I tried for months to find people willing to lace into her. None would, not even politicians and TV blowhards who had once catalogued her distortions and dined out on despising her.

Her distortions? More on that later. Despite Alter suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, he offers Hillary many compliments although you can swear you hear him grinding his teeth as you read them. He notes Hillary’s punishing pace, mastery of the issues and largely successful efforts to revitalize and empower the State Department and USAID, in this her ninth year as “America’s most admired woman.”

The article is a tome and I kept digging to find his endgame. While he elevates Hillary from the old label of inconvenient harpy, he describes her as Obama’s “supplicant” — something that brings joy to Alter’s sexist heart, I’m sure. He at all times paints President Obama as her intellectual equal and even superior, all evidence to the contrary.

Alter refers to Bill Clinton as “needy” and avers that Hillary and Obama have a great deal in common in the “discipline department.” Given President Obama’s 65 golf outings in two years, preoccupation with choosing the NCAA final four and obsessing over blogger websites, Alter’s comparison is a bit odd. The horrible botching of the bin Laden SEAL mission narrative indicates a White House that is amateur hour. Secretary Clinton had nothing to do with that one.

Even Alter must acknowledge her staff tells it like it is:

[A]ides complain that Hillary’s creative ideas are often stymied by an inexperienced White House that doesn’t understand the role of drama and stagecraft in diplomacy. They say that Hillary is the daring, decisive risktaker, while the president is hampered by slow reflexes and an overly cautious and unimaginative approach…
and…
It is “Hillary [who] has long wanted the president to do more outreach to heads of state.”

Having been in the WH since 1993, she understands the value of this better than Obama ever could.

According to Alter, Obama is a noble if reluctant warrior and Hillary is occasionally out of the loop and power structure, taking orders from her omniscient master. Yet the likely truth is that Obama’s “supplicant” must regularly school a neophyte with naive ideas about foreign policy –a man who has carved out a career peppered with vacillation and foot-dragging. Alter states:

Even as she navigates these choppy waters, Hillary’s own vessel is solid and surprisingly leakproof. One of the least-noticed changes in American public life is how she has been transformed from a subject of constant gossip and calumny into a figure of consequence and little controversy. There are structural reasons: secretaries of state always exist in a zone slightly above grubby politics, which is meant—in theory, at least—to stop at the water’s edge. The right-wing attack machine can apparently concentrate only on one or two villains at a time, and since 2008, it has been Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s turn in the barrel, not Hillary’s.

Fib much? How about the left wing attack machine that tried to rip Hillary limb from limb daily? Millions have still not forgotten that one. President Obama would wilt like a hothouse flower if he had endured one tenth the vitriol Hillary has received from both sides these past twenty years. Alter also complains of her guarded nature with reporters but having been burned by people like him in the past, who can blame her.

As a counterpoint to Alter’s portrait, I encourage you to read her exclusive interview with Jeff Goldberg of The Atlantic, The Chinese System is Doomed, Leaders on a Fool’s Errand, as she discusses the Middle East, China, the motives behind some of her questionable descriptions of certain leaders, our need for a new civilian driven statecraft and the Israel-Palestine conflict. Her candor is much in evidence, indicating it is Alter (and his ilk) whom she does not consider trustworthy. She is more than willing to share in depth information where she suspects she will get a fair hearing. Goldberg indicates he thinks she is the best to broker a peace in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and there are few people who would be trusted more than she. I’ll have more on that in a later post.

Back to Alter for more teeth gnashing, where he also obliquely admits she would have been much better and more strategic in dealing with Republicans in Congress than Obama:

When budget season arrived this year and the departments all faced drastic cuts, Hillary used a Cabinet meeting to offer tips on how to avoid making cuts that would affect vulnerable people—children, the elderly—and look bad politically. (She recalled that Newt Gingrich’s effort to slash the school-lunch program, which put Gingrich on the defensive, was the real turning point in the 1995 budget debate.) Several second-tier Cabinet members thought it one of the most useful White House meetings they had ever attended.

Alter points out “[Obama] knows that she represents the United States better than anyone but him and is—to the surprise of many Obama veterans—refreshingly low-maintenance.” How about no maintenance. She represents our country with gravitas, optimism and a clearly unapologetic tone. Now that is refreshing.

While Clinton is always careful to respect the chain of command, her larger purpose is to rebuild our standing and further our interests – and the interest of women and girls globally. Her philosophy is her own and not derived from the man to whom she is “supplicant”. This makes mincemeat of the argument that she is working to forward Obama’s “agenda.” She is working to progress America. While her loyalty as an operative is without question, her goals transcend who happens to be in the oval office. One of her agendas is the importance of maintaining internet freedom, a subject she has spoken about loudly and repeatedly.

Alter shares a picture of a highly capable, hands-on chief executive. A no frills, dogged operative and loyal friend:

“The secretary runs a brisk, no-nonsense meeting.”

“She’s looking at the guts of how we work,” says Dr. Raj Shah, who runs USAID.”

“Hillary prides herself on sweating the small stuff, too. She’s big on feedback—an intranet “Secretary’s Sounding Board” is bringing the suggestion box into the modern age. She gets high marks from the high-tech community for “21st-century statecraft.”

Hillary draws a distinction between focusing on relations with governments (the locus of diplomacy for hundreds of years) and stimulating change in societies, where the results are less controllable but ultimately more profound. She clearly wants to try both at once…

Alter even discusses how sturdy she is physically – aging well, wearing well and turning out to be sweeter than the idiots in the media have pretended all these years. He compliments her “good skin” and the great genes she inherited from her still healthy 92-year-old mother.

Really, Jonathan? Um. Okay.

Alter avers:

All of this is relevant politically because it means that in 2016, when she’s 68, she is unlikely to be written off as too old to run for president. …. In 2016, the Democrats are unlikely to have anyone better or more acceptable to different parts of the party.

…The nearer-term options are far-fetched.

You hope, Jon-o…

Aah, now we come to it. Here is the read-between-the-lines money line: WAIT HILLARY – DON’T RUN NOW…WE ARE TEEING YOU UP FOR 2016.

And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. I can assure, Alter would be no more trustworthy to cover her fairly in 2016 than he was in 2008.

Still, it was nice to see him feasting on a big crow sandwich.

What say you?

Former Sen. Russ Feingold and progressive group MoveOn today called on General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt to resign from the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in the wake of a report that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits – including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations – GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

They also expressed anger over the fact that the company has cut its U.S. workforce by roughly one fifth since 2002.

“How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?” Feingold asked in an email to supporters, as The Hill reports. “And under Immelt’s direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes.”

MoveOn asked its members to sign a petition calling on Immelt to leave the administration, and Executive Director Justin Ruben called G.E.’s tax status “outrageous.”

“At a time when many in Washington, including the President, are worried about our nation’s deficit we should be punishing–not rewarding–companies like GE who are robbing the US Government and taxpayers of billions of dollars,” he said in a statement. “This sort of bad corporate behavior should not be rewarded with a top White House appointment.”

Why did it take the honorable Mr. Feingold so long to notice? Please forgive my cynicism but it is quite apparent that most politicians no longer speak out to help the American people – they speak out to help themselves. If indeed he does have a mind to challenge Barack Obama for the nomination in 2012, this is awfully good timing to start noticing corruption that was all too apparent to the rest of us three years ago.

Ironically, CBS also reports that President Obama has lambasted the very tax loopholes that companies like GE take advantage of. So are you telling me he is not aware of this contradiction?

The only people not aware are the ones who don’t follow the news closely enough to know the President is railing against the very people he has been helping all along. There seems to be a current bent to punish small businesses who create the bulk of jobs in this country in favor of crony capitalism and powerful über companies who wield far too much political influence as it is.

By the way, during 2008, GE owned NBC/MSNBC and also owned Newsweek. These are three organizations that morning, noon and night posted grossly favorable press to Mr. Obama in 2008 while trashing his primary opponent Hillary Clinton with a zest not before seen. That’s quite the coincidence…

MoveOn was so busy denigrating Hillary and trumpeting Obama beyond all sense, I suppose they did not notice the coincidence either. Did they not think there would be some sort of quid pro quo?

And if President Obama finally notices the “coincidence,” you can be sure he will not throw Immelt under the bus unless and until it is politically advantageous to do so.

While I have had reason to fault Newsweek in the past for their biased coverage negating qualified female political candidates, it is ironic that in the reinvented Newsweek, a complimentary cover story about Hillary Clinton gets trashed by Shafer. He derides Clinton as the “Queen of Cold.” With one turn of phrase, she is dismissed. Her accomplishments, soaring national popularity, years of work on behalf of children’s development, womens’ reproductive rights, foster care, adoption, first responders, veterans, and the rights of women and girls around the world all amount to nothing in Mr. Shafer’s eyes. She is not hot, according to him.

How do we define hot as a society? And what is our focus where women are concerned? Here are examples of topics to which we devote scads of news copy: Lindsay Lohan’s drug and legal problems. Discussing whether Jessica Simpson’s curves will hurt her career. Offering a feature story, as Playboy did, entitled “Ten Conservative Women I’d Like to Hate F–k”?

Yet a Secretary of State who years ago began a vocal crusade on behalf of women and girls is not hot. In 1995, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton stood on a podium in Beijing in defiance of the State Department and the Chinese government. She delivered a groundbreaking speech declaring that “women’s rights are human rights once and for all” while many women in the audience pounded on tables, cheering their approval.

When women thrive, the society thrives. Some of us are still not getting the picture.

Shafer accuses Tina Brown of filling the cover article on Clinton with “hagiography.” Yet the article to which he refers, entitled “the Hillary Doctrine,” by Gayle Tzemach Lemmon is less about bestowing sainthood on Secretary Clinton than reporting on a powerful woman’s legitimate accomplishments. Perhaps it is more pertinent to ask if that makes Shafer uncomfortable. In Secretary Clinton’s case, it is near impossible to find any American press outlet that celebrates or indeed acknowledge her many achievements and accolades. Most people in this country have no idea that she was recently awarded the Roosevelt Four Freedoms medal, an honor shared by only a few presidents, Coretta Scott King, the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela.

Young girls need to celebrate the achievements of women as they learn to celebrate their own accomplishments. You can’t celebrate what you’ve never heard of.

In honor of Women’s History Month, Tina Brown also featured a story entitled “150 Women Who Shake the World:”

“They are heads of state and heads of household. Angry protesters in the city square and sly iconoclasts in remote villages. With a fiery new energy, women are building schools. Starting businesses. Fighting corruption. Harnessing new technologies and breaking down old prejudices. Whenever a woman or girl gains control of her destiny, the local standard of living goes up and the values of human rights spread. So this year, and every year, NEWSWEEK will honor local heroes, and the growing network of powerful women who support their efforts.”

It appears Shafer found no use for this either. Is focusing on the struggles or empowerment of women in societies here and around the world somehow less worthy? He states Brown is “nuts for saluting Melinda Gates for her attempts to eradicate polio.” However, in his article, he does find time to offer a plug to other writers who operate from his same paradigm.

The Hillary Doctrine shares Clinton’s dedication to holding webchats, conferences and “townterviews” anywhere and everywhere to advance American values while she is also referred to as “the advocate in chief for women worldwide.” As well, her insistence on including substantial monies in the State Department’s 2012 budget to programs that assist and empower women.

While she believes that “the rights of women and girls is the unfinished business of the 21st century” Clinton appeals to foreign governments by emphasizing that women’s progress makes economic sense and assists in national security. This is not hagiography but a critical issue that affects all of us. Secretary Clinton’s unflinching dedication to this cause has inspired many women worldwide to enter politics themselves to fight for the very rights she champions. Until we stop looking at the travails and victories of women as second class subject matter, we will continue the type of callous media bias, double standards and violence against women and girls we seem all too anxious as a society to pretend no longer exist.

As Ms. Lemmon also noted,

Clinton ’s knack for personalizing foreign policy was evident last month, when she convened the annual gathering of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. It’s another issue she began working on in the mid-1990s, and in a borderless world with instant communication, sexual slavery has exploded into an epidemic; the State Department estimates there are now 12.3 million adults and children worldwide in “forced labor, bonded labor, and forced prostitution.”

Squeezed in elbow to elbow around a long wooden table in the State Department’s Jefferson Room was a virtual cabinet gathering, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. As host of the meeting, which began so promptly that several attendees sheepishly slid in late, Clinton asked each of the officials to share their team’s progress. She moved briskly around the table, then stopped to make a frank appeal. “One thing I would urge, if you do get a chance, is to visit a shelter, a site where trafficking victims have been rescued and are being rehabilitated,” she said to a room that had suddenly gone silent. “I recently was in Cambodia , and it is just so overwhelmingly heartbreaking and inspiring to see these young girls. One girl lost her eyes—to punish her, the owner of the brothel had stabbed her in the eye with a nail,” Clinton continued. “She was the most optimistic, cheerful young woman, just a tremendous spirit. What she wants to do when she grows up is help other victims of trafficking, so there is just an enormous amount of work to be done.”

Perhaps this is not “hot” to Mr. Shafer either. Shame on him. Is he anxious to look away from these issues? Does fair and full coverage interfere with the post-feminist myth that misogyny is a thing of the past?

Only via the work of committed activists will we make that post-feminist myth a reality. That, to me, is hot.

Here is the All Star Panel discussing this very issue, and how the media is continuing to ratchet up antagonism against the right under the guise of moderating our rhetoric:

As Baier highlighted, I have seen a number of reports in which people are doing exactly as he suggested, “There is no evidence of this lunatic being influenced by Palin, the Tea Party, or Republicans at all, BUT let’s blame them anyway, and try to squelch free speech while we are at it.”

I wrote recently about my ignorant representative, Jim Clyburn, blaming the Tea Party/Palin/Republicans, AND wanting to cut back on Freedom of Speech. And all of this is under the guise of wanting to decreasing violence in speech.

Tuesday, Arianna Huffington, she of HuffPo creation, wrote a post, “Arizona Shootings: Our Moment of Silence Needs To Be Followed By More Than Just Lowered Voices.” I suppose I should have warned you in case you were drinking something at the time – my apologies. Anyway, in Ms. Huffington’s post, she writes this:

[snip] And while we don’t know all the facts yet and the story is still unfolding, we know enough to know that we need more than a little soul searching.

The fact that the gunman is clearly mentally unbalanced does not absolve us of the responsibility to consider the atmosphere in which the shootings occurred. “Shootings of political figures are by definition ‘political,’” writes James Fallows. “That’s how the target came to public notice; it is why we say ‘assassination’ rather than plain murder.”

And the atmosphere in which this horrible tragedy was born, nurtured, and carried to its wretched fruition is toxic. Of course, there are always going to be unbalanced people, just as there are always going to be viruses in our environment — but what most determines whether those viruses make us sick is the strength of our immune system. When it is stressed and compromised, infections can easily take hold.

And there is no doubt that our collective immune system is worn down, making us more susceptible to the kind of infection that turned that Arizona parking lot into a killing field. While there has never been a golden age in our democracy’s history, there have been many times in which our national immune system was much stronger. [snip] (Click here if you want to read the rest.)

This is not just scurrilous, it is the height of hypocrisy. Many of us remember all too well how our “immune systems” got weakened by vitriolic speech. A lot of it happened right there at Huffington Post to those of us who had the audacity to support Hillary Clinton over The One. We were bullied, berated, attacked, and essentially banished from the site for our refusal to capitulate on the best choice for president. Sure, there have been a few posts here and there in support of Hillary Clinton since Obama took office (do I really need to explain that one?), but the fact remains, this blog has been at the forefront of vitriolic rhetoric.

Just last month, in December, Huffington Post allowed the once-great Aaron Sorkin to post an almost unintelligible screed against Sarah Palin, laced with profanity, and twisted facts throughout. His attack on her was completely unprovoked. He just couldn’t help himself in his desire to attack, attack, attack, and demean this woman. And Huffington Post allowed him to do so. One month later, Huffington has the nerve to talk about “toxic” rhetoric? Spare me the sanctimony.

MoveOn.org has joined the chorus as well, asking its members to sign a petition to our Congress with this as the petition text: “I call for an end to all overt and implied appeals to violence in American politics. We must debate, not hate.” Are they for real?? The same organization who referred to General Petraeus as “General Betrayus” is now acting as if they are some honest broker in restoring civility to speech? Again, I remember just how they conducted themselves during the 2008, 2010 elections. They have no leg on which to stand in tryin gto claim this moral high ground.

Neither does Obama Sycophant, Jonathan Alter, who, in the spirit of Rahm Emanuel, wants Obama to make sure he makes political hay out of this horrible tragedy. His headline says it all, “Can Obama Turn Tragedy Into Triumph?” Alter writes:

[snip] But silence will not be enough. This horrific event offers the president a chance to show leadership qualities that he’s inexplicably hidden away in some blind trust. The shootings and the resulting debate over the climate of incivility play to his strengths as a calm and rational leader. Just as Bill Clinton’s response to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings helped him recover from his defeat in the 1994 midterms, so this episode may help Obama change—at least in the short term–the trajectory of American politics. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Perhaps Alter was just mistaken that Obama ever embodied the leadership he is “inexplicably hidden away.” That was Alter’s mistake for making that leap based on little data, just like others have done with this tragedy. But even more disingenuous is this rampant implication by those on the left that they engaged in NONE of this vitriolic rhetoric. It is, again, scurrilous, for someone like Alter, who regularly appeared on Olbermann, trashing Clinton AND Palin, to now act like he and his cohorts were just meek little lambs in their political discourse. The hypocrisy is just staggering.

I cannot possibly go through all of the instances of the Left’s treatment of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Primary in their blind desire to elect Obama. The unsubstantiated attacks, the theft of votes, the fraud perpetrated in the caucuses by the Obama camp, all with tacit approval by the DNC, along with the most misogynistic shirts, slogans, sayings, and ads put out by the Obama camp. And now they are trying to act like they were harmless in their rhetoric? It would be pathetic if not so infuriating.

And then there was what they did to Palin. This Primer by Michelle Malkin gives you just a quick glimpse into the “moderate” language of the left about this governor.

And now, these same people, who attacked these candidates, and their followers, relentlessly, are now blaming inflammatory rhetoric on the RIGHT as the primary reason this maniac tried to assassinate Rep. Giffords. Moreover, they would seek to limit our speech as a result of this attack.

We cannot, CANNOT, censor ourselves with an eye to not upsetting some deranged lunatic. That essentially allows the crazy people to determine our discourse, which is, in and of itself, crazy. It is over-functioning to a pathological degree to try and tiptoe around our nation in fear that someone somewhere may just lose it. That kind of walking on eggshells is a horrible way to live, and does, by its very nature, make us prisoners of our own making. We cannot stop talking, or writing, or protesting, or arguing, just because it might set some psycho off on a rampage. We cannot know what will be the next trigger, and we cannot live our lives in constant fear of “upsetting” someone so much they will go off the rails. It is a destructive path down which some would have us go.

And it will strip us of our very freedoms. I, for one, am not willing to give up my freedom to appease some nut-job. How about you?

That’s the question raised by David Fletcher of the LGBT Mentoring Project of the Learn Act Build Program at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center. Mr. Fletcher’s findings have been documented in this article in the LA Times, Behind the numbers of Prop. 8: It’s crucial to understand the data about Prop. 8′s victory before launching another attempt to legalize gay marriage..

Huh – and here I thought we already knew the answer to that question, as I wrote back in November 0f 2008: Obama and his supporters. That’s the short answer, anyway. Obama remains opposed to same-sex marriage, after all. That is also the answer to how Proposition (or Amendment) 2 passed in Florida that election, too, a law far more restrictive regarding the LGBT community, but one that is rarely, rarely mentioned, even though it garnered 62% of the vote.

But here is the point Mr. Fletcher wishes to make:

[snip] After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans’ views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents. [snip]

There is more to this report, including wrong-way voting which affected both sides, though that seems to be the case more for those who OPPOSED same sex marriage actually voting for it (500,000). You can read the rest of the article HERE, and the full report at prop8report.org.

Yes, it seems 687,000 people shifted their votes in the final weeks. And those people were mainly Democrats. Is Mr. Fletcher really surprised by this? I have been saying for some time now that the DNC is not as “gay-friendly” as they would like us to believe. Again, Obama himself opposes same-sex marriage. So, the outcome should not be a huge surprise, at least not to me. Curious that it seems to be a surprise for Mr. Fletcher.

I find it interesting that Mr. Fletcher made a point of claiming it is not the fault of African Americans – entirely, that is. He seems to want to take the heat off of the African American community while having to acknowledge that, while their numbers may not have changed that much from polls before the vote to the vote itself, they still voted FOR Prop 8. Um, is that revised look at the data supposed to be a comfort to those affected by this votes?

Regardless, I have been saying for almost two years now that it was the Democrats, in both California AND Florida, who voted to suppress our right to marry. It’s a fact, Jack, no matter how one looks at the data. Sad, but true.

While we are talking about Democrats and votes, guess what the Democratic Party has decided to keep? Oh, you could see this coming a mile away: Democratic Party to Keep Controversial Superdelegates: A reform effort to take away party bigwigs’ presidential-nominating power suffers a setback..

“A reform effort…suffers a setback”? Uh, yeah – one could say that, but that is if one was ever foolish enough to believe the Democratic “bigwigs,” which includes Obama, by the way, were ever, ever going to give up that power in the first place.

Oh, sure, Obama made noises about abolishing the Superdelegates after he bullied them into giving him the nomination (along with votes for Hillary which the RBC did), as this article reports:

[snip] After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

After Obama secured the party’s nomination, he urged the DNC to create a commission to examine superdelegates’ influence and other shortcomings in the nomination process. The Democratic Change Commission (whose members included Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, and House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina) took a tough stance. Superdelegates, it recommended, should be required to vote for a candidate assigned to them, based on the results of their state’s caucus or primary. [snip]

Let’s just look at the plethora of Obama sycophants listed right there. Are you seriously trying to make me believe that if Obama wanted this Superdelegate thing changed, it wouldn’t be? Spare me already. Oh, he wants to keep it the same – he wouldn’t be where he is today without the Superdelegates (not to mention Convention delegate, voter, and caucus fraud, but hey – no need to be picky, right?).

And the outcome of the proposed change? You know it – you knew it from the get-go. They said NO:

[snip] But the rules committee took a dim view of this proposal. While endorsing recommendations to dilute the superdelegates’ influence (mostly by increasing the number of ordinary delegates), it quietly nixed the redefinition of their voting powers at it July 10 meeting. How quietly? Enough that even some members of the change commission hadn’t yet heard about it when NEWSWEEK spoke to them last week. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All of us who were paying attention May 31, 2008, who watched as the Democratic Party revealed its true colors right before our eyes, knew damn well the Rules and Bylaws Committee would never, ever willingly give up such a great tool for overturning the will of the voters. These days, that’s just how the Democrats roll.

I am so glad Mr. Fletcher made it clear that it is Democrats who voted FOR Prop 8, though we knew that already. But hey – never hurts to get a reminder, eh?

And we got another reminder from the RBC this week, too. How we vote, for what we vote, for whom we vote, one thing is clear – the Democratic Party does not stand for what it says it does: it is not the party of the people. And it damn sure is not the party that cares about one person, one vote. Glad the RBC made that crystal clear one more time for those who missed it a couple of years ago.

Like I said, these days, this is just how the Democratic Party rolls. I expect we will see more of the same in 2012, but then again, with this bunch, I never expected anything different. How about you?

UPDATE: As you may have heard by now, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughan R. Walker ruled that Prop. 8:

[snip]…violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court. [snip]

I am sure there will be more about this in the coming days. But, WOW!! Good news!

UPDATE #2: Just in case you were wondering if, maybe, just maybe, this reversal by Judge Walker has had an effect on Obama’s stand against same sex marriage, the answer would be No. Obama continues to oppose same-sex marriage. Oh, but he supports us. Yeah. Right.

During the presidential campaign, Peggy Noonan rhapsodized about an Obama presidency, trashing Hillary Clinton to the bargain. Recent months have seen Ms. Noonan pen several articles deconstructing her prior romantic notions, reaching the same conclusions as the very people she derided for not jumping on Obama’s bandwagon. In her WSJ piece, He Can’t Take Another Bow, Noonan complains that the Obama White House is “coming to seem amateurish”:

This week, two points in an emerging pointillist picture of a White House leaking support—not the support of voters, though polls there show steady decline, but in two core constituencies, Washington’s Democratic-journalistic establishment, and what might still be called the foreign-policy establishment.

From journalist Elizabeth Drew, a veteran and often sympathetic chronicler of Democratic figures, a fiery denunciation of—and warning for—the White House. In a piece in Politico on the firing of White House counsel Greg Craig, Ms. Drew reports that while the president was in Asia last week, “a critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man.” They once held “an unromantically high opinion of Obama,” and were key to his rise, but now they are concluding that the president isn’t “the person of integrity and even classiness they had thought.”

Misjudged? What other politician have you ever heard of who got a lot of important people to stake their reputations on his “integrity” without having offered any more than “words, just words” attesting to the same?

Noonan and Drew should not be surprised that another big Obama supporter now sits under his bus. Greg Craig was a highly respected operative and his early endorsement of Obama and simultaneous belittling of Hillary’s foreign policy street cred carried a lot of weight with beltway insiders. What a difference a year makes…

[Ms. Drew] scored “the Chicago crowd,” which she characterized as “a distressingly insular and small-minded West Wing team.” The White House, Ms. Drew says, needs adult supervision—”an older, wiser head, someone with a bit more detachment.”

And speaking of an older and wiser choice, this is the most telling part of Ms. Noonan’s article:

As I read Ms. Drew’s piece, I was reminded of something I began noticing a few months ago in bipartisan crowds. I would ask Democrats how they thought the president was doing. In the past they would extol, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, his virtues. Increasingly, they would preface their answer with, “Well, I was for Hillary.”

Thanks, Peggy, so was I. Noonan then worries that “No one loves Barack Obama; they’re not dazzled and head over heels. That’s gone away.” Is she kidding? The sycophantic press and his virulent supporters have not shown enough love? If she is wondering why the love has gone, I would like to point out one can only be dazzled by a movie trailer once. Having then paid for your ticket and bought your popcorn, you expect the film itself will deliver the goods. If the two minute trailer is as good as it gets, patrons will turn off very quickly.

“He himself seems a fairly chilly customer; perhaps in turn he inspires chilly support.”

Now Noonan’s figuring out he’s a chilly customer? There’s no there there. There never was. Please tell me which constituency or issue he has ever gone to the mat for? Noonan continues…

…In the Daily Beast. Mr. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and fully plugged into the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, wrote this week that the president’s Asia trip suggested “a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.” The president’s Afghanistan review has been “inexcusably clumsy.”

He added that rather than bowing to emperors—Mr. Obama “seems to do this stuff spontaneously and inexplicably”—he should begin to bow to “the voices of experience” in Washington.

When longtime political observers start calling for wise men, a president is in trouble.

It appears Obama’s cheerleaders, The New York Times and Newsweek, concur with this thinking. During the primary, wine rack liberals I knew who supported Obama said “Congress does everything anyway. He’ll surround himself with really great people.” I wonder what they’re saying now about the “good judgment” they touted. One could say he exercised good judgment in appointing Hillary as SoS, yet he has been accused of hamstringing her at every turn. Many suspect the appointment was to ensure she was no longer a threat to him politically.

Aside from Noonan’s condemnation of the current health care bill “as a poor piece of legislation that Obama ought to scrap so that he may live to fight another day,” most shocking is her acknowledgment of what Democratic holdouts feared from the beginning:

There is the growing perception of incompetence, of the inability to run the machine of government. This, with Americans, is worse than Obama’s rebranding as a leader who governs from the left. Americans demands baseline competence. If he comes to be seen as Jimmy Carter was, that the job was bigger than the man, that will be the end.

She then brings us back to the issue of Obama once again bowing to a foreign head of state.

In a presidency, a picture or photograph becomes iconic only when it seems to express something people already think. When Gerald Ford was spoofed for being physically clumsy, it took off. The picture of Ford losing his footing and tumbling as he came down the steps of Air Force One became a symbol. There was a reason, and it wasn’t that he was physically clumsy. He was not only coordinated but graceful. He’d been a football star at the University of Michigan and was offered contracts by the Detroit Lions and Green Bay Packers.

But the picture took off because it expressed the growing public view that Ford’s policies were bumbling and stumbling. The picture was iconic of a growing political perception.

Noonan is right about perception. Last week, I spoke with a young urban professional male, who I would have thought was Obama’s demographic. There were some things he did not know about Obama’s policies but he did know about the “bows” and he didn’t like them. Ms. Noonan concludes:

It is true that Mr. Obama often seems not to have a firm grasp of—or respect for—protocol, of what has been done before and why, and of what divergence from the traditional might imply. And it is true that his political timing was unfortunate. When a great nation is feeling confident and strong, a surprising presidential bow might seem gracious. When it is feeling anxious, a bow will seem obsequious.

The Obama bowing pictures…express a growing political perception … that there is something amateurish about this presidency, something too ad hoc and highly personalized about it, something . . . incompetent, at least in its first year.

You can get tagged, typed and pegged your first year.

Punditry is allergic to a long view and demands to stay vital by offering grand pronouncements daily so Noonan passing judgment on a snapshot in time is hardly evidence of anything. Yet we have seen one after another of these types of indicators, well stated in Steven Stark’s brutal RCP article last week, Has Obama Peaked? Yes, He Has. Stark states that the high point for Obama was the night of his election, but:

“[Y]ou can only be elected the first African-American once.”

Now that we, as a nation, have awakened from our post-election, post-racial dream state, we’ve begun to notice that our president may not be much interested in being a chief “executive,” given that he’s never run anything before or expressed the slightest inclination to do so. He has big ideas, to be sure, but that’s only a small part of the job. The hard, nitty-gritty labor of figuring out how government can actually work better – the operative word is “governing” – seems to hold no appeal for him.

Put another way, where are our flu shots? It’s worth recalling that, in what seems a lifetime ago, it was Clinton – not Obama – who promised to be ready on Day One.

More in the pundit class are wistfully mentioning Hillary, the work horse, not the show horse. It’s a shame they spent so much time kicking her around instead of lauding her when it would have mattered. I wonder if the glowing write up of “her brilliant career” in December’s Vogue Magazine sent the WH frat boys Gibbs-y and Favreau spinning? I’m sure they are looking for new ways to trash her and her ever increasing popularity.

Mr. Stark seems to think Obama needs to “come down from the mountaintop” and stop talking at us, i.e., campaigning, and start listening to the American people, yet he wonders if the President is capable of such a transformation. He rightly points out we are waiting for Obama “to lead us in real time.” When Governor Rendell of PA endorsed Hillary, he stated that the real work of governing is much more suited to Hillary’s knowledge, work ethic and indefatigable nature. Obama’s endless need for campaigning and photo-ops are not what is required now. Understanding proper protocol wouldn’t hurt either.

Stark points out that President Obama’s outsourcing of important legislation to Congress without offering adequate leadership, putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse by appointing Tim Geithner Treasury Secretary, and basically continuing the policies of President Bush, along with his many other rookie mistakes are making many raise the “c” word in Washington.

Competence. What a concept.

I agree that the debasing attacks on the former Governor are ridiculous. Hannity just conducted an interview with Palin which brought him huge ratings. He was respectful to her and I’m sure the principles she trumpets are similar to his own. That is fine. What is not fine is the nonsense he spewed with his panel as they all got fired up defending Sarah Palin. Hannity made the remark that you can bash a conservative woman all you want – but no one would touch a liberal woman. He basically said if you’re Hillary Clinton, you’re safe from this kind of treatment.

Well, Sean, if you’re reading this – here is a little refresher course on what the left did to Hillary in 2008. And by the way, you and your right wing cronies taught them well with the fifteen years of Hillary bashing she and we have had to put up with. Here are a few examples…

“A Super Delegate needs to take her into a room and only he comes out, that kind of scenario.” ( Keith Olbermann, MSNBC)

“The only reason she was elected to the Senate is that people felt sorry for her because of her husband.” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC)

“When she is on camera, I involuntarily cross my legs. She’s castrating, overbearing and scary.” (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC)

“Doesn’t it seem like the Clinton’s are pimping their daughter Chelsea out in some weird way?” (David Shuster, MSNBC)

“They fined CBS a million dollars for Janet Jackson’s nipple. Just think what they could get for Hillary Clinton’s cunt.” (Bill Maher, HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher)

“If she had any dignity, she’d just bow out.” (Jonathan Alter, Newsweek)

“Some women deserve to be called bitches.” (Castellanos, CNN)

“She’s never going to get out of our faces. … She’s like some hellish housewife who has seen something that she really, really wants and won’t stop nagging you about it until finally you say, fine, take it, be the damn president, just leave me alone.” (Leon Wieseltier, literary editor, The New Republic)

“She’s an aging, resentful female.” “She’s a ludicrous embarrassment.” (Christopher Hitchens, Slate, MSNBC)

“Some find that she makes their skin crawl. Some run screaming from the room. And some want to drink a gallon of rat poison while lying across a railroad track.” (columnist Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune)

“She’s the most secretive politician in America today.” (David Plouffe, Obama campaign)

“We don’t want to have to watch a woman grow old in the White House….She’s got a testicle lockbox.” (Rush Limbaugh)

“Someone needs to go there and take her out behind the barn.” (Pete Snyder, FOX)

“It cries.” (Glenn Beck, FOX)

“When Barack Obama speaks, men hear “Take off for the future.” And when Hillary Clinton speaks men hear, “Take out the garbage.” She does register with married men, like a small worm boring through the brain.” (Marc Rudov, FOX News)

“She is a stranger to consistency, sincerity and (at a guess) oral sex…” (Bob Ellis, ABC Unleashed)

“Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar.” (Maureen Dowd, NY Times)

“…when I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry. I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can’t stand her.” (Andrew Sullivan, Chris Matthews Show)

Readers, please feel free to add your own.

You see, Mr. Hannity, there are several big reasons why Sarah Palin said she would love to sit down with Hillary Clinton for a cup of coffee. Those two ladies have a lot to commiserate about. They were both trashed by the left.

The majority of the comments above came from the liberal media. This was but a mere fraction of the daily filth spewed by the likes of these arrogant cowards. Never mind the shameful General T. McPeak who said “Hillary is not fit to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier,” or some of the horrid, betraying comments made by the backstabbing elite in her own party. Further, the daily commentary from the likes of The Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so many lefty blogs who bashed Hillary, the more qualified candidate, in favor of a brand name with no experience seems to have escaped Mr. Hannity’s attention as well.

I’m sure Sarah Palin has a great deal of admiration for Hillary – her toughness, her resilience and her body of knowledge. What a shame, Mr. Hannity, that you cannot see fit to extend the same courtesy to a woman clearly deserving of your respect – even if your political philosophies differ.

This is the big problem with punditry from either side. I appreciate that Mr. Hannity has been brave enough to cover topics others news stations will not. I also appreciate that FOX News is the only network daring to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire on policy, rather than cheerleading. While I may not agree with the conservative bent of the network, I do at least get some news rather than pillow fluffing. Hannity’s show clearly is more opinion than anything else, but when he ignores the experience of Hillary Clinton and the insults her supporters had to put up with in the campaign last year – his credibility takes a nosedive.

It was interesting that just before he mentioned her name, he paused for a moment – he knew he was lying about her, saying liberals gave Hillary a pass – but he just couldn’t help himself. Integrity is not selective.

It is said that character is what you do when nobody’s looking. Perhaps Mr. Hannity thought no one would be paying attention. Well, I was looking and his character last night was found wanting.

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

Sarah Palin weighed in on the photo, too:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or how about this one:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My fellow writers and I have posted many stories these last two years detailing the same Obama shortcomings that Mr. Fineman covers here. But of course, we are just bloggers, the people who spread rumors and complain without cause. Right? In February I posted The Cost of Enabling Obama, detailing the dangers of pushing his cult of personality with no vetting. He had just been inaugurated and big media was still honeymooning, defending President Obama’s every move. That phase is over – much to the chagrin and dismay of our Celebrity-in-Chief.

Fineman states:

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it.
[snip]
The president’s problem isn’t that he is too visible; it’s the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches.

The phrase, “words, just words,” springs to mind. Fineman actually agrees with his conservative WaPo colleague Charles Krauthammer that our President is just a tad narcissistic. Fineman notes Obama’s “endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East,” as yet has “no boxes checked “done.””

This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he’s not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota.

Re-elected? Fineman states that reaching back rather than forward and making President Bush “the bogeyman” is “starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.”

Members of Obama’s own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is.

They never knew who he was. His proposals were and are, shall we say, elastic. Shame on them. They kicked the more qualified candidate to the curb when they had no idea who they were voting for or if he had a clue how to do the job.

In Washington, the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won’t cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama’s measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care. Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major “reform” bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its “leadership.” It’s not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.

Are you telling me Fineman just figured this out? We saw this coming from our living room couches nearly two years ago and we were not getting paid a salary to do it. You’d think someone who does this for a living would be a bit more perceptive. Fineman notes Obama’s admiration for President Reagan, who made his wishes perfectly clear when he took office and did not outsource his policies to the likes of a Nancy Pelosi.

Obama seems to think he’ll get credit for the breathtaking scope of his ambition. But unless he sees results, it will have the opposite effect—diluting his clout, exhausting his allies, and emboldening his enemies.

Again, Obama wants us to “applaud the tenor for clearing his throat.” Fineman states that cap and trade is dead for this year, health care is a long way from passage and his banking legislation reform isn’t making much headway either. He concludes:

Doing Letterman again won’t help. It may boost the host’s ratings, Mr. President, but probably not your own.

To make matters worse, the very teacher’s unions who helped to elect the President are now criticizing him regarding his new education proposals. You will not believe the title of the article in WaPo: Unions Criticize Obama’s School Proposals as Bush 3.

Ouch. How many times have all us wacky bloggers called him the same thing. Read the article here. The teacher’s unions now agree with us? Curiouser and curiouser.

A few days ago, the Los Angeles Times posted an article: Was Hillary Right on Iran? reminding everyone of Hillary’s efforts during the primary to caution Americans about the dangers of buying into the naivete of Obama’s foreign policy. Now they want to quote her? Now they want to stop making fun of her? Now they say she was right?

Now what do we do?

Yes, experience and policy knowledge actually do count for something. I guess all her “tea parties” all these years counted for something, too. Now she’s stuck making the best of the “new direction” he purports to represent.

Please pardon my dust for being a broken record, but I’ll repeat now what I wrote then: It is not possible for someone so inexperienced, with limited understanding of the tangled economic issues we face, a less than sophisticated understanding of foreign policy, or even the machinations of Congress, a man with no governing or executive experience, and precious little legislative experience to be able to step up to the plate at this critical juncture and perform miracles. Even to perform decently. That would be ridiculous. Nothing in President Obama’s life thus far has trained him for these challenges.

The true problem, greater than all of the above, is that his pathology involves his believing naively, or narcissistically, in his own ability to move mountains on the force of his own personality. And further, that the DNC elite and the media enabled him at every turn to believe this was true.

President Obama is going to Denmark to pitch for Chicago to host the Olympics in 2016, he is still campaigning 24/7 with a smile plastered on his face, pitching the same talking points that lack the same substance they lacked for the past two years. He has only had one conversation with Gen. McChrystal since he took command of the war in Afghanistan. As Commander in Chief, Obama appears to be taking the same level of interest he did when he was head of that subcommittee on European Affairs/Afghanistian while he was campaigning — the one where he did not hold one meeting in two years.

What has changed? Who is in charge if he is out there playing salesman in chief? And now Fineman et al want to tell the President to get off the TV screen and get down to work? Why? They enabled his “brand” at every turn. No wonder any news organization that has been mindlessly defending these actions has seen their readership and viewership take a nosedive.

Maybe we need a new influx of people in the pundit class. Fineman, Milbank, Olbermann, Matthews, Maddow, Alter, Klein, Mitchell, Kurtz, Dowd, Quinn, Noonan, Rich, Reich and the rest were too busy as Joan Walsh put it “singing along with his lyrics” to bother looking at him in an objective fashion. It is inexcusable that these pundits dare to complain about Obama now. The insults they directed at anyone not falling in line for their chosen candidate were and are disgraceful. How many of us lost friendships last year or were attacked because we refused to be a part of “Buying Brand Obama.” This is not about apologies or “I told you so.” This is about a genuine worry for our country and the direction it is taking under more inadequate and disingenuous leadership.

If a majority of voters insist on continuing to vote for style over substance, the prognosis is not good. Wake up, America.

Without even commenting as to any possible First Amendment breach by virtue of news organizations being beholden to a government for the ability to keep its doors open, my concern is this…Many of us stopped purchasing various newspapers and news magazines in order to punish those organizations for biased reporting and a lack of journalistic ethics. I am exercising the power of the purse – and my decision is not arbitrary, nor is it negotiable.

How I spend my consumer dollars is up to me. Not the government. They do not get to tell me when it is time to buy a new dining table or a sofa. They do not get to tell me when it is time to go to the movies. Nor should they get to tell me when to buy a newspaper. If I decide that the New York Times is no longer the paper of record, but rather a biased rag that was cheerleading and running interference for one candidate while actively working to bury another, then I am entitled to the decision not to support that newspaper with my hard earned dollars.

If Congress makes a decision to bail out this organization with my taxpayer dollars, then they are, in essence, not only telling me how to spend my money, they are spending it for me, against my will.

And where is the accountability? If these media organizations cannot be counted on now to be honest watchdogs, digging for the truth and presenting it fairly, what do you think will happen when they are beholden to a government bailout to keep their doors open?

American Girl in Italy’s excellent article, newspapers are dying because journalism is a joke, agreed with Dan Gainor’s testimony before a Congressional subcommittee that while technology is one reason print media is faltering, the bigger reason is that true journalism is a dying art. Likewise, newspapers are not the only medium to suffer. MSNBC and CNN’s ratings are tanking as well. Why? Because many disgusted consumers have stopped watching certain news programs altogether. If they wanted to watch cheerleaders rather than journalists, they could turn on a football game.

Some concerned citizens have actually gone so far as to contact their cable companies and block these stations from view altogether; deservedly so. We don’t need infotainment and baseless opinion 24/7. We need the whole truth – no matter where it leads.

We need the facts, not propaganda, press releases or Pravda.

I am not getting good value for my dollar with media outlets such as Time or Newsweek, therefore, I no longer choose to give them my hard earned money.

There is a reason why certain businesses die. Pardon this seeming unrelated example, but as something of a frozen yoghurt freak, I decided to check out both the new yoghurt joints that recently opened in my neighborhood. One looks pretty festive from the outside, but when you walk in, the interior is dank, not particularly clean, and the employees’ attitude is don’t bug me, get your stuff and get out. And while I tried to enjoy my cup of grasshopper non-fat, I was treated to smell and taste the cigarette smoke of said employee while he was on a break at the table next to me. As to the other shop – it’s all lit up like a Christmas tree – and the employees have an attitude to match! That place is a gold mine with non stop business day and night. Why? Good value for the dollar and the consumer is treated with respect. Gee. I wonder why that business is doing well.

The news media is not treating the consumer with respect. They are acting like we are a bunch of mindless sheep that can be led around by the nose and distracted by meaningless celebrity pabulum and White House puppy searches.

By the way, how is this Administration’s decision to bail out GM any different? Perhaps the company faltered because it does not make a good product. Perhaps it faltered because it does not have a good business model and is not well run. If something fails, perhaps it is because a message is being sent by consumers – no good value for the dollar. Yet we are being forced to use our hard earned money to support what we obviously do not consider to be a worthwhile or competitive product.

Objecting to this reckless bailout behavior is not a partisan concern, no matter how the folks over at MSNBC et al would like to paint it as such. This is a practical concern. In a recent interview with Fareed Zakaria, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill pointed to the folly of the government pretending it is a magic entity that can get away doing what no smart investor would do: namely, throwing good money after bad.

If our government is able to arbitrarily take our taxpayer dollars and say yes to an organization we say no to, they are taking away our power of the purse. Boycotts have no meaning. Free will is over.

Let news organizations rediscover journalistic ethics. The evolution of technology may dictate we move forward and get our news in a different manner. If that is the case, all the bailouts in the world won’t force people to go out and buy a newspaper. Regardless of the medium, those who are honest enough to offer a good value for the dollar will find a way to stay in business.

Congress should not take our money to bail out whomever they please for reasons of their own.

This week is the year end, double issue featuring the most powerful people in the world. They call them The Global Elite. Elite and proud of it would be my conjecture.

First piss off is the Conventional Wisdom/Up or Down graphic column. Hillary is UP “Odor of fractious, low-road campaign fading. And brains, experience, work ethic could make her a great secretary of state.”

GRRRRRRR that will require an entire post of its own.

But the real piss off and the one I’d like to ask a volunteer of the woman species to blog about is titled, “Player or Pretender“.

On the left with the Pretenders we have PUMAs. On the right with the players we have Cougars.

Cougars “… Madonna/A-Rod and, of course, Demi/Ashton: Women of a certain age have staying power.”

PUMAs “The Clinton Dead-Enders (Party Unity My Ass) were all the talk. In the end, with Hillary’s help, Obama won over the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits.”

Now I know that NoQuarter does/did not consider itself PUMA territory but I am proud to say I am a PUMA although like any group we have our crazies. Newsweak comparing thinking, caring, fighting voters of all sexes with cradle robbing Cougars is just total bullshit. And to give the Cougars more value! FU Newsweak.

If a hamster could scream you’d hear it now and I will probably scream lots over at Partizane

Riffing off of the Newsweek editors’ quesiness over the cult of personality surrounding Barack, let me just add that I too think the worshipful descriptions of Barack as a new kind of Messiah is creepy. Guys feeling a tingle up their leg when he talks, swooning women, and fawning reporters is not a healthy situation in a democracy. I was watching the BBC earlier today with the sound off. They played a clip of the former Korean dictator, Kim Il Sung, walking among his people, who cheered and wept at his very appearance. Now, I’m not saying Barack is a Korean dictator, but the mindless praise is eerily similar.

I am amused by the innocent, naive belief by many “Progressives” that their messiah has come and the new era of progressive politics is upon us. One of my Progressive friends sent me the following analysis from Think Progress claiming it is a myth that America is Center-Right:

My friend, who lives in California, was earnest and sincere in sending this along. I sent back a respons–”You have got to be shitting me?” Why? The first piece of evidence is Proposition 8. California, the so-called land of moderate progressives, passed Proposition 8 last Tuesday banning homosexual marriage. Now if that happens in California, what do you think would happen in Kentucky, Kansas or Iowa? At least on the matter of personal sexual conduct when it comes to homosexuality America is very, very conservative.

Personally, I don’t understand why conservatives want to have government regulating conduct between consenting adults. I guess I am a libertarian conservative. I believe that sexual relations between consenting adults is not the business of any government. Worrying about erecting barriers to prevent homosexual men and women from getting married is a silly distraction in a world where we have real problems before us. I am betting that Barack Obama and his team are not going to get out in front of this issue. They will follow the popular will. Rather than try to use the bully pulpit of the White House to make the case that homosexual adults are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual adults, I am betting team Obama will be silent. I think there is some more disillusion coming for the Gay/Lesbian community on this issue.

Looking for a quick withdrawal from Iraq? I don’t think that is going to happen either. In fact, look for team Obama to start making the case that the situation has changed on the ground and that the Iraqi government wants us as a partner to help rebuild their society and infrastructure. Truth is the actual substance of U.S. policy in Iraq is not likely to change. At the same time look for the boost in U.S. combat forces going to Afghanistan and continued covert cross-border raids into Pakistan.

As I noted in an earlier piece, Rahm Emanuel is no pacifist. To the contrary. He was an uber-hawk on Iraq. We are witnesses to a fascinating split in the American Jewish community. The Jewish community is no different than the Christian community. It really is not a community and represents diametrically opposed points of view. Barack Obama and Emanuel have both been backed financially by very wealthy Chicago jewish families–the Crowns and the Pritzkers. They are not in sync with the more conservative neo-cons embodied by the likes of William Kristol. They are pro-Israel but anti-likud. Prospects of war with Iran are probably reduced with this crowd.

Last year I participated in a war game looking at the future of the Middle East. The assembled experts agreed at the end of the game that the one policy move that could put Iran on the defensive would be an agreement between Syria and Israel over the Golan Heights. Up to now the Bush Administration has opposed such a move. If the Obama team goes in that direction they might get a breakthrough in the Middle East that has seemed so elusive. That would be good news and might help Obama calm the fears of his Palestinian supporters who see him stacking his Administration with prominent Jewish Americans who carry pro-Israel credentials.

What about ignoring FISA (i.e., the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act)? Now that this power is in the hands of Democrats will they relinquish it? I don’t think so. I would like to see a full restoration of FISA and a requirement that no serveillance is undertaken without having judicial review. Someone other than the Executive Branch needs to have a say in this matter.

Finally, there will be the economic policy front. Will Barack and company embark on a massive public employment program or seek to invest in the private sector and promote jobs thru some form of capitalism? If it is the former the Progressive will rejoice. But, if it is the later, Progressives will chalk up another example of a politician promising them one thing but delivering the opposite. It does look that Barack and his team recognize America is Center Right and are going to play to the element. For a guy who hung with Tony Rezko and dissed Hillary (bonehead moves in my book) Barack could establish himself as a very smart pol. We’ll see.

Why didn’t they say this in their magazine BEFORE the election?

Yesterday I shared with you the audio of Tom Brokaw being interviewed by Charlie Rose where both men admit they don’t know who Obama really is or what he intends to do in office. Now, a post election admission from Jon Meacham and Evan Thomas of Newsweek; also interviewed by Charlie Rose. Audio is provided with commentary by Rush Limbaugh (transcript):

MEACHAM: You know, they don’t let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage?

ROSE: Mmm.

MEACHAM: No adoring wife, no cute kid. He is the messenger.

THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all this. I mean, he’s such an admirable –

ROSE: Slightly. Creepy. Cult of personality.

THOMAS: Yes.

ROSE: What’s slightly creepy about it?

THOMAS: It — it — it just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He’s a deeply manipulative guy.

RUSH: Now, let me tell you what they’re saying that they’re not saying. We’ve seen this before. We have seen this creepy cult of personality. We have seen this singular, managing his own spectacle. We’ve seen this deeply manipulative guy. We saw this before. They are scared. They are not saying that, but I hear fear. Here’s the next bite. Charlie Rose continues here with a question.

ROSE: Watching him last night in that speech, he finishes –

MEACHAM: Yeah.

ROSE: — and he sort of — it’s almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance.

MEACHAM: He watches us watching him.

THOMAS: Watching him!

ROSE: Exactly!

THOMAS: He does –

MEACHAM: It’s amazing.

ROSE: It is amazing.

THOMAS: He writes about this metaphor being a screen upon which Americans will project. He said they want of Barack Obama; I’m not sure I am Barack Obama.

ROSE: Mmm!

THOMAS: He had — he has the self-awareness to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person, and he’s self-aware enough –

ROSE: Ahhhhhh!

RUSH: Ahhhh. Charlie Rose, light goes on, ahhhh. Self-aware enough to know that this creature he’s designed isn’t necessarily a real person.

That is fear. These guys are looking at Obama and they’ve seen him the exact way we have, all of this time. They only now after they think they got him into office are now starting to talk about their fears about how nobody knows anything about him, his resume is thin, he’s only written two books, and they’re autobiographies, we don’t know what other books he’s read. Yes, we do.

We don’t know anything about him. It’s creepy, never seen a victory speech with nobody on stage — what is this making fun of Biden, by the way?

Locking Biden in the bar so he doesn’t come out? Look at all they hid. Look at all that they refused to report.

They had plenty of chances to write editorials at Newsweek magazine, and they didn’t write one reflective of what they really saw and know and fear about Obama.

At what point will Meacham and Thomas, along with Brokaw and so many others face the fact that they committed journalistic malpractice by hiding the character concerns they are only now sharing about Obama?

Were they just tooooo busy digging dirt on Sarah Palin’s children and Joe the Plumber to tell the American people what a “creepy,” “manipulative,” “creature” Obama is?

…………..

Read the original post and comments at Flopping Aces’ “Newsweek Editors: Obama a “Creepy,” “Deeply Manipulative,” “Creature”.

The Wichita Eagle decided to share Sebelius’ comments with us this week. (Now that is a surprise, because they have been pretty Obama friendly since the caucuses in February!) Here are Sebelius’s thoughts:

On Wednesday, while visiting the Kansas State Fair in Hutchinson, Sebelius said no company CEO would ever choose a top lieutenant and potential successor the way that McCain picked Palin, the Alaska governor, as his running mate.

Sebelius told the Hutchinson News that the choice is “a little frightening,” because of what it says about how McCain makes decisions. Sebelius said her vetting process as a possible running mate for Barack Obama was extensive.

Sebelius noted that McCain wrapped up his primary contest early and had six months to decide on a running mate. She cited news accounts that McCain met the Alaska governor only once before he announced her as his choice for vice president.

(Nancy A here: What news accounts? This one: “McCain explains Palin“. McCain chose well! And there is no doubt: look at the McCain/Palin poll numbers at Real Clear Politics today! And just the other day at NoQuarter, SusanUnPC wrote an article entitled “The Latest Polls Go McCain/Palin’s Way”, a frank discussion on their poll numbers. Oh Yes! Here are today’s Gallup polls: McCain/Palin 47%, Obama/Biden 45%)

The governor said McCain seemed to be “desperate (Nancy A here: not desperate, smart, but the Democrats don’t know about that this year) to infuse new life into the GOP party.”

Palin has infused “new life into the GOP and energized their base”. Kathleen just cannot notice.

A Kansas GOP official accused Sebelius of whining. Of course she’s whining, she thought she was headed to the White House as Obama’s Vice Presidential pick. Sorry you lost the Veepstakes! The GOP wasn’t finished with Sebelius. This from the GOP State Director:

“Kathleen Sebelius should talk about things she knows about,” said Christian Morgan, the Kansas GOP’s executive director.

Now let’s get back to Sebelius’ glass houses. It seems she doesn’t “vet” politicians too well either. Sebelius was so inept with her own vetting that she had a “major conflagration” in her own administration. And of course Sebelius was so short sighted during her whine fest she forgot all about the “fire” she had to put out.

More on Sebelius poor “vetting skills” ( Yeah! I think McCain knows how to vet politicians; Sebelius, not so much!):

As for vetting, Morgan noted that Sebelius helped recruit Paul Morrison to switch to the Democratic Party to run for attorney general in 2006. Morrison won but was forced to resign in January because of a sex scandal.

“If we want to talk about poor vetting and poor decision-making, we don’t have to look any further than the (Kansas) governor’s office,” Morgan said.

Governor Sebelius, I have news for you: “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks.” “I also hope that foot tastes good”. The “hoof and mouth disease” in the Democratic Party is reaching “epidemic proportions”. And while you are at it, ugh!, come home to Kansas and quit kissing Obama’s butt. Clean up the mess in your own backyard!

Oh Yeah! I’m not done yet. I have a few comments of my own to make. First step away from the punch bowl, stop sucking the koolaid and let’s have a little heart-to-heart: Sebelius, you were quoted in the Special Republican Convention Issue of Newsweek, dated August 29th, 2008, saying this:

“That Hillary supporters “would honor her by voting for John McCain seems to me to be totally insane.”

Well I am here to tell you I am not insane, and neither are the many other former Hillary supporters in your state. We are voting McCain, and please stop whining about Palin ’cause she is sealing the deal!’ And she may even finish shattering that “glass ceiling”.

And one other comment: you looked kind of stupid saying, “It was tricky in the primary (ahem, caucus in Kansas, or don’t you remember that, the cheating and all reported on the Kansas Democratic Party website!) to use a lot of women and not appear to be women against Hillary.” Well, your silence on the sexism spoke scads. Remember this!

“You were women against Hillary!” And now you are women against Palin.

Glow Fading?

A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama‘s glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month’s NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

In a single month. Obama has lost 12 points to McCain.

To. John. McCain.

What’s that I hear PUMAs? I totally agree, but I told you so doesn’t translate well into cult-speak so I’m sure they wouldn’t understand.

This is something we all can understand easily. We aren’t limited to what Precious says is ok. We have the capability to experience truth individually. We don’t need anyone’s permission to think.

But for those that do there are other realities. Scary realities. Realities where “that woman” is a diversion from all things Barky. OMG!

More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics.

The spectacle of eagerly embracing. These supposed followers of the new politics have real issues reaching out. Which only defines how much hype this new politics bullshit really is.

What is most amusing amazing is that the Cultists attribute this to Hillary. Like it couldn’t have a thing to do with Obama’s flip flops. The guy is getting so good at flip flopping that he can actually flip flop and throw someone under the bus at the same time. And call you a racist.

I’m telling you this guy has talent.

Obama drops like a rock

Newsweek speculates that Obama’s embrace of Hillary has damaged his brand of New Politics. That did a lot less damage than Barack Obama’s series of policy reversals and gaffes over that three-week period. He has revealed himself as an empty suit and a pandering rookie, and he certainly didn’t need Hillary to point that out.

A casual reading of the polling data alone would have confirmed who is responsible for this shift away from Obama. And it isn’t Hillary.

But there is a definite momentum away from Obama, especially within the independents. June’s poll, taken only three weeks ago, had Obama ahead by 12 points, 48-36. Obama has lost a whopping 14 points among independents and now trails McCain, 34-41.

Obama now trails John McCain among Independents. It serves the misogynist friend with terrorists elitist flip flopper right.

Just Say No Deal