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

Today’s dumber than hell example is a so-called journalist named Jonathan Alter of Newsweek. Considering that Newsweek was stupid enough to hire that ass Kos I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised if another journalist on the staff was equally as inept and clueless.

Alter begins his exercise in stupidity stating that Hillary is pandering for the popular vote. Something that Alter considers poison.

Popular Vote Poison

While she knows that the nomination is determined by delegates, Hillary insists on saying at every opportunity that she is winning the popular vote. And she has now taken to touting the new HBO movie “Recount,” which chronicles the Florida fiasco of eight years ago. Everyone can agree that the primary calendar needs reform. But popular-vote pandering is poison for Democrats.

According to Alter it is a bad thing to remind people what happens when the will of the people is not recognized. He also seems to be under the misguided assumption that reminding people of the Florida fiasco will somehow make uniting the Democratic party all the harder.

I wouldn’t expect a simpleton like Alter to get this, but it is people like him and his cohorts that are making it nearly impossible for the Democratic party to unite.

But it isn’t enough for this wacko to spout the above nonsense. He goes on to tell another tall tale: Hillary isn’t leading in the popular vote. And I had thought I had heard everything. See what I mean though? Stupider by the day. Kind of hard to watch happen.

After Kentucky and Oregon, Obama has an official popular vote lead of 449,486.

Isn’t that odd? I wonder where he gets his numbers? La La Land? But wait. It gets even better. Alter makes the claim that we must also take into consideration the “votes” of the caucus states. Never mind that caucus states do not vote. Never mind that caucuses are the most undemocratic form of representation outside of an actual fascist regimes. According to Alter, by god they count.

Adding in the unofficial tally from caucus states, as estimated by realclearpolitics.com based on official caucus turnout and the number of local delegates selected at the precinct level, that gives Obama a lead of 559,708.

Oh really? That is some fancy math Alter has got there. And so nice of him to display one of the blatant characteristics of all Cultists. He decides to just redefine what a caucus is so it will benefit his boy Barack. But should we expect anything less? I sure don’t.

Begrudgingly Alter finally admits that Hillary won the popular votes in Michigan and Florida. And believe it or not he says that the votes should count. And he concludes that now Hillary leads in the popular vote. But don’t let that hoodwink you. Read on….

Not so fast. If the Democratic National Committee completes its expected settlement on May 31, Florida and Michigan will each get half of their votes counted. Translated to popular votes, that would subtract about 325,000 votes from Hillary, putting Obama back into the lead.

I willingly admit that I am not a lawyer. But I have read the DNC rules and no where in the rules does it state that a single vote would be considered anything less than what it is. In other words all votes count. Fully. Delegates are the only thing that can change according to the rules.

Unsatisfied with demonstrating how completely out of touch with reality Alter is he coaxes us further into his delusion. Buckle up folks. This is one wild ride.

Beyond not being official numbers, there’s another problem with counting Michigan in these totals. Obama wasn’t on the ballot there. You can say this was his own choice, but that doesn’t change the fact that had he been on the Michigan ballot he would have received a lot of popular votes. How many?

Try 238,168. That’s the number of Michiganders who voted for “uncommitted.” Were they possibly genuinely abstaining? Maybe a few hundred of them at most. The rest were clearly Obama supporters who launched a grass-roots campaign. Everyone in Michigan knew on January 15 that a vote for “uncommitted” was a vote for Obama.

That means that by a generous definition of popular votes (and remember, Clinton wants to enfranchise as many people as possible in her count), Obama leads by about 166,000 votes.

See how easily Alter takes us back to La La Land where it is Obama that is leading in the popular vote? You have to respect psychopaths. They try their darnedest to get you to believe their madness is reality.

Correct me if I am wrong, but weren’t there four candidates that withdrew their names from the Michigan primary? And even so, since when can someone declare they are eligible for votes when they intentionally took their name off the ballot? I learned in grade school that if my name wasn’t on a ballot no one could vote for me. I wasn’t the smartest student. But I got that. Apparently I was smarter way back then than Alter is now.

Alter saves his best/worst delusion for last.

If the Obama people have any sense, they will demand in their negotiations with the Clintonites that Hillary cease and desist in her specious claim to have won the most popular votes.

Given that more than 35 million voters took part in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, the math games on both sides look awfully silly. Everyone should agree to call it a tie.

Have the Obama Cult DEMAND anything from Hillary and her supporters? Surely this guy is a lobotomy waiting to happen. We have heard all the demands from that crowd that we will put up with or listen to. Instead we have our own demand. We demand that journalists report truth. And that Newsweek institute a drug testing policy. Clearly this guy Alter is wacked out of his mind on something.