And now, to the interview:

Sigh. So, yeah, Secretary Clinton says she won’t run for President again. Sure, there was this (funny to me) quote in there:

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified,” she said. “I believe in delegating power … I am not one of those people who feel I have to have my face in front of the newspaper and TV every day … It’s just the way I am.”

Clearly a little dig at He Who Must Be On TV Every Day, which was enjoyable, I must confess. Okay, it was downright funny.

And then there was the part where even Andrea Mitchell, of all people, is commenting on how surprising it is hat President CLINTON has not received the Nobel Peace Prize despite raising BILLIONS of dollars for the Clinton Initiative which does great work all over the world. Never mind all of the work President Clinton did with President Bush (I) in terms of the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. So, yeah, sure, it makes perfect sense that Mr. Talker No Walker Man would be the one who gets it. Pathetic.

Back to Hillary Clinton. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe she was trying to shift the focus off of her, and was trying not to steal the limelight from her boss (and her water carrying for him is a bitter pill to swallow). But, no, she has repeated that claim again in this article, the title of which is also bitter, Clinton: I’d Have Hired Obama. Yeah, she said it after the claim indicated in the title. I’ll let the article set the stage:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that if she had won presidential election, Barack Obama would “absolutely” have served in her Cabinet.

Recalling the conversation she had with then-president-elect Obama about her joining the administration during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Clinton said that she was at first surprised when the president offered her the secretary of state post.

“It was, you know, about … five, six days after the election. And my husband and I were out for a walk, actually, in a, sort of, preserve near where we live in New York. And he had his cell phone in his pocket. It started ringing in the middle of this, you know, big nature preserve,” Clinton said. “Instead of turning it off, he answered it. And it was President-elect Obama wanting to talk to him about some people he was considering for positions.”

Clinton said she then picked up the phone thinking Obama wanted to talk generally about Cabinet picks when he surprised her by asking the former New York senator and Democratic rival to become his chief diplomat.

“He said I want you to be my secretary of state. And I said, ‘Oh, no, you don’t,’” Clinton recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, please, there’s so many other people who could do this.’

“But, you know, we kept talking. I finally began thinking, look, if I had won and I had called him, I would have wanted him to say yes,” Clinton continued. “And, you know, I’m pretty old-fashioned, and it’s just who I am. So at the end of the day, when your president asks you to serve, you say yes, if you can.”

Asked if she would have made the same call to Obama if she had been elected president, Clinton responded: “Absolutely. Absolutely. Oh, of course.”

Well, I can see that she would have to do so, but SHE would have been the boss, and SHOULD have been, as many of us think given te votes she received in the Primary.

And that brings me to this:

Additionally, Clinton backed up her statement from earlier in the week that she will not run for president a second time.

“I have absolutely no interest in running for president again. None. None,” she said. “I mean, I know that’s hard for some people to believe, but, you know, I just don’t.”

“I feel like I have had the most amazing life in my public service,” the secretary of state continued. “And for the last 17 years, ever since my husband started running for president, I have been, you know, in the spotlight, working hard. And this job is incredibly all-encompassing. So I think I’m looking forward to maybe taking some time off.”

She HAS had an amazing life, no doubt about it. She is an amazing woman - no one would expect anything less from someone of her stature. But I have to say, the thought of NEVER having a President Hillary Clinton is demoralizing. I feel like the DNC Elite have won (again), getting the Clintons out once and for all, despite the tremendous successes they have had independent of each other, and for the good of the country. It just burns me up that they might actually succeed. Dammit it to hell.

That despite the fact that k, Secretary Clinton has higher approval ratings than President Obama does now. I’m not kidding - hot off the Gullup wires, her ratings are 62%, and Obama’s are 56%. Maybe it’s because people are seeing that SHE is out there working her ass off on our behalf, on behalf of the country, and for the greater good of the world. They see Obama hemming and hawing, incapable of making hard decisions, or fulfilling campaign promises, yet showing up on YouTube doing the salsa (more or less) the other night while Clinton has been to the following countries between 10/9 - 15: Zurich, London, Dublin, Belfast, Moscow and Kazan. Holy smokes - makes me tired just reading the list.

She is just a remarkable woman, isn’t she?? Incredible energy, devotion, good humor, intelligence, and compassion, all in one person who SHOULD be the boss.

So I have been in denial, not wanting to believe my ears and eyes when she says she won’t be running again. Someone wake me when she changes her mind. Or Obama’s out of office. Whichever comes first…

(And a grudging thanks to Bronwyn’s Harbor for sending me the video. Thanks, BH - kinda!)

And now, CLASS: Please compare, and contrast, these two examples of television journalism:

Yes, well. Actually, there was some news in there.

And, Rachel, I’d flat-out kill for Hillary’s coat BUT it is NOT your lead, Rachel. So not your lead! (North Korea, for example

Hillary, you rock. Rachel? You not so much.

And why oh god why Rachel do you over-enunciate and over-emote every single word that comes out of your mouth in a very much too-high-pitched way?

Breathe, Rachel.

Take it from an old former French horn player: Use your diaphragm.

You’re supposed to be engaging, not grating!

Oh, that second example? That’s from the new PBS world news program that I’m very fond of, WorldFocus. Besides the above video, there’s this “blog” report:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo on Monday night on her first trip as the nation’s chief diplomat.

“I have come to Asia as my first trip as secretary of state to convey that America’s relationships across the Pacific are indispensable to addressing the challenges and seizing the opportunities of the twenty-first century,” Clinton said to a crowd in Tokyo.

Sheila A. Smith, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how Clinton will approach North Korea, Japan and how the Japanese view China’s growing economic and military power.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say about Clinton’s stop in Japan and what her visit means for internal Japanese politics: Clinton plans for a rare meeting with Japan’s opposition.

Check out MORE at WorldFocus.

P.S. Last night’s program included a quite disturbing if fascinating examination of the fascination with and admiration for Joseph Stalin that today’s Russians have: “Stalin Makes a Comeback With Russia’s Youth.”

A.P. REPORT UPDATED at 1:25 A.M. ET, Wednesday, February 17, 2009:, via MSNBC

Clinton warns North Korea on missile launch

Secretary of state on her first trip abroad as U.S.’s top diplomat

Japan's Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone speaks as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listens during their joint news conference at the Iikura Guest House in Tokyo, Tuesday, Feb. 17

TOKYO - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday warned North Korea against following through on a threatened missile launch, saying it would damage its prospects for improved relations with the United States and the world.

In Tokyo on her first trip abroad as America’s top diplomat, Clinton also stressed U.S. commitment to Japan’s security, signed a military deal to advance that and underscored the importance of the alliance by inviting Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso to Washington next week.

Aso, deeply unpopular at home, will be the first foreign leader to visit President Barack Obama at the White House, and the Feb. 24 summit is a sign that the world’s two largest economies know they have a special responsibility to deal the global financial crisis, Clinton said. … [READ ALL.]

In the video below, from the Today show, is part of a statement by Hillary on North Korea, and a description of parts of her itinerary. Below, more on Hillary and North Korea, including a news report and an additional video.

If i could find it for you, i’d post the video of Mitchell’s interview of Bob Baer today who agreed with Hillary’s and the administration’s approach to North Korea, and who joined them in saying that the “tough talk” attitude of the Bush years should be left behind. But I’ve searched everywhere, with no luck. (If any of you spot the video, please e-mail the link to me at susanunpc @ gmail dot com. Thanks!)

ANOTHER VIDEO:

ALSO, at MSNBC from the A.P.:

TOKYO - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, on her first trip abroad as President Barack Obama’s chief diplomat, arrived in Tokyo with a warning to North Korea that it needs to live up to its commitments to dismantle its nuclear programs.

“The North Koreans have already agreed to dismantling,” she said. “We expect them to fulfill the obligations that they entered into.” During the now-stalled “six-party talks,” Pyongyang agreed to stop its weapons work in exchange for economic and other incentives.

Clinton made the comments en route to Asia for meetings with leaders of Japan, China, South Korea and Indonesia. She arrived in Tokyo Monday evening. … read all.

UPDATE #2 TOMORROW at 1 p.m. ET, Andrea Mitchell interviews Hillary Clinton for the HOUR on MSNBC. (And I’m still lookin for the Robert Baer interview re Hillary’s smart views on North Korea, with which the old spymaster Baer agrees!)

Grab your barf bag! NEXT UP, Carl Bernstein’s analysis of Hillary, but that goes on, in the NEXT video, into a far more thoughtful discussion of the challenges that the Obama administration faces! So do NOT miss the videos below (despite Carl Bernstein!) and another video with former WaPo international reporter Robin Wright, Al Hunt, and others:

“BARACK OBAMA IS SHOWING MASTERFUL LEADERSHIP” ???? GIVE ME A BREAK, CARL!!! You burned out in the early 1970s, apparently, as an astute journalist.

HERE’s another discussion with Robin Wright, Al Hunt, et al:

What else is going on in the world?

The article goes on to say, “Murkowski, up for reelection in 2010, is nervously awaiting word on whether John McCain’s former running mate will run against her in the GOP primary. But she says Palin is the one who should be nervous.

But Murkowski says a run against her would be fraught with risk. If Palin lost, her stock would drop just ahead of a potential 2012 presidential run. And if she won, she’d be a backbencher in a chamber that is dominated by seniority — (But these next comments are the ones that really stands out to me,) and would have to begin her presidential campaign as soon as she took office.”

“If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said.

And then nothing more about those comments in the politico article. The writer ignores the obvious? It is just screaming out at me…

Then, this morning, Andrea Mitchell was on Morning Joe, and she was discussing the possibility of Palin running for Senate. While she was speaking a graphic comes on the screen, and says “If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate.”

So, HERE it comes, I think to myself! Surely Andrea, or Mika or JOE will point out the obvious! I wait…and what happens? Andrea completely IGNORES the quote from Murkowski, completely ignores the quote that was in the graphic, completely ignores the obvious. So, what DOES Andrea do? She brings up that the RNC paid an additional $30,000 in accessories for Palin during the campaign.

Are you kidding me?

She completely ignores the story at hand, (which I will get to) and again DUMPS on Palin and this stupid wardrobe-gate. Good lord… Get over it Andrea! Our ability to accessorize is what separates us from the animals, for crying out loud. Can we pleeeeeeeeease get over the Palin wardrobe *scandal* and move on? This has been covered to death. Obama spent $7 Million on a one time faux White House Greek God temple monstrosity. The RNC spent $180,000 on clothes and accessorizes for Palin and her entire family. (and they looked fabulous!) This just makes Andrea look so ridiculous. Ugh, journalists!

Anyhoo, my POINT to this story is the blaringly obvious irony as stated by Murkowski, that went completely ignored by the media. And I know the smart readers of this blog know what I am talking about.

“If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate.”

Uhm, and why not? It worked for Obama. Remember, Obama was in the Senate for two years when he announced his run for President, having served only 144 days. Remember this:

So, why did Andrea completely ignore this point, when the graphic came up? Why do those in the media ignore these little things? (rhetorical question) Would it have killed anyone to point out the obvious, that it worked for Obama? Mitchell completely ignores the obvious, but instead takes the opportunity to twist the knife just a little more.

Here we had a political story, involving two accomplished women, a Senator and a Governor, and they were discussing their political futures, and what does Andrea Mitchell do? Brings up Palin’s clothes! UGH UGH UGH!!! I am surprised she didn’t start talking about PMS and nail polish, too.

Anyway, having witnessed an Obama win, with him having served only 144 days in the Senate, I would think Palin’s years as mayor, and governor, and two years as a Senator would be more than enough experience to run for President. (and a much more interesting and relevant, and informative news story then the price of her accessorize.)

And, as far as Murkowski, and her comments, if Sarah Palin is anything like me, she will run, because when someone *tells* me I can’t do something, I usually do it.

And here’s Rachel’s report on the rumor about Hillary Rodham Clinton to be Secretary of State — this is a vastly MORE SUBSTANTIVE and VETTED REPORT than that given on Fox News:

YES! The last part of the report is bruising. But it is a mentally challenging report.

Rachel asks some tough, but salient questions. That’s good journalism. We can handle our Hillary being tussled up a bit, so long as it is a report that make us all think.

KEEP LISTENING through the section where Rachel asks the tough questions. A fascinating interview follows that part, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

Rachel Maddow gave this story a lot of time and thought. She did a lot of research, preparation and writing. She gave this story FAR MORE TIME and IMPORTANCE than Fox News gave it. So I give them their due.

I tire of flogging the same people and institutions all the time. We need to mix it up.

Fox News is asleep at the switch.

MSNBC is offering some substantive reporting and — in the case of the Hillary Clinton rumor — had GOOD sources and a great backgrounder report.

…….

*Just keep this among ourselves without discussion, may we? We are trying NOT to draw attention because some people will not stop until they destroy my entire life. If they do that, I will self-immolate in front of the Federal Building at the nearest major city. If only to shame the thugs. I will have nothing left soon enough if they succeed, so there’ll be nothing left to do anyway. So don’t contribute to the problems by asking a lot of questions, if I may be harsh with you for a moment. I really thought people would figure this out without my having to say anything, but apparently not.

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.

Oh, wait - not every single question - there was at least one when you showed your truly narcissistic, superficial side. Wanna guess which one? That’s right - about his moral failure was in drinking and doing drugs as a teenager (a TEENAGER - nothing since then!!! Wow, he really IS Obush!!), a direct result of his mother being a poor sharecropper who didn’t have a row to hoe—-oh, wait - that’s not the right meme. No, his mother was a poor, single mother with no resources whatsoever who reared him all by her lonesome living hand to mouth his entire life until he somehow, someway, through his own sheer grit and determination, got into an Ivy League University. The rest, as they say, is history. Hey, wait - he prevaricated there, TOO!! A twofer! Woohoo! In this case, I think it is safe to call that a fairy tale. But never mind - all politicians embellish just a little right? RIGHT? That’s all it was, not flat-out lying!!! Oh, sure. Ahem.

Let us put to rest the Obama (false) charge that McCain cheated, and heard Obama’s “conversation” with Rev. Rick Warren. Warren HIMSELF said McCain was sequestered away, and could not hear anything. Freakin’ enough on that crapola, Andrea (Mitchell, NBC shill for Obama - see link at “cheated” above). Unless Obama has a teleprompter in front of him with a speech written by his 20-something white speechwriter (I am not kidding - CHECK it out for yourself), he does not know WHAT he thinks or for what he stands. Whatever YOU are for, so is he, until the next person comes along and supports the exact opposite. And that is McCain’s fault HOW, exactly?? Because he actually DOES know what he thinks and for what he stands (and no, this is NOT an endorsement of McCain - just making a point here)? Yeah, what a JERK!!! No WONDER Obama did so poorly! Harrumph!!

Never mind that in this Forum, ONCE AGAIN, Obama was throwing people under the bus (fleet) left and right. How about the issue of when a fetus is viable? Obama passed on that one in a heartbeat, with his “that’s above my pay grade” comment. Because there is no WAY he could have anticipated THAT question coming from a minister. In his church. In a “forum” designed to question the candidates. Heckfire, who could have seen THAT question coming???? NARAL? Planned Parenthood?? Got anything to say NOW???

Or how about throwing gay marriage under the bus - again. I mean, really - in a state that sanctions gay marriage, on the same evening that two of America’s most famous lesbians are getting married, he denigrates it, but magnanimously suggests he would be willing to extend civil rights to us. Why thank ya so MUCH, Senator Obama, but they are not YOURS to CONFER (read a whole bunch of expletives right about there).

Oh, but wait - Obama does have SOMEONE who thinks that he did a SWELL job at this event on Sat. night. Yes, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, in her piece, “Worlds Apart,” essentially claimed that while she wants to live in McCain’s world, that she thought Obama did a good job. And it wasn’t a debate, dammit! She actually said, “There was not a winner or a loser.” Um, yeah, Sally, there really was. And it was McCain. The one who reminded you of your father in your recurring dream of him flying in with a winged horse’s body to save you from an earthquake (I am NOT making this up, people - I swear, she really SAID this! Click on the link - you’ll see!!!!). He was the winner because he was able to talk coherently, succinctly, and knowledgeably. Obama? Not so much. And so what did he do? Attacked McCain as soon as it was over. Gee - who could have seen THAT coming??

Well I can tell you someone who could have seen all of this coming, the attack on McCain as soon as the cameras were off of their big hug. Oh, yes - the person who has seen him for who he is - the sorest loser on the face of the planet. Hell, I have seen athletes in the Olympics who have trained for years and years and YEARS handle defeat with a TON more grace than Obama can even imagine. Yes, that would be Hilary Clinton. Here she is speaking to her supporters after a debate in which she, once again, schooled Obama:

Yes, no doubt she could have warned McCain, as this article shows, Clinton: Obama Going Negative After Bad Debate:

Her explanation for Obama’s recent negativity? A poor performance in last week’s debate. “It’s no wonder that my opponent has been so negative these last few days of the campaign. Because I think you saw a big difference between us,” she said. “It’s really a choice of leadership: I’m offering leadership you can count on. You know where I stand.”

Well, there is no doubt about that. She said what she meant, and meant what she said:

“While my opponent says one thing and his campaign does another, you can count on me to tell you where I stand, and you can count on me to tell you very specifically the solutions that I offer for America,” she said.

While the final quote has to do with a Clinton ad that was about to come out, I think the content sums up the issues surrounding Obama PERFECTLY:

At the same time, the Clinton campaign announced a brand new :30 second ad in PA making the same argument. “He couldn’t answer tough questions in the debate. So Barack Obama is making false charges against Hillary’s health care plan,” says the narrator. “There are more and more questions about Barack Obama. Instead of attacking, maybe he should answer them.

(Italics mine.) Amen. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Yes, maybe he SHOULD answer the questions about him (passport? birth certificate??? Citizenship????), and actually tell the TRUTH for once. Now THAT would be a Change (not sure I could believe it though, but hey - I’m willing to give it a shot!). Frankly, we deserve nothing less!

Senator Obama, on his Rockapalooza tour of the Middle East and Europe, is now taking time out from photo ops and playing hoops (you know, while Afghani women were being executed) in order to issue a ‘fatwa’ of his own: He is forbidding the press corps to wear green.

From Politico:

Mohamad Bazzi, a professor of journalism at New York University and former Middle East bureau chief for Newsday, called the instruction “very strange.”

“I guess green is the ‘Hamas color’ — but it’s also the color of Islam!” Bazzi said in an email from Beirut. “That’s one way for the Obama campaign to alienate 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide.”

Why stop now, Senator. You’ve already alienated ‘bitter’ voters, Asian voters, Italian voters, rural voters, women voters, gay voters, FL, MI, WV, KY, OH, to name a few… but wait, there’s more!

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said:

“I’ve never heard of that before,” he said, adding that nobody had ever suggested avoiding the color on his satellite television show, which airs weekly in the Arab world. “This is an overreach on somebody’s part,” he said. “It’s not going to insult anybody, nor is it going to offend them if somebody does wear green.”

“Our folks in Jerusalem and the USA have no idea what this is about,” said an official of one major American Jewish organization. “We have not ever suggested that people not wear the color green.

Is Obama afraid of being associated with being a Muslim? Why? He’s a Christian, no? Why the abundance of caution? Doesn’t he realize this could be construed as him protesting too much – again?

Just as he did with his faux “outrage” at the New Yorker cartoon of he and Michelle…

I mean, if there’s really no smoke, why make a fire? But this is not the only fire…

We recently had the Obama campaign ‘uninviting’ Senator Max Cleland from a campaign event. You remember Max – the man who lost three limbs in the Vietnam war and fights to help other veterans’ recovery; one of the icons of the Democratic Party. Well, the Obama campaign says he’s technically a “lobbyist” and they wouldn’t want to open themselves up to criticism. Uh-huh.

OK, now that he’s offended all veterans. What else do we have…

Throwing Jesse Jackson under the bus. Why worry? I mean, Jesse Jackson hasn’t earned his stripes in the civil rights movement or anything, has he?

Throwing – actually, hurling General Wesley Clark under the bus. By the way, at the Netroots Convention this weekend, I think the General got a little of his own back – but I’m not sure the crowd got the reference. In thanking the Netroots Nation for sticking up for him after being skewered for his comments about John McCain, Clark said:

I was at a Washington dinner with James Carville, … I said, “James, …how are we going to convince the American people that just because we’re in a time of war that they don’t have to vote Republican? How are we going to get them to understand that Democrats have a pretty good national security record?”

[Carville] said, “You’ll never get the American people to believe that Democrats will defend them until Democrats stand up and defend each other.”

The Netroots crowd cheered, not realizing General Clark was probably criticizing Obama for not defending him.

Obama also threw Hillary Clinton’s 18 million supporters under the bus and then told us to “get over it,” with his inimitable groupie, Nancy Pelosi echoing his every turn of phrase. You remember Nancy – the House Speaker with the 14% approval rating – once again unable to keep her foot out of her mouth insulting Hillary’s voters re the possibility of her being selected for the VP slot…tossing out Gov. Kathy Sebelius’ name in the same breath – cause you know, all us gals are interchangeable.

Then there’s his audacity at wanting to campaign in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Germany. No offense there.

I now understand Senator Obama thinks our military isn’t enough and wants to employ a civilian national security force? Can you say Blackwater? Does this scare anyone else?

And now he may be offending all Muslims, too?

This is odd considering none other than Senator John Kerry said that Senator Obama is uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between us and the Muslim community. Not so much now, huh, John?

By the way, Senator Kerry, how did it feel to see your friend Max Cleland kicked to the curb by your favorite wunderkind, Obama? Are you going to make a public statement about that one and speak out for your dear old friend, Max? Or is your new friend, Barack, more important?

And then there is the good relationship Obama’s says he’s going to build up with Europe over the next eight to ten years. Ten years? Did the length of the presidential term just increase while I was out for dinner or something? How about eight years? Never mind, eight, ya gotta make it to the first four, Barack…or is that just a technicality?

Right now, considering how damaged the Republican brand is, with Obama’s enormous financial and press advantage, how is it that he’s in a dead heat with Senator McCain? I mean, he should be 20 points ahead, shouldn’t he?

Hank Sheinkopf, a respected political consultant, was interviewed on Lou Dobbs radio show last week, and said Obama ‘just needs to keep his head down and his mouth shut till the Conventioin and then he’ll get a bump.’ Wow. I thought we wanted to hear Senator Obama speak. I thought his strength was his communication skills. Maybe the first term is not such a sure thing after all.

Perhaps that is why Obama is terrified to face John McCain at a town hall meeting.

Hell, he won’t even meet with his own press corps. You know, the ones who aren’t allowed to wear green.

From Andrea Mitchell on Hardball, July 21st:

Let me just say something about the message management. He didn’t have reporters with him, he didn’t have a press pool, he didn’t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you’re seeing is not reporters brought in. You’re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they’re not interviews from a journalist. So, there’s a real press issue here. Politically it’s smart as can be. But we’ve not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

Don’t complain Andrea – you vomited all over Hillary at every turn so you could help this guy get the nomination. Happy now?

Maybe if the press corps asks Senator Obama what his favorite color is and wears that, they’ll actually be granted a real press conference and get to ask, you know, like eight questions or something?

And now the ultimate insult. Senator Obama has put his logo on a plane that is flying overseas instead of the American flag. We have troops risking their lives every day. He is there representating our country and by America’s leave, with America’s protection. We fly our colors.

Does he think he is bigger than the United States of America?

I find this man and his campaign so deeply offensive, words fail at his latest act of hubris and disrespect. So I will simply end here.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” from Baghdad, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell objects to the “message management” that resulted in three days of images of Senator Obama that were almost entirely – except for a lone Iraq interview with Terry Moran – produced and released by the Pentagon.

Andrea Mitchell, re Obama: “He didn’t have reporters with him. He didn’t have a press pool. He didn’t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. … You’re seeing selected pictures taken by the military … So, there’s a real press issue here. Politically, it’s smart as can be. But we have not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

“I have great respect for the military, of what they do best, which is to fight war, keep the peace, do all sorts of economic and civil reconstruction here in Iraq. I don’t think journalism is the prime thing that we recruit them and pay them for.”

As I reported yesterday, the press plane didn’t depart from Chicago until July 20th:

[N]one of the press was allowed to go with Obama to Iraq or Afghanistan:

Obama doesn’t have press traveling on his government-arranged Iraq/Afghanistan trip. He’ll be joined in the Middle East by a plane of staff and press that took off LAST NIGHT [July 20, 2008] from Chicago.

As the Politico report above the fold indicates, Obama gave only one interview, to Terry Moran of ABC News. Watch the video (transcript included) as Obama gets testy with Moran.

::::::::

UPDATES:

Memeorandum.com has much more, including Townhall’s “No Outtakes for Obama?“:

Andrea Mitchell has made it clear that the glowing photo-ops coming from Barack’s trip aren’t the products of journalistic investigation, but rather simply selected hand-outs from either the military or the Obama campaign.

Since when did the MSM complacently and quietly (except for Mitchell, it seems) serve as nothing more than a propaganda arm for a presidential campaign — much less the military? But has any other member of the media objected to the fact that it’s quiescently beaming home simply the information that the Obama campaign wants to offer it?

Then there’s Newsbuster’s “Andrea on Obama Trip: ‘What Some Would Call Fake Interviews’“:

Andrea Mitchell might be a doyenne of the liberal media, but she has her reporter’s pride and principles, both of which have been trampled by the way the Obama campaign has managed the media during the candidate’s current trip to Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitchell let loose on this evening’s Hardball, speaking of “fake interviews” and indicating we don’t know the truth of the trip because we don’t know what was edited out of the video that’s been released.

Before Mitchell made her displeasure known, Roger Simon of Politico, Chris Matthews’s other guest during the segment, depicted the images coming out of the war zone as all Obama could have dreamed of. …

[A] spokesman for al-Maliki said his remarks “were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately.”

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the possibility of troop withdrawal was based on the continuance of security improvements, echoing statements that the White House made Friday after a meeting between al-Maliki and U.S. President Bush.

The two men “agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal,” the White House said.

But, Politico.com’s Mike Allen, at Playbook 24/7, writes:

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Andrea Mitchell calls the Maliki endorsement of Obama’s Iraq strategy (semi-retracted after a complaint from the U.S.) “a deliberate attempt to put pressure on George Bush and the White House.”

This assumption by Andrea Mitchell is especially amazing considering that none of the press was allowed to go with Obama to Iraq or Afghanistan:

Obama doesn’t have press traveling on his government-arranged Iraq/Afghanistan trip. He’ll be joined in the Middle East by a plane of staff and press that took off LAST NIGHT [July 20, 2008] from Chicago.

Once again, the Obamedia are interpreting the news for us, rather than presenting the facts and letting us decide what’s true. Rasmussen Reports’ latest polling shows:

A growing percentage of voters also believe that most reporters are trying to help Obama win the election. Forty-nine percent (49%) hold that view while only 14% believe reporters are trying to help McCain. Other data shows that voters tend to think reporters are trying to make both the economy and Iraq seem worse than they really are.

Here’s the video of Andrea Mitchell.

Note the tittering by the Morning Joe hosts as she mentions Maliki’s protests:

Via Media Matters:

Andrea Mitchell: Clinton’s campaign, “right now, is not the greatest example of why women should rule the world”

Summary: After noting the title of Dee Dee Myers’ book Why Women Should Rule the World while discussing with Myers the resignation of Mark Penn as Sen. Hillary Clinton’s chief campaign strategist, MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell asserted: “I don’t know — this campaign, right now, is not the greatest example of why women should rule the world.”

[See the IMPORTANT UPDATES at the end of the story.]

As always, Media Matters provides us with the transcript and the contact information. View the transcript.

Contact MSNBC:

MSNBC
Mr. Phil Griffin,
Senior Vice President, News
NBC Television Network
30 Rockefeller Plz
New York, NY 10112
phil.griffin@nbc.com

Steve Capus,
President, NBC News
steve.capus@nbc.com

MSNBC
letters@msnbc.com
MSNBC/Microsoft-NBC
30 Rockefeller Plz
3rd Fl
New York, NY 10112
(212) 664-4444

(We hear the e-mails are bouncing. Perhaps they are overwhelmed? Keep trying, and we’re going to find other e-mail addresses if need be.)

:::::::::::

UPDATE I: That’s not the only harmful remark that came out of Andrea Mitchell’s mouth yesterday. Let MSNBC also know about your protests of this exchange between Mitchell and WaPo reporter Anne Kornblut.

See this paragraph from my story last night, “Washington Post: Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin [Updated]“:

On MSNBC today [April 7], Andrea Mitchell discussed the “hospital” story with Anne Kornblut, beginning with an assumption that Hillary told the story incorrectly. As she introduced Kornblut, Ms. Mitchell said the story was “NOT TRUE” (a wild assumption about a story not confirmed). Andrea Mitchell — and every other reporter who has reported with the same biased assumptions — must retract their assumptive statements and apologize to Hillary Clinton and the campaign. See also: Digby’s commentary on the Andrea Mitchell interview of Anne Kornblut in which Mitchell says that the story illustrates a “growing credibility gap” for Hillary. (Well, so much for finding out the facts before dishing up such devastating opinions.) …

NOTE: Digby’s account includes a portion of the transcript, which will infuriate you even more.

UPDATE 2: Brigitte exposes Andrea Mitchell’s comments about the Clintons’ tax returns at her terrific blog, Reflective Pundit.