Isn’t that great?? Well, it would be if it was actually true. But it is not. For instance, did you know that Puerto Rico has 99 districts? Nope, me, either. Because they don’t. They have 1 (one). How about Arizona? Heck, they’ve got at least 38 (thirty-eight), right? Oh, wait, no they don’t - they have 8 (eight). The alleged “recovered jobs” bragged about by Biden and how our stimulus money is being spent don’t quite match up. I know, big surprise (almost as much as the following report being on ABCNews):

Wow that’s some “state of the art system” you got going on there, Joe. And I am SOOOOO sure that all of the problems are the result of people not knowing in which district they live. Oh, sure. Because it is so difficult to access that information. I mean, really, you might need to make a PHONE CALL or something. Or look it up on “the internets,” if it isn’t in the area in which you live. Because then, you could just take a little look-see at your voter registration card! Gosh, I am just stunned that they would not be getting these numbers right!

Speaking of jobs, check out these headlines:

This is exactly why so many of us are concerned about the Government running our health care system. Can you say fraud? If they cannot even get this right, how are they going to adequately address issues of life and death?? I don’t think even an abacus could help out there …

With Fox News against the White House attempt to censor the cable network. Check that, to shut DOWN the network. I am assuming that, by now, you have heard of the concentrated attacks on the Fox News Network by Administration officials, and the president himself. Larry Johnson had a great piece on this earlier in the week, “Fox Is Not A News Station?,” if you need to catch up.

Well, the strangest thing has started to happen as the White House has continued its unprecedented attack on a major network, not just freezing out a reporter here or there as other administrations have done, but a flat out drive to shut down this network. I can scarcely believe it myself, but what has happened recently is that reporters from other networks, even the Washington Bureau chiefs of the main news outlets, have started to stand WITH Fox News.

It all began with one of my favorite reporters, Jake Tapper of ABC News. He is one of the very few national reporters from a major network to consistently challenge the Obama campaign, and now the Obama Administration. And he did so again just the other day as his post entry indicates:

“Today’s Qs For O’s WH - 10/20/09”
From this morning’s gaggle in White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ office:

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –

Let’s just stop right there. Jake Tapper referred to Fox News as a “sister organization.” That is HUGE, people. His use of that phrase speaks volumes, as he indicates a solidarity with Fox News (good post on that very topic at Commentary Magazine here). Perhaps it is even a bit of a warning shot across the bow that the White House needs to back the hell off from this attack on a major press outlet.

The Q&A continued:

(Crosstalk) Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” — why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion. -jpt

You know I can’t stand Gibbs anyway, that mealy mouthed worm. But Tapper demonstrates what a stand up guy he is by pursuing this line of questioning, and not letting Gibbs, or the White House, off the hook.

I mentioned above that the White House is doing its darndest to completely shut down Fox News. The following video is a good summation of what has happened thus far, the latest attack by the White House, and what the other networks did:

I know, right? They know, I gather, that this time around, it may be Fox News, but next time, it could be CNN, or MSNBC. I would love to think that the solidarity of the major networks was the result of it simply being the right thing to do.

The All Star Panel on Fox News takes this on, too, with a bonus clip of Obama’s discussing Fox News:

Uh huh. Sure, he’s not losing sleep over it. If he isn’t, why are he and his minions going out of their way to ATTACK Fox News? It most certainly IS “breath-taking in its pettiness” as Mr. Barnes put it.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.”

And, when he said this:

“Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it.”

Finally, Thomas Jefferson said this about the importance of a free press and our responsibility to it:

“To preserve the freedom of the human mind… and freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will and speak as we think, the condition of man (sic) will proceed in improvement.”

Hopefully, that is exactly why the networks are standing shoulder to shoulder on this issue. They know, as we do, that our liberty is at risk when the press is under attack from its government.

Like Jefferson, like the Washington Bureau, like Jake Tapper, like many of you reading this, I stand on the side of a free press, and on the side of our liberty. It is our duty, it is our call, it is our very democracy.

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports: President Obama, like any other President, has his fair share of critics. Even fourth-graders have noticed.

“Why do people hate you?”, a fourth-grade boy asked Obama at a town hall event in New Orleans today. “They’re supposed to love you. And God is love.”

“That’s what I’m talking about,” replied the President.

Here’s the video of the exchange, though the transcript is below if you’d prefer:

Um, what the hell was he talking about BEFORE the little boy asked his question? Wasn’t he saying, “It’s a man’s turn. Isn’t it? It’s a guy’s turn.” That’s what it sounded like to me, anyway…So, just what came BEFORE that?? Curious.

Obama continued his response to the child:

“First of all, I did get elected president, so not everybody hates me,” Obama noted, before adding, “What is true is if you were watching TV lately, it seems like everybody’s just getting mad all the time. And I — you know, I think that you’ve got to take it with a grain of salt. Some of it is just what’s called politics where, you know, once one party wins, then the other party kind of gets — feels like it needs to poke you a little bit to keep you on your toes.”

“And so you shouldn’t take it too seriously,” Obama told the boy. “And then, sometimes, as I said before, people just — I think they’re worried about their own lives. A lot of people are losing their jobs right now. A lot of people are losing their health care or they’ve lost their homes to foreclosure, and they’re feeling frustrated. And when you’re president of the United States, you know, you’ve got to deal with all of that.”

So, um, not to quibble or anything, but just when do you think you are going to get around to dealing with job loss, home loss, and losing health care? Hey, just asking:

“You get some of the credit when things go good. And when things are going tough, then, you know, you’re going to get some of the blame, and that’s part of the job,” he continued. “But, you know, I’m a pretty tough guy.”

“You’ve just got to keep on going, even when folks are criticizing you, because — as long as you know that you’re doing it for other people, all right?” Obama concluded.

The boy’s question was the last one the President fielded at his event at the University of New Orleans, his first trip to the city since being elected to the Oval Office.

Well, there is a good reason the child asked that question. While Obama did get elected, the latest Fox Poll shows that he wouldn’t if the election was held today, as this article highlights, Fox News Poll: 43 Percent Would Vote To Re-Elect President Obama:If the election were held today, 43 percent of American voters would back Barack Obama for president, according to a new Fox News poll.

Oh dear. I guess that’s some of the “blame” Obama is getting for not fulfilling his campaign promises, for starters, not to mention his continued constant campaigning instead of working thing he’s got going on. Here are the results of this poll:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. (Emphasis mine.) That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

Yep, Obama’s approval numbers are below 50% for the first time at 49%. How about on some of the issues:

On Afghanistan, 41 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Obama is doing and 43 percent disapprove. For his handling of Iran, 44 percent approve and 43 percent disapprove.

On the president’s handling of the economy, voters are almost equally split: 48 percent approve and 49 percent disapprove. On health care, some 42 percent approve of the president’s performance and half disapprove, 50 percent.

Among Democrats, 78 percent say they would vote to re-elect President Obama, down from 87 percent in April. For 2008 Obama voters, 81 percent say they would vote to re-elect him — that’s a slight up tick from the 79 percent who said so previously.

Six in 10 Americans — 60 percent — think Obama is a strong and decisive leader.
And while 38 percent think President Obama is getting good advice from his advisors, a larger number — 45 percent — think he is “listening to the wrong people.” (Opinion Dynamics Corp. conducted the national telephone poll of 900 registered voters for FOX News from October 13 to October 14. The poll has a 3-point error margin.)

Like Rahm Emmanuel, or David Axelrod, or Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid? Yeah, I’d say he’s listening to the wrong people.

And about that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing:

Did He Deserve It?

Upon winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama said, “To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformational figures.” Most Americans agree with the president — 65 percent say he did not deserve to win, while 29 percent say he did.

Furthermore, a slim 54 percent majority of Democrats think Obama did deserve to win, while 38 percent disagree. For independents, 19 percent think he deserved it, while nearly three-quarters, 74 percent, say he did not. Among Republicans, almost all — 91 percent — say he did not deserve it.

When asked why the Nobel Committee gave the president the prize, about a third of Americans, 32 percent, say because he deserved it, while the largest number — 44 percent — think the committee hoped the prize would make Obama “think twice before using military force in the future.”

About that whole Nobel Peace Prize thing. Remember how we were all told the Committee Was unanimous in their decision to give it to Obama? Turns out that 3 out of 5 of them did NOT want to give it to him. Golly gee, I guess truth really DOES will out! Evidently, their reaction was the same as many of ours - he hasn’t DONE anything yet but speechify, for cryin’ out loud!

The poll also address how Congress was doing:

Most Americans are unhappy with Congress these days — 66 percent disapprove, including 45 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 84 percent of Republicans. Overall, less than one of four Americans, 24 percent, approve of the job Congress is doing.

Looking ahead to the 2010 Congressional election, for the first time this year the Republicans have the advantage: 42 percent of voters say they are more likely to back the Republicans to provide a check on President Obama’s power, while 38 percent say they would vote for the Democrat to help the president pass his policies.

Finally, in a rare example of bipartisan agreement, majorities of Democrats, 53 percent, Republicans, 78 percent, and Independents, 61 percent, agree the country is more divided these days. All in all, 64 percent of Americans think the country is more politically divided today — that’s more than twice the number who say it is not more divided, 31 percent.

Click here for the raw data.

What a bang-up job Obama has done in uniting us, just like he said he would. Blech. Can’t believe people fell for THAT line again, can you? Great - so glad there is one area that is truly bipartisan. Ahem.

And while President Obama is still feeling the love, the numbers of those who love him seem to be decreasing the more they open their eyes to see and their ears to hear. Such a shame they couldn’t muster that BEFORE the election, isn’t it? Now, his daily tracking poll continues to go down; Secretary Clinton’s approval numbers are higher than his (no big surprise to ME there); and his overall rating is at 49%. COngress doesn’t fare much better. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving guy, or more deserving Congress, could it?

Remember that “3:00AM” ad? Who would we want answering the phone? This woman, that’s who.

Instead we have President Obama, who has gotten his early morning call, particularly regarding Afghanistan. He’s letting it go to voice-mail. Hey, he has more important things to do, like go to Copenhagen to push for Chicago to get the Olympic Games in 2016. Yep - it’s true. He’s making a “personal” appeal - presumably on OUR dime. Oh, he can’t be bothered with what’s going on with ACORN, mind you, but he can press for Chicago to get the Olympics. So, General McChrystal, and our troops, can just wait, dammit, until Obama can get to them. (By the way, General McChrystal is holding firm on wanting those troops, despite the pressure he is under to shut up.)

Oh, and a little side note on that, the whole Chicago Olympics bid. Turns out that Fox TV in Chicago has been warned - as only they can do in Chicago - to NOT air a program they did on people in Chicago OPPOSED to having the Olympics there again. Oh, I just love this Free Speech, don’t you?

Every time I hear Secretary Clinton speak, and then President Obama, every time, I am reminded of who would have been the better choice to have at the other end of the phone line in difficult times. And it sure isn’t Obama, no matter how much he loves to hear himself talk (though largely about himself, as THIS article highlights. Almost 1,200 times in just 41 speeches, NOT including all of the speechifying he did last week. Holy SMOKES - narcissistic much?). He’s not the one I would trust to deal with the big issues. Seems like some other folks are figuring that out now, too. Too late, though, for dealing with some major issues, like Afghanistan.

If only it wasn’t our soldiers who were going to bear the brunt of that call going to voice-mail…

Um, aren’t these EXACTLY the same things OBAMA is planning on doing? Let’s see - he attacked Hillary Clinton during the Primaries by claiming she would fine people who didn’t have insurance. She never said that, but now Obama is. Obama claimed in the campaign that McCain was going to cut money from Medicare and tax people on their insurance, and now Obama is planning on doing both! WTF???

Oh, wait - Obama was emphatic with George Stephanopoulos that it is NOT a tax on insurance. Heck, no, no way, could this exchange make anyone think this is a tax:

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

You can watch the exchange here to get the fuller picture, and new definition:

No disrespect or anything, President Obama, but you make shit up all the time! Jeezum crow! And you’re going to get all testy with George? I reckon you forgot that you are trying to WOO people over to your plan, not antagonize them. Oh, wait, I forgot - this is upside down world. A world in which people who have the audacity to actually question you are rude, but one in which you can flat out lie about people who disagree with you. I got it. New definition of rude - check!

Well, that was the whole tax issue. How about cutting Medicare? Uh huh:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s go to Medicare then…

OBAMA: Good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …because you also said that no one will lose what they have. And Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, says that the cuts you’re looking at in Medi — the Medicare Advantage program…

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …are going to force people to lose coverage they now have.

OBAMA: No. Here — here’s what’s going to happen. These are essentially private HMOs who are getting, on average — and this is not my estimate, this is Democrats and Republicans, experts have said — they’re getting, on average, about 14 percent more over payments, basically subsidies from taxpayers for a program that ordinary Medicare does just as good, if not better, at keeping people healthy.

Now, they package these things in ways that, in some cases, may make it more convenient for some consumers, but they’re overcharging massively for it. There’s no competitive bidding under the process.

And so what we’ve said is instead of spending $17 billion, $18 billion a year, $177 billion over 10 years on that, why wouldn’t we use that to close the donut hole so the people are actually getting better prescription drugs…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator Nelson says it’s going to…

OBAMA: …Why don’t we make sure that we’re using some of that money to actually make people healthier?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he said it’s going to cause beneficiaries right now to lose what they have.

OBAMA: Look, I understand that change is hard. If what you’re saying is that people who are currently signed up for Medicare advantage are going to have Medicare and the same level of benefits, but they may not be having their insurer get a 14 percent premium, that’s absolutely true and will the insurers squawk? You bet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They may drop the coverage.

OBAMA: No, these folks are going to be able to get Medicare that is just as good, provides the same benefits, but we’re not subsidizing them for $18 billion a year.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So Senator Nelson, he wants to pass an amendment that shields anyone currently on Medicare advantage from any cuts. Do you support that?

OBAMA: George, I’m not going to be negotiating a particular provision of the bill, sitting (ph) down with you here right now. What I am going to say is this: the basic principle that is indisputable is that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare that is not making people healthier. I want to make sure that we’re using that money to actually make people healthier.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if people lose their Medicare advantage?

OBAMA: What I have said is we’re not going to take a dollar out of the Medicare trust fund. We’re going to make sure that benefits are just as strong if not stronger. We’re not going to subsidize insurance companies in ways that end up creating a situation that Medicare is actually weaker and has a less financial foundation, because right now, we’ve got eight years from now potentially Medicare going into the red.

If you get a chance, go watch the video. It seems to me that Obama gets JUST a tad testy…

One itsy, bitsy problem. The Health Care bill does say tax. Page 29 of the bill:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

And here’s a little bit of advice for President Obama, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a safe bet that it’s a duck. But when the duck is clearly labeled as a duck (or in your case, a tax, or a cut in services, or a lie) it is a duck. So stop pretending a tax is not a tax, especially when it is labeled a tax. Just as folks understood that fellatio was a sex act they also are able to figure out that having to give the Government more money out of their pockets is a tax no matter what it is called. You may not understand what an “excise tax” is but some of us are actually able to tell the difference. But thanks for playing.

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?

In his August 20, 2009, meeting with supporters at the Democratic National Committee and its “Organizing for America” (OFA) arm – formerly the “Obama for America” campaign – President Obama blamed the media for the fact that many untrue claims made by opponents of his health care reform push had been accepted by many Americans as fact.

Stating that end of life care was “previously considered a bipartisan concept,” the president said, “this used to be just a sensible thing that everybody could agree to.”

But it “suddenly became ‘Death Panels,’ and scared Grandma,” he said, “and it’s just irresponsible.”

“Scared Grandma?” Can our President say anything that doesn’t sound condescending and insulting?

The president added, “I have to say, part of the reason it spreads is the way reporting is done today. If somebody puts out misinformation, ‘Obama’s Creating Death Panels,’ then the way the news report comes across is: ‘Today such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn’t true.’ And then they go on to the next story. And what they don’t say is, ‘In fact it isn’t true.’”

Even more preposterous than the President demonizing “grandma” and anyone else angered by the arrogant, flatfooted handling of health care reform legislation, he is now demonizing the press, his strongest allies.

No “death panels” eh? Glad to hear it. But I wonder why a Senate subcommittee then promptly removed a suspicious sounding provision from their bill after Sarah Palin made a stink about it on her Facebook page. Even Obama cheerleader Eugene Robinson admitted she had a point. His monstrous health care bill (I think there are 5) has not even been formulated yet, but the Obama Administration is going full steam ahead selling it to the American people, criticizing anyone questioning their audacity in ramming through a bill no one understands. The latest we hear is that Obama has backed off the public option. This magical health care legislation morphs into something new daily.

As Tapper points out:

Today OFA sent out an email to supporters continuing this line of criticism. (You can see the email HERE.)

“Over the past few months, two things have become clear about the fight for health insurance reform,” writes OFA director Mitch Stewart. “1. Our opponents will create and spread outrageous lies to try to stop President Obama from creating real change. 2. We just can’t count on the media to debunk them.”

Obama cannot count on the media? Not two months ago, he made fun of the media’s fawning when he joked about rolling over in bed to find Brian Williams lying beside him. The President is also being disingenuous. When the “death panels” comment hit the net, the press was all over itself debunking it, and insulting Palin once again. The American people saw through the many conflicting statements on health care and decided they weren’t buying. That is the real issue. But the President can’t come out and tell the American people off for not being seduced by more smoke and mirrors.

This comment is the pièce de resistance…

Stewart then quoted President Obama from August 20, and said supporters need to “double our own efforts to get the truth out. That means more organizers running door-to-door canvases and phone banks to educate our neighbors, more events to spread the word to Congress, and more ads on the air countering the smears. And we’ll need the money to pay for it all. Can you chip in to help make it happen?”

“Stepping in when the media fails is a daunting challenge,” Stewart writes.

Yes, let’s go door to door for more bullying. Let’s raise lots more money people don’t have to push a plan when we’re still not sure what’s in it.

So far, this administration has not earned enough points with the American people to convince us we should take legislation this important on faith. Stewart has a lot of nerve to talk about what should be done when the media fails to do its job. I think there are still a good number of Hillary’s 18,000,000 voters who might like to get a piece of that action.

No one, not even President George Bush ever had such loving, sycophantic treatment by the press. More than owing contributors to his huge war chest, President Obama owes the mainstream media for their blind praise and abject refusal to vet him throughout 2008. That was reason numero uno why this man was elected. Now he is criticizing the press for actually daring to let a little real news see the light of day. In reality, he is criticizing the fact that press efforts to minimize the gravity of grass roots opposition has backfired.

Of course we need reform, but before we do something drastic to 1/6th of the economy in such perilous times, let’s make sure we are doing something to help, not hurt. The Obama Administration has once again chosen bullying and hubris over returning to the drawing board to fix the problem.

The media still defends the President at every turn. It is an indicator of negative public sentiment when the President feels he must resort to criticism of an organism that has largely functioned as his own personal PR firm for 20 months. It will be interesting to see if any of our so called journalists finally declare enough is enough and remember the way they USED to do their jobs.

We’re waiting…

Now, you know I can’t abide Andrew Sullivan for a bunch of reasons. Hence my unwillingness to give him any traffic at all by even going to his site and re-posting his article here. But when I saw this blurb, and Sullivan’s arrogant, and sexist, title, I just couldn’t resist. I almost cracked up laughing that he, of all people, is getting his nose out of joint about the questions Cheney was asked in this interview. Apparently, he has forgotten just about every interview Obama has had since he began his campaign, and he was running for the highest office in the land! Cheney is not running for anything (and I hasten to add, I have absolutely NO love lost for Dick Cheney. I appreciate that he supports his daughter, her partner, and their child, but that’s about it).

Perhaps Sullivan forgot this interview by Charlie Gibson of ABC News, an outlet that uses OUR airwaves for FREE, of Obama during the campaign:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Oooooohhhhh - how di Obama withstand those WITHERING questions?

Or more recently, how about Brian Williams and his day at the White House, one that culminated in THIS moment:

Seriously?? He really wants to go down this road of how political interviewees are handled? How about this clip with George Stephanapoulous:

Heck, George even supplies the correct verbiage to Obama! And may I just say one more time - HOW was this man portrayed as being ELOQUENT??? Holy smokes.

Okay, one more to prove the point, if you can stomach watching Keith Olberman:

Oh, yes - that is some HARD-HITTING “journalism” there for Mr. Sullivan. Get one of the two most biased for Obama show hosts (I refuse to call Olberman a “journalist”) to lob softballs for Obama to trash the Republicans.

By the way, remember Obama’s appearance with McCain at Ground Zero? Yeah, so dignified:

I digress. Back to the whole hard-hitting journalism thing: At least Steve Kroft pointed out Obama’s inappropriate laughter here:

But he did so with a smile, and accepted that lame-ass excuse from Obama as to why he was laughing while indicating how he was going to use our money to bail out the UAW even though Americans were STRONGLY opposed to that idea.

Sullivan complains about the questions asked Cheney? Maybe he should have been so worried about the questions asked of Obama…

… I’ve talked to a lot of former Edwards staffers about this. Up until December of 2007, most on Edwards’ staff didn’t believe rumors about the affair.

But by late December, early January of last year, several people in his inner circle began to think the rumors were true.

Several of them had gotten together and devised a "doomsday" strategy of sorts.

Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards’ staffers have told me.

They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Uh, George. If his staffers were “Democrats first,” they would not have spent the money and effort in Iowa and New Hampshire. They would have confronted him and threatened to resign en masse unless he quietly resigned the race. They could have done a number of things. But they did nothing but help perpetuate a lie and help sabotage Hillary’s candidacy. Think about it, George. Think.

John Harwood, the New York Times reporter and MSNBC analyst, said on MSNBC that Obama was introduced today as “Barack Hussein Obama” and that he emphasized “growing up in a majority Muslim country, that there are a lot of Americans like that and that I [Obama] am one of them.” [Transcribed via DVR playback.]

Jeff Zeleny, another New York Times reporter, responded, “Throughout the course of the primary campaign, one time when I used his middle name, we got a lot of angry e-mail from supporters of then Senator Obama who said, ‘Why do you have to remind people that his middle name is Hussein?‘ But he was doing that directly today to send a purposeful message that he is a part of the world, that he is just piece of American heritage, if you will.” [At NoQuarter, throughout the contests, if anyone used his middle name, we were accused by Obamabots of being racists.]

But today, not only did Barack Obama accentuate his middle name, he said this in a speech to the Turkish parliament:

“The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families, or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them,” he said.

What a stark contrast to his campaigns, when he minimized and disguised his affiliations with his Muslim relatives and his upbringing in a Muslim-dominant country (Indonesia). It is also notable today that every media outlet (CNN, A.P., Reuters, etc.) cut out that section of his speech. But I managed to find the video here, at about 3/4 of the way through this NECN video:

As an example of the heated accusations during the primaries, this was the headline at the Times UK: “Barack Obama: I’m no Muslim.”

From Barack Obama’s own “Fight The Smears” campaign Web site was this strong denial:

Here are the lengths that Barack Obama went to in South Carolina to win over the Christian right. (Click on this image to see the entire brochure, full-sized.)

The left column:

Lastly, who can forget this peculiar slip of the tongue when Obama was interviewed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in September 2008:

:::::::::::

Special thanks to all of the writers at NoQuarter for pitching in and helping me locate these images, links, and videos.

Barack Obama suggested he’s not likely to actively pursue criminal charges against national security officials who were directly involved in unlawful interrogations or wire-tapping, and said it would be difficult to quickly close down Guantanamo Bay.

Hold on to your hats, folks. This doesn’t sound like what he campaigned on – does it?

“That’s a challenge,” the president-elect said about the prospect of closing down to the detainee facility within the first 100 days of taking office. “I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.”

On the question of prosecuting crimes that may have been committed during the Bush presidency in the course of the war on terror, Obama continued the theme of “looking forward as opposed to backwards” he took on the campaign trail and reaffirmed since winning the presidency last November.

Let me repeat that for you — looking forward as opposed to backwards. Apparently, he repeated that theme a number of times in his interview.

In Glen Greenwald’s biting Salon piece “Obama’s allegedly “new” centrism and his ABC interview today”, he quotes Obama’s statement on the subject:

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

Greenwald then clarifies the butter:

What [Obama's] saying is quite clear. There are detainees who the U.S. may not be able to convict in a court of law. Why not? Because the evidence that we believe establishes their guilt was obtained by torture, and it is therefore likely inadmissible in our courts (torture-obtained evidence is inadmissible in all courts in the civilized world; one might say it’s a defining attribute of being civilized). But Obama wants to detain them anyway — even though we can’t convict them of anything in our courts of law. So before he can close Guantanamo, he wants a new, special court to be created — presumably by an act of Congress — where evidence obtained by torture (confessions and the like) can be used to justify someone’s detention and where, presumably, other safeguards are abolished. That’s what he means when he refers to “creating a process.”

Amazingly, when discussing the same topic, Obama vowed that “we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.” How? By creating a new court just for accused Islamic radicals that allows us to use confessions and other evidence that we obtained through torture? That sounds like exactly the same “message about our values” that we’ve been sending.

Great analysis, Glen. Perhaps Obama’s statements then prompted Politico’s Martin to note:

While aimed at attracting consensus from a broader electorate, the position is not exactly what many in the liberal base of his party would prefer.

Uh, no kidding. Along with Obama inviting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the Inauguration and appointing Governor Tim “anti–choice, anti-Gay union, pro Iraq war” Kaine as the new Democratic Party Chair, this is just another instance of P.E. Obama getting elected on a totally fictional platform and thumbing his nose at the very people who brought him to the table in the first place.

As Stephanopoulos noted, the most asked question on Obama’s own transition website relates to investigating the “crimes” of the Bush administration. Asked if he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate such matters as warrantless wire-tapping and torture, Obama demurred.

You betcha he demurred. Stephanopoulus asked Obama if he was going to take a piece of advice that Dick Cheney offered in reference to the very subject of Bush’s counterterrorism policies. From ABC News:

DICK CHENEY (via audio clip): Before you start to implement your campaign rhetoric you need to sit down and find out precisely what it is we did and how we did it. Because it is going to be vital to keeping the nation safe and secure in the years ahead and it would be a tragedy if they threw over those policies simply because they’ve campaigned against them.
…
OBAMA: I think that was pretty good advice, which is I should know what’s going on before we make judgments and that we shouldn’t be making judgments on the basis of incomplete information or campaign rhetoric. So, I’ve got no quibble with that particular quote.

Obama went on to say:

“We’re still evaluating how we’re going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth,” he said. “And obviously we’re going to be looking at past practices, and I don’t believe that anybody is above the law.

“On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards. And part of my job is to make sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering.”

Pressed, Obama said twice more that he wanted to get “things right in the future, as opposed looking at what we got wrong in the past.”

Again, ‘look forward,’ ‘look to the future.’ In other words, folks, if you are waiting for accountability in Obama’s administration, you can wait long. As far as an independent body similar to the 9/11 commission being formed to investigate these crimes:

“We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn’t mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation’s going to be to move forward.”

I think that statement makes pretty clear that whatever bodies are buried are probably going to stay buried. And as to Mr. sit down and meet with anybody, new world of peacenik diplomacy – try this on for size:

Obama also reiterated his desire for a “new approach” to Iran — something he frequently mentioned during the Democratic primary — but was quick to add a stick to go with the carrot.

Asked if U.S. relations with Tehran would include a “new emphasis on respect,” Obama replied: “Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are.”

Could it be that in his recent security briefings, he has had a come to Jesus moment and realized that all the nonsense he was spewing on the campaign trail was just that? Or do you think he knew that information all along and was just strategizing to pull the most votes away from Hillary in the primary and McCain in the general by supplying a war weary, Bush-weary electorate with the pablum they wanted to hear? I go with the latter.

Greenwald also notes that while Obama’s fans in the pundit class are celebrating his shifts to the right as “remarkable” – this strategy is old as the hills:

The central tenets of the Beltway religion — particularly when a Democrat is in the White House — have long been “centrism” and “bipartisanship.” The only good Democrats are the ones who scorn their “left-wing” base while embracing Republicans. In Beltway lingo, that’s what “pragmatism” and good “post-partisanship” mean: a Democrat whose primary goal is to prove he’s not one of those leftists.

I guess this is Mr. Greenwald’s way of informing Obama supporters they’ve been had.

Obama has a history of doing and saying anything in the moment that will take him the farthest. If that amounts to a lie that doesn’t conflate with the next lie, so be it. And if the past year is any indication, Obama has little to worry about. No one in the press seems to bother to compare any of his conflicting statements in order to corner him into an admission of his disingenuous behavior.

I am not even going to comment as to the advisability of shutting down Gitmo in the first 100 days– neither this nor his behavior toward Iran is the point. As we have all been proclaiming from the highest hill for the past year, the point is he is simply politics as usual – exactly the opposite of everything he pretended to be. With each news conference, each interview and each new action, he proclaims that loud and clear.

So if he had but a paper thin resume and is not the “new kind of politics” but just inside the beltway business as usual – what exactly does he have to bring to the table? Why did anyone need to vote for him in the first place?

Apart from the wisdom to hire if not all, at least some, incredibly savvy people to cover his butt for him, why couldn’t we have elected genuine leadership instead of a “brand” or puppet king? Surely Hillary would know how to make great cabinet appointments – and be a caring, ultra capable and prepared leader to boot. It would also be great to have a President possessed of toughness, real decision making capabilities and deep, nuanced knowledge of the issues. Hillary has this. He does not. What happens if Obama’s 300 advisors are not available at the moment? What about if part of the team is skiing in Gstaad? How about if he does not have frat-boy Favreau available to write a pretty speech for him? As the saying goes, “Life comes at you fast.”

Senator Clinton always ran as the general election candidate and told the truth about her policies and stance on the issues, both foreign and domestic, from the beginning. She would require none of the betrayals and shocking about faces that Obama seems to be so comfortable with – whether on Gitmo, Iran, the economy or any other issue. Can you imagine Greenwald’s or Martin’s reaction if Hillary had done what Obama is now doing – their rhetoric would have been far more heated, I can assure you. J’accuse!!!! Bet on it.

Thank heavens she will be Secretary of State. Mr. Hopey Changey is going to need all the help he can get. And I think he’s beginning to figure that out.

Holy Toledo - is he allowed to SAY something like that?!?! I hope he has someone watching his back. At all times. Oh, but you’re not gonna believe some of the things our “media” have cooked up. Check this out:

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled “Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story.” Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama’s campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue — “Obama’s American Dream” — filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.

Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit? Yes, they are.

Okay. NBC. ABC. Two of the major networks using OUR AIRWAVES have lost all semblance of journalistic integrity.

What the HELL is the matter with these people?!?!? Good grief, how in the world will they ever cover anything remotely challenging for The One??? Oh, right - what they care? They are clearly making a lot out of this:

What’s troubling here goes beyond the clanging of cash registers. Media outlets have always tried to make a few bucks off the next big thing. The endless campaign is over, and there’s nothing wrong with the country pulling together, however briefly, behind its new leader. But we seem to have crossed a cultural line into mythmaking.

“The Obamas’ New Life!” blares People’s cover, with a shot of the family. “New home, new friends, new puppy!” Us Weekly goes with a Barack quote: “I Think I’m a Pretty Cool Dad.” The Chicago Tribune trumpets that Michelle “is poised to be the new Oprah and the next Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis — combined!” for the fashion world.

Whew! Are journalists fostering the notion that Obama is invincible, the leader of what the New York Times dubbed “Generation O”?

I’m sorry - were you saying something? I couldn’t hear you through the grinding of my teeth. When did the MSM and the National Enquirer change places? If you will recall, this year, it was the latter that that actually broke some real news. The MSM? Not so much:

Each writer, each publication, seems to reach for more eye-popping superlatives. “OBAMAISM — It’s a Kind of Religion,” says New York magazine. “Those of us too young to have known JFK’s Camelot are going to have our own giddy Camelot II to enrapture and entertain us,” Kurt Andersen writes. The New York Post has already christened it “BAM-A-LOT.”

“Here we are,” writes Salon’s Rebecca Traister, “oohing and aahing over what they’ll be wearing, and what they’ll be eating, what kind of dog they’ll be getting, what bedrooms they’ll be living in, and what schools they’ll be attending. It feels better than good to sniff and snurfle through the Obamas’ tastes and habits. . . . Who knew we had in us the capacity to fall for this kind of idealized Americana again?”

I am seriously on the verge of being ill here. “It’s a Kind of Religion”??? Worshiping this lying, cheating, bamboozling, hoodwinking, race-baiting sham of a politician who hasn’t had an original idea I can discern, who got everywhere he is by stepping on the throats of others? THIS is a “kind of religion”? Okay, it is clear to me. We have gone to hell in a hand basket.

No doubt, Thomas Jefferson, who knew the importance of the Fourth Estate for maintaining a democracy, would be, check that, probably IS, rolling over in his grave right now. Kurtz asks the right question about this, well, INSANITY:

But aren’t media people supposed to resist this kind of hyperventilating?

“Obama is a figure, especially in pop culture, in a way that most new presidents are not,” historian Michael Beschloss says. “Young people who may not be interested in the details of NAFTA or foreign policy just think Obama is cool, and they’re interested in him. Being cool can really help a new president.”

So can a sense of optimism, reflected on USA Today’s front page. “Poll: Hopes soaring for Obama, administration,” the headline said, with 65 percent saying “the USA will be better off 4 years from now.”

Yeah, I saw that headline, too. I wondered who the hell they were talking to first, then realized it was probably an AP article. Sure enough, it was. Like they haven’t been in the tank all year long. Hahahaha.

And why, pray tell, would these young people think Obama is “cool,” yet know NOTHING for which he stands?? I mean, really - on what, exactly, are they making that determination? His listening to Ludacris? The misogyny? Reverend Wright’s racist ravings? What?? What a bunch of ridiculously uninformed children. And THEY are the future? Yikes. Sure will be interesting to see what happend if they ever get more than one brain cell to rub against another. Or as Kurtz puts it:

But what happens when adulation gives way to the messy, incremental process of governing? When Obama has to confront a deep-rooted financial crisis, two wars and a political system whose default setting is gridlock? When he makes decisions that inevitably disappoint some of his boosters?

“We’re celebrating a moment as much as a man, I think,” says Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, whose new issue, out today, compares Obama to Lincoln. “Given our racial history, an hour or two of commemoration seems appropriate. But there is no doubt that the glow of the moment will fade, and I am sure the coverage will reflect that in due course.”

FDR?? LINCOLN?? Are they INSANE????? LINCOLN??? The ONLY thing Obama has in common with Lincoln is living in IL. FDR? What are you people SMOKING???

And, sure. You just know you can count on the media to reflect reality at SOME point, right? Because they have demonstrated time and again how willing they are to reveal the realities of who Obama really is, and what he has really done. Oh, yeah.

And not for nothing, but I sure as hell don’t remember the media being so glowing and positive about Hillary Clinton, who, since they were clearly unaware of this, was a “historical” figure by being a woman who received more votes than any other Democrat ever, as well as winning a primary, and a lot more than one. But hey, let’s bury THAT “moment” as quickly as possible so no one intrudes on The One’s ascension.

Thankfully (or despairingly), there is an itsy bitsy teensy weensy ray of light:

One of the few magazines to strike a skeptical tone is the London-based Economist, which endorsed Obama. “With such a victory come unreasonably great expectations,” its lead editorial says.

Naturally, it is European based, not US based. Big surprise. One could say that:

Web worship of Obama is nearly limitless. On YouTube alone, the Obama Girl song, “I’ve Got a Crush on Obama,” has been viewed 11.7 million times. Even an unadorned video of the candidate’s election night speech in Chicago has drawn 3.5 million views.

Can someone please tell me how it is that this virtual unknown with the thinnest resume I have ever seen, who couldn’t even get a full time job in any university or business on his lack of documentation, has manipulated the masses so masterfully with “words, just words” and no real deeds of which to speak? I mean, besides the characteristics he has demonstrated thus far besides those listed above?

Yes, this is a change:

I am not trying to diminish the sheer improbability of what this African American politician, a virtual unknown four years ago, has accomplished. Every one of us views his victory through a personal lens. I thought of growing up in a “Leave It to Beaver” era, when there were no blacks in leading television roles until Bill Cosby was tapped as the co-star of “I Spy” in 1965. When the Watts riots broke out that year, the Los Angeles Times sent an advertising salesman to cover it because the paper had no black reporters. The country has traveled light-years since then.

Is it nitpicky to point out that Obama is bi-racial, reared by his white and Indonesian family, not his African one at any time? But hey - why rain on (more of) their delusion? Those pesky facts, why am I bringing THOSE up? This is SPECIAL, you know:

It is hard to find a precedent in American history. Ronald Reagan was a marquee star because of his Hollywood career, but mainly among older voters, since he made his last movie 16 years before winning the White House in 1980. Jack Kennedy was a more formal figure after winning the 1960 election — “trying to look older than he was, because he thought youth was a handicap in running for president,” Beschloss says — but quickly took on larger-than-life dimensions.

“The Kennedy buildup goes on,” James MacGregor Burns wrote in the New Republic in the spring of 1961. “The adjectives tumble over one another. He is not only the handsomest, the best-dressed, the most articulate, and graceful as a gazelle. He is omniscient; he swallows and digests whole books in minutes; he confounds experts with his superior knowledge of their field. He is omnipotent.”

Soon afterward, Kennedy blundered into the Bay of Pigs debacle.

The media would be remiss if they didn’t reflect the sense of unadulterated joy that greeted Obama’s election, both here and around the world, and the pride even among those who opposed him. Newspapers were stunned and delighted at the voracious demand for post-election editions, prompting The Washington Post and other papers to print hundreds of thousands of extra copies and pocket the change. (When else have we felt so loved lately?) Demand for inaugural tickets has been unprecedented. Barack is suddenly a hot baby name. Record companies are releasing hip-hop songs, by the likes of Jay-Z and Will.I.Am, with such titles as “Pop Champagne for Barack.” Consumers, the Los Angeles Times reports, are buying up “Obama-themed T-shirts, buttons, bobblehead dolls, coffee mugs, wine bottles, magnets, greeting cards, neon signs, mobile phones and framed art prints.”

“Unadulterated joy”? That the MEDIA ITSELF created, and for which it fanned the flames?? Yeah, absolutely - don’t start having any kind of ethics now on our behalf! We might all fall over dead from the shock of it. So, please, just spare us and keep us in our little Happy Obama Place. Oh, yuck - making myself sick now…

Oh, and just in time for the holidays:

A barrage of Obama-related books are in the works. Newsweek’s quadrennial election volume is titled “A Long Time Coming: The Historic, Combative, Expensive and Inspiring 2008 Election and the Victory of Barack Obama.” Publishers obviously see a bull market.

Oh, JOY!!!! Another way for Americans to spend all of our hard earned, ever dwindling dollars! Yay!

And speaking of cheers:

MSNBC, which was accused of cheerleading for the Democratic nominee during the campaign, is running promos that say: “Barack Obama, America’s 44th president. Watch as a leader renews America’s promise.” What are viewers to make of that?

There is always a level of excitement when a new president is coming to town — new aides to profile, new policies to dissect, new family members to follow. But can anyone imagine this kind of media frenzy if John McCain had managed to win?

Obama’s days of walking on water won’t last indefinitely. His chroniclers will need a new story line. And sometime after Jan. 20, they will wade back into reality.

Do you PROMISE, Mr. Kurtz? Because I am WAY over all of this Messiah worship we have had to endure, even as the most qualified candidate in decades was kicking his butt in the primaries on a whole helluva lot less money (that untraceable mountain of Obama’s money. See Ani’s post, “Obama’s Questionable Internet Donations Raise Suspicion at WaPo.“). But hey - that never stopped the “media” from promoting their rapturous tale of who Obama was, how he was the One for whom we had been waiting, regardless of what the people said with their votes…I mean, really - how much reporting did they even do on the Michigan fiasco? How many people in this country really knew what happened there? How many people outside the states where there were caucuses actually knew about the vast amount of caucus fraud? Close friends in Baton Rouge had no idea about a lot of this because their state wasn’t contested, so how would THEY know what had really been going on? As one of them said, they sure didn’t see this on ABC News! No, indeed. And that is exactly the problem. So many of the issues that should have been covered about Obama simply were not, or left to the “News Briefs” section. Not so for anything the least bit suspect or negative about any of the other candidates (or if it was one of Obama’s BFFs, like John Edwards. In that case, the MSM buried critical information the voters deserved to know.). And on it goes…

You may have seen this new video already, but personally, I find this to be a glaring indictment of the Fourth Estate,as if the above was not enough (H/T to American Girl in Italy for the heads up on this):

Holy Toledo. Add these results of the Zogby Poll commissioned by John Ziegler of “How Obama Got Elected“, and bear in mind these were MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Just to be clear - Palin did not ask for the clothes the MSM made such a brouhaha about, and she did not keep them. They were given to, or will be auctioned off for, charity.

For an added bonus, you can watch this John Stoessel interview of voters:

YIKES. Are people not required to take Civics classes any longer?? Really??

What a sad, sad state of affairs, for our educational system, for the Fourth Estate, for democracy, and for this country. We reap what we sow…

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

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

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

Read the story here

It’s not like this is news to us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like you to think about some numbers:

In the 2004 Presidential election there were more than 122,000,000 votes cast. In 2006 for the Congressional race, which put the Democrats in charge of both the House and the Senate, 80 plus million people voted. I was surprised that 42 million folks decided not to vote.

Now look at the media numbers. According to Drudge Report, the number of folks watching nightly network news is less than 22 million:

CBSNEWS w/ Couric shed a half a million viewers, falling from 6.4 million to 5.9 million;
ABCNEWS dropped from 8.1 million to 7.6 million;
NBCNEWS slumped from 8.2 million to 7.8 million.

The numbers for cable shows is even less. Fox News, with O’Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes, sits atop the heap with around 4.3 million viewers. CNN and MSNBC combined rarely exceed 4 million viewers. Let’s be generous and assume that no one watches more than one show and that the “viewers” are individual and unique. For the national news shows we are talking around 30 million people tops.

Radio, by contrast, reaches over 160 million people each day. And conservatives appear to continue to dominate in this market. Rush Limbaugh, for example, attracts around 14 million listeners. (Note–I have not located a comprehensive summary breaking down total numbers for conservative vice liberal radio stations. If you have it please post below or send me an email and I’ll update this piece)

So where are most of the people who are voting getting their information? It looks to me like radio, rather than network television, is the key medium. I’m also curious about the televised medias’ constant drumbeat against Sarah Palin while she continues to to draw record crowds to her events. Sarah’s authenticity, like that of Joe the Plumber, has struck a chord with average Americans that the media elites don’t comprehend.

[UPDATE from Larry Johnson: My friend, Joe Wilson, alerted me to the following video. It is vital we remember what it is like to have a nice guy who is unprepared to handle a crisis in the White House. It also is instructive to remember that it was John McCain who bucked the Republican leadership and pressed the issue of having the 9-11 Commission. That would not have happened without McCain's intervention. Just another uncomfortable fact.

UPDATE II: Here's the note from Joe Wilson that accompanied the video--Larry,
While I know that No Quarter remains the go to place for those who doubt that Obama is a worthy candidate for President, I think it is important to at least remember what John McCain’s party has done to this country over the past eight years. With that in mind, I wanted to invite your attention to a short (six minute) film put together by a two highly respected film makers here in Santa Fe. It reviews in poignant images the 9/11 attack and the response of W. in the school. While we all have heard the My Pet Goat story, it is here contrasted with events as they unfold contemporaneously in New York. I think that everybody ought to be reminded that this is the party that John McCain represents before they step in the voting booth. Thanks.
Joe]

Biden to Supporters: “Gird Your Loins” from ABC News Matthew Jaffe:

This is from the mouth, or the bigmouth of Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate:

Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

I really can’t even comment about the gravity of these remarks – but leave you to Joe himself:

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

“Gird your loins,” Biden told the crowd. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it,” the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. “This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”
Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden “alive and well” and Pakistan “bristling with nuclear weapons.”
“You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region,” Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. “The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it’s real.”

“We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes,” he cautioned. “It’s so much more important than that. It’s so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it.”

I left the entirety of his statements here because it sounds to me like this man is babbling. So at the head of the ticket we have someone thoroughly unprepared to deal with any crisis. And number two on the ticket sounds less than coherent and certainly irresponsible.

Then after he ran off at the mouth for twenty minutes, he noticed that the press was squirreled away in the back of the ballroom.

“I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here,” he joked.

This is not a joke, Senator Biden.

I do not want to elect a man who is going to invite people to put us in harm’s way. Obviously no one is going to mess with John McCain. So what are you trying to say here?

The other scenario is that this sounds almost Bush-like: predicting crisis that we are going to have to answer…what are we being dragged into? What is he hinting at?

Do his statements sound sane and sober you? Is this the ticket any sensible person would want to vote for?

Chat away.

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe Reports:

As Election Day looms just over two weeks away, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., said Saturday that with Republicans firing “vicious” and “dangerous” attacks at Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., voters are “having a difficult time” opting for the man who would become the nation’s first African American president.

Vicious and dangerous attacks? McCain/Palin are asking Obama to answer legitimate policy questions in re his revealing statement to Joe the Plumber that he wants to “spread the wealth around” and what that really means for Joe and Jane taxpayer.

They want Obama to explain to the American people why he launched his political career in the living room of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. They want him to acknowledge his role in our economic mess as he was one of the people who “voted present” on stronger regulations re Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They want to know the extent of Obama’s ties with ACORN – and it has already been proven that there are many.

What is vicious and dangerous about that? Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. These are questions any other candidate would have to answer. But, in another effort to change the subject, here is Joe-the-Senator at his finest:

“Undecided people are having a difficult time just culturally making the change, making the move for the first African American president in the history of the United States of America,” the Democratic vice-presidential nominee said at a San Francisco fundraiser Saturday evening. “So we need to respond. We need to respond at the moment, immediately, not wait, not hang around, not assume any of this won’t stick.”

Culturally? What is Biden trying to say here? Perhaps he is playing the race card just like Senator Obama did a couple of months ago when he said ‘I know I don’t look like the face of most of the guys you see on the dollar bill.’

Culturally? Is Biden implying that those who haven’t yet bowed before the messiah are racist? Oh, no he didn’t! Ironic he made these comments at – you guessed it – another San Francisco fundraiser. Oh, this is too good to be true. Say it ain’t so, Joe!

Did he really open his big fat yaw before the hoi polloi in San Francisco at a fund raiser – the same way Obama did when he made his infamous ‘bitter voter’ comments back in April? Did Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden really infer that undecided voters are having trouble voting for Obama because they are having trouble ‘seeing’ a bi-racial man in the White House?

Yep. Joe played the race card yet again. Tell me Senator Biden, did you have an indoctrination session at Camp Obama and did they use the Alinsky method in training you how to employ the race card as an argument to buffer any and all legitimate questions about your unqualified and dissembling candidate?

“You see these vicious attacks on Barack’s character,” Biden told supporters. “I mean, this is dangerous stuff these guys are doing. This stuff is on the edge. It’s on the edge. You know, there’s some folks out there in the community nationwide that aren’t as stable as others. It’s a very small minority. But having these rallies where people are showing up saying, you know, the things they’re saying - I don’t even want to repeat them — it’s not a healthy thing.”

Biden cited automated GOP calls describing Obama as having “worked closely” with “domestic terrorist Bill Ayers”.

He did work closely with Ayers. This is the truth. They have known each other for years. They have served on boards together. Obama profited by his association with Ayers, repeatedly. Hello. These are legitimate concerns.

He doesn’t want to repeat the “things they are saying?” Repeat what? Senator Biden, I am calling you out on the carpet and I dare you to look me in the eye and say this same crap. The FBI already debunked the nonsense that anyone called Obama a terrorist – they were calling Ayers a terrorist – which admittedly, he is – and an unrepentant one at that.

But Joe doesn’t have a problem with people walking around threatening violence against Sarah Palin or wearing T-shirts that say “Sarah Palin is a c*nt.” Nor does the Obama campaign have problem with their supporters in Florida calling a twelve year old child a racist for wearing a Sarah Palin T-Shirt.

Is that not dangerous, Joe? I guess you “don’t want to repeat” those comments either huh, Joe? Is that not a healthy thing?

Let’s pretend for the sake of argument, I am an undecided voter. Here is a sampling of a few of my concerns:

• His voting record – 130 present votes and 6 ‘wrong’ votes in the IL State Senate. His lack of moral courage and skipping out on or capitulating on important votes in the U.S. Senate. FISA chief among them.
• His daily playing of the race card to advantage himself.
• His 20 years of nefarious, crooked, and divisive business and personal associations with Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Auchi, Khalidi, Al Mansour, Pritzker, Jarrett, Pfleger, Meeks and more.
• His major policy reversals on critical issues, i.e., FISA, Israel, don’t ask don’t tell, public financing, NAFTA, Iraq, women’s rights, gun control; touting Bush’s faith based initiatives, and wanting to keep Blackwater going.
• His desire to spread the wealth around with economic policies that do not work.
• His illegal activities to win the primary, including over 2,000 documented instances of caucus fraud and blocking re-votes in MI and FL.
• His receiving huge contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the organizations at the center of our current economic mess.
• His lack of any governing, or executive experience and his lack of knowledge on critical issues of domestic and foreign policy – as he has demonstrated repeatedly on the campaign trail. Russia’s recent aggression on Georgia comes to mind.
• The fact that you can never get a straight answer from him on any of his policies or associations – just more double talk and distraction.

These are just a few questions that might be giving people pause at the voting booth. Please tell me – someone, anyone – what does that have to do with “cultural” predisposition; or more accurately, race bias?

Biden hit the Bay Area for three fundraisers Saturday, helping rake in an estimated $2.2 million for the campaign. At his second event of the day, in Piedmont, Biden predicted that the ticket will experience a drop in polls this week.

“Mark my words, you’re going to see these polls drop this week,” Biden forecasted. “We got a bump. We’re going to be in good shape. You’re going to see them drop. There’s nothing automatic about this at all.”

Obviously, Biden knows that Obama’s gaffe with Joe the plumber hurt them; rightfully so. And by gaffe I mean, Obama had a rare unscripted moment without his teleprompter and he told the truth for once about his policies and his attitudes. And for that he is now going to pay a legitimate price. So, once again, they are trying to distract the voters.

Joe the Plumber is certainly paying a price – Obama showed up on Joe’s front lawn at a campaign stop. Joe asked a simple question and for that his entire life has been invaded and turned up side down. Not only has Obama belittled Joe the Plumber, but the media is out for blood. And Joe-everyman-working-guy-coal-miner-six-term-Senator-elitist-Biden has derided him as well. Shame on him. Shame on them all.

Make no mistake – these attacks on Joe everyman are also costing the elitists Obama/Biden in the polls. To reassure their rich donors, Biden said:

“It costs tens of millions of dollars to do this. And that’s our secret weapon. That is our equalizer to when anybody talks about the Bradley effect. This is the ultimate equalizer.”

That is very much in evidence – in this no lose year for Democrats, Obama is spending obscene amounts of money saturating the TV market to “counteract the Bradley effect.” He does not dare to tell the truth to their rich donors. It is not the Bradley effect people are having a problem with – it is the Obama effect – the effect of a dishonest, secretive, inexperienced man taking office at one of the most difficult junctures in our recent history. But Biden boasted that Obama has the capacity to withstand GOP attacks and win the White House.

“Barack Obama communicates an absolute sense and certainty that is the most typical American instinct that there is,” Biden said. …”That’s why he touched those people helping feed us tonight.”

Elitist! Is Biden referring to the folks serving him his expensive 5-course dinner? How nice of Biden to refer to the people waiting tables at this expensive fundraiser. How does he know Obama has touched them – did he ever ask?? I doubt it. Elitists of all stripes have a bad habit of being encapsulated in their rarified air, so sure they know what is best for everyone else.

And here is the icing on the cake from Biden:

“I never thought I could be part of it - a part of seeing to it that we for the first and significant, fundamentally significant way, put a lot of that past behind us and began to unite the nation.”

Imagine trying to ‘guilt’ the American people into electing someone who is completely unqualified and unreliable as Commander in Chief. Obama has never stood up to his party. He has never expended any political capital on a tough vote. He has never done anything but move with the prevailing wind.

How can we rely on him when our backs are to the wall? Isn’t it possible that we are worried about whether this man can and will protect us and have our best interests at heart? He has shown no need thus far to come clean and answer the questions burning in the minds of many Americans. Why should we trust him if he clearly does not trust us?

If this is the way that Obama/Biden and the svengali race-baiting David Axelrod are uniting the nation, by inferring that anyone not voting for Obama is a racist, then I will pass on their kind of unity.

Senator Biden is indeed the gift that keeps on giving. I am sure John McCain hopes that both he and Obama will keep showing their true nature to the American people. It’s a winning strategy – for the Republicans.

Once again, in closing, I must say, shame on you, Senator Biden.

Shame on you.

I can see where Bill Ayers would find this subject dear to his heart since he did say, “Kill your parents” during his “Days of Rage,” or whatever the heck these nutcases called it when they were blowing up America.

The subject is sickening enough, but as No Quarter points out, it does shoot yet another hole in Obama’s blase’ remark during a certain debate:

STEPHANOPOLOUS: Can you explain that relationship [with William Ayers] for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?

OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I’m talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.

Below is a copy of the University of Chicago Press Release from Google 2001 Wayback on the Obamas and Ayers’ disgusting symposium where they gathered to show their collective concern for murderous 13 year-old psychopaths who kill their entire families and God Knows Who Else. Poor sweeties!

No Quarter also kept a nice screen shot of this page for posterity, so that we might all be able to remember the seminar these three societal nutballs held together. When it comes to Obama, screen shots are your friend. You never know when Orwell’s Winston may strike again on behalf of Barack Obama. Scrub, Scrub, Scrub!

Overall, it’s pretty safe to say that Barack Obama not only “exchanged ideas” with Ayers, but God only knows what those “ideas” were. This web page would make Barack Obama a liar. Again.

Of course, keeping kids who kill their parents out of the system would suit a guy who declared everyone should “Kill your parents!”. This would be Billy Ayers’ kinda kid!

And then again, ACORN can register them to vote too–and probably register their dead parents as well.

Kind of makes you feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that kids can kill their entire families and have these characters looking out for them instead of you, doesn’t it?

I wonder which day we can expect to see Obama’s lies about “exchanging ideas” addressed on CNN and MSNBC?
.

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

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

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

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

Here is the history of NATO from Wikipedia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The AP should be ashamed!

Here is the video of the first part of the interview Sarah Palin gave to ABC News’ Charles Gibson today. The interview covered international issues ranging from NATO expansion to Mideast policy especially US-Israeli relations and tensions with Iran to Iraq to the Bush Doctrine.

The interview also covered whether she was ready to be Commander in Chief. On that, she was unequivocal. She didn’t blink she said because one can’t. That was one of her better moments. Her other strong moments came in tackling her religious views and if US foreign policy is interwined with a mission from God. She quoted Lincoln and came out ahead. Her best moment, in my view, came in framing energy security as a national security issue. And she was able to hit home a number of points touting both her experience and her record on that front. Clearly on this score, she came out way ahead.

Where she faltered was on the Bush Doctrine, the policy that US adopted that espouses a unilateralist approach to foreign crisises where the US reserves the right to use military force at its will and in defiance of international law. I didn’t get the sense she understood what was meant by it. Undoing the Bush Doctrine would be one of my objectives for any incoming Administration. In the end, Charlie Gibson gave her his interpretation of the Bush Doctrine and she gave a measured response, definitely not as hawkish as one that current Vice President Dick Cheney would have given. It is clear that she still has some work to do on learning foreign policy issues and I’d be happy to help her work through them. On NATO expansion to Georgia and the Ukraine, for example, she should have noted that the concept of collective security has kept the peace in Europe since World War II and that it is in the interest of US foreign policy goals that democratic governments be protected. Freedom is never negotiable.

The interview was tough but fair. I’d grade her a B overall with a C on the Bush Doctrine portion but an A+ for the understanding that energy is our most vital national security issue at the moment.

Return to Main.

He almost wrecked Barack Obama’s presidential dreams, and now firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright has helped destroy a Dallas church worker’s marriage - and her job, The Post has learned.

You’ve seen the disgusting video of Reverend Wright, in a Sunday sermon, doing the the “hump” to suggest that Bill Clinton “done us wrong”:

The background story to Wright’s second marriage calls into serious question Wright’s “right” to preach to anyone. Here’s more from the Post:

Wright has been married to his second wife, Ramah, for more than 20 years.

The preacher reportedly wooed Ramah away from her first husband in the 1980s, when the couple came to marriage counseling at Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Now let’s see more reminders of Obama’s Reverend Wright. Remember this “America’s Chickens Come Home to Roost”?

The 37-year-old Elizabeth Payne admits to the affair but gives few other details.

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

She has since basically been excommunicated from the church, fired from her paid position in the church, and divorced. Her husband dashed to divorce court after the affair was discovered. She did have this to say about her life post-Wright:

Elizabeth Payne said she has been banished by Haynes and the flock at Friendship-West.

“I’m not a member of the congregation anymore; I’m not even allowed on the premises,” she said.

And she had this to say about her affair with Wright, her job and divorce:

“I was involved with Rev. Wright, and that’s why I lost my job and why my husband divorced me,” Payne said.

She refused to reveal when the adulterous affair started or how she met Wright.

But fellow churchgoers at Friendship-West “found out about the affair in the spring,” Payne said.

At the time, she was secretary to the Rev. Frederick Haynes III, a longtime Wright disciple.

In April, Payne organized a series of Texas public appearances by Wright, 67. Weeks before, Obama had disavowed his preacher of 20 years after Wright’s anti-government rants came to light.

“Liz was by Rev. Wright’s side day and night during those days,” a church source said.

“It’s all true,” said Payne, adding that she has filed a wrongful-dismissal claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to get her job back.

In an interesting twist, Wright gave a sermon about trouble in relationships at a church in New Jersey. Here is more on that:

“There’s no such thing as a problem-free relationship,” he told a packed Elmwood United Presbyterian Church. “In life, you’ll have unexpected problems.”

Here are his words minus a controversial statement.

Payne’s husband, Fred Payne, 64, said he learned of the affair in late February, when he discovered e-mails between his wife and Wright.

“There must have been about 80 of them, back and forth,” he said. “Wright said things like he was going to leave his wife for Elizabeth.”

And now we need to be reminded of Obama on his spiritual mentor….

And we know that Reverend Wright/Wrong became a albatross around Obama’s neck. Obama did what he always has — he denied any knowledge of the sermons — the same way he denies responsibility for anything his campaign does!

And this is the man we want leading our country? Not!

Obama your “chickens have come home to roost!”