in York, Pa, hotly defending his work as a community organizer. He said he assumes Palin “wants to be treated same way guys want to be treated, which means their records are under scrutinty [sic]. I’ve been through this for 19 months. She’s been through it, what four days?” (emphasis added)

Lockhead seems to be approving of Obama as the political pugilist, as Obama “punches” at his rival’s VP pick. Instead, by saying that Palin “wants to be treated same way guys want to be treated,” Obama is drawing attention to her gender and implying that if she complains of his tactics that she’s not as tough as the “guys.” This is classic Obama sexism: it’s the condescending put-down meant to disempower his female opponent by playing into stereotypes.

In the next sentence, however, Obama comes across as defensive:

Obama’s hackles were clearly raised by Palin’s dismissal of his community organizing –a response to his earlier dismissal of her record as a small-town mayor. “Why would that kind of work be ridiculed?” Obama said. “Who are they fighting for?” The idea that community organizing is not relevant to the presidency, he said, just shows why Republicans “are out of touch and don’t get it.”

The McCain Team should be wary of a cornered Obama. In a similar situation in January, on the heels of back-to-back defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama, sensing defeat, began to sound rattled. In a column titled “Now or Never,” David Broder described Obama’s desperation in psychological terms:

But all that is down the road from South Carolina. For now, Clinton and her husband, the former president, have gotten inside Obama’s head and rattled his composure. Obama seemed unusually defensive in his speech here Sunday evening, launching the final burst of campaigning in the state

Obama’s firewall in South Carolina, as has been well-documented, was the despicable use of racial politics against the Clintons.

McCain’s selection of Palin has shifted the narrative of this race away from Obama’s Hope message and back to the familiar Marverick narrative. While McCain/Palin own Change, Obama/Biden are the verbose Washington insiders. Independents and women voters are swinging back to McCain, and the electoral map projections will change the “inevitable” narrative. The McCain Team should be wary. In times like these, when Obama is feeling down, he lashes out.

No Quarter’s Bud White had a fascinating conversation with Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of The Denver Group. It turns out that Mr. White is a real pro (sort of a likeable and more intelligent Charlie Rose) and starts he things off with:

“Keeping the Democratic Party democratic.” That’s the motto of the newly formed The Denver Group. The Denver Group’s stated goal is an open, Democratic convention, with Hillary’s name on the ballot.

Their Web site says:
“To deny Senator Clinton a rightful place on the ballot in an attempt to foster a false image of party unity based on unofficial declarations by super delegates. It will fool no one and only create more disunity. It is in everyone’s best interest, especially the Democratic Party and its chances in November, to hold an open and honest convention.”

****

We’re joined this evening by the founders of The Denver Group, Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin. Good evening to both of you. Thanks for joining us…

Please take a listen and we would love to hear your thoughts on this show.

The interview runs 1 hour and 10 minutes.
-FEC recognized 527 group.
-They want to make ads to be shown in the mass media.
-They want to make sure the Democratic party stays democratic.
-They want a fair and open convention.
-Please contribute money to help this cause; $5.00–$5,000; whatever you can do.
You can visit The Denver Group at http://thedenvergroup.blogspot.com
Heidi Li Feldman’s personal blog is Heidi Li’s Potpourri at http://heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com/
Marc Rubin’s blog is Tom In Paine at http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/
No Quarter is http://noquarterusa.net

"Soon after I had published the pamphlet `Common Sense’ in America I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion.   

"The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed those subjects could not be."

That said, I’m more than a bit surprised that Sen. Barack Obama seems to be proposing less (rather than more) separation between church and state.  Yesterday, the God-O-Meter blog reported:

"Faith without works, they say, is dead–and that faith without
conservative social positions shouldn’t be enough to win the hearts of values voters.

"That’s why Obama’s announcement today about wanting to expand President Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives into what he’s calling a President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, is so significant. Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he’s being so bold as to criticize Bush’s faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to
churches and other faith-based groups.

"In effect, he’s out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President’s specialty areas–connecting faith and public policy." (God-O-Meter)

Well, Sen. Obama did promise "change," and outspending President Bush on faith-based initiatives technically would constitute a change.

But is this the type of change that most Obama supporters can truly get behind and believe in — especially on the heels of Sen. Obama’s reversal on NAFTA and FISA?

Claims that Sen. Obama has taken a sudden leap to the faith-based-initiative path would be too bizarre for me to believe, if the Associated Press hadn’t run a similar story.  But the AP did run such a story yesterday. 

I’m not quoting it or linking to it, because the AP has publicly stated that it doesn’t like being quoted by bloggers who don’t pay for the privilege.  Fine.  The AP will, as a result of my respecting its preferences, get less traffic.

Back to my point: for years, Sen. Obama has taught constitutional law.  Presumably, he  understands our Constitution’s First Amendment, which is where our Founding Fathers inserted the “The Establishment Clause” — what we now shorthand as "The Separation of Church and State."

Of course it probably never occurred to him to just tell the truth. Or maybe to present documents that any other politician would have readily available. No, Obama decided that he would rather just create another shrine to his mythos and created a website specifically set up to set the record straight.

Most of us were cool with the idea even though we might have snickered a little bit privately. And if that was the end to it perhaps we would have moved on. But little did we know that this was only the beginning of a clearly well thought out strategy to taper the message and the image that Obama projects.

He decided that we weren’t going to be witness to the truth. Instead we would be fed neatly packaged tidbits of information that the campaign would emit when they felt the right time to unveil what they consider the latest truth from the Master.

Many political parties of the past have created their Ministries of Propaganda which is exactly what this really is. Typically they are created by regimes that have no interest in freedom of expression. And I suppose that if we were really paying attention to what is going on right now it would give us a strong indication of the type of regime Obama would like to impose upon the rest of us.

Fortunately some are paying attention. And it would be wise for us all to pay attention to what they say. The International Herald Tribune provides just that insight.

Obama’s campaign tightens control of image and access

The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit. And on Wednesday, the campaign orchestrated Michelle Obama’s appearance on the friendly set of “The View” and a flattering spread in the pages of Us Weekly.

Barring cameras from meetings? Refusing to provide names of people in meetings? These actions are reminiscent of previous actions by, as it so happens, one of Obama’s relatives. No one other than Dead Shot Dick Cheney. Not exactly the most shining perfect example of a respecter of the democratic process.

Of course Obama always admitted that he was a post partisan working across the aisle kind of guy. But we kind of hoped that he meant he was willing to work with people, not become one of them. So much for the new politics.

Michelle Obama’s part in all of this is stunning. Barack has decided that his Finally Proud wife needs a good going over. You might notice the more elegant clothing, references to her as Michelle O and an appearance on The View to make her appear to be just like you and me. Not only that, she has a speech writer that is creating the impression that she comes from very humble origins. Damned shame she seems to have forgotten them.

Michelle Obama to get subtle makeover

Now her husband’s presidential campaign is giving her image a subtle makeover, with a new speech in the works to emphasize her humble roots and a tough new chief of staff. On Wednesday, Michelle Obama will do a guest turn on “The View,” the daytime talk show on ABC, with an eye toward softening her reputation.

Geez… the lengths these folks go to bamboozle the rest of us is amazing.

But back to Barack!

As I reported yesterday, some of this tightly crafted messaging is backfiring. The women that were banned from appearing with Obama because they wore headscarves surely weren’t very pleased. Being told that the “political climate” did not make it advantageous for Obama to be seen appearing with Muslim women didn’t go over very well.

That’s the problem with propaganda politicians. They are stuck in a carefully crafted image that doesn’t take into account anything real, only the perception of reality. It is an image of cowardice that a politician hides behind. Because face it, anyone with an ounce of leadership and courage would have embraced ANY American that loved this country. Especially someone seeking to become President.

While the strategy has won compliments from political professionals of both parties, who say Barack Obama’s campaign is exhibiting a high level of discipline, it has also created some early turbulence for a candidate who has run on promises of openness and cultivated a grass-roots following and a cottage industry of homemade campaign videos, memorabilia and street murals.

Obama’s campaign is making a transition typical of any newly minted presidential nominee preparing for a general election race. It mirrors the stagecraft once so successfully practiced by the campaigns of President George W. Bush to the envy — and, sometimes, anger — of Democrats.

So Obama is not only emulating his cousin Dick which is somewhat understandable considering they are actual kin. Nope, not satisfied being like one Neocon, Obama took a page right out of W’s campaign and has resorted to pretending to be competent just like Shrub. I wonder where he is hiding the Mission Accomplished sign?

But not everyone is pleased with the “new” Obama. And even more are becoming outraged because the “reasons” for why Obama must maintain his cloak of secrecy and control keep changing. Take for instance photographers.

In spirited discussions with reporters barred from Monday’s meeting with African-American civic leaders, aides said that no cameras were allowed because the participants wanted the meeting to be private, even though it was announced on the daily hotel roster of events. Later, other aides said the lighting was not properly set up for television quality.

Get that? First it was because it was supposed to be a private meeting (even though it was announced publicly). Then it was because the lighting was bad. Conflicting excuses anyone?

As someone that spent a great deal of my youth in the country I can tell you without hesitation that I can smell bullshit a mile away. And folks this IS bullshit. ANY professional photographer can MAKE lighting look just right even in the worst of conditions. They have the equipment. That is why they are called professionals.

And if pissing off photographers wasn’t enough, Obama decided a few weeks ago to piss off the whole press corp. All in the name of protecting his image it seems.

Tensions between Obama’s campaign and the news media broke into full view when aides announced two weeks ago that he was flying to Chicago but then sent his plane — and traveling press corps — there while he stayed in Washington to meet with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And the press? Well, they weren’t happy at all. And they let Obama know it forcefully.

The bureau chiefs of the major television news networks and The Associated Press wrote Obama’s top aides a stern letter on June 6, saying, “There are many ways in a campaign to control your message and conduct private meetings that do not involve deceiving the press corps.” The letter continued, “Going forward, we know from experience that covering a presidential campaign requires that some representatives of the press corps be with, or near, the senator at all times as part of the ’security package,’ just as the White House press corps is with the president.”

After 7 1/2 years of hell under George Bush one would think that the Democratic party would at least understand the need for openness and transparency. But I guess if they really understood that they wouldn’t have stolen this election away from Hillary and lined up on the side of the candidate 9 out of 10 thugs approve of, Barack Obama.

Who knows how far Obama will go in crafting this image that he supposedly stands for. But from where I sit what he is offering is something we don’t need. No matter how pretty the bow is that he puts on the package.