First there is the massive upset in New York City when a Republican, Bob Turner, took Anthony Weiner’s seat, the first time a Republican has gotten the District 9 seat in almost 90 years. Holy cow. It Every report I have seen claims this is most definitely a referendum on Obama:

[snip] Republicans sought to turn the race into a referendum on President Obama, tying Weprin to the surprisingly unpopular commander-in-chief at every turn. (Obama’s approval rating was at 43 percent in the district, according to a survey conducted by Siena Research Institute).

Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus cast the result as a rebuke of Obama’s new jobs plan.

Obama’s position on Israel became, fairly or not, an effective wedge against Weprin. The Democratic candidate tried to distance himself from Obama’s assertion that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders but Turner effectively linked that position, deeply unpopular in the district’s Jewish community, to his Democratic rival.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Democrat, endorsed Turner and explained that a victory by the Republican would be the best way for Democrats to send a message to the President. [snip]

You might want to check out the rest of that Washington Post article. The author could not have worked herself into more circles trying to claim why this was NOT a referendum on Obama and the Democrats. It is almost comical, if this wasn’t supposed to be a REPORT, and not an opinion piece.

Meanwhile, there was also a special election in Nevada. This one wasn’t anywhere near close (and the Turner v. Weprin was not exactly a squeaker).Republican Mark Amodei beat Democrat Kate Marshall by at least a 20 point spread (hey, it’s Nevada – you have to talk in betting terms, right?). Not even close. Yeah, apparently the Democrats are getting a bit worried about 2012.

In Obama’s usual tone deaf manner, and despite the Solyndra debacle that is costing us over half a billion dollars, he is pushing on with his agenda for “green jobs.” Now, you know I am all for doing work that helps preserve the environment, and would certainly support viable alternatives to foreign oil, like wave power, for instance, or geothermal energy, things of that nature. But Obama just doesn’t seem to get how his agenda fails to hit the mark:

[snip] More recently, approximately 500 Texans lost their jobs Monday because of Environmental Protection Agency regulations on the energy industry.

And the president has offered no specific regulatory relief, other than a single ozone regulatory proposal he nullified a few weeks ago.

Former Sen. Kit Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the former ranking member of a “green jobs” Senate subcommittee, told The Daily Caller he has warned the administration and the American people about the perils of agenda-driven green jobs programs before, to no avail.

“This was a very important subject when we raised it in the spring of 2009, and again in the summer of 2010, but people didn’t really catch on,” Bond told TheDC. “Now, I’m watching the regular news media; even CNBC has figured it out.”

While in the Senate, Bond authored a report just after Obama took office predicting much of what has happened with the “green jobs” agenda. Promised technologies have not panned out economically, and few new U.S. jobs have resulted.

“As we talk about stimulus, people might want to dig deeply into the green jobs initiatives, even high speed rail, to make sure we don’t spend money in very wasteful, unproductive ways,” Bond said. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Speaking of Solyndra, seems there is more afoot than the Administration wants us to know. Apparently, some pesky little emails are making their way out to the light of day. Yep, seems there was some concern about Solyndra , but someone – as in the White House – pushed for the loan for Solyndra. Check that, they RUSHED the loan through:

[snip] One e-mail from an OMB official referred to “the time pressure we are under to sign-off on Solyndra.” Another complained, “There isn’t time to negotiate.”

“We have ended up with a situation of having to do rushed approvals on a couple of occasions (and we are worried about Solyndra at the end of the week),” one official wrote. That Aug. 31, 2009, message, written by a senior OMB staffer and sent to Terrell P. McSweeny, Biden’s domestic policy adviser, concluded, “We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews.” (Click here for the rest.)

See, this is why I think Congress should read bills before passing them, like Obamacare, and Obama’s Newest Stimulus bill. Because rushing things through without due diligence is just a tad problematic, especially for the taxpayers of this country.

Just out of curiosity, just what does it take to impeach a president? I’m just wondering since there seems to be one damn thing after another coming out about Obama and his ways. Oh, dangit – I reckon that is going to get me a mention on Obama’s new Watch list. And the Democrats don’t have a problem with this? Wait, that’s right – Obama did this in 2008, too – rat people out who might disagree with him even when the truth backed them up. Can’t have that, after all, can we? (I am purposely not linking to this because, well, I don’t wanna. Ahem. However, Helenk, did provide the link, bless her heart.) Somehow, that isn’t sounding particularly American, is it?

Good grief. After all of this, I feel the need for a metaphorical shower. I imagine you might, too, so I want to share with you the incredible story, also from Nevada, about a principal in Las Vegas, Sherrie Gahn:

Click here to view the embedded video.

How amazing is Ms. Gahn? Just in case you were wondering, she was on the Ellen Show, and Target not only gave her school $100,000, but provided backpacks filled with books, pens, paper, etc. Go, Target – always did like that store. Anyway, Ms. Gahn is an amazing example of how much just one person can accomplish. I tip my hat to her. (For those who have a hard time accessing videos, here is a link about this incredible woman.)

What other stories are on your mind today?

Heck, I think you could say the Republicans were being just plain hateful toward seniors, especially considering the comments by DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

[snip] “This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through seniors’ nursing homes.” [snip]

Not to be outdone is Rep. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.):

[snip]“Make no mistake about it, the Ryan budget is a war on seniors,” she said in a press conference organized by the Congressional Task Force on Seniors. “Newt Gingrich has said Medicare should wither on the vine. Well, this Republican budget would chop it down.” The new civility didn’t stop there: “Republicans are literally trying to kill Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Democrats will stand of the way of their war on seniors.” [snip]

Holy shit, grab the dog, Martha, and hide under the bed! Ahem.

Imagine my surprise, then, while reading my daily paper to discover the following article, “Seniors Face Medicare Cost Barrier For Cancer Drugs.” Huh? Wait – how can that be? Isn’t the President a Democrat? And the Senate is headed up by Democrats? How can this possibly be?

Oh, wait – I know – because the “health care” plan shoved down our throats by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, cut boatloads of money from Medicare. Not that you’d know it from the way the Democrats are screaming and carrying on now.

But I am getting ahead of myself and this AP article:

Chemotherapy is now available in a pill, but if you have Medicare, you may not be able to afford it.

That’s what happened to Rita Moore when she took her prescription for a medication to treat kidney cancer to her local drugstore. She was stunned when the pharmacist told her a month’s supply of the pills would cost $2,400, more than she makes.
Medicare prescription plans that cover seniors like Moore are allowed to charge steep copayments for the latest cancer drugs, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. About 1 in 6 beneficiaries are not filling their prescriptions, according to recent research that suggests a worrisome trend.

Officials at Medicare say they’re not sure what happens to those patients — whether they get less expensive older drugs that sometimes work as well, or they just give up. Traditionally, chemotherapy has been administered intravenously at a clinic or doctor’s office. Pills are a relatively new option that may represent the future of cancer care. [snip]

Good grief, how could this possibly happen? Oh, wait – I know that, too – because Obama met with Big Pharma before doing ANYTHING else on the “Health Care” bill. And it makes this even more aggravating:

[snip] Private insurance companies that deliver the Medicare prescription benefit say the problem is that drug makers charge too much for the medications, some of which were developed from taxpayer-funded research. The pharmaceutical industry faults insurers, saying copayments on drugs are higher than cost-sharing for other medical services, such as hospital care.

Some experts blame the design of the Medicare prescription benefit itself, because it allows insurers to put expensive drugs on a so-called “specialty tier” with copayments equivalent to 25 percent or more of the cost of the medication.
Drugs for multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis C also wind up on specialty tiers, along with the new anti-cancer pills. Medicare supplemental insurance — Medigap — doesn’t cover those copayments.

“This is a benefit design issue,” said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, a research firm that collaborated in a recent medical journal study on the consequences of high copayments for the new cancer drugs. [snip]

Yep – we helped these companies design these drugs, and now some of the very people who did so cannot afford these drugs to save their lives.

There is more to this article, including the response by Medicare, and how Obama’s Health Care Law factors in, but this is the result for Rita Moore:

[snip] Rita Moore had to try to find her own way out of the dilemma.

She decided to apply to Pfizer’s prescription assistance program for patients who can’t afford Sutent and other drugs the company makes. Pfizer approved a year’s worth of free medication, but it took about two months to collect and review all the medical and financial paperwork.

“They were very helpful, but it wasn’t a fast process,” said Moore, who is still working as the manager of an apartment building for seniors. In the meantime, she wasn’t being treated. The cancer spread and is now close to her spine and her body’s main artery. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, dear – that is just dreadful. I am sure Rita Moore is more the rule than the exception, especially considering this article from The Daily Caller, “Obamacare Doesn’t Stop Medigap Providers, AARP Partners From Discriminating Against Seniors.” Say what? But wait, I thought it was supposed to be REPUBLICANS who hated seniors. Nope, apparently it is Democrats. Oh no they didn’t:

The Daily Caller has learned that Democratic lawmakers omitted a section of Obamacare in the summer of 2009 that would have stopped Medigap plan providers, including American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) partners, from discriminating against seniors with pre-existing conditions.

Democrats removed a section that would have required “guaranteed issue,” or coverage regardless of preexisting conditions, for Medigap plans from an early version of the Obamacare bill.

Medigap plans are supplemental coverage that Medicare recipients may purchase. They insure seniors a step further than the basic Medicare coverage.

TheDC has obtained an early copy of the Obamacare bill, dated June 19, 2009, which shows the bill’s original authors had intended to stop AARP partners and other Medigap providers from discriminating against seniors. But, at some point between then and early fall 2009 when Democrats introduced the bill into the House, that provision was removed.

A House Democratic aide told Kaiser Health News (KHN) earlier this year that the Medigap provision was removed from the bill because it cost too much. [snip]

Oh, yes, they did.

Well, wait – what’s the deal with AARP? Doesn’t their very name imply they are supposed to stand with senior citizens? So one would think:

[snip] The AARP said numerous times throughout the Obamacare debate that it would forgo profits to cover costs of improved health insurance for seniors. “To suggest there is a commercial conspiracy is ludicrous,” AARP’s chief lobbyist David Sloane told the Tacoma News-Tribune in October 2009, referencing charges that the AARP was supporting Obamacare in order to bolster its partners’ Medigap programs and, thereby, making profit. “As we have said, we would gladly forgo every dime of revenue to fix the health care system.”

The AARP generated more than $675 million in 2010 “royalty revenue,” or “kickbacks” as some of its members refer to them as. More than $440 million of that came from AARP’s partnership with United Health Group, a Medigap provider AARP lends its brand to in exchange for royalties.

Jim Martin of 60 Plus, the conservative version of the AARP, told TheDC that this new revelation shows what he thinks the AARP really is: “The Association Against Retired Persons.”

“They’re betraying seniors while going after the almighty dollar,” Martin said. “I don’t mind them making a profit if they use their own dime to do it. But, as you well know, they’ve received well over a billion dollars in tax dollars throughout the years now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And the argument can be made that one would be wrong to think AARP has the best interests of its members in mind. (And this is why I deep six every AARP membership card I receive.)

Well, this does thicken the plot, doesn’t it? Seems to me that the Democrats are crying foul lest the focused light is shone on them. Of course, that would mean the MSM would have to actually look at these issues more. As others have said, would that the NY Times and Washington Post spent as much time and energy on the Obama Health Care Plan as they have the Sarah Palin Emails. Then we would not have had to wait for the bill to be passed into law to find out just what the hell was in there.

Hey, better late than never – now that they have all of these volunteers, perhaps they could ask them to take a little look see at the Health Care Law. Just a thought.

Tuesday is Flag Day – Fly it high and proud, friends!

Before I go on with the duties of the position, I have to ask: media sites filed FOIAs for Palin’s email back in 2008? Yes, indeed they did. From the very beginning, they set out to dig up anything they could possibly find on the very popular Governor of Alaska. Apparently, because Palin is just a girl, think that the First Dude was the one doing all of the work. Sexist pigs, the lot of them.

Oh, if only they had bothered to do the same with the man sitting in the White House (unless he is out on the golf course), making a wreck of the country but no – it is much more fun to try and destroy someone for no other reason than sheer derangement syndrome, which overcame these sites very quickly, I must say. (Isn’t there some kind of vaccination for that kind of lunacy? Just wondering.)

Okay, back to the NY Times job description:

[snip] We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

What you will see when you click on the link is that the title REALLY is, “Help Us INVESTIGATE the Sarah Palin Email Records.”

Not to be outdone is the Washington Post:

[snip] Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governorSarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday. That’s a lot of e-mail for us to review so we’re looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.

We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection.

If you need inspiration before getting started, take a look at what to expect from the e-mail drop. For micro-updates as tomorrow unfolds, check out our new Twitter feed. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here we are, with a shitty economy, people losing jobs, REAL scandals in people like Weiner (a little more on that in a minute), high gas prices, high food prices, illicit war being waged in Libya, Obama inviting the likes of Ali Bongo from Gabon to the WHITE HOUSE (hint: Bongo’s family’s theft of money from the nation of Gabon makes Mubarrak look like Mother Teresa), and two of the biggest papers in the country are still going after PALIN?? They are seriously screwed up.

You might like to take a look at the comments at both papers. A number of people are calling them out on their sexism toward Palin, and their inability to do their own damn jobs. Rightly so, too. What a bunch of jackwagons.

And in a major Screw You to at least two of the Big Ten (that would be Commandments), the people in Weiner’s district don’t give a damn that he is an adulterer, liar, predator, sick, twisted, misogynist. Yep, 56% of those polled think he should stay in his position. Wow. That is amazing. And incredibly disturbing. It isn’t like he is even all that great at his job. He is considered more of a show horse than work horse, so WHY would the people in his district support a man who has demonstrated such horrible judgment, such misogyny, such twisted sexual proclivities, and who is a downright liar? I’d love to know.

Blech. Okay, that’s enough crapola for one day. Time for a metaphorical shower:

TGIF…

Their unlikely agreement came as all three insisted it would have been better for the White House to release the post-mortem photos of Osama bin Laden, rather than doing what Sarah Palin called “pussyfooting around.” Sarah Palin via CBS News:

“Show photo as warning to others seeking America’s destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama; it’s part of the mission.”

Most shocking is that the WaPo’s Eugene Robinson agreed with her, although he did so in more polite language. Here is his reasoning:…

[E]ven if they would have “inflamed some jihadists and wannabes, I believe they would have disillusioned and deflated others. A heroic myth of invulnerability had been built around bin Laden. He was supposed to have cheated death while fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, walking tall through fields of fire as the bullets somehow missed. He escaped the Americans who cornered him at Tora Bora. He evaded capture for a decade, despite the best efforts of the West’s spies and soldiers.

Showing him in death would definitively refute any notion that bin Laden enjoyed some kind of divine protection. The myth would die with the man.

Robinson, like WSJ’s Peggy Noonan, believes this would have also quieted conspiracy theorists. But most importantly, Mr. Robinson stated,

The reason to display the photos is to show bin Laden for what he really was: not a holy warrior, not a holy anything, but a deluded mass murderer who met the end he so richly deserved.

In her article Show the Proof, Mr. President, WSJ’s Peggy Noonan offered her deepest admiration and congratulations to the U.S. Navy Seal team who accomplished this difficult and dangerous mission. While she also congratulated President Obama for telling CIA Chief Leon Panetta to “get this guy,” Noonan acknowledged that “with our president there is always a however….”:

[H]e has spent almost every moment since his Sunday night speech [announcing bin Laden's death] displaying both a tin ear and a chronic tendency to misunderstand his own country. His refusal to release more evidence that Osama is dead is allowing a great story to dissolve into a mystery. He is letting a triumph turn into a conspiracy theory
.
[In this age]… “People believe nothing. They think everything is spin and lies.”

And why not – the spin from a number of administrations, especially this one and the last, would make anyone dizzy. Noonan states:

Mr. Obama misunderstands all this. He tells Steve Croft Sunday on Sixty Minutes that showing photos of the dead Osama would be to “spike the football.” “We don’t trot this stuff out as trophies.” Trophies? Who does he think we are?

I can understand her disgust at his comment. The idea of the “spiking the football” refers to a self-congratulatory, self-aggrandizing mode of behavior. Perhaps the president is viewing this event through his own paradigm. There is nothing resembling a victory lap about those needing to see for themselves that a criminal who delivered a “gutshot” to America has been brought to justice. Noonan states:

It’s not about pride, it’s about proof. “We got him, shot him and immediately threw him in the sea” is not enough. The U.S. government should release all the evidence it has that does not compromise security. Pictures of Osama are said to be gruesome. Then get the least gruesome one and put it out. Release the DNA evidence, incriminating information found in the house, and pictures of the raid. If there was a passport under the mattress, make it public. And let the SEALs tell their story. Allow them, if they are willing and eager, to go on “Nightline,” “Frontline” and “60 Minutes.” If they cannot be identified or don’t wish to be, put a blue dot over their faces, filter their voices, and don’t use their names….

Americans don’t want to spike the ball. They just want to show they crossed the goal line.

She discussed Sunday night’s celebration in the streets. While it may have felt odd and at once discomfiting, it offered at least some small measure of justice – that the architect of this horror was finally punished for his heinous crime.

The National Journal also polled some of our top officials to see who “voted” yes or no on the release of such photos. Interestingly, the divide was not on party lines.

Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates voted no, worrying that the photos would provoke a backlash in the Middle East, endangering our troops. House Speaker John Boehner voted “no” saying he had no doubts as to bin Laden’s death, while Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins felt the most important reason to release these pictures would be to dispel suspicions he might still be alive. CIA director Leon Panetta has said he “expected” a photo proving bin Laden’s death to be released.

Apparently, President Obama disagreed.

While I have no wish to look at these gruesome photos myself, it seems to me we should defer to the troops who are currently in harm’s way and then to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 before we consider anyone else’s.

What say you?

**************
*Although (Prez Obama cheerleader) Eugene Robinson did reluctantly admit that Palin had a point on her characterization of Obamacare “death panels.”

(Or the more offensive, homophobic term for Tea Partiers.) Crosshairs! Targets!

The list could go on of the labels attached to groups of people or concepts by the media when they want to discount, demean, belittle, discourage discussion, demonize a group, or frame the issue how they want it to be, rather than how it is.

We saw this just recently with pundits rushing to frame the Tucson shootings as ratcheted up Republican rhetoric – falsely, as the facts later showed – from big time sources like the NY Times (Paul Krugman), Huffington Post (Arianna herself), DailyKos, and on and on. The shooting of Rep. Giffords and the other 18 victims was immediately put in the context of Republican political rhetoric being to blame for the actions of the shooter within a few hours of the event. Now, even though this meme has been proven wrong, pundits continue to say things like, “rightly or wrongly, the issue of civility is now front and center.” Well, it is WRONGLY, but every time they mention it, they continue to perpetuate this false meme. Civility had nothing to do with it at all, but now, whenever this issue comes up, like Pavlov and his dogs, that is what we think.

This ratchet response, ingrained in us by the media, is coming up again this week in terms of Obama’s birth certificate. A couple of articles have surfaced in which the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, in an attempt to dispel once and for all the allegations that Obama is not a natural born citizen, was unable to find his birth certificate. Oops. Apparently, there is a notation of Obama’s birth, but no long form has surfaced.

Additionally, a former Hawaii elections official, Tim Adams, has sworn, under oath, that neither hospital in Honolulu has a record of Obama’s birth. He doesn’t stop there – he goes on to say he was told there was no long form, and also to stop mucking around in this issue.

I am not getting into whether or not Obama is, or is not, a natural born citizen. That is not the point here. Check your response to what I wrote. Even bringing up this issue, no matter how or what has been discovered, is generally discounted as a crazy conspiracy theory, and that it is CRAZY to even mention it.

And that is because that is what we have been told by the media to think (pant, pant, pany, as Pavlov’s dog would do). The mere mention of Obama’s birth certificate brings derision and scorn upon whomever has the temerity to mention it. For the first time, for as long as I can remember, a presidential candidate was not required to present this document, one routinely required for a number of less important jobs. Yet requesting this one piece of paper has created a maelstrom of gigantic proportions.

We all know that by the mere fact of requesting this document, the requester is crazy. The media told us so. So, there.

Just like they told us Hillary was a cold, heartless Iron Bitch.

Just like they told us Sarah Palin was at the root of the Tucson shootings, or is a crazy “Mama Grizzly,” or that she could see Russia from her house (i.e., she’s stupid, got it? C’mon, only a MO-RON would think something like that. Never mind she never said it. Picky, picky.).

Just like they told us Tea Partiers are a bunch of racist yahoos (someone might want to tell Representatives Tim Scott and Col. Allen West that they are racists for belonging to the Tea Party. Ahem.).

I am sure you get the idea. The media is not reporting the news, they are shaping what they want people to believe. Even now, CNN and MSNBC continue to perpetuate this whole civility/Republican rhetoric meme for the Tucson shootings, regardless of the facts. That is not news – that is propaganda.

We learned of the JournoListers coordinating efforts to advance Obama’s candidacy for president, keeping important stories that might impact his chances out of their respective mediums. That was behind closed doors.

But now, media personalities are getting more blatant about it. Just recently, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank calls out for a “Palin-Free February.” Yes, he has put a call out to his fellow commentators to not write or talk about Sarah Palin at all in the month of February.

Now, what kind of responsible journalist, or commentator, for that matter, would even consider such an action, except to continue to shape opinion about this figure? In his article (which you can read if you really want to give him the traffic), he makes some other (predictable) snide comments about Sarah Palin. That is the meme, after all – she is to be derided, demeaned, and ridiculed at every step, dontcha know, lest anyone start to take her seriously as a potential candidate. We cannot have THAT, after all. Rather than straight reporting, or basing commentary on, oh, I don’t know, let’s say, FACTS, now we just make shit up as if the person said or did it, then attack him/her for it mercilessly until the person become a mere caricature, and should anyone else still actually like them, they are nothing but a bunch of ignorant gun-totin’ hayseeds who likely don’t have a row to hoe anyway, so who cares what they think? Stupid heads.

And that is where our media is today. They set up these ratchet responses to labels, and dare anyone to stray from their definition or their insistence on who/what those labels represent, tearing down anyone who is foolish enough to disagree. They attack, deride, persecute until the person breaks, then respond with a, “see?? We TOLD you they were x, y, z…” They create the meme, then do everything in their power to make it true.

So, I reckon since I mentioned the whole Obama Birth Certificate thing now, no matter what I did or did not say, I will, forever after, be labeled a Birther. So, what the hell – for good measure, the government carried out 9/11!!! They did! There is no evidence of a plane at the Pentagon! Tea Party members are racist America-haters! Sarah Palin is personally responsible for the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, and should be thrown in jail immediately!!! (Snark, snark, snark – just in case that was not abundantly clear.)

Hey, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, right? Wrong. We must stop this insanity with our media. When (formerly) great newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times become rumor-mongering rags, we are in serious trouble. Legitimate questions deserve legitimate answers, not derision. Serious investigative journalism must be restored to our media outlets, not regurgitating press releases from this or that party. Rather than allowing loud-mouthed pundits to determine the news, how about having some actual journalists (if you can still find them) to report the news, rather than craft the news? We must stop allowing them to silence us if we do not agree with their manufactured outrage and meme.

Just a thought. But hey, I am just a Birther/Truther/Tea Partier/Mama Grizzly Wannabe/Crosshair Target-er. So what do I know?!

You may have heard that Barbara Walters included Sarah Palin as one of the “Top 10 Most Fascinating People.” And after the taping, Walters made condescending comments about Palin to Robin Roberts on Good Morning America after Palin had the grace to sit down with her. If I was Gov. Palin, I would add Walters to the list with Katie Couric. But that’s just me.

Now Richard Wolffe, the MSNBC toady, I mean, analyst, has had some smack to say about Palin from that very interview. About what does he make fun of her for saying? That she reads C.S. Lewis.

Huh?

You may recall back during the 2008 election, liberals were upset with Palin for her conservative faith. Heck, even the Washington Post was writing about her “pastor problem.” Palin’s pastor problem – because, well, you know, Obama didn’t have one. Ahem (and the JournoListers made damn sure many people didn’t know he had one).

Yes, Richard Wolffe made fun of Palin for saying she reads C.S. Lewis for “divine inspiration.” Oh, yes he did:

[snip] Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews, Wolffe expressed incredulity, noting that Lewis wrote “a series of kids’ books.”

Matthews interrupted Wolffe: “I wouldn’t put down C.S. Lewis.”

“I’m not putting him down,” Wollfe responded. “But you know divine inspiration? There are things she could’ve said to divine inspiration. Choosing C.S. Lewis is an interesting one.”

Aside from authoring popular children’s books like the “Chronicles of Narnia,” Lewis was known as a Christian apologist who authored a number of books on religion, like “Mere Christianity.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Okay, you know it is bad when even Tweety jumps in there at Wolffe’s statement. But Matthews has a point. C.S. Lewis was a well-regarded scholar, erudite, intelligent, and a prolific writer of books on Christianity. One would think after criticizing her for being too conservative that her choice of this scholar, contemporary of, and friends with, J.R.R. Tolkien would have gotten her a bit of a break. But no.

Wolffe, in his PDS state can only make fun of her, apparently assuming she was referring to the “Chronicles of Narnia,” the children’s series. That is but one part of the numerous books Lewis wrote about Christianity. Perhaps, since Wolffe is apparently unfamiliar with the author, he doesn’t even have to look it up. He can watch “Shadowlands” and learn all about the life and works of C.S. Lewis. That will only take him a couple of hours. Shoot, I bet he can stream it from NetFlix.

No, it is just so much more fun to put Palin down for ANYTHING she says. I swear to the goddess, if she lived during the time Jesus walked the earth, she could say she
sat down and talked with him for divine inspiration. No doubt, Wolffe would find a way to put her down for that. He might say something like she hung out with blue collar carpenter whose friends were a bunch of fishermen, and – GASP – women! What a joke!

This is the same crap they did to Hillary time and time again. It is so, so tiresome to see this “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t” mentality ever present with those in the media. I’m sick of it.

And I am sick of the constant “gotcha” mentality of the media toward Palin (and Clinton) ever present. Why did Palin even mention reading C.S. Lewis? Because Barbara Walters, a la Couric, asked her what she read. I kid you not. Oh, and she also said to Palin, “Many find the idea of you as president ‘scary.’” Wow. I’m sorry, but that’s just rude.

Unfortunately, I am sure this is far from over, especially as 2012 approaches. I mean, really – when reading C.S. Lewis becomes fodder for put downs, well, that says it all, doesn’t it?

These progressive champions don’t seem to realize they have delivered the President more grievous insults than the ones they have long sought to protect him from. By framing President Obama as lacking in leadership skills, or being held captive by the opposition party, or too beholden to the far left of his own party, these pundits are telegraphing their belief that he is too soft, not a capable executive, not responsible for his own actions and a victim.

Their reasons for depicting Obama this way are their own, but I suspect it is too horrible for them to contemplate that they were taken in by branding and attractive rhetoric. Mr. Obama is doing precisely what he has done since well before his election – capitulate in the face of challenge. Were the “principles” pundits expected the President to uphold really his or theirs? A candidate must draw a line in the sand via his or her own record, demonstrating a willingness to go down fighting for a cause over the course of years before it can be proven that such principles are any more than projections by optimists wanting to be swept up by “history” and romance.

His State Senate record in Illinois recalled a man who voted “present” 130 times, along with 6 “wrong” or “oops, I hit the wrong button” votes. As a freshman US Senator he missed over 40% of his votes, particularly risky ones. In 2008, he reneged on FISA, was guilty of double dealing on NAFTA, reneged on his written promise to take public financing in his presidential campaign, and surrounded himself with corporatist advisors like Austan Goolsbee who have long favored privatizing Social Security. Contrary to his upstart, new kind of politics image, he receiving more money from Wall Street than any other candidate and was backed by the old guard of the Democratic Party. He praised President Reagan while belittling President Clinton and campaigned down south with Donnie McCurkin, ex-gay man “reformed through prayer. That the Obamas had long lived beyond their own means, receiving help with their house purchase from now convicted felon Tony Rezko and his wife should have given pundits pause.

This list went largely unchecked.

Most important, though the left favored Obama because of his purported anti-war stance, his little known 2002 anti-war speech regarding Iraq involved no vote or political risk yet when in the Senate three years later, he voted twice to continue funding a war he disagreed with.

Reviewing the above facts along with contradictory campaign promises Mr. Obama made in 2008, one has to wonder who these pundits thought they were urging the rest of us to vote for. And why do they complain that he is behaving in an unthinkable or incomprehensible way now? If one logically considers his record and his actions, not just his words, his current behavior was at least somewhat predictable via his past deeds.

President Obama showed himself to be a political opportunist wont to help those who helped him the most. Ergo, special considerations to unions and corporate bailouts by the truckload. This is not to fault Mr. Obama by the way. He presented his best self to the American people. If there were those who chose not to question his contradictions, who would not take advantage of such great good fortune?

The fault and responsibility must be placed squarely on the shoulders of the mainstream media and pundit class who abjectly refused to do their jobs in vetting Mr. Obama as a candidate. Those of us on the ground who saw inconsistencies and voiced our concerns were roundly and viciously insulted.

Further, the current furious flailing and complaints of liberal pundits are as empty and false as their previous accusations of “racism” were toward President Obama’s critics. Come 2012, they will all fall in line behind his candidacy, believing Republicans to be six kinds of evil. This is precisely why our President feels comfortable capitulating on tax rates, or pushing healthcare (without a public option) that is years away from being fully enacted rather than concentrating on putting Americans back to work. As far as President Obama is concerned, the left “has nowhere else to go,” despite Politico posting an article yesterday stating that President Obama was continuing and even growing a number of President Bush’s past policies.

While editorials on Huffington Post, diaries on DailyKos along with other print media are rumbling about a primary challenge to President Obama in 2012, the likelihood of its success is slim. And whether one feels the left’s wish list is right or wrong headed, or “sanctimonious” – as President Obama just called it – is hardly the point. Unless those who are furious now are willing to lose to win, offering more than idle threats, we will have more of the same rhetoric that we have been getting from both parties for years – lip service paid to a cause without effective solutions or legislation to back it up.

Solutions, anyone?

How shocking then to find that one of the biggest sluggers, who thought Hillary Clinton should be drinking “mad bitch beer,” has decided to let a little truth peak through. WaPo’s Dana Milbank asks a question many are pondering after the “shellacking” President Obama and the Dems received on Tuesday: Would we be better off under a President Hillary Clinton?

Milbank witnessed a “forlorn” Obama lamenting the “growth process” of the presidency in his post-mortem press conference Wednesday. Milbank concluded that Obama did in fact need training wheels, which is precisely what Hillary warned of in her much criticized “3 A.M.” phone call ad: “When there is a crisis . . . there’s no time for speeches or on-the-job training.”

Milbank’s article is getting much coverage on the blogs – probably for this statement:

I wondered whether Democrats would be in the fix they’re in if they had chosen a different standard-bearer.

[snip]

…[W]hat can be said with confidence is that Clinton’s toolkit is a better match for the current set of national woes than they were for 2008, when her support for the Iraq war dominated the campaign.

Milbank points out that part of Hillary’s coalition of voters, “low-income white voters, union members and workers of the Rust Belt” were precisely the ones who had abandoned Obama and the Dems on Tuesday. Many other groups made up her coalition of 18,000,000. The ones who, according to Dem strategist Donna Brazile, were “no longer needed.” But the divide between Clinton and Obama was far greater than their respective voter pools…

It is preposterous that Milbank now figures out what we argued three years ago – Hillary’s twenty years of experience working toward universal health care would have helped her navigate in the trenches for a much better plan than the disaster that was forced down the American gullet. She called herself “a fighter.” That much is true. It is also true that she had developed a reputation for getting bipartisan legislation passed and won the respect of Republicans who had always been her detractors. I guess that wasn’t sexy enough for Milbank et al – better to have pretty speeches and oversized rallies that proved nothing and taught nothing. Milbank also confides:

Clinton campaign advisers I spoke with say she almost certainly would have pulled the plug on comprehensive health-care reform rather than allow it to monopolize the agenda for 15 months. She would have settled for a few popular items such as children’s coverage and a ban on exclusions for pre-existing conditions. That would have left millions uninsured, but it also would have left Democrats in a stronger political position and given them more strength to focus on job creation and other matters, such as immigration and energy.

As much as Hillary was described as ego driven and power hungry, she would not push healthcare if it meant ignoring a far more pressing crisis. Her advisors also stated that even if she would have done the auto bailout “she would have coupled that help for big business with more popular benefits for ordinary Americans.”

Clinton, for example, first called for a 90-day foreclosure moratorium in December 2007, as part of a package to fight the early stages of the mortgage crisis with a five-year freeze on subprime rates and $30 billion to avoid foreclosures. But an Obama campaign adviser dismissed Clinton’s moratorium, saying it would “reward people for bad behavior.”

Calls for a moratorium returned a few weeks ago with news of lenders’ foreclosure abuses. Polls indicate public support for a moratorium, but Obama ruled it out. It’s a safe bet Clinton would have done otherwise.

And she would have been more business friendly, Milbank states, easing “uncertainty about tax and regulatory policy that has been crippling business.”

Most important, there can be little doubt that, whatever policies emerged, she would have maintained a laser focus on the economy; after all, she did that during the 2008 campaign, when it wasn’t as central an issue. She got little credit, for example, when she gave a speech in Iowa in November 2007 warning about the dangers of new financial instruments. Now, it seems prescient; then, it sounded boring.

Boring? She was shouting from the rooftops about the impending mortgage crisis for several years before the crash – I guess that was boring, too. How could Milbank and his ilk be so irresponsible as to not point out the value of her words? Rather they focused on idolatry and we are the worse for it.

Milbank, however, maintains his need for revisionist history:

There was plenty not to like about Clinton’s campaign, particularly her persistence in the race long after she had a chance. Had she beaten Obama, she might have introduced her own problems (a new entanglement with Iran, perhaps?). But a failure to connect with the common man would not have been among them.

Could it be Hillary knew putting the country in the hands of a neophyte was not such a good idea? And in a razor close contest, it was unheard of that a candidate with as many votes and delegates as she should have been forced out before the Convention – or in the middle of a campaign where she kept winning all the crucial states.

Even Bob Herbert of the New York Times complained in his piece Tone-Deaf in D.C., that “The Democrats are in disarray because it’s a party that lacks a spine.” Surely it lacked a spine when it refused to let the near-tied campaign play itself out at the Democratic Convention with a fair vote on the floor – by which time, many in the party were already experiencing buyer’s remorse with Obama’s Barackapalooza tour in Europe.

In US News & World Report, Mort Zuckerman, formerly a huge fan of President Obama opined that “America’s Love Affair With Obama Is Over”:

Right from the start, he got his priorities badly wrong, sacrificing the need to help create jobs in favor of his determination to pass Obamacare. It was the state of the economy that demanded genius and concentration, and it just did not get it. The president will now have to respond to public anger, not with anger management and, not, please God, with still more rhetoric.

Zuckerman’s column is near scathing, and also intimates the President is wearing training wheels:

The last two years have exposed to the public the risk that came with voting an inexperienced politician into office at a time when there was a crisis in America’s economy, as the nation contended with a financial freeze, a painful recession, and two wars.

But why wouldn’t that risk have been painfully obvious at the outset. All that was required was an ounce of logic. Perhaps Mr. Zuckerman is angry with himself, for not applying that ounce.

Why did Obama put his health plan so far ahead of the economy? To do what the Clintons couldn’t?

It sent the message that the White House was tone deaf, and perhaps more concerned with legacy. Ego driven and power hungry perhaps? What would have happened if the media called it on the nose thirty months ago and labeled the first term Senator with that moniker instead of condemning his more experienced and wiser counterpart with the same?

Dana Milbank offered a prescription for Obama’s course correction: “Do what Hillary would have done.”

While Secretary Clinton has just stated she is no longer interested in running for the Presidency, nothing is etched in stone. Two or four years is a lifetime in politics. Whether Hillary runs again or not, we still have a dangerous preoccupation with that which looks and sounds pretty, embracing fluff over substance, otherwise Hillary would be our President today.

Newly elected Republican Senator Marco Rubio is a case in point. He looks and sounds great. Eventually he might even be great – let us hope he does not get pushed too far too fast, in the name of putting an attractive face on the spaghetti jar of the bill of goods his party is selling to the American people.

Experience counts. So does actually having a record that reasonably matches up with the branding.

Please pardon my dust. This is a horse I have been beating for a long time. But until we hold those irresponsible parties accountable for waxing poetic about politicians at the American people’s expense, we will continue to get an unfair picture of their qualifications for office and likely wind up with wrongheaded leadership. It is to the American people’s credit that, however late, more are paying attention. Let’s hope it stays that way.

But Larry is not the only one with something to say about Obama’s proclamation. Here are just a few more statements being made this morning, compiled by AOL News:

[snip] Fitting Statement, But…
President Obama’s remarks about the community center and mosque planned for the neighborhood of Ground Zero were a fitting restatement of fundamental American fealty to freedom of religion….That said, it must also be recognized — and unfortunately Obama did not do so fully — that the hallowed ground of 9/11 stirs the deepest of emotions. That’s why, even as most of those polled saw the right to build, 64% still said the location was simply wrong for a mosque and Islamic-related facility…Those are legitimate sentiments, born not of bigotry but of reverence. They must be respected. — Editorial, New York Daily News

Not Hedging a Bit
The foes of the Islamic center have been trying to drag Obama into this debate, and some have urged Obama to avoid wading into it. But now he has, and he isn’t hedging a bit: He’s saying that opposing the group’s right to build the Islamic center is, in essence, un-American. I look forward to the response from the project’s opponents. – Greg Sargent, The Washington Post

Missing the Point
Like so much of the other stuff Obama says, this is an exercise in missing the point. The issue is not, legally, whether the Muslims can construct a mosque at Ground Zero — that is, whether state action should prevent them from doing so as long as they operate in “accordance with local laws and ordinances.” Of course not. That would be unconstitutional. But there’s a lot of stuff that’s legal that still isn’t right. And so, when it comes to the mosque, the real question is whether it should be built, and at only this one particular site — whether constructing it at Ground Zero is decent, and kind, and respectful of Americans’ sensitivities. – Carol Platt Liebau, Town Hall [snip]

I agree with Ms. Liebau – Obama is missing the point, as is Greg Sargent. This is not about freedom of religion – of course Muslims are free to practice their religion in the United States, as we all are (including the freedom not to practice religion). This is a canard, the purpose of which is a deliberate attempt to distort the real issue.

So, let’s be clear here. This mosque is not just any mosque, but one headed up by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. A man who is currently on tour of the Middle East courtesy of our State Department, and our dime. A man who refuses to condemn Hamas. A man who says we are partly to blame for 9/11. A man State Department spokesweasel P.J. Crowley says won’t be talking about religion, and won’t be fund-raising when he goes to countries like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to pay for the mosque he wants to build near Ground Zero.

But here’s the thing – Rauf has been offered other property on which to build his mosque by Gov. Patterson. He declined. He WANTS it to be in the shadow of Ground Zero. It begs the question: why?

This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about reverence, about sensitivity to one of the most horrible acts of war on our shores, committed by Muslim extremists. That is not a right wing talking point, that is reality, a fact. The Twin Towers were brought down by Muslim extremists who sought to do us harm. And they did.

Perhaps President Obama, and all of the liberals who are working so hard to be “politically correct” and paint those who desire to not have this mosque so close to Ground Zero as a bunch of intolerant, insensitive yahoos should take a look at the video below, and remember. Remember what happened that day, not just to New Yorkers, but at the Pentagon, in a field in Pennsylvania, to all Americans, and to the world. This isn’t about freedom of religion. It is about this:

No, this is about reverence. It is about honoring the memories of all who were lost in this devastating attack at the hands of Muslim extremists. It is about sensitivity to those families and friends who lost loved ones, and to all Americans who lost a sense of safety that day. It is about all of us, whose lives were changed forever the day those planes were flown into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania.

How dare anyone try and make this out to be anything other than that. It is not about freedom of religion, or the right of one group to practice that religion. It is about a modicum of grace. A modicum of respect. We would no more accept a KKK headquarters in Selma, or a Japanese WWII memorial at Pearl Harbor, or a German Cultural museum on the beaches of Normandy. No, we wouldn’t, and we shouldn’t accept this as a “freedom of religion” issue. It isn’t.

Imam Fauk was offered another piece of real estate in the city of New York, which already has more than 100 mosques. He declined. He is determined to have it near Ground Zero.

And again I ask, why?

Now, let me say right upfront – I had a number of absolutely outstanding teachers during the course of my education. I had teachers who encourage, supported, believed, and pushed me to believe in myself. Their efforts helped me to rise to a high academic level. I have nothing but respect for the majority of teachers, their hard work, their care, their out of pocket expenditures for their students, and their passion for teaching. Those were the kinds of teachers I was fortunate enough to have, from first grade on up. I was fortunate to grow up in a state (NC) that had an outstanding public school system, as well as outstanding state universities.

But I know not all teachers are like the majority of the ones I had, unfortunately. And it is to that point that Brooks writes:

I started covering education reform in 1983, with the release of the “Nation at Risk” report. In those days everybody had some idea for how we should reorganize the schools or change the curriculum—cut school size, cut class size, create vouchers, create charters, get back to basics, do less basics, increase local control, increase the federal role.

Some of the reforms seemed promising, but the results were disappointing, and tangential to the core issue: the relationship between teacher and student. It is mushy to say so, but people learn from people they love.

Today, aided by the realization that teacher quality is what matters most, a new cadre of reformers have come on the scene, many of them bred within the ranks of Teach for America. These are stubborn, data-driven types with a low tolerance for bullshit. The reform environment they find themselves in is both softhearted and hardheaded. They put big emphasis on the teaching relationship, but are absolutely Patton-esque when it comes to dismantling anything that interferes with that relationship. This includes union rules that protect bad and mediocre teachers, teacher contracts that prevent us from determining which educators are good and which need help, and state and federal laws that either impede reform or dump money into the ancien régime.

Ah, and we have come to the crux of the matter – the unions:

The past few years have seen an absolute change in the correlation of forces. It used to be that a few policy wonks would write essays assailing union rules that protected mediocre teachers; these pronouncements were greeted with skepticism in the media and produced no political movement. Now powerful political players, most notably President Obama, are making such arguments. The unions feel the sand eroding under their feet. They sense their lack of legitimacy, especially within the media and the political class. They still fight to preserve their interests, but they’ve lost their moral authority, as we’ve seen in New York City, Denver, Chicago, and even Washington, D.C.

The battle is not over, not by a long shot. Although the environment for change is more fertile now than ever before, we have yet to see what it can yield. An education reformer sent me an e-mail a few months ago saying he had never been so optimistic about the state of education reform—and yet never so pessimistic about the government’s ability to solve fundamental problems.

As I was saying above – there are concerns about this new Plan of Obama’s being little different from Bush’s in the overall effect. And, of course, the issue of unions protecting teachers who shouldn’t still be teaching (or in some cases, never allowed to start).

That brings me to the article that was in my paper on Sunday. What I didn’t tell you was the full headline, particularly the subheading, which, frankly, brought me up short: Literacy Rates Show Improvement; In Charleston County, fewer incoming freshmen reading at fourth-grade level or worse. Did you catch that? High school students reading at a fourth grade level or BELOW. To me, it begs the obvious question – how in the HELL did they make it to high school??? Honestly, this just does not compute.

I might add, this is being said in a positive way. Here’s more:

The Charleston County School District’s new and aggressive campaign to improve students’ reading already has sparked notable improvements, with the superintendent calling the gains a “great reflection of progress.”

New figures show the percentage of next year’s freshmen who read at a fourth-grade level or worse has dropped from 18 percent to 14 percent. Last year, nearly one in five students couldn’t read better than a fourth-grader. This year, it’s one in seven.

“When they came to me with these numbers, it was the best day I’ve had in a long time,” said Superintendent Nancy McGinley. “It proves when we focus on something, we can get it done.”

School officials learned about students’ weak reading skills last year after The Post and Courier requested this analysis. The superintendent and school board responded by making literacy the district’s top priority, and the emphasis on reading has permeated every school.

Oh, yay! But here is the take home message:

Still, while this year’s results seem promising, it will take several years to know whether it’s a one-year blip or part of a long-term trend. The district didn’t track this information until last year.

Which begs another question: why not? Had the Post and Courier not asked them, they wouldn’t have known how many of their Senior High school kids could not read the level of material for the class they were in?

But here’s my favorite part:

Schools always have worked on literacy, but teachers and principals received a clear message this year that they would be accountable for students’ reading skills, McGinley said. She said she thinks this year’s results reflect several years of attention on the issue.

All evidence to the contrary, apparently. I am just saying, to claim they have “always worked on literacy” when such a large number of students cannot read anywhere CLOSE to a high school level, is laughable.

The good news is, though, they are going to work harder at it:

District officials made new efforts this year to promote literacy, and they plan to roll out a more expansive, intensive, multi-million-dollar plan this fall to identify and help weak readers.

The programs for struggling readers will be mandatory instead of voluntary, and the district will expand its reach to include first-graders and sixth-graders across the district. McGinley said she expects to see more progress among students as those plans take effect. (Click here to read the rest.)

I would certainly hope so.

Bear in mind, this is but one county here in SC, and holds one of the most beautiful and historic cities in the country within its confines (not that I am biased). To learn the level of literacy (or lack thereof) here is just astonishing.

Or is it? Maybe we’re doing better here in Charleston County than I thought judging from this study, which has higher numbers for literacy (or illiteracy). Wow. This just blows me away.

Let me add that it isn’t like I didn’t know illiteracy was a problem in our country. I remember well working with prisoners and discovering they couldn’t read (which meant they couldn’t read the legal documents I presented to them), and being very surprised by the numbers (higher than I thought they would be). That was in MA, back in the ’90′s. But it was still a shock to realize how many people in this country, are reading far below the levels they need to be.

How about in your area? For the teachers in the crowd, what are the issues that get in the way of our children learning how to read and be functionally literate? What is happening in our schools that one-fifth of our students can’t really read by the time they get to high school (again, how are they getting to high school???)? And what can we do to change these numbers? I look forward to your responses.

UPDATE: This article was in my paper today, a follow-up to the one mentioned above, “Failing Our Students: Exam Illustrates Literacy Hurdles.”

Heck, just today, the Washington Post put out a poll it did with ABC News in which the headline says things might be a bit hairy for incumbents for the next election, but that overall, Obama is seen as trustworthy on a number of issues. But what you DON’T learn in that article is the breakdown of the 1001 people polled, and how Obama’s positive numbers could be higher now than they were in a recent Gallup poll. Well, HotAir explains:

Why did Obama and the Democrats still manage to hold more trust over their GOP opponents? The pollster talked to more of them, that’s how — and more of them than they did in the last poll, relative to Republicans. In the March 26th poll, the WaPo/ABC sample had a D/R/I split of 34/24/38, giving Democrats a partisan advantage of 10 points in the poll. This time, the sample’s split went 34/23/38, and even the independents split in favor of the Democrats, 19/17, up from 17/17 last month. Just to give some perspective, the partisan gap from their November 2008 poll just before the election was nine points — and 26% of the sample was Republicans, compared to 23% now.

Given the expanding partisan gap shown in this poll, small wonder that Obama winds up with more trust than Republicans among respondents. It’s also no mystery why the WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama adding to his job approval rating, 54/44, when every other pollster has Obama sinking. That ten-point swing in the sample makes quite a difference.

It also makes a big difference in the consolation news the Post and ABC offered Democrats. The 46/32 split for Dems on trust by party shows that Democrats would be considerably narrower than the 14-point lead this survey shows. The eleven point lead that Obama has over the GOP for trust on the economy would be completely gone, and the 4-point edge Obama enjoys over Republicans on the deficit would have more than reversed itself.

So you can see why I was a bit surprised to see the Politico story indicating the love affair with Obama was over. Yet that is the claim in this lengthy article. (Let me say up front, I will not be including the whole thing here for space reasons, but I urge you to read the whole piece.)

And now to the story itself:

One of the enduring storylines of Barack Obama’s presidency, dating back to the earliest days of his candidacy, is that the press loves him.

“Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me,” Obama joked last year at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

But even then, only four months into his presidency, the joke fell flat. Now, a year later, with another correspondents’ dinner Saturday night likely to generate the familiar criticism of the press’s cozy relationship with power, the reality is even more at odds with the public perception.

President Obama and the media actually have a surprisingly hostile relationship – as contentious on a day-to-day basis as any between press and president in the last decade, reporters who cover the White House say.

Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors – and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:

— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost non-existent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.

— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic emails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call – or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.

— Except for a few reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach – even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.

— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper – the New York Times – enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face-time.

“They seem to want close the book on the highly secretive years of the Bush administration. However, in their relationship with the press, I think they’re doing what they think succeeded in helping Obama get elected,” said the New Yorker’s George Packer.

“I don’t think they need to be nice to reporters, but the White House seems to imagine that releasing information is like a tap that can be turned on and off at their whim,” Packer said.

Okay. You know what I am going to say about this already. Had they actually done their jobs during the campaign, looked at who Obama really is, his job performance (or lack thereof), refrained from categorizing him as “cool” when he was being arrogant and aloof, maybe they would not surprised now.

And they sure would not be surprised by this, had they followed his “career”:

Much of the criticism is off-the record, both out of fear of retaliation and from worry about appearing whiny. But those views were voiced by a cross-section of the television, newspaper and magazine journalists who cover the White House.

“These are people who came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt,” said another reporter who regularly covers the White House. “They’ve lost all that goodwill.”

And this attitude, many believe, starts with the man at the top. Obama rarely lets a chance go by to make a critical or sarcastic comment about the press, its superficiality or its short-term mentality. He also hasn’t done a full-blown news conference for 10 months.

Obama’s White House aides can rightfully say they’ve set new standards for opening up access on several fronts, such as releasing previously secret visitors’ logs, expanding White House web content and offering more than 150 sit-down interviews with Obama to selected reporters.

But Gibbs is unapologetic about sometimes taking a hard line in his dealings with the press, saying it’s a response to the viral nature of modern media.

“There’s a danger in letting something go. Trust me, I read a lot of news every day. Not a day goes by that something that I didn’t pay enough attention to, or close attention to, doesn’t go from being myth to reality over the course of several hours,” Gibbs told POLITICO.

“I understand if you’re a reporter and get 95 percent right, and your word choice isn’t right on 5 percent. But that 5 percent goes on to become reality. I’ve got to live with that, when it may or may not be true,” Gibbs said. “It does make our jobs difficult.”

The correspondents association recently met with Gibbs to discuss, in the words of Bloomberg’s Ed Chen, “a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”

A few days later, Gibbs said at one of his briefings, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.”

Peals of laughter broke out in the briefing room.

Hold the phone. Did they agree with Chris Matthews that a journalist’s job was to make Obama’s presidency a successful one and that’s why they gave him goodwill he did not EARN?? If so, they are unclear about the role of a journalist in a free society.

At least they acknowledged the total Obama/Gibbs “Transparency” meme with the response it deserved – laughter.

Here are their beefs with the Obama Administration:

The press’s bill of particulars boils down to this:

Dodging questions

If you cover City Hall, you talk to the mayor. If you cover the Yankees, you’ll hang around Derek Jeter’s locker. The White House is no different, and aides past routinely filled that need by letting the press pool toss the president a couple of questions every so often, usually at one of the various events that fill his calendar every day.

Not Obama. He has severely cut back the informal exchanges with the press pool, marking a new low in presidential access.

The numbers speak for themselves: during his first year in office, President Bill Clinton did 252 such Q&A sessions—an average of one every weekday. Bush did 147. Obama did 46, according to Towson University Professor Martha Kumar.

“Too many of the president’s meetings are ‘no coverage’ for my taste,” said ABC’s Ann Compton. “That is a stark reduction in access for us.”

White House aides say Obama has hardly avoided the media. Indeed, he has done so many interviews that at times journalists have accused him of being overexposed. In his first year, Obama gave 161 interviews, according to Kumar’s tally. Bush and Clinton each did about 50.

Reporters point out that the Bush White House was no paragon of press transparency. And since the meeting with Gibbs this month, Obama took a couple of questions at a meeting with congressional leaders last week and still photographers got into a couple more events.

“I give credit to Robert for having the meeting, hearing our concerns and taking some action after the meeting to show that, while he may not agree to all the things we’re pushing for, he respects our concerns,” said CNN’s Ed Henry, the correspondents’ association’s secretary.

Playing favorites

It’s one thing to feed a scoop to the Times. Every White House does it.

But Team Obama did it right in front of the other reporters’ faces – then, in their view, lied about it.

Say Whaaaaa?? The Obama Administration LIED about something? Yeah, like every time Obama or Gibbs open their mouths. For the rest of this particular tale of how the White House dissed a whole bunch of reporters and lied about it, click HERE.

As for the New York Times being a favorite of the Administration, Spokesweasel Gibbs had this to say:

Gibbs denied an “unnecessary advantage” to the Times, while saying it has far more reporters covering topics of interest to the White House than most outlets. Times Deputy Washington Bureau Chief Dick Stevenson said it would be “absurd” to suggest the Times doesn’t get access in certain instances that others don’t.

But Stevenson said, “Like every other journalist in Washington I would say there’s a lot more they could do in terms of access for us and everyone else. While we appreciate the instances in which they cooperate and are accessible, there are plenty of cases where they’re not terribly accessible or responsive.”

While the Obama administration’s decision to stiff-arm Fox News caused a huge dust-up for a time last year, his back-benching of the Wall Street Journal has barely generated a peep. The Journal’s White House reporter, Jonathan Weisman, occasionally vents his frustration over the near freeze-out that has left the Journal with a single exclusive interview since Obama took office.

This was news to me. I read a lot of news. How is it that this was NOT out there? I mean, the Wall Street Journal is a pretty big news source, so why was this not discussed more? If anyone knows, I’d like to hear it.

Anyone who watched MSNBC during the Primaries/Campaign is familiar with Richard Wolffe, the Obama sycophant. Well, guess who is a WH fave? You got it:

[snip] Another event that riled many in the press corps took place on March 20. The Washington Examiner’s Julie Mason confronted former Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, author of a highly favorable book about the Obama campaign, when he attempted to join the White House pool on the Saturday before Congress’ big health care vote.

“You’re not in the pool,” Mason recalled telling Wolffe. “You shouldn’t be joining.” Mason said Wolffe claimed that he was there courtesy of “a special invitation from the Obama administration.” Wolffe is working on a second book on the Obama administration.

“Are you working for them officially now?” shot back Mason.

“The White House wants their friend to be in the pool and we don’t know what recourse we have,” Mason later told POLITICO. “It’s just completely unfair to the press corps and flies in the face of the concept of a free press.”

Oh, snap. And a “free press”? Yeah, I’d love to see what this country was like if we REALLY had a free press. You know, one that actually covered the differences in protests between, say, Tea Partiers and AZ Anti-Immigration people. I suppose a girl can dream, right?

As indicated above, this White House can be a tad vindictive:

[snip]Getting mad

And just what happens when you upset the White House?

Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice mail messages.

“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches, or the email equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.

“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” the New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation—not just message.”

One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story—only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.

“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graf that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off the record angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain, engage!”

Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.

“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now.…This isn’t unique in terms of us and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”

Asked about some of the more aggressive tactics, including complaints to editors, Gibbs said, “We have to do some of those things….I certainly believe anyone who goes to an editor does so because it’s something they feel is very egregious. I don’t think people do it very lightly.”

Some reporters say the pushback is so aggressive that it undermines the credibility of Obama’s aides. “The willingness to argue that credible information is untrue is at its core dishonest and unfortunately calls into question everything else the press office says,” one White House reporter said.

While some reporters note improvements since the Bush era, like more informed deputy press secretaries and assistants, others complain of rigid image control pervading the government. “The access is much poorer than the Bush administration,” one national newspaper who regularly covers the White House said. “This is wider than just the White House. I feel like the political appointees in a variety of agencies are more difficult to get to. There are people…you could reach in the Bush administration that now they say ‘That position does not speak to the press. We do not give background. We do not give anything.’ ’’

Compton said that if the Obama White House’s sense of being besieged by the press is authentic it bespeaks a kind of innocence born from a candidate and a president who have never confronted a full-on Washington feeding frenzy.

“They ain’t seen nothing yet,” the longtime ABC reporter said. “Wait ‘till they have to start really circling the wagons when someone in the administration under attack, wait ‘till there’s a scandal, wait ‘till someone screws up, then it’ll get hostile.”

Well, it seems like the press is going to have ample opportunity with the revelation of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s phone calls with Obama. We shouldn’t have long to wait to see if there is a “feeding frenzy” over THIS scandal.

And if the press actually does their job, I am sure the level of push-back will be noteworthy given what the press is receiving now:

Getting even

While complaining about stories is hardly unique to the Obama administration, White House reporters charge that sometimes, aides even retaliate against reporters who cross them.

One reporter said that after he wrote a story the White House viewed as critical, aides tried to cancel meetings he’d lined up with other administration officials. “I was told very clearly the press office tried to stop those appointments going ahead,” the journalist said.

Gibbs said he couldn’t recall any such instance. “I’m sure people may have thought that, though,” he said.

While the Times clearly enjoys more access than any other publication, its perceived transgressions often get a heated and sustained response from the White House. “There certainly is no lack of friction or the appropriate tension that goes into this relationship—to put it mildly,” Stevenson said.

And that is with a favored organization. I imagine we can extrapolate to those the WH does NOT like:

[snip]“They throw some brush-back pitches every now and then,” one White House reporter for a major newspaper said. “They’ve been pretty heavy handed and have cut some people off.”

Edward Luce of the Financial Times drew the ire of Obama aides for a couple of articles arguing that decision making in the Obama administration is extremely centralized. Neither piece was a devastating indictment of the White House, but they prompted a furious reaction.

“I was just in awe of the pummeling Ed took from top White House people,” said policy blogger and New America Foundation senior fellow Steve Clemons. He began talking to White House reporters and came away convinced that what he calls an “extremely unhealthy” relationship has developed in which the White House generally cooperates only with reporters who are willing to write source-greasers or other fawning articles.

Gibbs referred questions about the Luce stories to McDonough. “Who’s Ed Luce?” McDonough said. “I’m not familiar with that.”

Clemons’s post on his findings, “Communications Corruption at the White House,” was harsh, particularly coming from a policy wonk who tends to agree with most of Obama’s stances.

“Has the bar moved so far that a reasonable piece that gives and takes a little but provides both criticism and applause, that is something White House has to respond to in such a prickly, thin-skinned way?” asked Clemons.

Um, YES!! For the gazillionith time, we tried to tell you so. We tried to get you to really, really look at this candidate instead of regurgitating whatever talking points Obama wanted you to spew for him. Or to quit transferring definitions for one word to another, like “even keeled” for “prickly,” “angry,” or “dismissive.” But would you listen? No. So on many levels, the press is getting what it has coming to it.

And that would be peachy keen-o if the press hadn’t given such a massive pass to this man who now occupies the White House, shoving through policies that are disastrous for our country, using the legal system as his personal bully under the guise of the Constitution (several things come to mind, but I’ll mention two: the DOJ supporting DADT, and Obama going after Arizona for trying to do something the Federal Government has failed to do – strengthen their border). Who knows, maybe when these reporters’ own outlets decide it’s cheaper to NOT cover their health care now that Obama got this god-awful law signed, they’ll wish they had actually done their jobs a bit better.

You know, come to think of it, they deserve pretty much what they are getting from the White House now. I’m willing to bet good money that a Clinton White House, even a McCain White House, would not be treating the press – our eyes and ears in the public arena – with such callous disregard, and even contempt. But they wanted Obama in there, and as he noted, they (most likely) voted for him.

So how does it feel now? Those Kool Aide fumes dispersing any?? If so, welcome to our world, the one you, the media, helped bring upon us. And thanks shitloads for that. Ready to do your jobs now?

Case in point: Washington Post “media critic” Howard Kurtz’s article today about FOX News Channel’s “reporters’” growing discomfort with the shenanigans of FNC darling Glenn Beck, he of the mighty chalkboard of insanity, his ludicrous fits of crying, his manic desire to be a political player, the fearmongering, paranoia and Stalin-Mao-Hitler-Marxist-Communist-Racist-Obama-hating cavalcade of madness. The meme that Beck is merely an entertainer and that FOX personalities are worried that the new star on the block could damage its relationship with the White House and the channel’s reputation are laughable at best. After all, Beck organized the infamous “9/12″ rallies, a non-news event enthusiastically covered by FOX, complete with inflated crowd estimates. Beck, in displays of false modesty, claims to be a mere rodeo clown. Nonsense. He’s a liar, an ignoramus and a dangerous Father Coughlinesque demagogue who has done enormous damage to political discourse and the profession of journalism. (Beck would probably decry Coughlin’s loyalties but the technique remains the same).

Beck apologized recently for wasting his audience’s time following a hilariously absurd and demented interview with disgraced tickling enthusiast and former Congressman Eric Massa. But not to worry, he’s back to whatever passes for normal now.

FOX’s “news” operation didn’t show restraint or a desire for fact-checking while helping pump damaging, and false stories about the Clintons into the media churn, with the Vince Foster conspiracy theory still holding a strong showing behind the JFK assassination.

And it’s not as if Beck makes money for the network. He’s a loss leader (here’s a partial list of companies that have pulled their ads, despite Beck’s strong ratings). There are rumblings that Rupert Murdoch’s children are fed up with the drama surrounding FOX News’s foolishness, but you can bet that as long as daddy Rupert is in charge and Roger Ailes continues to draw breath nothing will change.

The Kurtz article follows an absurd piece in the Washington Post by former New York Times Executive Editor Howell Raines. With wide-eyed wonder, he ponders the vexing question of why reputable media organizations don’t call FOX out as a propaganda mill. This from a man who if he had a sense of shame would have the decency to keep quiet about media ethics, considering that reporter Bush/Cheney stenographer Judy Miller’s wildly incorrect WMD/Chalabi articles started being published in the NYT on his watch. The New York Times, which sets the agenda for all other publications in the United States, was thereby complicit in pushing falsehoods that led to an unjust and unnecessary war, costing thousands of American lives and ruining the U.S.’s reputation around the world. Good work, Howell.

But to answer your question, Howell: Cowardice. The American media are sheep. You’re welcome.

American reporters love to express their wonder at the Pakistani media’s love of conspiracy theories and wrinkle their brows over what a terrible impact the dissemination of false and sensationalistic information could have on the U.S.-Pak relationship. Look in the mirror, people.

– Cross Post from: The Pakistan Update

This is perfect Sunday fare, and rich coming from someone who routinely appeared with Keith Olbermann on Countdown (until they broke up back in August last year). That would be Dana Milbank. Oh, yes, this is priceless:

Obama The Mortal

Some parishioners in the Church of Obama discovered last week that their spiritual leader is a false prophet.

Consider the blow suffered by the liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who issued a plaintive plea to the president on the eve of his announcement that he was sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan. By escalating the war, Moore wrote:

“[Y]ou will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike.”

Obama, of course, was not moved by his follower from Flint. The real question is why Moore, and those millions and multitudes of whom he wrote, thought that Obama would do otherwise. Obama never said during the campaign that he would pull out of Afghanistan; in fact, he had promised to escalate. “As president, I will make the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be,” he said in July 2008, vowing to send at least two more combat brigades to Afghanistan. “This is a war that we have to win.”

Yet Moore is surely right about the disillusionment of Obama’s supporters. Even before the surge announcement, support among liberals for Obama’s Afghanistan policy had dropped 22 points since July, to 59 percent from 81 percent, according to a Post-ABC News poll. Overall liberal support for Obama had drifted down to 80 percent from 94 percent in the spring — and, given the noisy complaints from the left last week, that number seems likely to fall further.

I wonder what Moore thinks now that Obama didn’t pay any attention to him? Not sure why he ever thought Obama would, but there you have it. As Milbank points out:

It was bound to happen eventually. Obama had become to his youthful supporters a vessel for all of their liberal hopes. They saw him as a transformational figure who would end war, save the Earth from global warming, restore the economy — and still be home for dinner. They lashed out at anybody who dared to suggest that Obama was just another politician, subject to calculation, expediency and vanity like all the rest.

Certainly, Obama gets some blame for encouraging the messianic cult as he stumped for change and hope. “I am asking you to stop settling for what the cynics say we have to accept,” he would say as he wrapped up speeches. “Let us reach for what we know is possible: A nation healed. A world repaired. An America that believes again.”

Uh, you think? Encouraging it?? That is exactly what Axelrove and Plouffe wanted – to craft Obama as the next coming (remember the whole “the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” crap?), and Obama was all too willing to go along. That isn’t exactly a newsflash, at least to us in the reality based community. We were aware of what the Obama camp was doing, and why. No doubt, it was so people wouldn’t pay attention to this:

In other cases, Obama truly has gone back on campaign vows. Even some of his advisers are disappointed that he has moved so slowly to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Civil libertarians are justifiably disappointed with his decision to continue much of the Bush administration secrecy. Clean-government types are understandably frustrated that Obama vowed that lobbyists “will not get a job in my White House” but now grants waivers so that lobbyists can work in key administration jobs.

But at least as much blame for the disillusionment goes to progressives who simply expected too much of him. Some are disappointed that the Nobel Peace Prize winner proposed even higher defense spending than George W. Bush did — but Obama never said he would cut the Pentagon’s budget. Many liberals are disappointed that he isn’t pushing the “public option” more forcefully in the health-care debate — but it was never something Obama emphasized during the campaign.

For all of Obama’s soaring oratory about hope and change, it was plain even during the campaign that his record was that of an incrementalist. His signature legislation — health care in the Illinois Senate and ethics in the U.S. Senate — were evolutionary improvements, not revolutionary overhauls. His Afghanistan policy, likewise, is above all a pragmatic, nonideological strategy. He stayed true to his campaign promise to take the fight to the Taliban, but he also tried to build a consensus.

His record? Just which record would that have been exactly? The one in which Emil Jones slapped Obama’s name on legislation for which he had done exactly NOTHING? And what did he do in the US Senate besides blow off promises made on the campaign finance reform committee, or fail to hold any meetings for the committee for which he was chair (that pesky boring one that just dealt with stuff like Afghanistan)? Is that the new definition of “incrementalist”? Sure, whatever you say, Dana.

Back to Afghanistan:

You’d think his supporters might applaud this sort of thoughtful, methodical leadership as a repudiation of the Bush style of government by political theory. Instead, they’re using words such as “O’Bomber” to describe the president. MoveOn.org launched a petition drive against the policy. Code Pink, the group that heckled Bush officials for years, heckled Obama advisers on Capitol Hill last week. The liberal Web publisher Arianna Huffington told Charlie Rose that the policy “puts into question his whole leadership.”

This is what happens when true believers mistake a mortal for a messiah. (danamilbank@washpost.com )

“Thoughtful”? “Methodical” Oh, right – that is “Upside down world” speak for “hemming and hawing”, “dithering,” and “dragging one’s feet.” Got it.

And Dana, you and a lot of the rest of the MSM were hyping Obama as a messiah, too, so make sure you shine that spotlight on yourself and your colleagues, while you are at it. Obama couldn’t have gotten his “message” across all over this land without the sycophantic collusion of the media. Just sayin’.

We all knew this was going to happen. At some point, Obama’s most devoted followers were going to start letting the reality pierce their veil of “Hope, Change, And Unicorns for Everyone!” It would have been BETTER had this happened 18 months ago before this charlatan got into the White House, aided and abetted by some of the very folks Millbank mentions above, as well as the media.

Okay – can I finally say this? I told you so. We told you so. Time to get up off your knees, shake the Kool Aide dust out of your head, and realize you have been had, on the 7th level with Tom Cruise kind of being had by some self-proclaimed messiah.

We welcome you to the Reality Based World. And with this being Sunday and all, I reckon we can say our prayers are starting to be answered. Halle-damn-lujah.

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.

“President Obama, I support the Americans’ outstretched hand. But what did the international community gain from these offers of dialogue? Nothing.”

– French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Sept. 24

When France chides you for appeasement, you know you’re scraping bottom. Just how low we’ve sunk was demonstrated by the Obama administration’s satisfaction when Russia’s president said of Iran, after meeting President Obama at the United Nations, that “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable.”

You see? The Obama magic. Engagement works. Russia is on board. Except that, as The Post inconveniently pointed out, President Dmitry Medvedev said the same thing a week earlier, and the real power in Russia, Vladimir Putin, had changed not at all in his opposition to additional sanctions. And just to make things clear, when Iran then brazenly test-fired offensive missiles, Russia reacted by declaring that this newest provocation did not warrant the imposition of tougher sanctions.

I should add, I don’t have the same level of disdain for the French that some in this country have. In fact, I love France, and I love the people I have met there. I have not had the experience of French people looking down their noses at me because I’m American, even in Paris. In small villages in which I’ve traveled, even with my crappy French (I took Spanish in school), and the limited English the shop keepers had, we each worked hard to understand each other. One woman didn’t speak a word of English, but would engage in pantomime (I’m sure there’s a joke there about the French and mimes) to get her point across, AND she was funny, to boot. So, while I appreciate that some people have not had this experience, I won’t jump on the French bashing bandwagon. Honestly, I can’t wait until I get to go back there.

Back to the article,and Krauthammer’s point:

Do the tally. In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia . . . what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions, grudgingly offered and of dubious authority — and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions.

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb.

Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naivete. On Sept. 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president at the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Hmmm – WWHD? You know, What Would Hillary Do? Would she reveal this nugget of explosive information? My bet is ABSO-FREAKIN’-LUTELY. How about Obama? What would he do:

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports the Wall Street Journal (citing Le Monde), Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber it is not.

Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports the New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports the Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ‘spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”

Image? Success? Sarkozy could hardly contain himself. At the council table, with Obama at the chair, he reminded Obama that “we live in a real world, not a virtual world.”

He explained: “President Obama has even said, ‘I dream of a world without [nuclear weapons].’ Yet before our very eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite.”

Sarkozy’s unspoken words? “And yet, sacré bleu, he’s sitting on Qom!”

Uh, yeah. It seems like the perfect setting for exposing this information. Evidently, Sarkozy thought so, too. Others didn’t realize what had just happened:

At the time, we had no idea what Sarkozy was fuming about. Now we do. Although he could hardly have been surprised by Obama’s fecklessness. After all, just a day earlier in addressing the General Assembly, Obama actually said, “No one nation can . . . dominate another nation.” That adolescent mindlessness was followed with the declaration that “alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War” in fact “make no sense in an interconnected world.” NATO, our alliances with Japan and South Korea, our umbrella over Taiwan, are senseless? What do our allies think when they hear such nonsense?

Bismarck is said to have said: “There is a providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children, and the United States of America.” Bismarck never saw Obama at the U.N. Sarkozy did. (letters@charleskrauthammer.com)

Mon Dieu! Those are some pretty strong words there. Appropriate, though. Can you imagine if any other president, who had the opportunity to chair this very important committee for the FIRST time, sat on that kind of information? No doubt, it wouldn’t just be the French President who was upset about this. Thankfully, those who are less invested in the “aura” of Obama actually paid attention to this “oversight” on Obama’s part at this critical juncture.

Once again, Obama has demonstrated how woefully prepared he is for the REAL World Stage.

(And C, if you’re reading this far, I hope you appreciate the French phrases!)