“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!)

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

Fineman states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now what do we do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Um, I’m not so sure that’s going to be a help. But first, my response to my sister so things stay in context, and to explain why the ire on the writer’s part:

Thanks, but I I am well aware. (My partner) and I pay taxes on my insurance through her company since we cannot be legally married. My insurance amount is treated as a benefit to (my partner), thus taxable income under the federal/state system.

Well, considering Obama claims the Baucus plan is the plan he wants (today - it could be different by tomorrow), it’s not gonna be a whole lot more in savings according to this Washington Post story, “Alarm Bell On Health Reform“:

The Democratic senator from Oregon has been the Energizer Bunny of health reform for the past five years. This week he lobbed a big rhetorical stink bomb. Wyden warned publicly that the package being crafted by the Senate Finance Committee would cost lower-income Americans too much and give many people too little choice of insurance plans.

Under the Finance Committee proposal, individuals would be required to obtain insurance. But to drive down the cost of the package, Montana Democrat Max Baucus’s Gang of Six — a gang that pointedly does not include Wyden — trimmed the size of the subsidies available for those who could not afford insurance on their own. Now, a family earning three times the poverty level — $66,150 for a family of four — would have to pay up to 13 percent of their income for health insurance. And that’s just the premiums — not counting deductibles, co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses.

“I don’t know very many working-class families who you can look in the eyes and say: ‘Do you have that kind of money in your checking account?’ — because they don’t,” Wyden told me.

Those without coverage would face a fine of as much as $3,800, unless costs exceeded 10 percent of their income, in which case they would be given an “affordability exemption.” In other words, they wouldn’t have insurance, but at least they wouldn’t be penalized for it.

Nobody ever told the folks carrying the public-option signs all over America that 85 percent wouldn’t even get to choose it,” Wyden said. “For hundreds of millions of people, they’re going to have no more leverage after this bill passes than they do today. They work in some company, some person they don’t know in the human resources department decides what’s good for them. Nothing has changed.”

”
Bear in mind, Wyden is actually an ally of Obama’s. Yikes.

I concluded with some questions about how all of this would affect us personally, including getting in a little dig particularly about the Federal taxes which didn’t look like they are going to change anytime soon given Obama’s Justice Department’s characterizing us as pedophiles or “incestuous relatives” in its support of DOMA. Ahem.

The Wall Street Journal had not yet come out with its editorial on the Baucus Plan at that time, “Public Option Lite,” or else, I would have just sent that to her, and highlighted this Obama mailer they thoughtfully provided:

Remember this? Yeah, WHO’S plan is going to levee fines?? Sheesh.

I won’t reprint the whole thing here - it is worth your time to take a look, but here are some of the pertinent paragraphs:

Everyone would be forced to buy these government-approved policies, whether or not they suit their needs or budget. Families would face tax penalties as high as $3,800 a year for not complying, singles $950. As one resident of Massachusetts where Mitt Romney imposed an individual mandate in 2006 put it in a Journal story yesterday, this is like taxing the homeless for not buying a mansion.

The political irony here is rich. If liberal health-care reform is going to make people better off, why does it require “a very harsh, stiff penalty” to make everyone buy it? That’s what Senator Obama called it in his Presidential campaign when he opposed the individual mandate supported by Hillary Clinton. He correctly argued then that many people were uninsured not because they didn’t want coverage but because it was too expensive. The nearby mailer to Ohio primary voters gives the flavor of Mr. Obama’s attacks.

And the Baucus-Obama plan will only make insurance even more expensive. Employers will be required to offer “qualified coverage” to their workers (or pay another “free rider” penalty) and workers will be required to accept it, paying for it in lower wages. The vast majority of households already confront the same tradeoff today, except Congress will now declare that there’s only one right answer.

Hold the phone for just a second here. Yes, Clinton’s plan did call for mandated coverage, but OBAMA was the one who said she was going to have fines, not Clinton, a charge she consistently disputed. And if you want a reminder of the two plans, Clinton’s and Obama’s, here’s a LINK to Paul Krugman’s good article in which he highlights those differences.

Now, back to the Journal’s Editorial:

The subsidies in the Baucus plan go to people without a job-based plan and who earn under three times the federal poverty level, or about $66,000 for a family of four. Yet according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis we’ve seen, the plan isn’t much of an improvement over the current market.

Take a family of four making $42,000 in 2016. While government would subsidize 80% of their premium and pay $1,500 to offset cost-sharing, they’d still pay $6,000 a year or 14.3% of their total income. A family making $54,000 could still pay 18.1% of their income, while an individual earning $26,500 would be on the hook for 15.5%, and one earning $32,400 for 17.3%. So lower-income workers would still be forced to devote huge portions of their salaries to expensive policies that they may not want or be able to afford.

Cough, sputter, what??? We’re going to be spending HOW MUCH? Oh, but wait, there’s more:

Like the House bill, Mr. Baucus uses 10 years of taxes to fund about seven years of spending. Some $215 billion is scrounged up by imposing a 35% excise tax on insurance companies for plans valued at more than $21,000 for families and $8,000 for individuals. This levy would merely be added to the insurers’ “administrative load” and passed down to all consumers in higher prices. Ditto for the $59 billion that Mr. Baucus would raise by taxing the likes of clinical laboratories and drug and device makers.

Mr. Baucus also wants to cut $409 billion from Medicare, according to CBO, though the only money that is certain to see the budget ax is $123 billion from the Medicare Advantage program. Liberal Democrats hate Advantage because it gives 10.2 million seniors private options. The other “savings” come from supposedly automatic cuts that a future Congress is unlikely to ever approve that is, until this entitlement spending swamps the federal budget. Then the government will have no choice but to raise taxes to European welfare-state levels or impose drastic restrictions on patient care. Or, most likely, both.

***

To sum up, the Baucus-Obama plan would increase the cost of insurance and then force people to buy it, requiring subsidies. Those subsidies would be paid for by taxes that make health care and thus insurance even more expensive, requiring even more subsidies and still higher taxes. It’s a recipe to ruin health care and bankrupt the country, and that’s even before liberal Democrats see Mr. Baucus and raise him, and then attempt to ram it all through the Senate. (Emphasis mine.)

Gee, they make this sound so good, where do I sign up?? Ahem. As Bronwyn’s Harbor pointed out in TWO excellent posts this week, there will be incredible costs to all of us that are being masked, or simply unmentioned, by our esteemed elected officials. Looks like the WSJ has had enough of that subterfuge. Let’s hope more sources will expose these plans, too.

I guess I’m getting an idea of just how this might affect us after all…

When Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Africa last month, she visited war-racked eastern Congo to speak out against widespread rape by militias. She choked up after meeting with two rape victims and promised more US help – $17 million for medical treatment and security for victims.

Now she’s taking the issue to the United Nations, where the US is leading an effort to shore up a resolution to end sexual violence against civilians during armed conflict. The Security Council passed Resolution 1820 last year, but follow through is sorely lacking.

Women’s rights are becoming a signature issue for America’s top diplomat. In her official travels, Mrs. Clinton talks with women, meets with female activists, and presses the twin challenges of women’s rights and abuse with political leaders. She wants US development aid to focus more on women, and has appointed the first US ambassador for global women’s issues.

The Bush administration, too, championed women’s rights, especially in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan. But no Secretary of State has sought to make women as high a priority as Clinton is attempting. It’s a potentially powerful shift. If she can pull it off.

As Rev. Amy noted in her terrific piece, Well, Isn’t This a Nice Change, the Washington Post started the very short parade to end the virtual press blackout on Clinton by writing a lovely and informative article focused on the woman’s work, not her pantsuits or cackle:

“Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades.”

Well, if anyone can pull it off…

A more detailed article on this issue appeared in the Washington Times today, noting:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who appeared genuinely moved after her August visit to rape victims in eastern Congo, is expected to chair a special U.N. Security Council session at the end of the month to review U.N. efforts to curb the epidemic.

“Meeting with survivors of rape, which is now used increasingly as a tool of war, was shattering,” Mrs. Clinton told a New York audience Friday. “The atrocities described to me distill evil to its basest form. These are crimes against humanity. They don’t just harm a single individual, or a single family, or village or group. They shred the fabric that weaves us together as human beings. This criminal outrage against women must be stopped.”

In a new approach, two U.N. reports issued last week could lay a basis for war crimes prosecutions against individual soldiers.

…the U.N. Security Council meeting Sept. 30 would review implementation of Resolution 1820, passed last year explicitly to outlaw sexual violence in conflict and afterward. Women’s groups praised the 2008 text for designating rape as a threat to international peace and security.

As Tina Brown, editor of The Daily Beast recently stated in her otherwise sexist piece Obama’s Other Wife, “Hillary Clinton has been fighting for the rights of women since before it was fashionable.” I applaud Secretary Clinton for making this a priority. The CSM article states that:

Obstacles abound, including the unruly thicket of US aid programs. But the greatest challenge is the deeply rooted culture in countries that oppress women and girls – often violently and even to the point of enslavement, sexual and otherwise. Honor killings, child brides, female infanticide – all of these accepted customs need to be realized as unacceptable.

They wisely point out that Secretary Clinton is doing her best not to fall into the trap of being seen to lecture foreign countries on their treatment of women, or to create social upheaval and note that she is “wisely framing the issue in terms of countries’ own interests”:

Her pitch: Healthcare for women, especially maternal care, makes for healthier children and families. Schooling for girls contributes to economic progress. Microloans to women pay handsome dividends as women pay them off and invest further in businesses and their families’ welfare. (The majority of the world’s small-holder farmers are women.)

Some experts also see a link between the oppression of women and the problems of extremism and terrorism.

“It is a very-well-researched fact that women are key to economic progress and social stability,” Clinton said in India this summer. Global aid groups, the World Bank, the US military, and economists agree. “Gender inequality hurts economic growth,” reports Goldman Sachs.

Attitudes in male-dominated countries can change once men see the monetary benefits of female empowerment. Writers Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn give a convincing example of this in their new book, “Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide.”

Mr. Kristof and Ms. WuDunn also deserve kudos for drawing attention to this issue. British PM Gordon Brown recently praised their important book in his article Taking Women’s Rights Seriously:

They tell of Saima Muhammad, a poverty-stricken wife and mother near Lahore, Pakistan, who suffered daily beatings from her jobless husband. For lack of food, she had to send her daughter to live with an aunt. When her second child, a girl, was born, Saima’s husband was urged by his mother to take a second wife so he could father a son.

Then Saima got a loan of $65 through a Pakistani group that lends exclusively to women. She started an embroidery business that now employs 30 families in the neighborhood (including her husband). She paid off her husband’s debt (more than $3,000), kept her girls in school, and upgraded her house, adding running water and TV.

The authors write that Saima’s husband is now more impressed with girls. They are “just as good as boys,” he says.

Yep, we are just as good as boys. And once in a while, we’re even better. Sssh. Keep that under your hat. Would have been nice if people figured that out in 2008. But I digress…

In closing, the Christian Science Monitor states that Secretary Clinton has found the best way to frame this issue in order to get the most mileage, since we know appealing on a humanitarian basis has not gotten us very far in the decent and equal treatment of women and girls – either here or around the world:

Of course, women’s rights are human rights. They don’t need to be justified for any other reason than that. But in many countries, the path to that realization may well begin with economic self-interest, and Clinton is right to recognize this.

It is the understatement of the century that I would prefer her leadership as President, yet I appreciate she is making this cause such an important element of her platform as Secretary of State, a cause she promoted in her famous speech in Beijing in 1995, which she delivered in defiance of the U.S. State Dept. and the Chinese government:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

I am so proud to have supported Hillary Clinton in 2008 and to see that she is still working for the issues she holds near and dear, no matter how she is treated, no matter how the American press pretends she doesn’t exist, no matter what else is going on around her. This is an adult who sees the bigger picture.

She’ll always have my vote.

No need to take my word for it. Watch this short video (from a traffic camera) to get an idea of just how many people were there (and again, thanks to Logistics Monster, who was THERE, for this video link):

The thing that bugged me about the MSM reporting is that they consistently copied each other - oh, no wait - it just LOOKED that way (check out their opening lines in the articles above and you’ll see what I mean). No, it is that they consistently claimed the marchers were all Conservatives. Apparently, this was their way to dismiss the real anger and frustration people have toward this Congress, whose approval rating is LOW, something else these writers could have looked up easily, and this President, whose ratings continue to decline. They just write them off as some right-wing whackos (1.5 million or so of them), and pay no attention to their actual concerns.

And they have plenty of them. You know, concerns like the fact that the US Government now owning 61% of GM (hey, anyone want to buy a Cadillac?); or that the Obama Administration is adding $3 MILLION to the National Debt EVERY MINUTE; or maybe it’s the 32 czars - oops, make that 31 czars (see ya, Van) Obama is appointing left and right; or the Health Care Bill; or I could go on and on and on. These aren’t just Conservative concerns - these are AMERICAN concerns. But they won’t report it that way, because it doesn’t suit the meme they have created. Had they bothered to talk to some more people on the ground, they would have found out they were Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, all coming together to protest the out of control spending of this Congress and this Administration. To put it in perspective, we are $1 TRILLION more in debt since Obama took office. $ONE TRILLION. Once again, that’s not just an issue for Conservatives. That is an issue for ALL Americans.

Here are some photos of signs at the march - they came via Barbara Espinosa who sent them to Pajamas Media at THIS site. You can see more there:

This video from - of all places - MSNBC - is a fairly good synopsis (though they still couldn’t refrain from painting this as a wholly conservative movement - until the very, very end, when the reporter actually spoke the truth). I saw it at Michelle Malkin’s site while looking for an awesome photo I saw last night, which I have not been able to find again. The sign said, “We Are Not Wee Weed Up: We are PISSED!” If I find it, I’ll add it. Here’s the video:

This is but a snapshot of the day. There is so, so much more to the events of the day, the numbers of people, the calls for accountability in our government.

For those people who aren’t upset about the added $Trillion to our deficit, the takeover of GM, the unvetted czars, the $Trillion Health Care Plan, etc., etc., those people who are downplaying the size of this march, who blow it off as just some group of conservatives going off half cocked, my question is, Why the hell are you NOT upset at what our government is doing??? Bill Clinton downsized our government tremendously, Bush increased it, and now Obama is bankrupting it. Why AREN’T they upset??

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

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

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

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

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

How about those numbers?

Now, why would they say that about Rep. Rangel, a long time representative from New York? Because of this:

FOR POLITICIANS with major bad news to release or to make public, there’s no time like the dead of August to do it. The thinking goes that the public won’t remember a thing come September. We hope Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) will have no such luck. His belated revelation of previously unreported income, property and bank accounts demands that he step aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Rangel’s amended financial disclosure form, which exposes omissions from his 2002 through 2006 records, is a treasure trove of outrage. He neglected to report a checking account with the Congressional Federal Credit Union and one with Merrill Lynch, each valued between $250,000 and $500,000; the tens of thousands of dollars he’s earning from dividends from a number of mutual funds and stocks; and the money made from the sale of a Harlem townhouse. As a result, Mr. Rangel’s reported net worth doubled, from between $516,015 and $1,316,000 to between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000.

Yeah. That’s right. When the truth came out, Rangel’s worth pretty much doubled, and he kinda, sorta forgot to pay taxes on it. Hey! Just like Timmy Geithner!! What’s their problem with that, anyway?? Sheesh, picky, picky. Oh, right, because of his position within the House:

We called on Mr. Rangel to resign his coveted post last November while the House ethics committee probed his contact with a potential donor to a pet project who also had business before the committee. Mind you, that committee already was looking into his using official stationery to raise funds for that pet project, paying below-market rents on four Harlem apartments, failing to report income from a Florida condominium sale and failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic. There’s another subcommittee investigation into lobbyist-paid trips by Mr. Rangel and four other members of Congress.

Much is expected of elected officials. Much more is expected and demanded of those entrusted with chairmanships and the power that comes with them, especially when it involves the nation’s purse strings. From all that we’ve seen thus far, Mr. Rangel has violated that trust continually and seemingly without care.

Yes, much is expected, a fact seemingly lost on many of our elected officials as the recent town halls would indicate (or lack thereof - many of our elected officials refused to hold them). But for the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee to fail so egregiously is unacceptable.

And it is made even more so by the revelation of a little tax provision Rangel slipped into the Health Care Reform Bill. How I wish I was kidding. I am not:

~ snip ~ The changes approved by the House Ways and Means Committee that Rangel chairs would strip away legal defenses and pile higher penalties on corporate and individual taxpayers facing IRS proceedings for what they claim are unintentional mistakes, experts said.

Rangel’s bill would:

* Punish those who fail to alert the IRS to potentially questionable tax exemptions.

* Bar the IRS from waiving penalties against taxpayers who clearly erred in good faith.

* Double fines in certain circumstances. (Emphasis mine.)

“The bill raises penalties and eliminates many of the reasonable defenses that taxpayers have always been able to use when honest mistakes are uncovered,” one lawyer told The Post.

In fact, the bill increases fines “in some cases even for honest mistakes,” the expert added.

I don’t know about you, but I am literally shaking my head at the arrogant, patronizing, HYPOCRISY of Rangel’s bill. Seriously - has he not looked in the mirror??

Well you know some folks had something to say about Rangel’s machinations:

Republicans yesterday ripped Rangel’s attempt to go after taxpayers, given his own failure to pay taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic and his extensive reporting problems with his financial-disclosure statements to Congress.

“It is highly ironic that Chairman Rangel continues to work to crack down on American taxpayers who make honest mistakes on their tax forms when he himself has failed to pay his own staggering tax bills,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio).

“Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi should force him to step aside as chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee until this baffling array of allegations are resolved.”

In addition to $75,000 in rental income he failed to report to the IRS a few years ago, Rangel recently filed new papers revealing he neglected to disclose to Congress more than $1.3 million in income and $3 million in business deals between 2002 and 2006.

The Post reported last week that he also failed to pay taxes on property in New Jersey that he neglected for years to disclose he owned.

His office maintains he is now up to date on all his taxes.

The Rangel plan also would prevent the IRS from waiving punishment in cases where tax officials thought the penalty was excessive.

Under another provision, the IRS would require that taxpayers self-report areas where they may have gone over the line seeking tax advantages. If they fail to self-report and problems are found, tax penalties skyrocket.

The IRS becomes “judge, jury and executioner,” said a lobbyist.

In one provision, the measure doubles the fine against the taxpayer from 20 percent of the underpayment to 40 percent.

As with many of the complex tax provisions buried in the 1,018-page bill, the severity of the self-reporting language is a matter of debate.

Advocates argue that the provision is intended only to go after flagrant tax cheats, but that’s not clearly spelled out. (churt@nypost.com)

Unless he is willing to start with himself, Rangel needs to pull that out right now. I might add, what the hell is it doing in the Health Care bill ANYWAY????

And Charlie, I agree with WaPo, it is time to step down. It is way PAST time, in fact, especially since you seem to think you are above the laws already in the books. Never mind adding a new “Do As I Say Not As I Do,” law on top of it. If ever there was a time for the (Matthew 7:5) saying, “Take the plank out of your own eye before taking the speck out of your neighbor’s” this is it…

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was photographed shortly after his capture during a raid in Pakistan on March 1, 2003.

The lead story in today’s Washington Post, headlined “How a Detainee Became An Asset,” provides a one-sided and distorted account of the torture and abuse of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM) and demonstrates the need for a blue ribbon bipartisan commission to create a comprehensive and authoritative narrative of the misgovernment of the Bush administration over the past eight years.

The prosecution of low-level CIA officials and government contractors for resorting to torture and abuse beyond the sordid guidelines of the Justice Department will allow the major players of the Bush administration as well as the lawyers of the Justice Department to escape retribution and judgment. Since President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would never be held accountable, the entire nation would be better served by a full understanding of the war crimes that they authorized in our name.

Today’s article argues that the techniques of torture and abuse turned KSM into the CIA’s “preeminent source” on al-Qaeda. Citing an intelligence assessment by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, which was presumably prepared for Vice President Cheney, the Post article argues that waterboarding was the key to breaking KSM’s spirit and eliciting valuable intelligence on the “inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group’s plans, ideology, and operatives.”

This view contradicts the findings of the authoritative 2004 report on detainees and interrogations of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as well as the personal views of the Inspector General (IG) himself.

As the Post acknowledges, John Helgerson, the former IG who commissioned the 2004 study, said that the work of the OIG did not permit “definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods.” Helgerson acknowledged that waterboarding and sleep deprivation “elicited a lot of information,” but the OIG didn’t “do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out.”

As a result, Helgerson recommended (but the Post article chose to omit) the creation of an independent panel of experts to “systematically evaluate the quality of the intelligence gained as related to the specific techniques used, or not used, in particular cases. This would clarify the value of the information and the utility of various approaches.” This recommendation was one of ten recommendations in the 2004 IG report; unfortunately, the Justice Deparment (presumably due to the importuning of the CIA) chose to redact all ten IG recommendations from the declassified report.

There is ample testimony to challenge the view that torture and abuse worked. There were FBI agents at the site where KSM was held who testified that torture and abuse didn’t lead to eliciting valuable intelligence. And a CIA operative has noted that KSM was willing to talk before being tortured, noting that “tea and crumpets” were all that was needed. The former head of U.S. Army intelligence, Gen. John Kimmons, remarked in 2006 that “No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that.

I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.” And more recently, several veteran FBI and military interrogators called for an investigation of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT),” because of their concerns about the legality, morality, and effectiveness of EITs.

It is important to remember that the 2004 IG report emphatically stated that the information elicited by torture and abuse “did not uncover any evidence that [any] plots were imminent.” Other CIA memoranda stated that information gained from detainees led to “arrests [that] disrupted attack plans in progress,” but did not attribute this information to the use of torture and abuse.

The IG study could not even determine if the 83 waterboardings given to Abu Zubaydah were the reason for his increased willingness to talk. The study noted, moreover, that torture was contrary to the Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishments;” the 1984 UN Torture Convention, which the United States took the lead in drafting and ratifying; and domestic law.

Finally, it is more important to remember that torture and abuse are evil. Illegal, immoral, counter-productive, but most importantly evil. George Bush told a press conference in 2005 that “this country does not believe in torture,” but the fact is we conducted torture on those who were guilty and those who were innocent.

And Dick Cheney, who has fanatically been waging his own personal jihad in defense of torture and abuse, told Fox News in an interview that will air tomorrow that CIA interrogators were justified in exceeding even the broad authorizations provided by the Justice Department, suggesting that the ends justify the means. Perhaps the Washington Post could give front-page coverage to the 18-page memorandum that the CIA gave to the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2004, which provides extraordinary details of the interrogations in plain, but sordid and sadistic, language.

Two years ago, then CIA director Michael Hayden released a collection of long-secret documents compiled in 1974 that detailed domestic spying, assassination plots, and other CIA misdeeds in the 1960s and early 1970s. In releasing the documents, known as the “family jewels,” Hayden told a group of historians who had been pressing for greater disclosure from the Agency, that the documents provided a “glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency.” He also stated that, when the government withholds information, myth and misinformation “fill the vacuum like a gas.”

In order to prevent the Washington Post and others from adding to the myths and misinformation of torture and abuse, it is time to appoint a blue ribbon commission to study all aspects of the CIA’s detentions and interrogations policies.

Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, is The Public Record’s National Security and Intelligence columnist. He spent 42 years with the CIA, the National War College, and the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.

The Washington Post’s David Ignatius simply cannot get off the wheel he spins for the Central Intelligence Agency. Only two days after the release of the 2004 CIA study of the detention and interrogation program, which provides sordid and sadistic details of an illegal and immoral program, Ignatius still opposes any criminal review of the conduct of CIA officers and echoes the CIA line that it is “glad to be out” of the interrogation business. He even cites deputy director of the CIA, Stephen Kappes, one of the key ideological drivers for the policy of detention and interrogation, as someone who “doesn’t want to have anything to do with interrogation.”

Ignatius strongly believes that it is time for the CIA to “get on with it,” which was the signature line of former CIA director Richard Helms, who Ignatius considers the “savviest spymaster this country has produced.” Let’s forget that Helms lied to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1973 on the overthrow of the elected government in Chile and that a grand jury was called to see if he should be indicted for perjury. Let’s forget that the Justice Department brought a lesser charge against Helms, who pleaded nolo contendere, and was fined $2,000 and given a two-year suspended prison sentence. And let’s forget that Helms was the major supporter of James Jesus Angleton, the crazed head of CIA counterintelligence for 20 years, who believed that the KGB had successfully penetrated the Agency. We called Angleton “The Ghost” when I was at the CIA because no one had ever seen the man. And it was “The Ghost” who befriended Kim Philby, the Soviet spy from British intelligence, introduced him to high-level CIA officials, and defended him to the end. So much for counterintelligence.

In his efforts to prevent any investigation of the CIA’s interrogation program, Ignatius has also forgotten the lessons of the Nuremberg Trials in 1945-1946. The International Tribunal taught us that crimes committed by individuals for state purposes were the responsibility of those individuals and punishable by state law. And, most importantly, following orders was not a defense. But Ignatius believes that all of the relevant evidence on torture and abuse was seen by “career prosecutors, who decided against bringing cases.” So, let’s forget that the career prosecutors were employed by the politicized Justice Department of the Bush administration and that they reported to a politically-appointed assistant attorney general.

Ignatius believes that investigation and accountability will hurt the Agency. It will actually restore the credibility of the Agency and lead to greater cooperation from important foreign intelligence services, which is essential to combating terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It was CIA crimes such as secret prisons and extraordinary renditions that hurt the Agency, and led to reticence about sharing intelligence. For example, there is no intelligence service within the European Union that would assist in a rendition by the CIA; no EU country that would permit the CIA to transport a prisoner by aircraft; no EU country that would agree to a secret prison or “black site” within its borders.

Ignatius also reveals that he knows nothing about loyal dissent. He argues that “questioning presidential orders isn’t really the job” of the CIA leadership, “especially when those orders are backed by Justice Department legal opinions.” This country has fought two unnecessary wars in the past 45 years with the deaths of more than 60,000 American men and women simply because high-level officials failed to expose the deceptions and manipulations of the Johnson and Bush administrations. In supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ignatius and the Washington Post appear enamored with U.S. military power, with the Post providing few opportunities for contrarian voices to be heard. The mainstream media, particularly the Post, has been far too complacent in holding the Bush and Obama administration’s feet to the fire in the case of these wars.

Finally, Ignatius claims that the CIA resorted to independent contractors for help in “waterboarding” and assassination programs because of a lack of expertise. In fact, the CIA turned to outside help in these egregious areas because it was trying to avoid accountability and there was internal resistance to both programs. There were many officers in the National Clandestine Service opposed to the renditions and detentions program; the Office of Medical Service had serious problems with the waterboarding program, which is outlined in the 2004 Inspector General Program. Presumably, there were some greybeards around who mentioned that resorting to Blackwater to run an assassination program resembled the CIA’s contacts with the Mafia in the early 1960s to kill Castro. The CIA assassination program led to the Church Commission hearings in the 1970s, which placed restrictions on covert action programs and created a congressional oversight process that has fallen into disarray.

It is unbelievable that Ignatius could read the chilling and appalling 2004 IG report and not temper some of his views. His continued support of the CIA points to fanaticism and reminds me of Stalin’s reference to Western journalists who defended Soviet policy—he called them “useful idiots.”

Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, is The Public Record’s National Security and Intelligence columnist. He spent 42 years with the CIA, the National War College, and the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA http ://www.amazon.com/Failure-Intelligence-Decline-Fall-CIA/dp/0742551105.

The Washington Post continues to campaign against any accountability for the detentions policies of the Central Intelligence Agency, using its own editorials and oped writers as well as outsiders who support the efforts of the newspaper.

Today, one day after the release of the 2004 CIA inspector general report that documented the use of torture and abuse, a Post editorial actually claimed that “it’s impossible to say, on the basis of information made public so far, whether prosecution is warranted” and that, since the Bush Justice Department already declined prosecution, it would be “unsettling” to pursue even those CIA operatives who used “unauthorized, improvised, inhumane and undocumented” techniques.

The Post is willing to exonerate these operatives because they were “clamoring” constantly for guidance about what it should and should not do; in fact, CIA director George Tenet and Deputy Director John McLaughlin were more interested in protection than guidance.

On Monday, the paper went judge-shopping in the courthouse and published an oped by Jeffrey H. Smith, who is a well-known lawyer with Arnold & Porter, one of Washington’s most prestigious law firms, and the CIA general counsel from 1995-1996. Smith created the most fatuous argument of all for not prosecuting the interrogators and apparently has no understanding of the Nuremberg Laws, which declared that following orders was no defense and that crimes committed by individuals for state purposes were the responsibility of individuals and were punishable under law.

Smith concedes that “we lost our bearings” after the 9/11 attacks and “squandered our credibility,” but fails to acknowledge the sordid and sadistic activities that the nation sponsored and the CIA implemented. His six reasons range from the disingenuous to the downright unconscionable.

Reason #1: The CIA techniques were authorized by the president, approved by the Justice Department, and briefed to the proper congressional committees. Since the techniques were “legal,” it will be “very difficult” to pursue prosecutions. The fact is we simply don’t know if all techniques were actually authorized, which is a major reason for an investigation, and the Justice Department is emphasizing those techniques that went beyond authorization. The level of difficulty of the prosecution is not a reason to stand down in this case, particularly since U.S. laws and Constitutional amendments were broken. The fact that high-level CIA officials destroyed the torture tapes suggests that there were actions that went beyond the Bush administration’s mandate and that sordid and sadistic acts were committed.

Reason #2: Since the CIA provided its 2004 report to the Justice Department and the department refused to prosecute any CIA officers, it would be “dangerous to settle policy difference at the expense of career officers. This, of course, is arrant nonsense! Bush’s Justice Department was a politicized government agency that has come under intense scrutiny because of its handling of the firing of U.S. attorneys as well as issues related to interrogation policy. The decisions on the 2004 report were made by prosecutors and lawyers who reported to a politically-appointed assistant in the Attorney General’s office. John Ashcroft was the attorney general and he lied to congressional committees.

Reason #3: After the Justice Department declined to prosecute, the CIA took administrative action, including disciplinary action against those officers whose conduct it deemed warranted such responses. This is a misinformed statement or an outright lie! No high-level Agency official has suffered as a result of the conduct of torture and abuse, which conforms to previous CIA misdeeds. High-level officials who politicized intelligence for Deputy Director Robert Gates in the 1980s did not suffer; officials who crafted Secretary of State Colin Powell’s phony speech to the UN prior to the Iraq War did not suffer; analysts who lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction did not suffer. In fact, the record clearly states that guilty parties in all of these affairs saw their careers prosper.

Reason #4: “Prosecuting CIA officers risks chilling current intelligence operations. Such prosecutions are likely to create cynicism in the clandestine service, which is deeply corrosive to any professional service.” This is Smith’s most fatuous argument and the one that CIA director Leon Panetta is peddling to the congress and the American people. The fact is that the failure to hold wrongdoers accountable is corrosive to morale and that CIA directors Tenet and Goss had to resort to independent contractors because so many professional Agency officers refused to take part in illegal activities. IG John Helgerson commissioned the 2004 study because so many Agency officers “expressed to me personally their feelings that what the Agency was doing was fundamentally inconsistent with long-established US Government policy and with American values, and was based on strained legal reasoning.”

Reason #5: Prosecutions could deter cooperation with other nations. Smith could not be more wrong! It was the CIA’s policies of secret prisons, erroneous renditions, and torture and abuse that corroded the liaison efforts of the Western intelligence network, which is the key to a successful campaign against international terrorism. European agencies became reticent to share intelligence with the United States because they were opposed to CIA’s abusive practices. The evidence is ample here and presumably even Smith must know this.

Reason #6: President Obama does not want to be distracted by looking backward and coping with congressional investigations and grand jury subpoenas. We as a nation must know the full extent of the Bush administration’s misuse of government agencies and government personnel. We need to know what happened in order to make sure that this kind of activity can never happen again.

Smith’s exculpatory brief on the behalf of his putative clients, the Washington Post and the CIA, is particularly disgraceful in view of the unconscionable activities that have taken place over the past decade. In order to restore the credibility of our intelligence services, permit foreign intelligence agencies to cooperate with us, and reverse the damage that has been done to U.S. foreign and national security, we must know the full extent of the role of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, is The Public Record’s National Security and Intelligence columnist. He spent 42 years with the CIA, the National War College, and the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA .

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know - the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed - she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong - as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

Now to the article in Washington Post, “Clinton Puts Spotlight On Women’s Issues.” May I just say, before I share the article with you, that she is doing EXACTLY what she said she would do. I’m just sayin’ - she is remaining true to her principles and what she considers to be important. Unlike SOME people I could name. About time some in the MSM got the memo, but WaPo did:

She talked chickens with female farmers in Kenya. She listened to the excruciating stories of rape victims in war-torn eastern Congo. And in South Africa, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited a housing project built by poor women, where she danced with a choir singing “Heel-a-ree! Heel-a-ree!”

Clinton’s just-concluded 11-day trip to Africa has sent the clearest signal yet that she intends to make women’s rights one of her signature issues and a higher priority than ever before in American diplomacy.

She plans to press governments on abuses of women’s rights and make women more central in U.S. aid programs.

But her efforts go beyond the marble halls of government and show how she is redefining the role of secretary of state. Her trips are packed with town hall meetings and visits to micro-credit projects and women’s dinners. Ever the politician, she is using her star power to boost women who could be her allies.

“It’s just a constant effort to elevate people who, in their societies, may not even be known by their own leaders,” Clinton said in an interview. “My coming gives them a platform, which then gives us the chance to try and change the priorities of the governments.”

Wow. That is quite a statement. I am glad she is doing this work abroad, for the marginalized and oppressed. Oh, how I wish she was doing it as the President (and we know she would have kept her word then, too).

But, things don’t always run smoothly, as we know:

Clinton’s agenda faces numerous obstacles. The U.S. aid system is a dysfunctional jumble of programs. Some critics may question why she is focusing on women’s rights instead of terrorism or nuclear proliferation. And improving the lot of women in such places as Congo is complicated by deeply rooted social problems.

“It’s great she’s mentioning the issue,” said Brett Schaefer, an Africa scholar at the Heritage Foundation. “As to whether her bringing it up will substantially improve the situation or treatment of women in Africa, frankly I doubt it.”

Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said that Clinton has to tread carefully in socially conservative regions, particularly those where the U.S. military is at war. “You might be right, in the narrow sense of women in that country or region need to be empowered, but you’re saying something inimical to other U.S. interests,” he said.

Despite Clinton’s efforts to spotlight women’s issues, it was her own angry response to what she perceived as a sexist question at a town hall meeting in Congo that dominated American television coverage of her Africa trip. A student had asked for former president Bill Clinton’s opinion on a local political issue — “through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton.” Snapped Hillary Clinton: “My husband is not the secretary of state. I am.”

Clinton is not the first female secretary of state, but neither of her predecessors had her impact abroad as a pop feminist icon. On nearly every foreign trip, she has met with women — South Korean students, Israeli entrepreneurs, Iraqi war widows, Chinese civic activists. Clinton mentioned “women” or “woman” at least 450 times in public comments in her first five months in the position, twice as often as her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

And that is why it still shocks me that women who consider themselves feminists, and womens organizations, did not wholeheartedly throw their support behind Hillary Clinton, rather going for the young, inexperienced man. Clinton is not new to this issue, and doesn’t just pay lip service to it, either:

Clinton’s interest in global women’s issues is deeply personal, a mission she adopted as first lady after the stinging defeat of her health-care reform effort in 1994. For months, she kept a low profile. Then, in September 1995, she addressed the U.N. women’s conference in Beijing, strongly denouncing abuses of women’s rights. Delegates jumped to their feet in applause.

“It was a transformational moment for her,” said Melanne Verveer, who has worked closely with Clinton since her White House days.

Clinton began traveling the world, highlighting women’s issues. She gradually built a network of female activists, politicians and entrepreneurs, especially through a group she helped found, Vital Voices, that has trained more than 7,000 emerging leaders worldwide. She developed a following among middle-class women in male-dominated countries who devoured her autobiography and eagerly watched her presidential run.

“She might not be having the same restrictions as we have, but she has had restrictions — and she’s moving on. That’s a symbol to us,” said Tara Fela-Durotoye, a businesswoman in Abuja, Nigeria.

Clinton’s legacy is evident in such places as the Victoria Mxenge housing development outside Cape Town, South Africa, a dusty sprawl of small, pastel-colored homes she championed as first lady. When her bus rolled into the female-run project during her trip, a joyful commotion broke out. Women in purple and yellow gowns lined the streets, waving wildly.

Huh. How does this match with the rhetoric spewed by Obama about Hillary Clinton and her work abroad? Does the expression, “Liar, liar, pants on fire” mean anything to you? And yet, people bought his words, hook, line, and sinker. I wonder how they’re feeling now, especially when they read what the effects of her work are, discernible, and quantifiable:

A youth choir swayed outside a community center decorated with photos of Clinton on her previous visits to the project, which has grown to 50,000 houses. Clinton vowed in a major policy address last month to make women the focus of U.S. assistance programs. The idea is applauded by development experts, who have found that investing in girls’ education, maternal health and women’s micro-finance provides a powerful boost to Third World families.

Ritu Sharma, president of the anti-poverty group Women Thrive Worldwide, said she already sees the results of Clinton’s efforts in the bureaucracy. When Sharma’s staff recently attended a meeting about a new agricultural aid program, she said, one State Department official joked, “We have to integrate women — or we’re going to be fired.”

Still, Sharma questioned whether the program would succeed in reaching poor women, especially given the weaknesses in U.S. foreign assistance.

“There’s a lot of healthy skepticism about ‘Will it really happen?’ ” she said.

In a sign of the priority she gives to the issue, Clinton has appointed her close friend Verveer as the State Department’s first global ambassador for women’s affairs.

“She will permeate the State Department, as I want her to, with what we should be doing about empowering and focusing on women across the board,” Clinton said.

This reminds me - do you remember that Obama has a school named after him in Kenya? You know, the one to which he has given not one thin dime? Uh, yeah. Who walks the walk here? Clearly, it’s Hillary:

One issue Verveer has been concerned about is violence against women, particularly the stunningly high number of rapes in eastern Congo. Last week, Clinton, Verveer and the delegation boarded U.N. planes to visit the remote, impoverished region and meet with rape victims. Clinton pressed the Congolese president to prosecute offenders and offered $17 million in new assistance for victims.

“Raising issues like the ones I’ve been raising on this trip to get governments to focus on them, to see they’re not sidelined or subsidiary issues, but that the U.S. government at the highest levels cares about them, is important,” she said. “It changes the dynamic within governments.”

Clinton’s efforts are being reinforced by a White House women’s council and a Congress with a growing number of powerful female members. One sign of that: Aid dedicated to programs for Afghan women and girls increased about threefold this year, to $250 million, because of lawmakers such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who was recently named head of the first Senate subcommittee on global women’s issues, and Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations.

It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention. In South Africa, a clearly delighted Clinton spent 90 minutes at the housing project, twice as long as she met with South Africa’s president. “It feeds my heart,” she explained. “Which is really critical to me personally since a lot of what I do as secretary of state is very formalistic. It’s meetings with other officials.”

“It is striking how much time Clinton dedicates to women’s events on her trips, even ones that receive little public attention.” Because she doesn’t do it for the publicity, she does it because it is the RIGHT thing to do!! That is another big, huge, difference between Hillary Clinton and other politicians. She does a LOT of things about which people don’t know (as in, not publicized in the media) because she actually, genuinely cares about people.
And that is why she will always be my hero - because she cares, because she SHOWS she cares, and because she brings action to her words. I think we could use a whole lot more of that from our elected officials, don’t you?

If you wish to see where Secretary Clinton went, and what she did, click on this link: Secretary of State Clinton’s Africa Travels - Interactive Map

And I wrote this:

I said all along that Obama, the DNC, and the MSM declared open season on women. There was little or no comeuppance for ANYONE who made disparaging, sexist, or misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. I knew it was going to continue, and possibly get worse. Here we are. With these two sexist pigs suggesting Clinton, who can run RINGS around these two intellectually, politically, and HUMANELY, drinks “Mad Bitch beer.” What a couple of _______ - you fill in the blank…

Back to Milbank and Cilliza: WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS???? I guess the same reason people like David Shuster does - he can call Hillary Clinton a pimp, and her daughter a whore, and keep his job with just a little slap on the wrist. So I guess what Milbank and Cillizza did was mild by comparison? Their comeuppance cannot come too soon, and it SHOULD come for this blatantly sexist attack on Secretary of State Clinton. Now. They should be fired.

Lo and behold, the “Mouthpiece Series” has been canned. And Cilliza and Milbank have apologized.

Well, big whoop-de-doo. They have already spewed their sexist BS. They still have their jobs. Hell, Milbank even had the nerve to say this:

“I regret that we put up that image,” Milbank said Wednesday, “and while I highly doubt the secretary of state has seen ‘Mouthpiece Theater,’ I would be honored to have the opportunity to apologize to her over a beer.”

I hope she tells him what he can do with his beer. Just freakin’ spare me already.

Oh, they go on and on about how they didn’t mean any harm, they don’t want to discredit their paper, the Washington Post, blah, blah, blah. Well, too late, guys, you already have. And the Washington Post has discredited itself by keeping these guys on their payroll, IMHO.

In their own words:

As for the dozen videos they have made in what was designed as a summer tryout, “it’s clear there was an audience for it out there, but not large enough to justify all the grief,” Milbank said. “My strength is in observational, in-the-field stuff, and that’s what I should do. I’m sorry about the reaction it’s caused, but I think it’s important to experiment. The real risk to newspapers is not that they take too many risks, but that they don’t take enough risks.”

Oh, yes - that’s what we need. MORE media outlets willing to allow two of their big names to spew sexist tripe against the Secretary of State and ALL women. Oh, Dana - you are just misunderstood, right???

Unfortunately, there is more:

Cillizza agreed that the plug should be pulled, saying: “We’d hoped the self-deprecating humor of me and the irreverent humor of Dana would combine to make something funny and interesting and on the news. It wound up not working. . . . Ultimately it wasn’t funny.”

The Clinton joke, Cillizza said, “was inappropriate, over the line and highlighted the broader problems with the show. I’m personally apologizing on The Fix. It’s not consistent with the Post brand, but more important to me, it’s not consistent with the Fix brand I’ve worked to cultivate — insider, straight-dope journalism that tries to shoot down the middle.”

You’re damn right it was inappropriate. And very telling, Chris.

Feel free to click the link if you want to read more from, and about, Chris Cillizza and Dana Milbank. Frankly, I’ve seen all I need to see of them.

Good for the Washington Post for canning this series. Of course, it didn’t happen soon enough before a spoof of the video above came out (h/t to NQ Writer, pm317):

As I said to pm317, the only problem with THIS video is that is is more professional (!) than the original…

The spontaneous march in response, the solidarity evident, brought tears to my eyes.

While we are on the subject of the GLBT community, as of this writing, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, 332 service members have been dismissed under DADT under Obama and this Congress.

As for Obama and Same Sex Marriage, anyone holding their breath that Obama will do anything FOR it should breathe now. I’ve been saying this for a while, and James Kirchick writing for the Washington Post had this to say in his editorial, “Obama Said ‘I Don’t. He May Just Mean It” (h/t to American Girl in Italy):

~snip ~ When it comes to same-sex marriage, the movement can’t count on support from the current president either. When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about Clinton’s comments, he told reporters that his boss “does not support” same-sex marriage. “He supports civil unions,” Gibbs assured. And despite President Obama’s statement that he opposes the ban on gays serving openly in the military, Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.) last week said that the White House pressured him to withdraw an amendment that would have prohibited funds from being spent on investigating “don’t ask, don’t tell” violations.

Even if Obama does in fact believe in marriage equality, he hasn’t done — and is unlikely to do — much to forward the cause. And apart from some toothless sniping from a handful of gay activists and donors, he seems to be getting away with it. In this way, the presumed (yet secret) good intentions of Democrats can wind up doing more harm than good: They tell the gay community that Democrats are at least better than the GOP, thus providing an excuse that can be employed endlessly while they stall.

This trust in covert backing from liberal elected officials is an article of faith among most supporters of same-sex marriage. In a recent interview with Newsweek, gay playwright Tony Kushner spoke of Obama’s secret belief in the righteousness of same-sex marriage as if it were painfully obvious. “Pbbbht! Of course he’s in favor of gay marriage!” Kushner exclaimed. His views were echoed by Steve Hildebrand, a gay political consultant who served as Obama’s deputy national campaign director. “I do believe that in his heart he will fight his tail off until we’ve achieved full equality in the gay community,” he told journalist Rex Wockner. I’ve lost track of the number of liberal friends and acquaintances, gay and straight alike, who assure me that Obama “really” supports same-sex marriage and, furthermore, that this point is obvious.

How can they be so sure? People want to like political leaders, and when someone as charismatic as Clinton or Obama comes along, it’s easy to ignore the facts that get in the way of an idealized image. That liberal politicians are indifferent — if not outright opposed — to same-sex marriage stands at utter odds with liberals’ notion of an enlightened community of like-minded progressives. “Does anybody actually believe that Barack Obama and Michelle Obama think that we shouldn’t have — that this man who is a constitutional-law scholar — is it a complicated issue?” Kushner sputtered, as if anyone who disagreed were an imbecile.

Ah yes, why actually believe Obama’s own WORDS on this issue, is the question I would have for Kushner. Obama, and Biden, have been VERY clear that their position on same sex marriage is EXACTLY THE SAME as Sarah Palin’s. Exactly the same. Identical. No difference. But please, keep lying to yourselves so you can continue to glorify The One. And go have some more Kool Aide while you’re at it. Kirchick continues:

Because people such as Kushner view political liberalism as a positive personality trait and not just a worldview, they assume that someone who opposed the Iraq war and sees himself as a “citizen of the world” would also believe in the right of gays to marry. People cannot conceive that such a cosmopolitan and eloquent man as Obama would disagree with them on an issue that they consider a no-brainer.

This is convenient for liberals because it allows them to deflect blame from politicians they like onto those they don’t, namely conservatives, the sincerity of whose opposition to same-sex marriage they never challenge. If only Republicans desisted in their homophobia, this narrative goes, justifiably timid liberals would come out of their closets of prevarication, so to speak, and support gay marriage unambiguously.

Framing gay rights as a strictly partisan issue also allows liberals to obscure the awkward fact that while they are more likely than conservatives to support same-sex marriage, a key Democratic constituency, African Americans, overwhelmingly opposes it.

Obama’s history on the issue does have a complicating twist. On a 1996 Illinois Senate race questionnaire, Obama (or more likely a staffer) wrote, “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” Liberals take from this revelation the assumption that Obama’s apparent flip was insincere.

But there is nothing in his record since he became a national political figure that should give them any reason to think he will revert to his supposedly pro-gay-marriage position. And if Obama actually does believe in same-sex marriage, that makes his public opposition to it worse than it would be if he were genuinely opposed. How is it in any way reassuring to liberals to suppose that a politician agrees with them while selling them down the river? Even if Obama’s apparent flip isn’t genuine, he nonetheless acts as if it were, rendering his supposedly silent support worthless in tangible political terms. Whatever he “really” thinks, Obama’s stance on gay marriage is virtually indistinguishable from that of John McCain.

For some time, liberal politicians have taken a largely wink-and-nod approach to gay issues. They’ve done so with the excuse that the culture must catch up before any progress can be made (an excuse that conveniently doesn’t apply to other liberal interest groups, such as unions and trial lawyers, that do very well when Democrats are in power). Obama paid tribute to this timeworn tactic recently when he told gay activists at the White House: “I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, but by the promises my administration keeps. By the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”

Talking about “feelings” is a cuddly liberal pastime, and Obama’s promise conjures up the phrase that Clinton famously entered into our political lexicon when he told an angry AIDS activist, “I feel your pain.” Maybe now, when it comes to same-sex marriage, he finally does. But it would be nice to have a sitting president whose feelings translate into action. (jkirchick@tnr.com James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic and a contributing writer to the Advocate.)

Good for Mr. Kirchick to actually point this out. I seriously doubt that the people who refuse to believe it will see the light, but at least he tried, right? And I appreciate the effort on his part.

Speaking of the Washington Post, we had this this, from July 31st. It is a shift from homophobia to sexism. You will most likely recognize the two “players” in this video:

I said all along that Obama, the DNC, and the MSM declared open season on women. There was little or no comeuppance for ANYONE who made disparaging, sexist, or misogynistic comments about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. I knew it was going to continue, and possibly get worse. Here we are. With these two sexist pigs suggesting Clinton, who can run RINGS around these two intellectually, politically, and HUMANELY, drinks “Mad Bitch beer.” What a couple of _______ - you fill in the blank.

Oh, and one last thing. Vanity Fair has an article about Sarah Palin entitled, “It Came From Wasilla.” Yes, the author is a man. They are calling the former Governor, a woman, “It”?? Like when Glenn Beck said of Hillary Clinton, “It cries”??? Sheesh, the author isn’t even original. And naturally, the article is another hatchet job of this woman who dared to work her way up, buck her own party, and do right by her state. Naturally. Not for nothing, but I would have more rights in Alaska because of Sarah Palin than in most states in the Union. Just sayin’.

Back to Millbank and Cilliza: WHY DO THEY STILL HAVE THEIR JOBS???? I guess the same reason people like David Shuster does - he can call Hillary Clinton a pimp, and her daughter a whore, and keep his job with just a little slap on the wrist. So I guess what Millbank and Cillizza did was mild by comparison? Their comeuppance cannot come too soon, and it SHOULD come for this blatantly sexist attack on Secretary of State Clinton. Now. They should be fired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Alexander of the Post concludes:

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

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

Let’s hope more of us voice our displeasure.

This has got to be read to be believed. I know that the Washington Post is hard up for cash, but as Politico reports:

Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive “salon” at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that “a flier went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do.”

She’s canceling the event amid “uproar”? Hey, ya think?

Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity.”
(snip)
She made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source. “We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”

What integrity do these people have left after their sycophantic coverage of the election last year? Live events? Here’s a taste at what this one might have looked like had they been able to get away with it:

The first “Salon” was to be called “Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate.” More were anticipated, and the flier described the opportunities for participants:

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m.

But in the “CYA” category, the denouncement of this event was loud and hard. You’d have to read Mssrs Allen and Calderone’s article in its entirety to really get the Herculean level of denial – and when I hear that much spinning it leads me to believe they got caught with their pants down:

Executive editor Marcus Brauchli was as adamant as Weymouth in denouncing the plan promoted in the flier. “You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s “Hosts and Discussion Leaders.”

Brauchli said in an interview that he understood the business side of the Post planned on holding dinners on policy and was scheduled to attend the July 21 dinner at Weymouth’s Washington home, but he said he had not seen the material promoting it until today…
(snip)
The flier promised the dinner would be held in an intimate setting with no unseemly conflict between participants. “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No,” it said. “The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

Brauchli emphasized that the newsroom had given specific parameters to the paper’s business staff that he said were apparently not followed. He said that for newsroom staffers to participate, they would have to be able to ask questions and that he would “reserve the right to allow any information or ideas that emerge from an event to shape or inform our coverage.” That directly contradicts the solicitation to potential sponsors, which billed the dinner as “off-the-record.”

“Our mission in the news department is to serve an audience,” Brauchli said, “not serve our sponsors.”

“We do not use the Post’s name or our journalists to gain access to officials or sources for the benefit of non-news purposes,” he continued.

Uh huh. Sounds like a lot of backpedaling.

Brauchli declined to comment on whether anyone on the business side would be held responsible for the abortive plan. He said that would be a decision for either Weymouth or Stephen Hills, The Post’s president and general manager.

We’ll wait to see if someone’s head rolls over this. However:

Charles Pelton, The Post business-side employee listed as the event contact, seemed to dispute Brauchli’s version of events.

Pelton was quoted by Post ombudsman Andy Alexander in an online commentary as saying that newsroom leaders, including Brauchli, had been involved in discussions about the salons and other events. “This was well-developed with the newsroom,” Pelton told Alexander. “What was not developed was the marketing message to potential sponsors.”

According to Alexander, who called the flier a “public relations disaster,” Pelton told him: “There’s no intention to influence or peddle.” …

If POLITICO had not reported on the flier this morning, Brauchli said he expects someone would have seen it before the event and, given the obvious ethical issue, it would have been canceled.

How sure is he about that? And if no one caught it, is he implying the event would have gone forward? The above statement sort of reminds me of the kerfuffle with the E Pluribus Obama imitation presidential seal last summer. When there was a hue and cry about it, his campaign pretended it was a one time thing and they were never really trying to do it in the first place. Certainly President Obama’s administration did the same thing earlier this year when floating the idea of taxing veterans’ health coverage. The immediate outrage triggered by that notion made it evaporate very quickly.

Earlier this morning, Brauchli sent an e-mail entitled “Newsroom Independence” to his staff explaining his position.

“Colleagues,” Brauchli said. “A flier was distributed this week offering an ‘underwriting opportunity’ for a dinner on health care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate. The language in the flier and the description of the event preclude our participation.

“We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values.”

Amazing that Brauchli would even have to make a statement like this. One would think it would be obvious. Not anymore, it seems. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about this yesterday.

“I think some people in the administration, writ large, may have been invited. I do not believe, based on what I’ve been able to check, anyone has accepted the invitations.”

Gibbs said that the White House counsel would review such invitations and that they “would likely exceed” what would be considered appropriate.

Yeah, it certainly would have gone beyond what would be considered appropriate.

It is obvious from the above that someone thought giving very expensive access to “sponsors” was a viable way of raising revenue for the paper. No matter how Weymouth or Brauchli offer up noble statements about the integrity of the Washington Post, this sort of behavior should not get a pass. I’m glad to see enough noise was made to put a stop to it. The fourth estate looks to be crumbling as it is. Let’s hope we don’t see more of the same.

* * * * *
UPDATE:

In WaPo’s Sunday edition, Katharine Weymouth writes A Letter to Our Readers. Ms. Weymouth’s first paragraph shows just how big a boo boo was made regarding the “event” that Ms. Weymouth et al had planned:

I want to apologize for a planned new venture that went off track and for any cause we may have given you to doubt our independence and integrity. A flier distributed last week suggested that we were selling access to power brokers in Washington through dinners that were to take place at my home. The flier was not approved by me or newsroom editors, and it did not accurately reflect what we had in mind. But let me be clear: The flier was not the only problem. Our mistake was to suggest that we would hold and participate in an off-the-record dinner with journalists and power brokers paid for by a sponsor. We will not organize such events. As publisher it is my job to ensure that we adhere to standards that are consistent with our integrity as a news organization. Last week, I let you, and the organization, down. The Washington Post remains committed, now and always, to the highest standards of journalistic integrity. Nothing is more important to us than that, and nothing will shake that commitment.

Uh oh. Perhaps heads may roll after all? Read the rest here.

So I imagine beyond the big denials reported in the earlier story, there was a huge need for a profound mea culpa. Wonder why?

As many of you may already know, Bill Moyers worked in the Lyndon Johnson Administration, and it is that period of time with which this article deals:

One of the darker periods of modern American history was J. Edgar Hoover’s long reign over the FBI, as we have learned since he died in 1972. So it is more than a historical footnote to discover new records showing that prominent public television broadcaster Bill Moyers participated in Hoover’s exploits.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, the Washington Post has obtained a few of the former FBI director’s secret files. According to a Thursday front-page story, Hoover was “consumed” with exposing a (nonexistent) relationship between a gay photographer and Jack Valenti, the late film industry lobbyist who was then an aide to Lyndon Johnson. Hoover’s M.O. was to amass incriminating personal information as political blackmail.

But as the Post reports in passing, the dossier also reveals that Mr. Moyers — then a special assistant to LBJ — requested in 1964 that Hoover’s G-men “investigate two other administration figures who were ’suspected as having homosexual tendencies.’”

Sigh. Tell me that doesn’t make you sad. It does me. I know, I know, it was a different time, but for someone who has long been considered to be above that sort of thing to have engaged in that sort of thing is just disheartening. Especially because:

This isn’t the first time Mr. Moyers’s name has come up in connection with Hoover’s abuse of office. When Laurence Silberman, now a federal appeals judge, was acting Attorney General in 1975, he was obliged to read Hoover’s secret files in their entirety in preparation for testimony before Congress — and as far as we know remains one of the only living officials to have done so. “It was the single worst experience of my long governmental service,” he wrote in these pages in 2005.

Amid “bits of dirt on figures such as Martin Luther King,” Judge Silberman found a 1964 memo from Mr. Moyers directing Hoover’s agents to investigate Barry Goldwater’s campaign staff for evidence of homosexual activity. A few weeks before, an LBJ aide named Walter Jenkins had been arrested in a men’s bathroom, and Mr. Silberman wrote that Mr. Moyers and his boss evidently wanted leverage in the event Goldwater* tried to use the liaison against them. (He didn’t, as it happened.)

When that episode became public after Mr. Silberman testified, an irate Mr. Moyers called him and, with typical delicacy, accused him of falling for forged CIA memos. Mr. Silberman offered to study the matter and, should Mr. Moyers’s allegations pan out, he would publicly exonerate him. “There was a pause on the line and then he said, ‘I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?’ And then he rang off.”

How indeed, Mr. Moyers? Or to the rest of us who have developed a deep respect and admiration for you? Or is this just old news:

Memories are short in Washington, and Mr. Moyers has gone on to promote himself as a political moralist, routinely sermonizing about what he claims are abuses of power by his ideological enemies. Since 9/11, he has been particularly intense in criticizing President Bush for his antiterror policies, such as warrantless wiretapping against al Qaeda.

Yet the historical record suggests that when Mr. Moyers was in a position of actual power, he was complicit in FBI dirt-digging against U.S. citizens solely for political purposes. As Judge Silberman put it in 2005, “I have always thought that the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends.”

Mr. Moyers told us through a spokeswoman that he “never heard of the Valenti matter until this story and had nothing to add to it.” He also pointed to a 1975 Newsweek article in which he wrote that he learned of the LBJ-Hoover relationship in “the quickly fading days of my innocence.” In the Nixon days, this was called a nondenial denial.

Well, my memory isn’t short. And the “nondenial denial” just doesn’t help matters much. I expected more, and better, from Mr. Moyers.

Oh - and just in case some folks have forgotten, J. Edgar Hoover was mighty good friends with Joseph McCarthy. As in the one from whom we have the term, “McCarthyism.” I might add, that J. Edgar Hoover was notorious for spying on American citizens. So, bear that in mind as you consider the above, and all of the ramifications of this article. (There are tons of books available on the subject of McCarthyism, McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover, if you wish to learn more. A simple search will reveal a number of them, especially at Amazon.com.)

And I wonder what Mr. Moyers thinks of Obama’s maintaining of some of Bush’s more egregious policies, given how outspoken he was when Bush began them (FISA, anti-terror policies like extraordinary rendition, State Secrets, etc., etc.). Despite the disappointment of what this article reveals, I hope Mr. Moyers will continue to hold the powers-that-be feet to the fire. That he will hold Obama accountable for continuing so many of the more despicable policies of Bush II that he decried when Bush did them.

Still, the disappointment lingers.

* By the way, you may recall that it was on the issue of GLBT people in the military, Hillary Clinton always quoted Barry Goldwater who said, “You don’t have to be straight to shoot straight.” So, it doesn’t surprise me that HE did not use the issue of homosexuality for political reasons. That the Democrats had no problems doing that, though, does…

The American populace knows that the primary architects in the formulation of the Stimulus Plan working its way through Congress are Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. This contingent, along with President Obama, have not been bashful in stating they view the November election results as effectively a mandate to change policies emanating from Washington.

Against that backdrop, the initially proposed Stimulus Plan was so loaded with pork that the Republicans and the American population at large slammed it as more a promotion of the

Martin Feldstein

I will give President Obama credit for formulating a Panel to Advise Obama on Economy.

This panel will be known as the White House Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The Board will be headed by former Fed chair Paul Volcker. He will be joined by Jeff Immelt of GE, James Owens of Caterpillar, William Donaldson, former SEC chair, Roger Ferguson Jr. of TIAA-CREF, Richard Trumka of AFL-CIO, Anna Burger of SEIU, and Martin Feldstein, renowned Harvard economist. The group will be guided by Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to the White House.

Do you think President Obama and his economic team would listen to Mr. Feldstein or is that a “mere courtesy” having him on the board? Let’s review what Mr. Feldstein said about the Stimulus Plan just last week.

Regarding the proposed Stimulus Plan, Martin Feldstein offered that it is far better to go back to work and do it right versus merely doing it fast:

An $800 Billion Mistake

By Martin Feldstein
The Washington Post
Thursday, January 29, 2009

As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on
this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now
before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to
raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay
legislation for a month, or even two, if that’s what it takes to produce a much better bill.
We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each
employed person. That’s not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience
shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used
to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year’s tax rebates led to additional
spending.

The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little to increase business investment
and employment. The extended loss “carrybacks” are primarily lump-sum payments to
selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do little to raise capital spending
in the current environment of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years
would be recaptured later.

Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and
businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to
households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the
investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements?
In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and
employment.

Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise
share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital,
more business investment.

On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that,
unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical
records of every American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not a cost-
effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the (long) list of proposed
appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased
national debt?

The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing unrestricted checks to state
governments. Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the “Medicaid matching
rate,” a technique for reducing states’ Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending
on anything governors and state legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be given
out for “state fiscal relief.” Will these vast sums actually lead to additional spending, or will
they merely finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments of the need for
temporary tax hikes or bond issues?

The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually
increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than
pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this supposedly two-year
program would create a precedent that could be hard to reverse.

A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will
spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of
proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010.

If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should
include higher defense outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and equipment,
needed after five years of fighting. The military can increase its level of procurement very
rapidly. Yet the proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for defense, only
about one-half of 1 percent of the total package.

Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also proceed more rapidly than
infrastructure spending in the civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly
involves American-made products. Since much of this military spending will have to be
done eventually, it makes sense to do it now, when there is substantial excess capacity in
the manufacturing sector. In addition, a temporary increase in military recruiting and
training would reduce unemployment directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and
expand the military reserves.

All new spending and tax changes should have explicit time limits that prevent ever-
increasing additions to the national debt. Similarly, spending programs should not create
political dynamics that will make them hard to end.

The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too
little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the
time to get it right.

The writer, an economics professor at Harvard University, is president emeritus of the
National Bureau of Economic Research.

Barack, how about you and Martin go for a little walk. Take your time!!

LD

Richard Cohen’s sister is canceling her inauguration party because of President-elect Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to bless Mr. Obama’s taking the office of the Presidency of the United State.

According to her brother’s column in the Washington Post, what made her do this is the way in which Mr. Obama’s choice to pick this pastor for this occasion serves as a special sort of condoning of Mr. Warren’s views about gays and lesbians.

I agree with Richard Cohen, and apparently his sister, that these views should be regarded as totally unacceptable by anybody who has any sense of the importance of civil rights and indeed of human rights. I also agree with Richard Cohen’s view that as a somebody running for the office of President and who was at the time a U.S. Senator, Mr. Obama had a particular responsibility for denouncing his then-pastor’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ, for giving the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a special award during the primary season.

I find it troubling that neither Mr. Cohen nor apparently his sister have not been, as far as I can tell, overly concerned by President-Elect Obama’s equally eloquent silence and inaction regarding the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and her supporters, particularly the sophomoric expression of these attitudes by Jon Favreau, the man writing President-elect Obama’s inaugural address. (I shudder to think what the reaction of the Cohen family would have been if Favreau had been found on YouTube horsing around calling somebody a “homo” - maybe then Richard Cohen’s sister would join us in our demand that the President-Elect fire this sophomoric bigot as his chief speech-writer. Whether a bigot is slick (Warren) or juvenile (Favreau), he is still a bigot.)

It is tempting to forget in this sort of dynamic who the real problem is. As is clear from what I have written so far, I wish Richard Cohen and his sister would be, respectively, writing about and canceling inauguration parties as much over Mr. Obama’s inaction in the face of sexism and misogyny as they are in the face of anti-Semitism and gay-bashing. And yes, I wish that Richard Cohen’s sister had paid attention to and given greater weight to the fact that she had the option to work to elect somebody who, both as a Senator and as a Presidential candidate, repeatedly marched in Pride parades and met with editors of gay newspapers across the country rather than working for somebody who would not even have his photograph taken with Gavin Newsome.

But I am not falling into the trap that lies that way. Just because people got it wrong before does not mean they cannot help matters now. People can learn. So despite the bit of complaining above, I am not going to point a finger at Richard Cohen’s sister (or, for that matter, at Katha Pollitt for decrying the misogyny involved in the Warren choice when Pollitt, like Richard Cohen’s sister, opted to support Mr. Obama for the presidency when it was already obvious that he was complacent, to say the least, about sexism and misogyny). I am just pleased that they are starting to pay attention now and apparently coming to understand better who they voted for. To quote Richard Cohen: “The real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.”

Aye, there’s the rub. During the primary season and the general election a friend of mine who spent some considerable amount of time listening to me lament the Democratic Party’s poor judgment in making then-Senator Obama their poster-child, kept saying to me that the real problem with Mr. Obama is that he is an “empty suit”.

That term seemed to me too tepid back then. But I have come to see it as the essential problem behind the problem of Mr. Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader, and possibly any kind of leader. To be a moral leader, to stand for something means that you have to fill out your suit, your office, your position. To be an “empty suit” is to be a person who cannot draw a line in the sand, precisely because you do not have an arm and hand within that suit to use to reach out and draw that line. To be an “empty suit” is to be devoid of the weightiness that real leadership requires, including the gravitas to admit to a mistake and change one’s position (drop the bigoted minister and lose the bigoted speechwriter; say you have been wrong to dig in your heels rather than listen to the concerns of so many of the people who worked so hard to elect you). To be an “empty suit” is to be a moral vacuum.

I refused to vote for John McCain for a number of reasons but among them was the fact that while I knew he had the capacity for moral leadership, I did not care for the directions toward which his moral commitments would lead my country. I refused to vote for Barack Obama because I knew he came up empty on the capacity for moral leadership.

In some ways, moral emptiness, especially in a President, is worse than moral wrong-headedness. The morally wrong-headed leader takes a stand, e.g. George W. Bush’s legitimization of torture, and one can rally people against the stand she or he takes. The morally empty leader takes no stand. Under these circumstances, her or his silences often allow people to forget that the blank that exists in lieu of a leader is the appropriate target of criticism. After all, it seems easier to go after people who actually do take stands (Rick Warren, for example) rather than the person who silently enables wrong-headed person to gain in stature. But this is sleight of hand. The real problem is the enabler, the person who allows the sophomoric sexist to put words in his mouth, the person who lets bigoted clerics and their churches affiliate with him.

So, to Richard Cohen’s sister and to Katha Pollitt, I say welcome to my party - the one that got lost in 2008, the one that expected moral leadership of a certain kind from a Democratic president. Now that you are here, I hope you can help me figure out what we are going to do with the empty suit about to occupy the Oval Office. If that empty suit thinks he can pick up sufficient evangelical money and votes in 2012, he is not going to listen to bloggers and op-ed columnists whose votes and followers he thinks he can replace with the support of the evangelicals, regardless of the detestable content of many of their views and some of their conduct. Personally, I do not think we can give the empty suit the sort of backbone necessary to resist the lure of that support. If we cannot give this empty suit some backbone, we need, as I have written before, to start figuring out how we can have a better candidate on offer in 2012. So to the people who are canceling their celebrations, may I suggest that they use the time and effort saved to start solving that problem. We need to coalesce now around somebody who can fight for a nomination by a major Party - probably the the Party formerly recognizable as the Democratic one - who is what Obama’s supporters hoped he would be and what I fear he is not.

The job requires him to work unnoticed, even in plain view, so Jon Favreau settles into a wooden chair at a busy Starbucks in the center of Penn Quarter. Deadline looms, and he needs to write at least half a page by the end of the day. As the espresso machines whir, Favreau opens his laptop, calls up a document titled “rough draft of inaugural” and goes to work on the most anticipated speech of Barack Obama’s life.

Isn’t this the very same paper that published THIS photo of Favreau:

And they think no one recognizes him? Yeah, okay. This is the extent of the Post’s dealing with that reprehensible action by Favreau and his buddy:

Especially now, as Favreau and the rest of Obama’s young staffers begin a transition that extends far beyond new job titles. Three months ago, Favreau lived in a group house with six friends in Chicago, where he rarely shaved, never cooked and sometimes stayed up to play video games until early morning. Now, he has transformed into what one friend called a “Washington political force” — a minor celebrity with a down payment on a Dupont Circle condo, whose silly Facebook photos with a Hillary Rodham Clinton cutout created what passes for controversy in Obama’s so far drama-free transition.

Blech. Blech. BLECH. The author completely dismisses the blatant sexism demonstrated by Jon Favreay. In his mind, it’s just a silly little thing. Yes, Teflon Man isn’t touched by ANYTHING, it seems, even the degrading treatment of his Secretary of State to be! Grrr.

Not to quibble, but the author thinks this has been a drama-free transition?? I guess this is where the MSM tells us what to think rather than report what actually happened. I am pretty sure more than a few people were shocked - SHOCKED - by Obama’s choice of Secretary for State, for example. Dr. Rice? Susan Powers?? GATES (not that he was a bad choice, but all of those folks who thought Obama was going to immediately cease the Iraq war must have had mini-head explosions)? Bill Richardson, also under investigation for “Pay for Play”?? Seems like they are continuing to redefine words, just like they did for Bush. Now, surprise and outrage at choices will be considered “drama free”! Wow. Just sayin’.

Now, a whole lot of this article is singing Favreau’s praises, so feel free to go read it for yourself. But there are several quotes that deal directly with the relationship between Obama and Favreau:

During the campaign, the buzz-cut 27-year-old at the corner table helped write and edit some of the most memorable speeches of any recent presidential candidate. When Obama moves to the White House next month, Favreau will join his staff as the youngest person ever to be selected as chief speechwriter. He helps shape almost every word Obama says, yet the two men have formed a concert so harmonized that Favreau’s own voice disappears.

“He looks like he’s in college and everybody calls him Favs, so you’re like, ‘This guy can’t be for real, right?’ ” said Ben Rhodes, another Obama speechwriter. “But it doesn’t take long to realize that he’s totally synced up with Obama. . . . He has access to everything and everybody. There’s a lot weighing on his shoulders.”

Ah, yes, Favreau and Obama are all linked up:

Still more daunting is the list of things Favreau can’t think about as he writes the inaugural. He went for a run to the Lincoln Memorial last month and stopped in his tracks when he imagined the mall packed with 3 million people listening to some of his words. A few weeks later, Favreau winced when Obama spokesman Bill Burton reminded him: “Dude, what you’re writing is going to be hung up in people’s living rooms!”

Oh, but just wait. It gets better: Obama sometimes jokes that Favreau is not so much a speechwriter as a mind reader.

He carries Obama’s 1995 autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” with him almost everywhere and has memorized most of his famous keynote speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He has mastered Obama’s writing style — short, elegant sentences — and internalized his boss’s tendency toward reflection and ideological balance.

So, let’s be crystal clear here: all of those speeches that had people fawning all over Obama were written by a 27 yr old who lived in a house with 6 other people, often playing video games into all hours of the night (according to the article). And this man is completely simpatico with Obama. Competely:

In four years together, Obama and Favreau have perfected their writing process. Before most speeches, Obama meets with Favreau for an hour to explain what he wants to say. Favreau types notes on his laptop and takes a crack at the first draft. Obama edits and rewrites portions himself — he is the better writer, Favreau insists — and they usually work through final revisions together. If Favreau looks stressed, Obama sometimes reassures him: “Don’t worry. I’m a writer, too, and I know that sometimes the muse hits you and sometimes it doesn’t. We’ll figure it out together.”

“The president-elect understands that Jon is a rare talent. He knows what he’s got,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, who also worked in the Senate office. “There’s a mutual respect and appreciation between them, and the president-elect trusts Jon’s instincts and ability. It’s a partnership.”

Wow. Oh, the article goes on and on about Favreau, probably more information than you really want to know about this 27 year old who acted in an incredibly sexist manner toward Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and Favreau wrote the speech on race, too, with a little retooling from Obama. Huh. I wonder if Favreau also wrote Obama’s “listen to what I say, not what I do” speech at his recent press conference, detailed in this Washington Post article, defense for why he chose Rick Warren to give his Inaugural Invocation:

President-elect Barack Obama this morning defended his choice of evangelical megapastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at next month’s swearing-in, saying that although he differs with the conservative pastor on social issues, he wants to have diverse voices at the ceremony.

“I am a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency,” Obama said at a morning news conference to announce several financial appointments. “What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues…

“During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented,” Obama said. “And that’s how it should be, because that’s what America is about. Part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated…

Obama added: “That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign’s been all about: That we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”

Oh, well, okay. So we are not supposed to pay attention to what you DO, but what you say. And those of us who continue to be oppressed in this country should just go ahead and take it because Obama wants “diverse voices” at his inauguration. He thinks we should just go along to get along. Because THAT has worked out so well in the past. Hahahaha.

Apparently, Favreau and Obama don’t understand that some of us actually do see through these false claims. When Obama, not his transition committee, but OBAMA, picks this minister to give the invocation out of ALL of the ministers in this entire country, then tells us that we should just take this huge slap in the face because, in his most patronizing fashion, we should just be able to accept differences.

See, it’s OUR problem, not Obama’s, for choosing this man. WE just need to get over it, and stop being upset that Obama purposely chose a minister who is opposed to same sex marriage, who is a creationist who thinks homosexuality should have already been weeded out of the gene pool (H/T to AF Catfish, alert NQ reader, and who is anti-choice. Once we let go that Obama surrounds himself with homophobes in the name of diversity, this won’t be upsetting to us anymore. Got that? Good - lay off the man already, he’s just trying to Unite us, after all, by choosing this Divider to kick off his gala. And if you don’t get it this time, maybe the next speech Favreau writes will convince you. If not, Obama will re-tool it and sprinkle magic dust or something on it so you won’t remember all of the other crap he’s pulled. Hey, it’s worked before for the ‘N Sync team of Obama/Favreau, I’m sure it will work again.